The Dirty Little Trick Used to Make Dangerous and Ineffective COVID and Flu Vaccines Appear "Safe & Effective!™"

As I have written extensively, the randomized clinical trials for the Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca COVID 'vaccines' completely failed to demonstrate any efficacy in preventing morbidity and mortality from the re-branded influenza known as "COVID."

The Pfizer trial in fact showed a higher death rate in the 'vaccine' group. That is despite the trial being a veritable orgy of fraud and corruption, a heavily-manipulated farce in which adverse events were shamelessly omitted or reclassified (Pfizer, I should remind readers, holds the record for receiving the largest ever criminal fine in US history).

Publication of these inconvenient and indisputable facts by 'conspiracy theorists' (i.e. people who tell the truth) is why you no longer see the once-ubiquitous "95% Effective!" slogan being bandied around by the press and health authorities.

Yet authorities and media hacks continue to claim COVID vaccines “save lives.” One especially shameless group of researchers claimed the new COVID gene therapies saved 20 million lives in their first year of use. Quite a feat for a class of drugs that were shown to be ineffective at best and potentially deadly in clinical trials!

To arrive at this reality-defying result, the researchers relied entirely on mathematical modelling. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know, consider the study was also funded by the likes of WHO, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. You know, the same names that brought you Event 201, which by remarkable coincidence predicted a global zoonotic coronavirus outbreak right before the allegedly zoonotic coronavirus outbreak of 2019.

Consider also that these researchers hailed from London's Imperial College, which brought us the infamous, bombastic and hopelessly wrong Ferguson et al paper of March 2020. That was the paper that presented us with stupidly hysterical death predictions and helped plunge the world into freedom-crushing, mental health-destroying, small business-killing lockdowns.

That paper was also based on mathematical modelling, and Ferguson initially refused to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. When he finally released a heavily revised set of code at the end of April 2020, it was roundly attacked by coding experts as “totally unreliable” and a “buggy mess.”

Garbage in, garbage out.

The "20 million lives saved!" paper was published in the Lancet, which from the outset has proven itself to be a faithful disseminater of dubious COVID propaganda. A most noteworthy example is its now-infamous Feb 2020 'statement of solidarity' against 'conspiracy theorists' (i.e. people who dared question the ridiculous tale that COVID began in Wuhan after a person who still hasn't been identified ate a bat or pangolin purchased from a wet market that did not sell bats or pangolins).

One notable co-author of the Lancet letter, which read like Maoist/Soviet-era propaganda, was the shady Peter Daszak, who dishonestly claimed no conflict of interest despite the fact he presided over a lucrative skimming operation called EcoHealth. This so-called ‘non-profit’ acted as middle-man for money taken from US taxpayers and given to CCP-controlled biolabs.

Another co-author who signed the "no competing interests declaration" was Christian Drosten, co-inventor of the highly odiferous PCR test for Sars-Cov-2. The test, and the supposedly peer-reviewed announcement of its arrival, are steeped in controversy and raise many questions which Drosten and his protectors still refuse to answer (see here and here).

Despite these clear conflicts of interest, and the widespread controversy generated when Daszak's connections were made public, the Lancet is still shamelessly running the original letter complete with the original and patently false "We declare no competing interests" declaration by Daszak, Drosten and their co-authors.

Modelling is for Fashion Shoots

Modelling studies are utterly incapable of serving as proof or even strong evidence of anything. They are simply creative exercises in speculation, whose conclusions are entirely dependent on the assumptions underlying the data fed into the modelling equations. If the assumptions stem from a group of researchers who are committed to the COVID sham, then the results are pretty much a foregone conclusion. The same applies to the anthropogenic global warming charade, whose predictions of catastrophic future warming rely entirely upon mathematical models emanating from researchers who owe their living to climate change activism and scaremongering.

The COVID gene therapies have not saved 20 million lives. A recent analysis by researchers not funded by vaccine manufacturers/investors instead concludes the toxic gene therapies have thus far resulted in 13 million extra deaths around the world - an estimate far more commensurate with the marked increases in premature death seen all around the world since the vaccine rollout.

