Posted on 03/23/2022 11:40:43 AM PDT by Heartlander
Pivotal randomized control trials (RCTs) underpinning approval of Covid-19 vaccines did not set out to, and did not, test if the vaccines prevent transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Nor did the trials test if the vaccines reduce mortality risk. A review of seven phase III trials, including those for Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines, found the criterion the vaccines were trialled against was just reduced risk of Covid-19 symptoms.
There should be no secret about these facts, as they were discussed in August 2020 in the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal); one of the oldest and most widely cited medical journals in the world. Moreover, this was not an isolated article, as the editor-in-chief also gave her own summary of the vaccine-testing situation, which has proved very prescient:
“…we are heading for vaccines that reduce severity of illness rather than protect against infection [and] provide only short-lived immunity, … as well as damaging public confidence and wasting global resources by distributing a poorly effective vaccine, this could change what we understand a vaccine to be. Instead of long-term, effective disease prevention it could become a suboptimal chronic treatment.”It was not just the BMJ covering these features of the RCTs. When health bureaucrats Rochelle Walensky, Henry Walke and Anthony Fauci claimed (in the Journal of the American Medical Association) that “clinical trials have shown that the vaccines authorized for use in the US are highly effective against Covid-19 infection, severe illness and death” this was felt sufficiently false that the journal published a comment simply titled “Inaccurate Statement.”
The basis of the comment was that the primary endpoint for the RCTs was symptoms of Covid-19; a less exacting standard than testing to show efficacy against infection, severe illness, and death.
Yet these aspects of the vaccine trials discussed in medical journals are largely unknown by the general public. To measure public understanding of the Covid-19 vaccine trials I added a question about the vaccine testing to an ongoing nationally representative survey of adult New Zealanders.
While not top-of-mind for most readers, New Zealand is a useful place for finding out about public understanding of the vaccine trials. Until recently, when a few doses of AstraZeneca and Novavax vaccines were allowed, it was 100% Pfizer, making it easy to word the survey question very specifically about the Pfizer vaccine trials.
Also, New Zealanders were vaccinated in a very short period, just prior to the survey. In late August 2021 New Zealand was last in the OECD in dosing rates but by December, when the survey was fielded, it had jumped into the top half of the OECD, with vaccinations rising by an average of 110 doses per 100 people in just over three months.
This rapid rise in vaccination was partly driven by mandates, for health, education, police, and emergency workers and also by a vaccine passport system that blocked the unvaccinated from most places. The mandates were strictly applied, and even people suffering adverse reactions after their first shot, such as Bell’s Palsy and pericarditis, still had to get the second shot. The vaccine passport law had gone through Parliament just prior to the survey, so the vaccines, and what was expected of them, should have been utmost in peoples’ minds.
The other relevant factor about New Zealand is the government-dominated media, which is either publicly funded, or is heavily subsidized by a “public interest journalism fund” and by generous government advertising of the Covid-19 vaccines. Also, supposedly independent commentators prominent in the media got their talking points about the vaccines from the government in a carefully orchestrated public relations campaign.
Thus, it was mainly overseas journalists who expressed concern when New Zealand’s Prime Minister made the Orwellian claim that in matters of Covid-19 and vaccines: “Dismiss anything else, we will continue to be your single source of truth.”
Yet a government-controlled media and a vaccine advertising blitz yielded widespread public misunderstanding about the testing the vaccines underwent in pivotal trials. The survey asked if the Pfizer vaccine had been trialled against: (a) preventing infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, or (b) reducing risk of getting symptoms of Covid-19, or (c) reducing risk of getting serious sick or dying, or (d) all of the above. The correct answer is (b), the trials only set out to test if the vaccines reduced the risk of getting Covid-19 symptoms.
Only four percent of respondents got the right answer. In other words, 96 percent of adult New Zealanders thought the Covid-19 vaccines were tested against more demanding criteria than is actually the case.
Currently, most Covid-19 cases in New Zealand are post-vaccination. And despite almost everyone being vaccinated, and most boosted, the rate of new confirmed Covid-19 cases is one of the highest in the world. As people see with their own eyes that one can still get infected they may question what they have been led to (mis)understand about the vaccines.
Elsewhere it is noted that vaccine fanaticism—especially denying natural immunity—fuels vaccine scepticism. As people see that public health authorities lied about natural immunity they will wonder if they also lied about vaccine efficacy. Likewise, as they realise they were given a misleading impression about what the vaccines were trialled against they might doubt other claims about vaccines.
In particular, by believing the vaccines were tested against more demanding criteria than was actually so, public expectations of what vaccination would achieve were likely too high. As the public witnesses a failure of mass vaccination to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections, and a failure to reduce overall mortality, scepticism about these and other vaccines will grow.
