I hate word games. This last two years has all been word games. The latest one is about whether the trials showed they prevented transmission.
Trials did not measure transmission but claimed to reduce numbers who were symptomatic with positive PCR. If they did the latter then there would have been reduced instances of possible transmission.
There are two problems here:
1. The wording
2. What the trial showed
‘Prevent’ is defined as stopping something happening, not just reducing it. People are using it to mean the latter because they can claim that mRNA ‘prevented’ symptoms in some people and that was the cause of the overall reduction. But did the trial even show a reduction?
The Pfizer trial had two key test related outcomes: 1. PCR positives 2. Antibody positives The former is dependent on who gets tested, when and how. The latter was a “secondary outcome” at the outset but was swept under the carpet.
The FDA were forced by a court to release the information from Pfizer that they had used to grant the EUA. This shows a discrepancy in the number of people given mRNA who ended up with an infection that induced antibodies.
The numbers who developed antibodies during the trial were 75 in the mRNA group and 160 in the placebo group.
https://philharper.substack.com/p/a-public-verification-of-jikkyleaks
This compares to a claim of 100 total cases in the mRNA group (from injection) and 550 in the placebo group.
This difference is so stark.
To make matters worse the Moderna trial demonstrated that 60% of those given mRNA did not make the antibody that is used for tests of infection. UKHSA have shown this too. (This isn’t necessarily bad. It just means the immune response was different).
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.18.22271936v1.full
Social Media:
Recommended for you