The "Test-Negative" Sham

The propagandists in charge of the COVID and vaccine narratives seem to have a bottomless bag of tricks at their disposal. When criminal manipulation of clinical trials fails to deliver the desired results, they call in the Imperial College modelers. When people begin wising up to the modelling ruse, no worries - they can instead roll out the outrageous "Test-Negative" study design.

How does this scam work?

Before I explain, I want to once again reiterate that no clinical trial has demonstrated that the COVID 'vaccines' can save even a single life. To the contrary, trial subjects receiving Pfizer's Pfizzer - the world's most popular gene therapy, mutated flavours available soon! - experienced a higher death rate.

I don't mean to sound like a broken compact disc, but this is critically important because clinical trials are the widely-acknowledged gold standard for scientific analysis of drug interventions. They afford a level of control and bias removal that simply cannot be attained in other forms of epidemiological research, such as extremely confounder-prone case-control and longitudinal population studies (which rely heavily on self-reports and memory recall).

So what to do when randomized clinical trials fail to deliver the desired results for COVID drugs, even in the face of extensive 'customization' (fraud and manipulation) by their manufacturers?

The answer is to roll out a form of case-control study known as the "Test-Negative" design. This style of study actually underpins the entire vaccine industry, and has been doing so long before CONVID-19 became a thing.

IQ-Negative Research

If you visit the CDC’s "Past seasons’ vaccine effectiveness estimates" page, you will be treated to studies like the one by Mark Tenforde, from the "Influenza Division" of the CDC, and his colleagues. They authored a 2021 paper supposedly evaluating the effectiveness of the 2019–2020 influenza vaccine against influenza-associated hospitalization in the US.

Here's the cracker: All - every single one - of the subjects in this study were in fact adults presenting with an acute respiratory illness at the hospitals included in the study.

I'll reiterate: Every single person in the study, irrespective of their vaccination status, was already sick with a respiratory infection. They had to be, otherwise they weren't included in the study.

Now here's where the Test-Negative swindle kicks in: The researchers tested for the presence of influenza in the subjects. They then compared the number of positive test results in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. As with most studies of this type, a smaller proportion of the vaccinated group tested positive for the studied influenza viruses; in this case, 14.9% of the vaccinated and 23.3% of the unvaccinated tested positive for influenza. Given the uncontrolled, non-randomized and non-blinded nature of the study - not to mention the endless flu vaccine hype we are subjected to every flu season - that is not an impressive difference.

So the researchers did what researchers always do when they need impressive figures to support their pet thesis: They ignored the absolute figures and found a set of 'risk' figures more to their liking. In this case, they divided the percentage of positive cases who were unvaccinated (44%) by the percentage of negative cases who were unvaccinated (31%) to get a 'vaccine efficacy' figure of 41%.

This, remember, in a study where 100% of participants were in hospital as a result of a respiratory virus, irrespective of their vaccine status.

As Chris Masterjohn PhD notes:

"If a vaccine is said to be such-and-such percent effective against being hospitalized for disease X, absolutely no non-scientist in the general public will think this means that you will instead be hospitalized for something else. Every non-scientist in the general public will hear this and think that it is roughly that percent effective at actually keeping you out of the hospital."

The Test-Negative Scam Meets the COVID Shots

Masterjohn cites a 2022 study posted by the CDC that supposedly examined the effectiveness of a third dose of mRNA gene therapies. I'm going to discuss that study also, not because I'm too lazy to find another paper, but because the CDC paper is a real doozy - a textbook classic demonstration of just what a bald-faced scam the Test-Negative charade really is.

Here's what the researchers, some of whom received remuneration for their role in the Pfizer and AstraZeneca COVID 'vaccine' trials, claimed in the study’s abstract:

"During both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, receipt of a third vaccine dose was highly effective at preventing COVID-19–associated emergency department and urgent care encounters (94% and 82%, respectively) and preventing COVID-19–associated hospitalizations (94% and 90%, respectively)."

Most people would read that and logically assume the study showed a 90-94% reduction in the likelihood of being hospitalized with “COVID-19–associated” illness if one had received 3 mRNA shots.

Which is complete and utter bollocks.

Sick Like a Triple-Jabbed Vaccine Recipient

The study analyzed 222,772 urgent and emergency encounters and 87,904 hospitalizations from 259 US hospitals, involving adults aged 18 or more between late August 2021 to early January 2022.

