How Effective Are The Covid 19 Vaccines?

Last Updated on August 17, 2022 by Shaun Snapp

Executive Summary

  • There has been a greatly oversimplified explanation of the effectiveness and safety of covid 19 vaccines.
  • We cover some of the studies on this topic.


Western health authorities and media have been nearly entirely focused on funding and promoting historically quickly created coronavirus vaccines as the approved public policy response to the coronavirus. These vaccines were immediately hailed as highly effective and safe by the pharmaceutical-controlled major media entities.

Our References for This Article

If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.

The Effect and Safety of the Vaccines

The following is a quotation from an excellent book on the topic of health policy and Covid 19 called Why Most of What You Know About Covid is Wrong.

Read the quotes, however, I will have an additional overlay that questions even this skeptical analysis of the studies that the FDA used to provide appoval for these vaccines.

Vaccine #1: The AstraZeneca Vaccine

So it is possible that the AstraZeneca vaccine causes traverse mylitas. In a small portion of those vaccinated at present, it seems like the risk of developing travers myelitis after getting the vaccine is about one to 3000. But it could be much higher or much lower. We don’t know until many more people have received the vaccine.

Would I take this vaccine personally No, because I’m young and healthy, and I therefore estimate that the risk of me getting severe COVID is infinitesimal. And I’m not convinced that the benefits outweigh the potential harms, considering the possible risk of transverse myelitis where I let my children to have it, no way not until there are studies showing that it’s safe and effective in children. It’s all it’s only a little over a decade since an influenza vaccine was rushed through and given to children based on limited evidence causing hundreds in Europe to develop narcolepsy, debilitating, lifelong disease.

Vaccine #2: The Pfizer Vaccine

With a Pfizer vaccine among those getting the placebo point 9% develop symptomatic COVID. And among those getting the vaccine point 0.5% develop symptomatic COVID.

That’s a 95% relative risk reduction and it is highly statistically significant. That is an impressive result much better than I ever would have thought would be possible in such a short space of time.

I use quotes and my own analysis later to show this analysis presented above is a problem. The issue is the relative risk reduction that is being quoted. I will illustrated how the statistical significance of this effectiveness is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the Pfizer vaccine should have been approved.

The curious thing about this is that the author of the quote above, Dr. Sebastian Rushworth is completely aware of both how pharmaceutical companies use relative risk to lie about the effectiveness of their drugs and that statistical significance is greatly used to mislead as well. This is explained very well in Dr. Rushworth’s following quotation. 

Dr. Rushworth on the Misuse of Statistical Significance

I think the three main reasons are publication bias, vested interests that do what they can do to manipulate studies and the inappropriate use of the 5% p value cut off. That is why we should never put too much trust in a result that has not been replicated. We discussed statistical significance a lot now, but that isn’t really what matters to patients, what matters. And what patients care about is clinical significance, ie if they take a drug will it and have a meaningful impact for them.

Dr. Rushworth on the Misuse of Relative Risk

Clinical significance is closely tied to the concept of absolute risk and relative risk. Let’s say we have a drug that decreases your five year risk of having a heart attack from 2%. From point 2% 2.1%. Now the absolute risk reduction when you take this drug is 1% over five years.

Not very impressive, right? Would you think it was worth taking that drug? Probably not? What if I told you that the same drug actually decreased your risk of heart attack by 50%? Now you definitely want to take the drug right? How can a drug only decreased risk by point 1%, and yet at the same time, decrease risk by 50%. Because the risk reduction depends on if we’re looking at absolute risk or relative risk.

Although our imaginary drug only causes a point 1% reduction in absolute risk, it causes a 50% reduction in relative risk. drug companies will generally focus on the relative risk when discussing the benefits of their drugs, because it makes a benefit sound more impressive and absolute risk when discussing harms because it makes a harm sound small. When you look at an advertisement for a drug always look at the fine print, or they’re talking about absolute risk or relative risk.

However, Dr. Rushworth did not tie together his knowledge of the abuse of absolute risk in his analysis of the vaccine studies that were submitted to the FDA.
At this point, let us just continue with Dr. Rushworth’s analysis of the vaccine studies, and I will return to the issue of relative risk later in the article.