In New Zealand this issue is exacerbated by the Prime Minister creating a false equivalence between Covid-19 vaccines and measles vaccines. Currently the paediatric vaccination rate (which includes the measles vaccine) for indigenous Maori has dropped 12 percentage points in two years and 0.3 million measles vaccines had to be discarded after expiring due to lack of demand. The advertising for Covid-19 vaccines particularly targets Maori, with claims that boosters will protect them against Omicron. The progress of infections is likely to prove this claim to be largely untrue, and so Maori are likely to be even more sceptical about future vaccination, even for vaccines that truly can be described as ‘safe and effective.’
If politicians and health bureaucrats had been honest with the public, setting out the criteria the Covid-19 vaccines were trialed against, and what could and could not be expected of the vaccines, then this widespread misunderstanding need not have occurred. Instead, their lack of honesty is likely to damage future vaccination efforts and harm public health.
What say the FR $hot $hills and FRoctors?
You know, the ones who helped push so much of the “confused messaging”, around here.
I’m thinking specifically of the vaccine nonsense here.
How? They straight up lied to everyone from the very start..
I’m not “confused”, I know which bathroom to use. When your message is nothing but lies and threats on my way of life, being hesitant is a rather mild description.
No hesitation here, proudly pure blood. CDC, FDA, NIH, can all go to hell. My trust in you is gone most likely forever.
I’ve posted this a few times so of you’ve already read it I apologize.
Every day I hear or read something that confirms my decision to refuse these little tested experimental treatments was the absolute correct one and today is no different.
Why would I want a shot that still allows me to catch the virus it’s supposed to prevent AND I can still transmit it? All for an ailment I have a 99.8% probability of recovering from as long as I don’t have FOUR comorbitities....not to mention the distinct possiblity of side effects from these shots that I may or may not ever recover from.
No thanks.
The American EUA’s were all based on preventing COVID infections. Yet the trials were all based on reducing the number of symptoms.
CDC. The Center for Deceit and Control.
IMO, it was never a case of ‘messaging.’ It was and is a case of ultimatums.
They kept moving the goalposts until they carried them off the field—and then blamed the spectators.
We have the Covid vaccines thanks to Donald Trump, whose Operation Warp Speed program cut through the red tape so that they could become available within one year.
An amazing accomplishment that he is justifiably proud of. Trump recommends the vaccines to this day.
Today’s daily dose of vaxx fear porn stars the Astra-Zeneca vaccine used in New Zealand.
The AZ viral vector vax is a recombinant DNA vaccine, not mRNA like Moderna and Pfizer, and the AZ vaccine was never used in the United States.
The efficacy of the AZ vaccine is 76%. Pfizer and Moderna are 95%.
It is now common knowledge that the ‘vaccine’ was specifically for the spike protein that causes lung issues to ‘possibly’ stop death. The ‘vaccine’ does not stop the anyone from catching or transmitting the virus. It is a therapeutic - not a vaccine - and getting large dose of the spike protein in your arm is not a good idea if you are a young healthy person.
That said, do you believe the vaccine mandates should continue and the young and healthy should be required to continuously get this injection?
The only thing that vaccines have ever done since Edward Jenner is train your immune system to make antibodies. Anything beyond that is extra.
“That said, do you believe the vaccine mandates should continue and the young and healthy should be required to continuously get this injection?”
No. Do you?
September 2020, I looked at CDC website for mask info. It was obvious to me there were negatives to wearing masks. I figured the CDC must have plenty of proof masks worked.
Their site was less than compelling. Assertions masks worked, a maze of links to get to studies. Some studies doubting the efficacy. NONE that had any numbers that masks reduced transmission by X%.
Later visits to CDC site had additional studies. Masks contain droplets, fine. Do they slow transmission? CDC doesn’t answer that question. They don’t even address it.
I posted some analysis here. If anyone wants it, I can find it in my posting history.
The other thing that made me suspicious was the treatment of vitamin D, obesity and HCQ. If we had directed the same energy to these that we did to promoting vaccines, how many people would be alive today?
Probably a lot because they did nothing positive in their efforts to chepange the course of the disease.
Since they knew obesity was a huge factor, they should have been warning people instead of sending them home untreated to take their chances until they were so sick that they were almost terminal.
It is medical negligence at the very least, and could rightfully called malpractice.
Everything they did was exactly what should have been done if the goal was to kill as many people as possible.
If they had spent as much HONEST effort in researching HCQ snd Ivermectin, Covid wouldhave been just another nuisance seasonal cold, like many others. Yes, bad news for some, but nothing that hasn’t happened before.
Tell me that wasn’t a deliberate, political decision.
I started looking into mask effectiveness in April 2020 when I received a package of surgical masks that said they don't protect against viruses. The CDC threw out 40 years of mask studies saying they don't work or offer very little protection for viruses. Fauci was outed that masks don't work via a FOIA request for emails he interacted with at the beginning of the pandemic. Here is a guy that is suppose to be the nation's top infectious disease expert and he flip flops on mask usage. I could go on, but that is water under the bridge.
Yes we were. Two jabber chiming in. I took the jabs in April/May of 2021. One of carrots being dangled at the time was if you get the shots, you don't have to wear a mask. That edict lasted a couple of months. My hefty governor re-instituted mask mandates in August of 2021. They were relaxed at the end of last month.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.