Unless you have been on a quick trip to the moon, you will have seen over the past week the media storm over Pfizer’s new claim that their Vaccine is 90% effective! Woo Hoo!
Well today, Moderna have claimed their vaccine is just shy of 95% effective. Double Woo Hoo!
Or is it, how many slaves to the press actually bothered to look at where this figure has been pulled from? I’m guessing, not that many.
So fear not, I did on the day that Pfizer released their statement, and again today when Moderna published their statement. Here is what I found, spoiler: It’s shocking!
Pfizer Vaccine
The Analysis evaluated 94 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in trial participants from a total of 43,538 study participants. So that’s just 0.2% of the total participant used for this pre-analysis to determine ‘effectiveness’.
From these 94 participants, 90% were in the Placebo group and 10% were in the vaccine group.
We know very little about the exact demographics of the people. We cannot even be sure that these 94 participants were not cherry-picked from their pool of 43,538 to give them the result they wanted.
But somehow from this tiny handful of people, Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer Chairman and CEO decided it was responsible to state the following:
“Today is a great day for science and humanity. The first set of results from our Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trial provides the initial evidence of our vaccine’s ability to prevent COVID-19,” – Business Wire[1]
Moderna Vaccine
Moderna announced today that their Vaccine was 94.5% effective, trumping Pfizers claim of 90% last week. But the question is, did they use the same trickery as Pfizer? Of course they did.
The total number of participants in this study is over 30,000, the exact number is not clear. From these 30,000 people they have analysed what they claim to be the first 95 people who contracted COVID-19.
From this 95 people, 5 were in the vaccinated group and 90 were not.
A second analysis looks at severe cases from this group of 95 people, of which there were 11, all in the placebo group.
But you see, here’s the thing – they state:
The 95 COVID-19 cases included 15 older adults (ages 65+) and 20 participants identifying as being from diverse communities – Moderna[2]
What they fail to tell us is which group these older adults were in. Were they the severe cases?
Once again, as with the Pfizer analysis, it’s about as transparent as a brick wall. Remember, whoever wins the day in this race for a vaccine is going to become a very rich and powerful company. Don’t tell me there is no chance of deception, to think so is just naïve and childish.
Let me know what you think, personally I think it shows just how much they know the public will trust the headlines and typically dig no further, because this is just embarrassing, this isn’t data of any significance in the World of Science.
Sources:
What other business gets this kind of approval and protection with flimsy proof? With full indemnity, they can’t be held accountable when anything goes wrong. Absolute madness. Your time and research into this matter is appreciated. Thanks
lmao this is horseshit
Thank you for your comment, it offered great insight. :-s