The result appears at first sight to hold up even for people aged 75 and older, with five cases among those getting placebo and zero cases among those getting the vaccine. Unfortunately, due to the small size of the group, the result is not statistically significant. So we can’t actually say based on this study, that the vaccine protects people aged 75 and older. With that said, the vaccine does seem to protect most people against infection.

Overall there were 240 events in the vaccine group that were classified as severe compared with 139 in the placebo group that is concerning several adverse events were 73% more common in the vaccine group than in the placebo group, the vaccine should ideally decrease severe adverse events. It shouldn’t increase them. Unfortunately Pfizer aren’t kind enough to provide a breakdown of what the adverse events are so it’s impossible for us to figure out whether the drastic increase in severe adverse events after vaccination is something we need to be concerned about and whether it should cause us to avoid the vaccine. Would I personally be willing to take the Pfizer vaccine. No, first of all because Pfizer hasn’t presented a detailed breakdown of what the adverse events are. So, what I can show that I can tell if there’s something in there that I should be worried about.

Rushworth catches the fact that Pfizer deliberately left out the severe adverse event detail, and this of course did not stop the FDA from providing them with approval for their vaccine, as the FDA is in the pocket of drug companies.

Vaccine #3: The Moderna Vaccine

As for the Moderna vaccine among those who had received the placebo injections 1.3% develop COVID, among those who had received the vaccine .07% develop COVID That represents a 94% reduction in cases 1% of the participants in the placebo group, experienced a serious adverse event and 1% of the participants in the vaccine group experienced a serious adverse event.

Overall the moderna vaccine does appear to be both effective and safe for two months of follow up, would I be willing to take it.

Yes, maybe two months of follow up is short so I would rather wait a few months more to see that the vaccine is truly safe, but I feel more convinced by what my journal has made public than I am by what AstraZeneca and Pfizer have put forth.

Dr. Rushworth Continues

All Three Vaccines

So let’s wrap up.

All three vaccines appear to be highly effective in preventing relatively young, healthy people from developing symptomatic COVID Although both the Pfizer vaccine and the modern a vaccine are clearly more effective than the AstraZeneca vaccine in terms of safety.

I have significant concerns about the AstraZeneca vaccine.

I also have concerns about the Pfizer vaccine.

Since there was a 73% increase in severe adverse events. Among those taking the vaccine. An issue that Pfizer hasn’t bothered to address at all and I’m also concerned about the fact that Pfizer does not provide a detailed breakdown of adverse events.

The Moderna vaccine does appear to be safe. However, Based on the data available up to now.

Finally, none of these studies can tell us whether the vaccines are safe and effective in children, it would be unethical to start vaccinating children without first having made sure that the vaccines are safe for them. Especially considering that the risk to children from COVID is infinitesimal. – Why Most of What You Know About Covid is Wrong

How the Covid Vaccine Studies Were Rigged

The drug companies have rigged the studies to make the vaccines appear more effective than they are.

  • The drug companies had a massive financial bias in doing these studies, and as with all FDA-reported studies, they only reported the studies they wanted to and would have been able to hide those that were less impressive.
  • The drug companies selected the duration of the studies that they wanted and never had any oversight from the FDA on study length.
  • They minimized the length of the trial so that adverse reactions would be minimized.
  • The FDA was under extreme pressure from the Trump Administration to approve the vaccines and the interference and pressure brought by the Trump Administration is well documented.
  • The drug companies misleadingly chose mostly young and healthy test subjects.
  • They also hid and downplayed the negative consequences of taking the vaccine.
  • Neither the drug companies nor the FDA addressed the fact that the protection offered by the vaccines, unlike previously developed vaccines, declines over time, necessitating the need for “booster shots” which are really just later doses of the vaccine to one again increase antibodies.

Because these drug companies are very powerful, and because the FDA’s standards were lowered due to Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, they were able to get these highly profitable vaccines approved by the FDA with one study each.

There are many other treatments that have far more studies and with far better evidence for their effectiveness, but because they are not the preferred treatment of the drug companies, they are not considered as competing treatments.

This is a listing of other treatments against Covid 19 that show similar effectiveness, many of which can be taken prior to contracting Covid. Many of these drugs do not have many studies performed on them.

  • Why have governments not been sponsoring more studies in this area if this is such an important issue?
  • Why are these treatments entirely disregarded by US health authorities and by establishment media?

