The Big Stuff up-1

Letter to a relative: Introduction and Part 1

Just before Christmas 2021 the Dominion Post, one of NZ’s largest newspapers, and mouthpieces of Government propaganda, published an insert full of propaganda pieces it had published throughout the year in an effort to kerb ‘misinformation’. On her way out the door after Christmas dinner at our house, a family member, no doubt concerned my wife and I were going to expose our children to death and destruction (a.k.a. Covid 19), stuffed a copy in my hand, demanding I read it. Always one for a challenge, I said ‘right ho- on one condition… that you read my rebuttal of it’. With the deal struck on a hug good-bye (at least it was un-masked), I set about ruining my holiday as I waded through what turned out to be a load of utter nonsense.

I opened the file again the other day and was surprised how much of this information is still relevant because they are still peddling the same ‘Science™"‘. Stuff even still has it on its website. So I’ve decided to serialise it here. I will start each part with a link to the Stuff article followed by my rebuttal, but the first part presented here was not directly referenced to any of the Stuff articles, but served as an introduction.

Let’s begin…

C19 Vaccines just don’t work that well!

Pfizer Claimed 95% efficacy when the vaccines were released. This was based on the results of their own studyⁱ. But the 95% is what’s called a ‘relative risk reduction’ and this applies only if you would have caught Covid. Only 0.8% of the Control group in the study caught Covid. Therefore the ‘absolute risk reduction’ of catching Covid is 95% of 0.8% which is 0.76%. That means by taking the shot you are only 0.76% less likely to get Covid than if you don’t. Not that great a benefit.

But can you rely on the 95% figure? In this trial Pfizer detected Covid ‘Cases’ by PCR tests. The platform used, Cepheid Xpert Expressⁱⁱ, has a specificity (NPA) of 95.6%. That means it has a false positive rate of 4.4%. the 80-90,000 tests conducted during the trial would yield up to about 3700 false positive results. There were only 1200 positive results overall so every single ‘case’ of Covid detected in the trial falls within the margin of error of the test used. The 95% efficacy is unreliable at best- the trial is rubbish.

What does the real world data say.

This studyⁱⁱⁱ done by the CDC in the US shows that the Pfizer vaccine only ever had an efficacy just over 80% at best (with Delta), but that dropped to less than 60% after 3 months. But with omicron, efficacy after 3 months is only 10%, and after 7 months, the vaccine drops to negative territory ie: you are more likely to get Omicron if vaccinated. Hence the need for a booster. But, logically the booster wears off too- Israel is already on to the 4^th dose- how many are going to be required?

Graph from the CDC study. ‘OR’= Odds Ratio. An OR of 1 is no benefit. Bleow 1 is a benefit. 0.2=80% efficacy, 0.5=50% etc

The same CDC study shows that viral load is virtually the same whether vaccinated or not. Anyone claiming that ‘if a vaccinated person gets Covid they will be less likely to go to hospital’ would have a hard time explaining this inconvenient fact.

There are other studies that are showing negative efficacy.

Here’s a graphic from a danish study^iv that shows a similar, not too flattering, result for Delta protection (blue dots). But look at the Omicron figures (green dots and lines- the lines represent confidence intervals which are basically margins of error)- nearly double the risk of catching Omicron if you’re vaccinated after 3-5 months!

Another study from researchers at Ontario’s public health^v shows -38% to -40% efficacy. In other words, the fully vaccinated are 40% more likely to get Omicron! A booster shot restores efficacy to only 37% at 7 days but the study does not say what happens to that over time.

Other studies are showing that booster efficacy dwindles rapidly into negative territory too. The Chart below (source)^vi based on PH England data shows efficacy in the UK over the last 5 months. You can see that with Delta there was modest but falling protection, but now the vaccine is well and truly in negative territory in all but the under 18 category and the very old. In some age groups the vaccinated are nearly 2.5 times more likely to get Covid. The booster appears to have given some additional protection for the elderly but that too is showing signs of collapsing.

Here’s some homework: ask yourself how it can be that a vaccine can make the recipient more likely to catch any disease (let alone the disease it was designed to protect the recipient from)? Could it be that the vaccine is having a negative overall effect on general immune response? Will you be more susceptible to other diseases including cancer^vii? Is mRNA technology a failure?

What is the point of taking a vaccine that only works of a few months and even with a booster, at best, gives 37% protection for another short period of time? Why take the risk of side effects, even if you think this risk is very small? Why is the Government pushing a vaccine it knows to be a dud so hard? Perhaps this is not about health?

See part 2 here

i https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

ii https://cepheid.widen.net/content/4iwgcr50ai/pdf/Cepheid-Xpert-SARS-CoV-2-Datasheet-EUA-0780-English.pdf?u=bk12mm

iii Association Between 3 Doses of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine and Symptomatic Infection Caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta Variants | Vaccination | JAMA | JAMA Network

iv Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish cohort study (medrxiv.org)

v https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/01/01/2021.12.30.21268565.full.pdf

vi https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-who-are-actually-the-super-spreaders

vii

Idaho doctor reports a ‘20 times increase’ of cancer in vaccinated patients  - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)