Still conflicted about taking the jab? The Canadians have done a study of those who have taken it and those who have not. Then they looked at people are got the virus. Here is the shocker—the difference between those taking the vaccine and those not, and still getting the virus is HALF OF ONE PERCENT. In other words, NO difference.
“You may recall the much-reported “95% efficacy” of the vaccine against COVID-19. We all assumed that if we were vaccinated, we would then only have a 5% chance of becoming infected. Sounds great, but the statement is misleading. In the Pfizer study, only 8 out of 18,198, or 0.043% of participants who received the vaccine, contracted COVID, while 162 out of 18,325, 0.884% in the control group who received injections of saline became infected. Therefore, while there was a Relative Risk Reduction of 95%, the Actual Risk Reduction was a mere 0.84%.
We also know that the boosters—who are being mandated are only good for ten weeks—so you would have to have five boosters a year—to pretend you are protected.
New study of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine has some disturbing findings
By Bill Hansmann, American Thinker, 1/8/22
I just read a disturbing study of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine’s efficacy by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance. This organization comprises over 500 independent Canadian doctors, scientists, and health care practitioners. The title of the article, “The Pfizer Inoculations for COVID-19: More Harm Than Good,” is disturbing. The article itself, which discusses the many nuances of this study, is even more distressing.
You may recall the much-reported “95% efficacy” of the vaccine against COVID-19. We all assumed that if we were vaccinated, we would then only have a 5% chance of becoming infected. Sounds great, but the statement is misleading. In the Pfizer study, only 8 out of 18,198, or 0.043% of participants who received the vaccine, contracted COVID, while 162 out of 18,325, 0.884% in the control group who received injections of saline became infected. Therefore, while there was a Relative Risk Reduction of 95%, the Actual Risk Reduction was a mere 0.84%.
This disparity certainly changes one’s perspective on just how effective the vaccine is. Everyone in the study, including the control group, had a less than 1% chance of infection. Of course, as the virus spread throughout the population, a higher percentage of people became infected. The conclusions of the study remain the same insofar as the likelihood of the vaccine preventing infection in any given controlled group of persons.
The article also asserts, among other things, that the study was conducted on relatively young and healthy persons but was then recommended to be used first on old, less healthy individuals. The trials did not follow scientific protocols, owing to the desire for rapid deployment. Follow-up studies were made virtually impossible because as subjects were unblinded — made aware of whether they had received the vaccine or the placebo. The unvaccinated largely chose to receive the vaccine. Thus, there is no control group remaining to study
The most damning findings concerned the lack of disclosure of possible, or even likely, long-term health risks on vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals. These findings revealed significant increases for the vaccinated. It also pointed out that for adolescents and children, the vaccine posed all risk with virtually no benefit, since those young individuals, even if they became infected, had a near-universal good outcome. Myocarditis and other afflictions are a substantial health hazard facing vaccinated young people.
I would urge everyone to read this study by going to the link above. Seek out other studies and reports. We all owe it to ourselves to become informed and educated about something this important. Our lives and those of our children are at stake. We must also demand more disclosure than we have been receiving from the drug companies and from our government officials. Their priorities, whether political or profit-driven, are different from ours. The questions concerning those who have placed their political status or their desire for greater profits above the welfare of the population are subjects for another day.
