Note to myself after the Initial Pfizer trial
These are some points I made to help organise my thoughts after I read the initial Pfizer study, and the world started going truly vax crazy. I’m sharing it here because I think we can learn a lot from both the ignorance and some of the good analytical skills I showed. It is really important to be aware that at the time I share these thoughts (approaching 2 years later), all the numbers, studies and data I used have proven to be fraudulent multiple times over. (Israeli data, medical trial definitions, data, trial inclusions, observations and conclusions should be treated akin to fairy tales.)
After reading the Pfizer trial:
1) There is no clear evidence of a vaccine preventing spread. The 'herd immunity' argument has only ever held up for diseases that A - do not mutate, and B- cannot be transmitted by the vaccinated population. In other words, it is not a scientific argument, it is a marketing tool. Covid mutates and is transmissible by those with 'immunity'.
2) Vitamin D already has at least a 50% efficacy rate at preventing infection, and a far larger impact on preventing serious symptoms with infection. Combine this with the already low chances of showing any symptoms at all, and the low chances of showing strong symptoms, and the miniscule chance of showing strong symptoms if you have no co-morbidity factors, then the argument for a fully effective vaccine with known side-effects becomes very subjective. The argument for a partially effective vaccine with unknowable side-effects looks very iffy.
3) The pfizer vaccine trial checked 8000 initially, 4000 at 8 weeks, 600 at 12, and 0 after 14 weeks for long term adverse events. After this, they get the vaccine or are not monitored, so we have no idea and will never have a true idea of the long term effects of this thing.
4) Conservative estimates are that 1 in 100 adverse events get reported for vaccines. Partly because the only adverse events that are usually attributed are local at the site. The study says that even local events only have an 83% chance of being found ( after 14 weeks, 0%.). Now whatever the side effects are, they have to be compared to the benefit they offer. Out of 43K people in the study, only 170 got covid, and 8 of those had both shots of the vaccine. So the 95% efficacy is only based on a short term thing. Maybe efficacy drops off over time?
5) These local at the site adverse events for the pfizer vaccine were in 83% of recipients,30% were mild, and 3% severe, including pain, swelling, redness, nausea, diarrhea, swollen lymph glands, hospitalisation, fatigue, fever. As an extreme example, you can have diarrhea for 5 days, nausea, swollen lymph glands, headaches, fatigue and a very painful arm that is red and swollen, and you'll be classified as mild adverse event, and not considered in a cost/benefit analysis of the vaccine. If you believe the body is limited to what we can measure, this might be acceptable. If you believe that the body is an intricate connection of mechanisms we poorly understand, but which reliably shows us other things are out of balance by the noticeable signs of nausea, swelling, diarrhea, etc. then these reports are more alarming.
6) The company conducting the trial has paid 4.5 billion in safety, ethical and other violations since 2000. This is just the things they have been forced to pay for, not how much they actually do wrong. My personal opinion is that it's the good employees who do things right that are the scary part. These are the ones that contribute to groupthink and all the other biases.
7) Previous examples where we trusted the company to do the research include:
Radium: 28 years of knowing it was unsafe, 24 years after the first deaths were almost irrefutably linked, the product is finally banned.
Sugar: pretty well documented for 40 years. Still no good mechanism to protect consumers from the known harmful effects.
Cigarettes: pretty well documented. Another case of decade upon decade where the science was known, shared, yet doctors still recommended it.
Leaded petrol: My favourite example, I've told you about it many times
Statin drugs and cholesterol
Opiods
knee surgeries
exploratory surgeries
tonsillectomies
Lobotomies
Leeching
aspirin for colds
Antibiotics
anti-inflammatories
Nutrition as a source of health and disease
Physical therapies and exercise
ritalin
vitamin K vaccine
gardasil
CFC's
Fossil fuels
Chlorofleurocarbons
Plastics
Pthalates
Phosphates
Prison systems
Slavery
Global warming
Asbestos
treatment of refugees
war on drugs, and addiction in general
testosterone, hormones, and the action of genes in general
flu vaccine
asthma medication
8) Freedom of choice, human rights
9) Freedom of information. Nothing I put in here is radical. Most of it comes from the trial itself, but the message from those we trust is "the vaccine is safe". Maybe it is, but we are not going to find out unless we put things into context, link ideas, collect data, challenge the status quo.
10) A way of living your life which puts humility in what I believe to be the right place. Yes, we can be humble and not question the scienticians because they know more than us, and studied more than us. However, I believe that a more accurate humility is to accuse the scientists of never being able to afford to study even a fraction of the potential interaction and of never being able to free themselves from human bias. Eg. To recognise that decades of collective efforts by tens of thousands of people can identify the testosterone hormone, can give every indication that it causes aggression, yet we are still probably wrong (we were - it only enhances aggression in the already aggressive, and only under certain conditions. In other cases it fosters group compassion and acceptance, or promotes estrogen production, or etc.). When it comes to medicine, everything depends on context, and we have not checked the RNA method of vaccinations with any context of receptors, risk factors, etc.
11) A way of living my life which has worked out incredibly well so far. Look after your body. Don't make decisions based on fear. Accept that there will be a majority doing things differently and that there will be a price to pay (maybe I will get lynch mobbed!).
12) It seems wildly unlikely that covid is a 'natural' mutation. If it came from a research lab conducting poorly controlled experimental work with RNA (which seems incredibly likely), it seems the height of stupidity to then conduct poorly controlled RNA experiments on the whole planet.
13) Israel, the test nation compared to placebo had 600,000 people in each group. 50 severe hospitalisations occurred in vaccinated group, 170 in unvaccinated group. A total of 220 hospitalisations per 1.2 million people is just not worth fussing about whether it works or not. Based on the known adverse event rate, that is 500K guaranteed sick people to prevent 120 hospital visits.