Again, to be eligible for the study you had to be sick. Sick enough to rush to the urgent care clinic or emergency department of one of the hospitals in the study.

Not only that, but you had to present "with a COVID-19–like illness diagnosis."

Read that again: Everyone in the study had a "COVID-like illness."

Which means the study was utterly useless in determining whether or not the ‘vaccines’ were of any use in preventing COVID-like illness.

But we're not dealing with honest people here. We're dealing with the CDC and drug company-sponsored researchers.

The first eye-opener is that 53% of all the urgent clinic and emergency encounters were comprised of ‘vaccinated’ people.

And 57% of cases requiring hospitalization were ‘vaccinated’ patients. Considered separately, those who’d received 1, 2 or 3 mRNA shots comprised 17%, 30% and 10% of hospitalizations, respectively. The study commenced only 14 days after the first US recommendation for a third mRNA dose in immunocompromised persons. This short time frame, and the fact that far fewer Americans have come forward for their third clot shot, guaranteed the study would feature a much lower number of triple-vaxxxed subjects. How convenient, given the study focused solely on the ‘efficacy’ of three shots.

Nevertheless, that the majority of patients were in fact ‘vaccinated’ indicates these "Safe & Effective!™"drugs are not very effective at keeping people out of hospital.

The researchers ignored this, and ploughed on with the ruse. Using primarily PCR testing, they compiled a tally of COVID "positive" and "negative" cases among the participants.

The inaccuracy and non-specificity of PCR tests is now the stuff of legend, and even their original inventor, Kary Mullis, publicly stated they were not designed to detect illness nor even active infection. Then there are the dark clouds still hanging over the Sars-Cov-2-specific Corman-Drosten PCR test.

The researchers were not bothered by any of that at all. Heck no - they had a script to follow.

And by following the script, they produced a far higher "SARS-CoV-2 positive test result" tally among unvaccinated patients compared to vaccinated patients.

But given that:

• All patients had presented with COVID-19–like illness, including acute respiratory illness (e.g., COVID-19, respiratory failure, or pneumonia) or related signs or symptoms (cough, fever, dyspnea, vomiting, or diarrhea) using diagnosis codes from the International Classification of Diseases, and;

• The researchers failed to present a skerrick of evidence to show that the vaccinated fared better in any actual health outcome (e.g. severity of illness, duration of hospital stay, death);

the logical response to this study and all others like it is:

So what?

As Masterjohn points out:

“Absolutely no non-scientist in the public will hear this and intuitively grasp that this means the vaccines would give them a roughly equal chance of winding up in the hospital with COVID-like illness but would be highly effective at preventing them from testing positive. Almost anyone would think that this means if they are exposed to COVID, they are 90-94% likely to stay out of the hospital."

Which, as we now know, is pure bunkum.

The shameless CDC and pharma-funded researchers, however, weren't about to let a little thing like the facts get in their way. Incredibly, they wrote:

"All unvaccinated persons should get vaccinated as soon as possible. All adults who have received mRNA vaccines during their primary COVID-19 vaccination series should receive a third dose when eligible, and eligible persons should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccinations."

Modesty forbids me from writing exactly what I think of that recommendation.

This folks, is how you magically transform a study in which 57% of hospitalized subjects were vaccinated, into one that claims being triple-vaxxxed reduces your risk of hospitalization by a whopping 90-94%.

Whether vaccines affect the type of infection you acquire, or whether they cause as-yet unidentified biochemical changes that artificially alter the test result, is not yet clear.

Regardless, if testing negative to Sars-Cov-2 via shady testing methods upon arriving at hospital is your main health goal in life, then the researchers' twisted advice probably makes sense.

One of my key health goals, however, is to avoid hospitals altogether - which means I'll continue to give these toxic drugs a very wide berth.

Post updated 16 Feb 2023 to include extra figures from the Thompson et al 2022 test-negative study.

The Mandatory “I Ain’t Your Mama, So Think For Yourself and Take Responsibility for Your Own Actions” Disclaimer: All content is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathetic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on this substack does so of their own volition and their own risk. The author/s accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm, real or imagined, from the use or dissemination of information contained on this substack. If these conditions are not agreeable to the reader, he/she is advised to leave this substack immediately.