Covid “Vaccines”: A Faltering Framework

Guest Post by Dr. Sadaf Gilani

On April 20, The Lancet published an analysis on the efficacy of the Covid injections. This analysis supports conclusions made in my earlier analysis. That being: the Covid injections are NOT “95% efficacious”.

Beyond the analysts’ tepid language couched in scientific jargon, the graphic that appears is quite startling.  As is often true, the devil lies in the details, in this case, the difference between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. (For elaboration on these metrics, please see my article linked above).

Relative risk reduction (RRR) and Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) for leading Covid “vaccines” (Source: The Lancet)

From the “absolute risk reduction” you can calculate the “Number Needed to Vaccinate” which signifies approximately how many people must be injected to hypothetically benefit just one person. It is a metric every person needs to understand before taking the Covid injection.

Below are the Numbers Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) metrics for Covid “vaccines”:

Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) = 1/Absolute Risk Reduction

For Pfizer, this number is estimated at 119. This means 119 people must be injected for it to reduce a “Covid” case in one person. Therefore, 118 of those people incurred (potential) risk with no benefit whatsoever.

Some estimates are even higher, according to The Lancet, data from the Pfizer rollout in Israel suggests an NNV of 217!

These NNV figures are likely underestimates, as there is significant obfuscation with trial data. The actual efficacy is likely even less than 1% as some of the injected groups who became ill with “Covid like symptoms” were fallaciously labelled as side effects, rather than potential breakthrough infections.

Also unaccounted for, in the lucky 0.84% of people who hypothetically benefitted from the “vaccine”, are the side effects. Efficacy metrics do not include adverse events from the injections. In other words, safety and efficacy are entirely different considerations. For example, even an efficacious intervention may not be safe if the risk of harm is high.

This “vaccine” experiment is only a few months old, yet the passive VAERS reporting system in the USA has accounted for deaths following Covid injections as already being greater than the previous 21 years of deaths from all other vaccines combined, as well as over 227,000 other non-fatal adverse events. What’s more, it is reported that the VAERS system records only approximately 1% of actual adverse events.

Many alarmed researchers and doctors around the world have called to halt this experiment, citing a growing body of unusual side effects and associated deaths. For Covid injections, it must be clear that the complete safety profile is unknown.

Furthermore, the “reduction” is not a decrease in deaths and hospitalizations, rather a reduction of symptoms. The majority of these supposedly alleviated symptoms being of a generic cold and flu variety. To quote the Lancet study:

These considerations on efficacy and effectiveness are based on studies measuring prevention of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection; they were not designed to conclude on prevention of hospitalization, severe disease, or death, or on prevention of infection and transmission potential.”

On top of that, these mild “cases” which are being “prevented” are determined by the unvalidated PCR assays.

As mentioned, the efficacy is based on reduction in symptoms, and even then possibly only for a limited period of time. Already it has been announced that boosters are necessary, perhaps annually or twice a year.

This paltry efficacy is not unusual for the vaccine regime that is justified on the basis of benefitting the overall population. However, in this case, the argument for benefitting the overall population cannot apply, as no definite evidence for a reduction in transmission has been povided.

In addition, these injections are still experimental. Phase 3 trials are ongoing and this synthetic gene “therapy” technology has never been dispensed before. Every day, new information is coming to the fore, such as this animal pharmacokinetic study which shows that the injected vectors ended up in different organs, especially ovaries and spleen. Canadian researcher, Dr. Bridle, shared his concerns on recent findings of biodistribution of lipid nano-particles and the spike proteins in injected people.

Tragically, panic-stricken masses are deluded with the propaganda that these injections are 95% efficacious. This is a useless metric based on relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is around 1%. Millions are unwittingly participating in an unprecedented experiment.  The Nuremberg Code and principles of Informed Consent are violated daily.

It is advisable to print out the above table and request one’s vaccinator to explain this metric. To properly exercise ethical and legal informed consent, every trial participant must understand the potential benefits and risks from the injections, the potential risks from Covid (based on age and health status) as well as the efficacious treatment alternatives for those who may need them.

Would you feel comfortable suited up with a parachute that worked about 1% of the time?  Would you then say that it is 95% effective because that particular parachute worked 95% better than the competition?

A product with very questionable, miniscule efficacy and many concerns regarding potential severe short and long-term side effects (including deaths), might be more accurately classified as a poison.