This second topic is explained in the following quotation from the website.

Pharmaceutical drug trials often have conflicts of interest whereby sponsors or trial staff have a financial interest in the outcome being positive. Ivermectin for COVID-19 lacks this because it is off-patent, has many manufacturers, and is very low cost. In contrast, most COVID-19 ivermectin trials have been run by physicians on the front lines with the primary interest of finding the best methods to save human lives and minimize the collateral damage caused by COVID-19. While pharmaceutical companies are careful to run trials under optimal conditions (for example, restricting patients to those most likely to benefit, only including patients that can be treated soon after onset when necessary, ensuring accurate dosing), many ivermectin trials do not represent the optimal conditions for efficacy.

And next, the website explains the pharmaceutical company’s incentive to produce studies that undermine drugs that are off-patent.

Two ivermectin trials to date involve very large financial conflicts of interest [López-Medina, Together Trial] — companies closely involved with the trial or organizers stand to lose billions of dollars if ivermectin efficacy becomes more widely known. The design of these trials favors producing a null outcome as detailed in [López-Medina, Together Trial]. Note that biasing an RCT to produce a false positive result is difficult (suppressing adverse events is relatively easy [Evans]), but biasing a trial to produce a false negative result is very easy — for example, in a trial of an antiviral that works within the first 24 hours of symptom onset, trial organizers only need to avoid treating people within the first 24 hours; or with a disease like COVID-19, organizers only need to select a low-risk population where most people recover quickly without treatment.

We note that, even under the very suboptimal designs, these trials produced positive results, although without statistical significance.

How Establishment Media Entities Act as Public Relations for Pharmaceutical Companies

Anyone who proposes using any of these treatments is immediately attacked and discredited as anti-science by the establishment media. Most of these studies are less biased and more scientific than the studies that cause the FDA to approve the vaccines. Why are these studies not considered science, while the FDA’s approved Big Pharma rigged studies considered science? Is science simply whatever the large pharmaceutical companies say it is?

This is a very standard piece on the coverage by the establishment media. Children have essentially zero risk from Covid 19, and none of this is brought up in the segment. There is no opposing viewpoint and no explanation or analysis of the vaccine. 

Much more on how the media and pharmaceutical companies lied on this topic is covered in the article How Pharma and Media Lied About Covid Risks to Children for Maximum Profits.

Most Common Symptoms of Covid

The most common symptoms in people with long COVID defined in the study is still having symptoms after four weeks or fatigue, 98% and intermittent headaches 91% these are both extremely nonspecific symptoms, there is nothing about them that is specific for COVID.

In fact, there are some of the most commonly reported symptoms of post viral syndrome, suggesting that long COVID and post viral syndrome are to a large part, one in the same. First, long COVID is rare, around one in 50 people still have symptoms at the 12 week mark and since a number with symptoms drops significantly, at one two and three months it is likely that the reduction continues after 12 weeks and that is a tiny fraction that still has symptoms at six months. – Why Most of What You Know About Covid is Wrong

Long covid is critical in scaring the population into scaring parents into vaccinating children.

These videos are evidence that the media assiduously reported exactly what the pharmaceutical companies wanted them to report.

Update as of October 2021

What Has Been the Effectiveness of the Vaccines in the Field?

The effectiveness of treatments, particularly when performed by a biased entity, is nearly always lower in the field than during clinical trials.

The FDA and the establishment media is quick to report on the effectiveness of treatments, but are silent on the effectiveness of treatment in the field.

This is explained in the following quotation.

Even though the unvaccinated are coerced to test more frequently for travel, education and work, their numbers are still similar to the “fully vaccinated.” The data shows that COVID cases are relatively equal among the vaccinated and unvaccinated. From August 21, to September 17, 2021, there were 69,639 positive cases recorded among the unvaccinated population, and 79,613 cases among the vaccinated population, with 60,923 of these cases deriving from the “fully vaccinated.” Clearly, the vaccine doesn’t prevent COVID, and may even be a driving force for new infections in the unvaccinated.

