Stunning Study Reveals How Ineffective Pfizer Vaccine Actually Is

Biden official: 'If that's not a wakeup call, I don't know what is'

Art MooreBy Art Moore WND News Center

Vials of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine are at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, Dec. 14, 2020, following the vaccine’s emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration. (DoD photo by Lisa Ferdinando)

A new study by the Mayo Clinic found the Pfizer vaccine was only 42% effective against infection in July in the clinic’s home state of Minnesota, when the Delta variant became dominant.

“If that’s not a wakeup call, I don’t know what is,” a senior Biden official told Axios.

The study, conducted jointly with the biomedical software company nference, compared the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in the Mayo Clinic Health System from January to July.

Over that time period, Pfizer’s vaccine was 76% effective against infection. But with the spread of the Delta variant in July, its effectiveness dropped to 42% during that month.

The Moderna vaccine was 86% effective against infection over the January-to-July study period.

But the vaccines’ effectiveness against infection dropped sharply in July, when the delta variant’s prevalence in Minnesota had risen to over 70%.

Moderna was 76% effective against infection, and Pfizer was only 42% effective.

The study found similar results in other states, Axios reported.

In Florida, the risk of infection in July for people fully vaccinated with Moderna was about 60% lower than for people fully vaccinated with Pfizer.

Pfizer and BioNTech issued a statement saying they “expect to be able to develop and produce a tailor-made vaccine against that variant in approximately 100 days after a decision to do so, subject to regulatory approval.”

Axios noted that while the study has yet to be peer-reviewed, it raises serious questions about the vaccines’ long-term effectiveness, particularly Pfizer’s.

The results could signify a reduction in effectiveness over time, against delta or a combination of both.

“Based on the data that we have so far, it is a combination of both factors,” said Venky Soundararajan, a lead author of the study. “The Moderna vaccine is likely — very likely — more effective than the Pfizer vaccine in areas where Delta is the dominant strain, and the Pfizer vaccine appears to have a lower durability of effectiveness.”

Axios reported experts cautioned against rushing to conclusions.

“This is the kind of surprising finding that needs confirmation before we should accept its validity,” said Cornell virologist John Moore.

The two shots both use mRNA, but Moderna is given in a stronger dose than Pfizer, and there is a slightly different time interval between shots, Moore pointed out.

‘No way of stopping the virus’

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.

(Fox News screenshot)

Meanwhile, the London Telegraph reported the delta variant has wrecked any chance of attaining herd immunity, according to a panel of experts that included the head of the Oxford vaccine team.

The experts called for an end to mass testing so Britain can start to live with COVID-19, the Telegraph said.

“Scientists said it was time to accept that there was no way of stopping the virus spreading through the entire population, and monitoring people with mild symptoms was no longer helpful,” the British paper said.

Professor Andrew Pollard, who led the Oxford vaccine team, said it was clear that the delta variant could infect people who had been vaccinated.

That fact makes herd immunity impossible to reach even with high vaccine uptake, he said.

On Sunday, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who has undergraduate and graduate science degrees from MIT, spotlighted a CDC study that found only “limited evidence” to suggest COVID vaccines would provide any benefits to people who have been infected with the virus.

He said the admission undermines vaccine mandates.

The congressman noted Pfizer’s trial data – published by the FDA eight months ago – showed no efficacy of the vaccine for those with evidence of prior infection.

“The political scientists at CDC are trying to show otherwise by contriving studies that FDA would laugh out of the room if presented for approval,” he wrote on Twitter.

Get Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Shoah Kahn

Trusting the infamously corrupted, crony institutions which one, only moments earlier, distrusted with a homicidal prejudice — at a time when they have more incentive to lie, cheat, and steal, than at any other time in history — demonstrates a pathological level of credulity that warrants being baptised in Flavor Aid.

“Take the potion and pass over peacefully.. This is not what we had planned for our babies… You are not killing yourselves — you are committing revolutionary suicide.”