A poison can be described as ‘any substance which when introduced into or absorbed by a living organism, destroys life or injures health’. The adverse effects may take many forms from immediate death to subtle changes not realized until months or years later.”
Definition of “poison”, according the Royal Society of Chemistry

One can hope that as this nefarious experiment unfolds, data and rationality will trump fear, hysteria, and the etiolated minds of the masses.  May Justice prevail and these crimes against humanity be brought to account.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Nurse Ratched
Nurse Ratched
June 6, 2021 8:24 am

Someone (even more grim than I am) posted on a previous article (that I can’t find now, but I think was on TBP) a hypothesis…what if the shot doesn’t work on the very nonfatal COVID-19 because it is designed to work on the planned and much-more-deadly COVID 2021, and tptb have already planned this as a way to cull the NONCOMPLIANT? It’s like the rabbit hole IN the rabbit hole…if the original poster sees this, would you reply and elaborate?

very old white guy
very old white guy
June 6, 2021 8:41 am

I see the VAERS site was down yesterday, I don’t know about today.

credit
credit
June 6, 2021 9:18 am

my enduring frustration is that all new information about the problems with the vaccines is simply too late. the only people whose minds need to be changed are already vaccinated. if i send this article to my vaccinated friends it would only be rejected/ignored because their confirmation bias shelters their acceptance of factual data. they don’t want to hear it. nobody wants to believe they made such a bad decision, and so they refuse to accept.

Dobbsfan
Dobbsfan
  credit
June 6, 2021 9:49 am

Well stated!

Confirmation bias is blinding!

ASIG
ASIG
  credit
June 6, 2021 10:24 am

Exactly where I find myself, the only benefit I see at this point would be if TPTB try to push ongoing booster shots or whatever rationalization they may come up with to continue the “vaccine” program, maybe this information would wake people up enough to reconsider taking ongoing shots. Maybe, maybe not.

ASIG
ASIG
June 6, 2021 10:07 am

The perceived benefit of the “vaccine” is totally dependent on statistical sleight of hand. The reality is that the “vaccine” has no benefit at all and actually is more damaging to one’s health than the virus itself. This has got to be the biggest scam/crime ever perpetrated on humanity ever.

Abigail Adams
Abigail Adams
June 6, 2021 10:19 am

Does anyone know an actual person who has been injured by the shot? Most people I’m around got the jab, but they all seem fine. I have seen some with a few side effects but then they’re fine after a few days.

I’m against the jab for many reasons, but I only read about people who have been injured. I don’t know anyone personally, or know anyone who directly knows someone who has been injured.

On The Beach
On The Beach
  Abigail Adams
June 6, 2021 2:55 pm

My mother got the pfizer shots four months ago. Two days after the second shot, she had a stroke which has left her unable to stand or walk unassisted . And no, I do not believe in coincidences.

Abigail Adams
Abigail Adams
  On The Beach
June 6, 2021 3:25 pm

Wow. I’m sorry to hear that. I know these cases are out there, just haven’t seen it personally.

TK
TK
June 6, 2021 10:28 am

Sadly, everything the good doctor presented is factual. Sadly, it will mostly fall on deaf ears. I am a medical researcher of 42 years experience. I read the peer reviewed journals. The peer reviewed process has been corrupted by special interests. Reading this material requires more than a simple view of an abstract. The overwhelming majority of practicing (not research) physicians do not have time to read medical journals, and those that may occasionally read a journal do not know the difference between relative and absolute risk. I know because I have taught them. I have been quoting the relative risk vs. absolute risk reduction for statins for 30 years. For those that understood the relationship, a common confirmation bias answer was, “Well at least I feel like I am doing something to help my patients.” For those of us that were educated in science/medicine 40 years ago, we were taught to question everything. Today, the process encourages one to question nothing. The first rule of medicine, ‘First do no harm,’ is an antiquated pun today. Have doubts? When a company can forge research to convince physicians to prescribe opiates because they are not as addictive as we once believed, and no one goes to jail, that is proof. When such behavior leads to a heroin epidemic because the prescribed version are too expensive, it boggles the mind to believe that this is Amerika!

diverdown
diverdown
  TK
June 6, 2021 4:59 pm

‘I have been quoting the relative risk vs. absolute risk reduction for statins for 30 years. For those that understood the relationship, a common confirmation bias answer was, “Well at least I feel like I am doing something to help my patients.”’

Too right, TK.

Not only in terms of what they are supposed to do vs. what they
actually do vis-a-vis cholesterol reduction relative risk vs.
absolute risk.

But also, as REPup highlighted on another thread, the long-term
unintended consequences of lengthy statin use on brain
function (since 20% of the body’s cholesterol is in the brain
(Alzheimers & other dementia) despite the supposed
blood/brain barrier.

I doubt there will ever be any studies on this subject,
since Big Pharma will not allow that revenue stream to be threatened.