Most shocking, the rate of death is not 95 percent lower in the vaccinated group. From August 14 to September 10, 2021, Scotland registered 208 covid-19 deaths. There were 41 deaths in the unvaccinated, 9 deaths in the partially vaccinated, and a shocking 158 deaths in the fully vaccinated. If the 95 percent efficacy of the vaccine was real, then 95 percent of the deaths would occur in the unvaccinated and only 5 percent would be in the vaccinated. However, up to 80 percent of the deaths are in the vaccinated and only 20 percent of the deaths are in the unvaccinated. The vaccines are currently INCREASING the risk of death in the UK by 400%! – NewsTarget

Were the Vaccines Scientific Fraud? Relative Versus Absolute Risk

“That 95% refers to the ‘relative risk reduction’ (RRR), but it doesn’t tell you how much your overall risk is reduced by vaccination. For that, we need ‘absolute risk reduction’ (ARR).

“In the Pfizer trial, 8 out of 18,198 people who were given the vaccine developed COVID-19. In the unvaccinated placebo group, 162 people out of 18,325 got it, which means that even without the vaccine, the risk of contracting COVID-19 was extremely low, at 0.88%, which the vaccine then reduced to 0.04%.

Let us lay out the math on this so it is more clear.

  • 8 (those given the vaccine that developed covid) / 18198 (the total number given the vaccine) = .0004
  • 162 (those not given the vaccine that developed covid) / 18325 (the total number given the vaccine) = .0088
  • .0088 (unvaccinated who got the virus) – .0004 (vaccinated who got the virus) = .0084 or .84%. This is must be multiplied by 119 times to equal 1%.

However, to obtain the relative risk (that is what Pfizer, the FDA and establishment media reported) it is given by 1 – (8/162) or 95%.

Obviously, that is entirely misleading. This math is available right on the FDAs EUA approval of the Pfizer vaccine. These are simply Pfizer’s numbers.

That is the Pfizer vaccine.

Let us see the same table which I have taken from the Moderna FDA EUA (or Emergency Use Authorization).

I will just be focusing on the totals line at the top.

  • 11 (those given the vaccine that developed covid) / 13934 (the total number given the vaccine) = .0006
  • 185 (those not given the vaccine that developed covid) / 13883 (the total number given the vaccine) = .0138
  • .0138 (unvaccined who got the virus) – .0006 (vaccinated who got the virus) = .0132 or 1.32%.

However by using relative risk, one takes 1 – (11/185) to obtain 94%.

Video By JAMA

This video, which was produced by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) supports the asinine math used by Pfizer and Moderna. This video is ridiculous. I have lost all respect for JAMA and like NEJM, they are just a marketing front end for pharmaceutical companies. This video also falsely claimed that the vaccines were measured for adverse events, quite the contrary, the FDA never followed up on any adverse events or tracking as is covered in the article How The FDA Did Nothing to Verify the Long Term Safety Of The Covid Vaccines.

You can see more analysis of this JAMA video in the article How JAMA Created a Video on The mRNA Covid Vaccines Filled With False Information.

I would like to say this was just a cover-up, however, the numbers are clear, they are right there in the report. There is all manner of questions that arise from this revelation.

  • Why did the FDA give emergency authorization (not approval as it turns out) for a vaccine that has, even with these very likely rigged numbers, close to zero efficacy?
  • Why was this real story not widely reported? There are millions of doctors who are supposed to read these studies. The analysis presented above was published all the way back in April 2020 in The Lancet in an article titled COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room. Why did it take so long for this story to break, after most of the US population has already been vaccinated?

Let us continue with the quote.

“So the net benefit, the absolute risk reduction, that you are being offered in the Pfizer vaccine in 0.84%

“That 95% number? That refers to the relative difference between the 0.88% and 0.04%. That’s what they call ‘95% relative risk reduction’. And relative risk reduction is well-known to be a misleading number, which is why the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead. Which begs the question: How many people would have chosen to take the COVID-19 vaccines, had they understood that they offered less than 1% benefit?” – News Target

This math is difficult to follow, so let us expand upon the calculation and correlate this quote with the math we just performed.

  • If we take the number that got covid in each group it is 1 – 8/162 = 95%. This math is asinine and has nothing to do with the actual risk reduction.
  • The increased risk from not being vaccinated is calculated by (162 – 8) / (roughly) 18250 or .0084, as has been provided already.

The quote from the article in The Lancet reinforces this.

Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1.3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1.2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1.2% for the J&J, 0.93% for the Gamaleya, and 0.84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.

There are many lessons to learn from the way studies are conducted and results are presented. With the use of only RRRs, and omitting ARRs, (relative risk reduction and not absolute risk reduction) reporting bias is introduced, which affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. – The Lancet

This article exposing the false efficacy of the vaccines was published in April of 2021. I did not even hear about it until October of 2021.

The quote continues to explain that the Pfizer vaccine is not even 1/119 of 1% protective against covid.

An Obviously Unblinded Study

In response, Dr. Yeadon said: “It’s worse, actually. In the Pfizer study from which the 95% claim comes, there’s clear evidence of fraud.

“Why do I say that? Well, a study which is properly blinded means neither the subject, the study director, nor any other actor knows what each patient has received.

“Patients in clinical trials are obligated to follow ‘the protocol’, which specifies must-dos & prohibitions.

“If it’s blind to the end, how could one group end up with five times as many subjects having their data pulled prior to statistical analysis in the test group compared with the control group?” – News Target

This is a very good question, and the answer is that it can’t.

Roughly speaking, this means the protective value of the Pfizer vaccine is most likely zero. And in the US we are facing a vaccine mandate and people are quitting and losing their jobs over refusing to comply with the mandate.

The quote goes on to describe how to effectively fight covid.

Yeadon expanded: “The story of how a large state within India solved its COVID-19 crisis is no surprise to those of us who’ve known since spring 2020 that our governments, media, and tech titans have been acting against our interests, both health as well as democratic.

“We’ve known, for example, that highly qualified physicians and scientists are well able to treat and save most people infected by SARS-CoV-2.

“Two remarkable meta-analyses (the highest level of medical evidence, a review of randomized, controlled clinical trials), authored by Tess Laurie and Pierre Kory, show conclusively that if you could choose only one medical treatment, it would be ivermectin. It’s safe, we’ll-tolerated, off patent and cheap to make, yet HIGHLY effective as a treatment for COVID-19. Reviews by Tess Lawrie and Pierre Kory are in the most read papers this year.

“Yet not one major media channel has bothered to tell us this. Instead, they’ve lied about ‘horse deworming’ drugs and made false claims about safety.

“This is what Uttar Pradesh used in a few short weeks to crush soaring COVID-19 deaths in this large Indian state. They didn’t do much vaccination.

“Vaccination has, separately, been shown by Steve Kirsch’s team, to have resulted in a median estimate of 150,000 deaths shortly after vaccination in the U.S.A. alone.

“What have our governments, media, and technology titans been doing in the meantime?

“Rubbishing the experts, attacking the publications, suppressing information everywhere, and banning accounts that persist in telling the truth.” – News Target

This makes the following video appear completely ridiculous.

Did this author bother to check if the vaccines were effective before writing this book? What is the relevance of the story of the vaccine development if the vaccine has no value? It is called a “miracle of science” in the book, which does not work. At one point the author states that they were both developing and testing the vaccines at the same time. At the end of the video, the interviewer then asks where this technology can be used elsewhere. This is simply amazing. 

A “Real World” Study

After these studies that were submitted to the FDA, there was another study by the CDC. First, the information provided by the CDC is not reliable as they are a stooge for pharmaceutical companies. However, let us review this study.

Let us review that study to see if we can see any similarities with the studies reviewed so far.

Among 2,479 fully vaccinated people, just three had confirmed infections. Among 477 people who received one dose, eight infections were reported.

By comparison, among 994 people who were not vaccinated, 161 developed infections.

No deaths were reported. – Washington Post

Yes, there were no deaths in either group, however.

Doing the Absolute Risk Reduction Calculation

I will leave out the people with just one dose as it complicates the issue. However, let us redo the same math sequence we did for the other studies.

  • 3 (those given the vaccine that developed covid) / 2479 (the total number given the vaccine) = .0012
  • 161 (those not given the vaccine that developed covid) / 994 (the total number given the vaccine) = .1690
  • .1690 (unvaccinated who got the virus) – .0012 (vaccinated who got the virus) = .1678 or 16.78%.

The improvement from unvaccinated to vaccinated was 16.78% absolute risk reduction. That is 16.78%/((1.32% + .84%)/2) (this averages the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine as both vaccines were tested in the CDC study. That comes to 15.53x as effective as the average of the Pfizer and Moderna studies submitted to the FDA.

