https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/2/frontlinenews/former-pfizer-vp-clear-evidence-of-fraud-in-pfizer-study-claiming-95-efficacy/

Former Pfizer VP: ‘Clear evidence of fraud’ in Pfizer study claiming 95% efficacy

• posted by Mordechai Sones
• September 30, 2021

Excerpts from the article:

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”.

“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%. [LFC Add: ((.88 -.04)/.88)] 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 and death, including in cohorts we regard as at high risk.

*****

LFC Comments: We can buy fentanyl on the streets easier than we can buy Ivermectin from a pharmacy. Why? Follow the money!! We will see a new drug on the market soon that will replace Ivermectin. The difference is that Ivermectin is no longer under patent protection and can be purchased for $.50 per pill. However, the new patent protected drug will be sold for so much more.

Categories: Uncategorized