Back to Fort Fairfield Journal WFFJ-TV Contact Us
Governor Mills Was Misled on COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ Safety & Efficacy Data
Pfizer’s Initial Data Showed a Risk Reduction of Catching COVID-19 with their ‘vaccine’ was less than 1%
By: David Deschesne
Fort Fairfield Journal, January 26, 2022
AUGUSTA, Maine – Maine’s Democrat governor, Janet “Big Sister” Mills mandated all health care workers participate in the COVID-19 gene therapy medical experiments last Fall and further encouraged all Mainers to participate in the medical experiments claiming the purported ‘vaccines’ to be “safe and effective.”
But, when one looks at the actual medical studies, which were funded and conducted by the vaccine manufacturers themselves, a very different perspective can be seen regarding just how “safe” or “effective” these experimental drug therapies actually are.
Governor Mills, a lawyer by trade and with no training as a Medical Doctor, presumably relied on the Maine Center for Disease Control, led by a Medical Doctor, Dr. Nirav Shah, for analysis of the studies. After this writer reviewed just the Pfizer reports, it seems the Governor and Dr. Shah either were unable to read and comprehend the data or they simply agreed to sell a pro-vaccine meme despite evidence in the medical literature provided to the Food and Drug Administration by the vaccine manufacturers that should have called for greater circumspection and caution.
The studies contained lots of raw data which had to be condensed into simple, three second sound-bites in order to sell the gene therapies to an unsophisticated public, untrained in medical jargon. The first misleading statement to come out of the government grist-mill was how the Pfizer ‘vaccines’ were “95% effective.” But, that number was based on a misleading interpretation of the data which even goes against how the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) recommends evaluating risk. What the Pfizer study did was cite “Relative Risk Reduction” of 95% rather than the more accurate “Absolute Risk Reduction” of catching COVID-19 with their experimental gene therapy which, as it turns out, causes less than a 1% reduction of risk of COVID.
Relative vs. Absolute Risk Reduction
There are two ways of looking at risk reduction in medical trials: 1.) Relative Risk Reduction, which simply looks at the reduction in positive cases between the group that received the drug and the group that did not; and 2.) Absolute Risk Reduction, which compares the entirety of both pools of test subjects to determine what the overall risk reduction truly was between them.
The Pfizer documents Governor Mills relied upon to make her decision focused on Relative Risk Reduction, which created an artificially inflated efficacy number because it left out contextual data that would have shown the true risk reduction of getting sick from COVID-19 with their drug was actually less than 1%.
Data provided by Pfizer1 on their initial vaccine trials in 2020 shows how easy it is to conflate Relative Risk with Absolute Risk Reduction.
Table 10 of the aforementioned (and footnoted) Pfizer data showed there were only 8 cases of COVID-19 found in the test subjects who received their experimental drug, compared to 162 cases in the placebo group who received no drug. They then proudly cite an efficacy of 95% since 8 is 95 percent less than 162. That, however, is a bit misleading because it only compares the number of people who tested positive for COVID-19 and ignored the total number of people in both groups. This Vaccine Efficacy of 95% is simply the Relative Risk Reduction.
What the Pfizer data also revealed, but is not taken into consideration in their presentation of the data to decision makers, is that in the group that received the drug there were a total of 18,198 people from all age groups (not weighted to those ages with the most risk, but more on that later). They also admitted there were a total of 18,325 people of all age groups in the placebo group who received no drug at all, but rather just sterile saline solution or some other inert injection.
When the overall group numbers are taken into account, we find the placebo group who received no ‘vaccine’ had an incidence of catching COVID of 162 cases in 18,325 people—or 0.88%; while the “vaccinated” group had an incidence of 8 COVID-19 cases in 18,198 people, or 0.04%. In summary, what this means is only 0.88% of the unvaccinated group caught COVID and 0.04% of the ‘vaccinated’ group caught COVID, which gave the ‘vaccinated’ group a risk reduction of just 0.84%; showing the ‘vaccine’ yielded a less than 1% reduction in overall risk of catching COVID-19.
Pfizer may have chosen to use the more misleading Relative Risk Reduction of 95% for its vaccine efficacy data because the U.S. FDA requires a risk reduction of greater than 50% to issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). If they had cited the Absolute Risk Reduction of less than 1% then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion because the drugs would not have been given an EUA and allowed on the market.
But, the onus isn’t just on Pfizer for their misleading efficacy statements, it is also on the FDA because they are the organization who advocates for using Absolute Risk Reduction and all of the team members who voted to issue the EUA were trained doctors who had all of those Pfizer numbers in front of them when they all voted reflexively (and perhaps under political pressure) to follow the crowd and give the green light for extending the drugs to the general public under Emergency Use with such an insignificant reduction in risk of catching COVID; while concomitantly increasing the risk of other life-threatening side effects.
These numbers are all publicly available and Governor Mills and Dr. Shah should have carefully considered them when deciding to force Maine’s healthcare system into near collapse by mandating the unproven drugs to healthcare workers, many of whom were smart enough to read the data themselves and chose not to participate in a drug trial with such low efficacy; thus being fired from their jobs and creating a short-staff health care crisis throughout the State that really didn’t need to happen.