Did anyone reviewing this study find that a little odd?

Studies rarely meet the efficacy of the FDA studies as they are entirely controlled by the pharmaceutical companies and entirely rigged. So how did an independently (supposedly) run study obtain such an improvement over the Pfizer and Moderna controlled studies?

Now observe how the efficacy was reported by the CDC.

“It’s not surprising, but it’s incredibly reassuring,” said Paul A. Offit, a vaccine expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia who helps review vaccine safety and efficacy as an outside adviser to the Food and Drug Administration and was not involved in the CDC study. “It’s yet another reason to get vaccinated.”


It is not surprising that the CDC’s study had a 15.53x more effective outcome than the Pfizer and Moderna run studies. What a strange thing to say.

“What we really want to do is test these vaccines in the real world, to see how well they work,” said Gandhi, who was not involved in the CDC study. That study took place during “one of the most scary, most horrible surges” in the United States, she said, describing it as an important stress test for the vaccines. The results, she said, show how “it’s really incredible news for how safe you can feel after vaccination.” – Washington Post

Now let us observe how the efficacy was reported.

Protection increased to 90 percent following the second dose. The findings are consistent with clinical trial results and studies showing strong effectiveness in Israel and the United Kingdom, and in initial studies of health-care workers at the UT Southwestern Medical Center and in Southern California. – Washington Post

What? I have not reviewed all the other studies, but the percent listed from this study is not correct.

Lets do the math for relative risk reduction, which is how the industry reports efficacy.

  • The percentage of the vaccinated group that caught covid = .0012
  • The percentage of the unvaccinated group that caught covid = .1690
  • One takes 1 – (.0012/.1690) = 99.3.

This means the vaccines were not 90% effective (relative risk reduction) they were 99.3% effective. Why was 90% reported then? Ninety-nine point three is so close to 100, that it is not much of an exaggeration to say they were 100% effective (on a relative risk reduction basis)

According to the CDC study, the vaccines were MORE effective, yet when reported, they were reported as less effective. Why. And how strange. And one might think there would be more doctors questioning all of these studies, however, the following quotation goes a long way in explaining why not.

Guidelines misperceived as rock-hard rules descend from governmental entities, such as NIAID and the CDC, and from burgeoning schools of public health inundated with cash from pharmaceutical interests, their graduates now the preferred “medical experts” for state governments, hospital administrations and TV commentators.

A prime weapon of the pharmaceutical industry’s Covid-19 “vaccine initiative” is the network of doctors who have gravitated into organizational positions from which they can exert control on the rest of the medical community.

Practitioners at odds with the authorized narrative are quickly charged with spreading “misinformation” and threatened with professional ruin should they continue to step out of line.

Consider this September, 2021 joint statement from the American Boards of Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, and Pediatrics, all three insisting that evidence of safety and effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines is “overwhelming”, whereas abundant evidence to the contrary remains carefully censored by mainstream media and social media platforms, as well as by the boards themselves. In three blunt paragraphs, the boards, which collectively represent a huge fraction of the America’s doctors, and which have the power to bestow or withhold board certification, threaten member physicians who “denigrate vaccination” with “disciplinary actions, including suspension or revocation of their medical license.” – Global Research

How Effective Are The Vaccines In The Field?

As per the math presented to the FDA for which the pharmaceutical companies received Emergency Use Authorization and the CDC study I would expect the vaccines to have a zero percent effectiveness in the field. This quote seems to support this.

Real-world efficacy. Recent data published by the Israeli health ministry indicate that COVID is equally likely to occur in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons, which suggests that the true efficacy is not 95% but rather close to 0%. While Israel mostly used the Pfizer mRNA vaccine rather than the one produced by Moderna, the latter is equally ineffective. This is evident from a CDC report that examines a cluster of COVID infections which occurred among vaccinated and unvaccinated persons in Barnstable County, Massachusetts during July 2021 [47]. The data are summarized in Table 1. – Doctors 4 Covid Ethics

How Was the Number of Study Participants That Came Down with Covid Measured?

The pharmaceutical companies had complete control over who was said to have come down with covid. This topic is covered in the article How The Endpoint of the Covid Vaccine FDA Studies Was Rigged by Pharma Companies.