~ Jim Jones, 1978

Richard Noakes

Former Pfizer VP: 0.84% ‘Clear evidence of fraud’ in Pfizer study claiming 95% efficacy
posted by Mordechai Sones September 30, 2021 10:58 am
America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) Chief Science Officer Dr. Michael Yeadon yesterday said there is “clear evidence of fraud” in the Pfizer study that purports to claim 95% efficacy in their COVID-19 “vaccine”.
Yeadon was commenting on an article appearing in The Lancet and critiquing a documentary that scrutinized a Pfizer efficacy study, calling the distinction raised therein between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction “accurate”.
The Lancet article, entitled COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room, says that although attention has focused on vaccine efficacy and comparing the reduction of the number of symptomatic cases, “fully understanding the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines is less straightforward than it might seem. Depending on how the effect size is expressed, a quite different picture might emerge.”
The article continues: “Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines.
“However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.”
“Pfizer reported that its vaccine showed a 95% efficacy,” explained the documentary, entitled COVID Shot or Not? “That sounds like it protects you 95% of the time. But that’s not actually what that number means.
“That 95% refers to the ‘relative risk reduction’ (RRR), but it doesn’t tell you how much your overall risk is reduced by vaccination. For that, we need ‘absolute risk reduction’ (ARR).
“In the Pfizer trial, 8 out of 18,198 people who were given the vaccine developed COVID-19. In the unvaccinated placebo group, 162 people out of 18,325 got it, which means that even without the vaccine, the risk of contracting COVID-19 was extremely low, at 0.88%, which the vaccine then reduced to 0.04%.
“So the net benefit, the absolute risk reduction, that you are being offered in the Pfizer vaccine in 0.84%
“That 95% number? That refers to the relative difference between the 0.88% and 0.04%. That’s what they call ‘95% relative risk reduction’. And relative risk reduction is well-known to be a misleading number, which is why the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead. Which begs the question: How many people would have chosen to take the COVID-19 vaccines, had they understood that they offered less than 1% benefit?”
In response, Dr. Yeadon said: “It’s worse, actually. In the Pfizer study from which the 95% claim comes, there’s clear evidence of fraud.
“Why do I say that? Well, a study which is properly blinded means neither the subject, the study director, nor any other actor knows what each patient has received.
“Patients in clinical trials are obligated to follow ‘the protocol’, which specifies must-dos & prohibitions.
“If it’s blind to the end, how could one group end up with five times as many subjects having their data pulled prior to statistical analysis in the test group compared with the control group?”
Yeadon expanded: “The story of how a large state within India solved its COVID-19 crisis is no surprise to those of us who’ve known since spring 2020 that our governments, media, and tech titans have been acting against our interests, both health as well as democratic.
“We’ve known, for example, that highly qualified physicians and scientists are well able to treat and save most people infected by SARS-CoV-2.
“The methodology is simple: Attack the virus and the inflammatory and ultimately thrombotic disease phases rationally by administering targeted, multi drug treatments.
“These include Vitamin C and Vitamin D but in particular, Ivermectin, zinc and a zinc ionophore such as one of several old antibiotics like azithromycin.
“Used in sequence depending on the presentation, in excess of 80% of patients avoid hospitalization anddeath, including in cohorts we regard as at high risk.
“Peter McCullough and colleagues have put themselves in harm’s way professionally in pressing home these simple messages.
“Two remarkable meta-analyses (the highest level of medical evidence, a review of randomized, controlled clinical trials), authored by Tess Laurie and Pierre Kory, show conclusively that if you could choose only one medical treatment, it would be ivermectin. It’s safe, we’ll-tolerated, off patent and cheap to make, yet HIGHLY effective as a treatment for COVID-19. Reviews by Tess Lawrie and Pierre Kory are in the most read papers this year.
“Yet not one major media channel has bothered to tell us this. Instead, they’ve lied about ‘horse deworming’ drugs and made false claims about safety.
“This is what Uttar Pradesh used in a few short weeks to crush soaring COVID-19 deaths in this large Indian state. They didn’t do much vaccination.
“Vaccination has, separately, been shown by Steve Kirsch’s team, to have resulted in a median estimate of 150,000 deaths shortly after vaccination in the U.S.A. alone.
“They made these calculations solely based on the publicly accessible database which collects adverse event reports, VAERS.
“Additionally, they used mechanistically plausible assessments of the most common, serious adverse events, finding for example that pulmonary embolism occurs at over 400 TIMES the rate observed after any other vaccine types since the database began operations a few decades ago.
“These novel technology gene-based agents cause our bodies to manufacture coronavirus spike proteins, and these alone are responsible for a substantial proportion of the adverse effects of being infected by the virus.
“What have our governments, media, and technology titans been doing in the meantime?
“Rubbishing the experts, attacking the publications, suppressing information everywhere, and banning accounts that persist in telling the truth.”
Echoing remarks by Zelenko Protocol discoverer Dr. Vladimir Ze’ev Zelenko, Yeadon continued: “Having done this for well over a year, I’m confident that their actions comprise deliberate mass murder. Their objective appears to be to keep people as fearful as possible and receptive to vaccination. All of these claims are supported by plentiful public sources.
“But the scandal of depriving people of effective treatments while coercing them into submission to dangerous vaccination is the worst thing that’s happened in the world for decades, arguably forever.”
Dr. Yeadon concluded, urging people to “see the true scale of the lie before injecting their children.”
 The Lancet Study
Doctors for COVID Ethics
On The accompanying chart:
Pfizer/BioNtech RRR 95.03%   ARR From Jab 0.84%
Moderna (NIH) RRR 94.08%   ARR 1.24% From Jab
Janssen          RRR 66.62%    ARR 1.19% From Jab
Astrazeneca/ Oxford RRR 66.84% ARR 1.28% From Jab
The Lancet
Me: So you get a Pfizer shot and you are getting 0.84% Benefit in fighting Covid – down from 95% by just -94.16% chance of getting Covid – which begs the question, if vaccines are not for Covid then what are they really for – injecting Graphene Oxide and Nanobots and Lipid packages and mRNA, which probably does nothing at all – so what do you think of the facts, by Lancet, no less?