New England Journal of Medicine: Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine
Let’s read together? The safety and efficacy of the vaccines was decided solely and entirely upon information collected and analysed by Pfizer.. That fact is stated quite plainly. Gosh, I just love primary sources...
Methods
Trial Objectives, Participants and Oversight
We assessed the safety and efficacy of two 30-μg doses of BNT162b2, administered intramuscularly 21 days apart, as compared with placebo. Adults 16 years of age or older who were healthy or had stable chronic medical conditions, including but not limited to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus, or hepatitis C virus infection, were eligible for participation in the trial. BUT...Key exclusion criteria included a medical history of Covid-19, treatment with immunosuppressive therapy, or diagnosis with an immunocompromising condition.
So while people with chronic medical conditions including but not limited to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus, or hepatitis C virus infection, were eligible, they were excluded. (Doublespeak, language that is deceptively ambiguous/misleading)
"Pfizer was responsible for the design and conduct of the trial, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and the writing of the manuscript. BioNTech was the sponsor of the trial, manufactured the BNT162b2 clinical trial material, and contributed to the interpretation of the data and the writing of the manuscript. All the trial data were available to all the authors, who vouch for its accuracy and completeness and for adherence of the trial to the protocol, which is available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org. An independent data and safety monitoring board reviewed efficacy and unblinded safety data."Pfizer, designed and conducted the trials. Collected the data. Analysed and interpreted the data and then wrote the manuscript! BioNTech, Pfizer's partner contributed to the interpretation of the data and writing of the manuscript. The authors of this data, Pfizer and BioNTech, vouch for it accuracy and completeness and for adherence to the trial protocols. Conflict of Interest? You see anything wrong with that? Cause I sure do!
After Pfizer and BioNTech provided all the information they wanted seen by the FDA, the FDA rubber stamped the experimental vaccine or emergency use. Preferential treatment? Coziness between big pharma and the alphabet agencies that are supposed to be guarding against abuse. Nothing new under the sun.
Discussion95% effective against Covid? Really?
"A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 (30 μg per dose, given 21 days apart) was found to be safe and 95% effective against Covid-19. The vaccine met both primary efficacy end points, with more than a 99.99% probability of a true vaccine efficacy greater than 30%. These results met our prespecified success criteria, which were to establish a probability above 98.6% of true vaccine efficacy being greater than 30%, and greatly exceeded the minimum FDA criteria for authorization."
“The vaccine met both primary efficacy end points, with more than a 99.99% probability of a true vaccine efficacy greater than 30%. “
95 percent effective against Covid? Really?
"There is a 99.99 percent probability that vaccine efficacy is greater then 30%"
“or all analyzed subgroups in which more than 10 cases of Covid-19 occurred, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for efficacy was more than 30%.”
I’m understanding these sentences to be stating efficacy was little “more then 30%” based on a 95% confidence interval- Are you getting the vibe of a spell being cast through word magic?
“This trial and its preliminary report have several limitations. With approximately 19,000 participants per group in the subset of participants with a median follow-up time of 2 months after the second dose, the study has more than 83% probability of detecting at least one adverse event, if the true incidence is 0.01%, but it is not large enough to detect less common adverse events reliably.”
“ Therefore, both the occurrence of adverse events more than 2 to 3.5 months after the second dose and more comprehensive information on the duration of protection remain to be determined”
“Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy for this vaccine will occur, but it cannot be in the context of maintaining a placebo group for the planned follow-up period of 2 years after the second dose.”
Okay, I see, safety and efficacy, long term, will be determined as these injections are given to the guinea pigs in the public sphere- This is human experimentation done without your consent or knowledge- Clearly. All one has to do is read what is stated in the NEJM paper.
The data does not address if the ‘vaccine’ stops the spread of Covid. We’ve talked this subject on multiple previous occasions."These data do not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection;"
Scientists Debate How Much to LOWER THE BAR on Covid-19 Vaccine Potential- Disconcerting
Covid Outbreak Hits Site of First in Canada Covid Vaccination Roll Out
“This report does not address the prevention of Covid-19 in other populations, such as younger adolescents, children, and pregnant women. Safety and immune response data from this trial after immunization of adolescents 12 to 15 years of age will be reported subsequently, and additional studies are planned to evaluate BNT162b2 in pregnant women, children younger than 12 years, and those in special risk groups, such as immunocompromised persons”
Authorities pushing this vaccine at all, but particularly on children, adolescents and pregnant women (the future) are little more then a Dr Mengele type of "authority" (to use worn stereotypes in an effective manner) I’d be more likely to choose any of the innumerable Mkultra doctors who willingly experimented on human beings. But the meaning of Dr Mengele is widely understood.