Accusations of Study Fraud

This is explained in the following quotation. This information came to light only on November 4th 2021, a number of months after the vaccines had already been rolled out.

Alleged problems with a major clinical trial examining Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine are being probed, a contract company involved in the research has confirmed.

Ventavia Research Group operated several of the trial sites in the fall of 2020. Brook Jackson, who worked for the company during this time, told the British Medical Journal that the trial was riddled with issues, including the falsification of data.

Jackson said she alerted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the problems she witnessed and was fired within hours.

Ventavia confirmed to The Epoch Times that it employed Jackson for two weeks last year. Lauren Foreman, director of business development and communications, said in an email that Ventavia is investigating Jackson’s allegations.

“Ventavia takes research compliance, data integrity, and participant safety very seriously and stands behind its important work supporting the development of lifesaving vaccines and is conducting its investigation accordingly,” she said.

The FDA appeared to confirm it was aware of the matter.

“Although the agency cannot comment further at this time in this ongoing matter, FDA has full confidence in the data that were used to support the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine authorization and the Comirnaty approval,” a spokeswoman told The Epoch Times in an email.

Given the ridiculous math of the relative risk ratio that we have covered already, it is obvious where the FDA sees its bread buttered.

The quote continues.

Ventavia worked on the trial that led to emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s jab. The FDA later approved the shot, though many or all of the doses being administered in the United States continue to be the EUA-version.

Pfizer didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Jackson, who had worked with clinical trials for over 15 years, told the British Medical Journal she repeatedly raised concerns with her superiors about what she was witnessing, including patient safety concerns. She began to feel her reports were being ignored and began taking photographs using her phone. One photograph apparently showed that needles were discarded in a plastic bag instead of a box, while another was said to have showed packaging materials that revealed trial participants’ identification numbers, signaling they may have been unblinded.

This has already been suspected months before this accusation.

The quote continues.

Jackson listed 12 concerns she had in a Sept. 25 message to the FDA, including participants not being monitored after receiving an injection and vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures. She also alleged that Ventavia staff members were targeted by higher-ups for reporting problems.

Jackson said the FDA sent her an email acknowledging receipt of the list and she received a call from an FDA inspector, but she has heard nothing from the agency since then.

The Epoch Times has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request concerning Jackson’s email to the FDA and internal communications from the agency regarding the message.

The FDA said in August it inspected nine of the trial’s 153 sites. None of Ventavia’s sites were inspected.

The inspections were limited “because the study was ongoing, and the data required for verification and comparison were not yet available to the IND [investigational new drug],” an FDA officer wrote in a summary of the inspections.

Some pharmaceutical companies have seen inspections waived or FDA officials deciding to conduct an inspection remotely, Philip Crooker, technical vice president of Paraexel, told a forum in December 2020. Inspections of domestic sites plunged to 6,574 in 2020 from 13,001 in 2019, according to FDA data. – The Epoch Times

I have to say, it is incredibly rare for an insider to come forward and make this type of accusation and for the accusation to later be found to be incorrect.

What Percentage of Those That Die from Corona are Unvaccinated?

As explained, the vaccines have no effect against covid. As one would expect, this is demonstrated in who dies from covid.

In Vermont, 76 percent of COVID-19 deaths reported in September were in the fully vaccinated. The state has continually boasted its high vaccination and low hospitalization and death rates. But this all changed when the data regarding its experience with post-vaccine outbreaks came out in September.

According to the data, 33 Vermonters died of COVID-19 in September. Just eight of them were unvaccinated. This data comes from the Vermont Department of Health.

Fully vaccinated people all over the country are succumbing to the coronavirus. This situation has gotten so severe that not even the CDC was able to deny it.

Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield recently admitted that more than 40 percent of people in Maryland who died due to COVID-19 were fully vaccinated.

“A lot of times people may feel it’s a rare event that fully vaccinated people die,” says Redfield. “I happen to be the senior advisor to Gov. Larry Hogan in the state of Maryland. In the last six to eight weeks, more than 40 percent of people who died in Maryland were fully vaccinated.

Naturally, this is exactly what one would expect.