Furthermore, updated Pfizer data published in September, 2021 showed lower Relative Risk Reduction (91.3% vs. 95%) and only slightly better Absolute Risk Reduction of catching COVID-19 with their product.
That report, published in the New England Journal of Medicine2 showed 77 COVID cases in 20,998 people (0.3%) in the ‘vaccinated’ group; and 850 COVID cases in 21,096 people (4%) in the placebo group which calculates out to an Absolute Risk Reduction of catching COVID while using their gene therapy bioweapon at just 3.7%. This change is likely due to the Delta variant wafting through the public, which the original gene therapies were not designed to deal with. With that said, these new results are still statistically insignificant and fall far below the 50% reduction recommended by the FDA.
With such meager reduction in illness when using their ‘vaccines’ the risk of illness or death from the drugs becomes much more relevant when considering a Cost vs. Benefit analysis of using the gene therapy bioweapons.
Increased Illness & Death
The Pfizer data3 also shows 15 deaths in the ‘vaccine’ group compared to 14 deaths in the placebo group. But, since each group had nearly 22,000 people in them those results are not statistically significant. What is, however, significant is the ‘vaccine’ group had 4 deaths from Cardiac Arrest (CA) compared to just 1 in the placebo. That is a four times increase in CA in the ‘vaccinated’ group. What makes it even more significant is Pfizer has admitted that their experimental drug causes myocarditis and the U.S. CDC has noted that as well. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle which occurs predominantly in younger males and leaves permanent damage which, according to a report at the National Institute of Health, “has a mortality rate of 25% to 56% within 3 to 10 years, owing to progressive heart failure and sudden cardiac death.”4
Pfizer also admitted3 one death each in the ‘vaccinated’ group due to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Cardiac Failure Congestive; Hypertensive Heart Disease; Sepsis; Septic Shock and Shigella Sepsis where there were no deaths from any of those causes in the placebo group.
Furthermore, Pfizer noted a stark increase in serious illness following injection of their products in volunteers. There was a +300% increase in adverse events following injection of the Pfizer drug group compared to people who received a placebo injection (5,241 vs. 1,311); there was a +75% increase in Severe Adverse events in the Pfizer drug group that interfered with normal function compared to placebo (262 vs. 150) and a 10% increase in adverse events in the Pfizer drug group that led to an Emergency Room visit or hospitalization compared to placebo (127 vs. 116). So, people may have reduced COVID-19 symptoms with the gene therapy but that comes at a cost in increased sickness and debilitation from other adverse side effects.
As for stopping the spread of COVID-19, these drugs were not tested for that and politicians and bureaucrats are now begrudgingly admitting the alleged ‘vaccines’ do not stop the recipients from either catching or transmitting the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This, even while they continue mandating health care workers and others to accept the experimental gene therapy injections to “stop the spread.”
These experimental COVID ‘vaccines’ were only studied for a few months in 2020 before being released in the general public under Emergency Use Authorization and have only been in circulation for a year. Any of the thousands of myocarditis cases the drugs have currently caused in the population may, according to the aforementioned report at the NIH, begin to manifest an increased death rate in 3 to 10 years in teens and young adults who took the shots and suffered myocarditis as a side effect.
Skewed Age Demographics
A report published online on September 14, 2021 in the medical journal, Toxicology Reports entitled, “Why are We Vaccinating Children Against COVID-19?”5 noted how Pfizer skewed the age ranges of their medical trials to include predominantly younger, healthier people when data from the U.S. CDC shows the vast majority of deaths from COVID-19 are in the 75+ years age group.
The report authors stated, “For the COVID-19 Pfizer trials, based on the data from Fig. 1, the trial population should have been limited at most to the 45 - 100+ age segment, appropriately weighted toward the higher end where the deaths per capita are most frequent. That was almost the exact opposite of what was done in the Pfizer clinical trials. In Fig. 1, [the CDC shows] approximately 58% of the [COVID-19] deaths occurred in the age range of 75+, whereas 4.4% of the participants in the Pfizer trial were 75+ [Table 1].”
Pfizer tested their experimental COVID-19 gene therapy drug in an age group least affected by COVID to begin with, and minimized participation from the age group that is most dramatically affected by COVID, thus skewing the results in their favor.
The report also showed how Pfizer skewed their safety data by only testing people in good health, with few or no comorbidities that could cause a bad outcome from their gene therapy. This “placing of their thumb on the scale” to slant results in their favor has resulted in thousands of deaths in the 75+ age group in the general public to date.
Remember, Pfizer, who has earned billions of dollars in profits from their purported COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ bioweapons and enjoys complete immunity from vaccine damage lawsuits, was allowed to fund, conduct and present the safety and efficacy trials on their own drug. Here, in Maine we call that: “the fox guarding the chicken house.”
Governor Mills, and certainly Dr. Shah, should have known better; they should have seen these problems coming and acted more responsibly on behalf of the people in Maine. But, they didn’t.
Notes:
1. https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=14471
2. https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345?articleTools=true
3. https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345/suppl_file/nejmoa2110345_appendix.pdf
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3370379/
5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X
.