As the vaccine effectiveness continues to get exposed, the US government keeps changing its story. Now the vaccine does not stop you from or getting the virus. Secondly, one of the PCR tests are sufficiently reliable to say whether a person has or does not have the virus. However, the part Jimmy Dore said about the vaccine protecting people from the virus is not correct. Jimmy Dore does not yet realize that the vaccines are completely ineffective. 

Max Blumenthal goes on to state later in the video that CDC studies are completely unreliable. The CDC rigged the statistics to state that only the unvaccinated came down with the virus. This CDC study was released in September of 2021 — and as time has passed it is clear that this study never had any merit. This is consistent with the CDC publishing information that functions as a PR entity for pharmaceutical companies.

This video describes the media being controlled by pharma. 

The Canadian Covid Care Alliance

The following graphics are from the Canadian Covid Care Alliance.

This graphic shows that the placebo group was removed. This begs the question of why the study was unblinded early. 

The Pfizer study that was submitted to the FDA to receive Emergency Use Authorization was rigged by Pfizer to test the vaccine of subjects that had a very low risk of adverse reactions from covid. This was done to make the vaccines look better than they were. 

This shows how Pfizer applied what amounts to no standards in their study. They could have come up with any numbers they wanted with how they setup the standard of who from each group was tested. 

This graphic shows the bizarre logic used by Pfizer to test for covid. 

And there is another problem with this, which I cover in the article Understanding the PCR Test and How There Was Never a Reliable Test for Covid, which is that Pfizer (and all testing facilities globally) are using an unreliable test for covid that cannot differentiate between covid that is alive or dead, or covid or influenza or covid or the common cold.

Why was the vaccine tested on children? The answer is obvious. Not because it holds any benefit for children. But because it allows Pfizer to sell more vaccines.

The FDA decision-makers don’t care if the vaccines work or do not work, or if they are dangerous or not dangerous. They are concerned with their financial relationships with Pfizer. 

This video from the Canadian Covid Care Alliance has been removed from YouTube’s search results but is still available on YouTube. This is Google’s censorship of information that Google’s pharmaceutical relations disagree with. Nothing in this video is false, it’s just that Google does not want you to view it.  

Vaccines That Show No Benefit

The following quote explains the net benefit of the covid vaccines.

Scientific analysis of the data from pivotal clinical trials for US COVID-19 vaccines indicates the vaccines fail to show any health benefit and in fact, all the vaccines cause a decline in health in the immunized groups. Health is the sum of all medical events or lack there of. COVID-19 vaccines are promoted as improving health while in fact there is no evidence that these vaccines actual improve health in the individual or population as a whole. The current analysis used the proper scientific endpoint of “all cause severe morbidity”, a true measure of health. By contrast, manufactures and government officials promote the vaccines using a surrogate measure of health, severe infections with COVID-19, and the disproved philosophical argument that this surrogate endpoint equates to health. This substitution of philosophy for science is extremely dangerous and is certainly leading to a catastrophic public health event. Review of data from the three COVID-19 vaccines marketed in the US shows complete lack of a health benefit and even an increase in severe events among vaccine recipients. The proper scientific clinical trial endpoint, “all cause severe morbidity” was created by
combing all severe and or life threatening events, both infectious and non-infectious, occurring in the vaccinated and placebo control groups respectively. The data (Table 1) shows there are clearly more severe events in the vaccinated groups. Reductions in infection rates, hospitalization rates and even death with COVID-19 are poor surrogate markers for health and are not proper primary endpoints for a vaccine clinical trial.

Potential vaccine recipients need to know if the vaccine improves their survival in order for them to make an informed consent to be immunized. Unfortunately, the current studies with COVID-19 vaccines in fact show they cause a decline in health. – US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity”

Not Following Up on Long Term Side Effects

Something that is little known is the short period of time for which adverse effects are tracked.


  • There is no evidence of the three covid vaccines evaluated in this article being effective.
  • The fact they were approved by the FDA only illustrates how much the FDA is now entirely captured by pharmaceutical interests.
  • Something very odd is that such a small number of articles exist that expose the science fraud committed by all three of the pharmaceutical companies, and by the FDA, as they approved what they know to be fraudulent studies.

If you enjoyed reading about the effectiveness of the vaccines, see this article for the topic of safety How Safe Are The Covid 19 Vaccines?