Some interesting data coming out of the UK strongly suggests that the COVID-19 jabs are damaging the innate immune systems of people. The data show that the jabbed are far more likely to be infected than those who have not been jabbed. This covers all spectrums and cohorts of the population.
Data for England are produced by the UK Health Security Agency. The data referred to within this post is for January 3rd to January 30th. The data is available as a downloadable pdf here.
Let’s look at some numbers. The chart below represents data for 18 year olds and older.
Hat Tip…The Expose
This shows that the people who have received three jabs are the majority of cases. How can this be? We have been told over and over the jabs are safe AND effective. Just how safe they are is a discussion for another time. And, of course, raw numbers need to be handled carefully. For example, we need to understand just what percentage of the population have received a third jab. However, regardless of the percentage, there is no way that a true vaccine should have a majority of the cases after three jabs. And that is the case here (1,018,299 out of 1,677,414).
This chart alone suggests that there is something very wrong with the therapies that the governments are calling a vaccine.
What is the situation when we look at case rates? Case rates can give us a better understanding of the overall situation relating to who is getting infected and how often. The chart below was developed from the same source.
Hat Tip…The Expose
This is stunning and scary. Those who have been jabbed are way more likely to be infected with COVID than the unjabbed. The lower CASE RATE for the triple jabbed may be due to the more recent nature of the third jab than those with just two jabs. Regardless, the unjabbed certainly appear to be far better able to ward off infection from COVID than any who have been jabbed.
How is this possible? When Pfizer went for regulatory approval, they said that the mRNA therapy was 95% effective. The numbers above certainly do not look like 95% effective. How was the 95% number arrived at?
The Expose provides an answer using Pfizer’s calculations.
During the ongoing clinical trial, 43,661 subjects were split evenly between the placebo and vaccine groups (about 21,830 subjects per group).
In the placebo group — the group that didn’t have the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine — 162 became infected with the coronavirus and showed symptoms.
Whilst in the vaccine group — the group that got the real vaccine — that number was only 8.
Therefore, the percentage of placebo group who became infected equated to 0.74% (162 / 21830 x 100 = 0.74).
Whilst 0.04% of the vaccinate group became infected (8 / 21830 x 100 = 0.04)
In order to calculate the efficacy of their Covid-19 mRNA injection, Pfizer then performed the following calculation –
They first subtracted the percentage of infections in the vaccinated group from the percentage of infections in the placebo group.
0.74% – 0.04% = 0.7%
Then they divided that total by the percentage of infections in the placebo group, which equated to 95%.
0.7 / 0.74 = 95%.
Therefore, Pfizer were able to claim that their Covid-19 mRNA injection is 95% effective.
There are multiple problems with this. Misleading would probably be the understatement of this century. The absolute risk reduction is less than 1%! In fact, within the age cohort below 18, calculations have been done that show that one needs to “vaccinate” 22,000 kids to save one life. How many kids are suffering debilitating side effects including death to accomplish this?
Then there are the internal problems with the clinical trial results. Peter Doshi has done a dive into the FDA data and noted:
All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”
With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% —far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators. Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29%.
Why didn’t the FDA require a more in depth look at these unconfirmed cases? It is true that COVID symptoms are also present in many other infections. However, if one is doing a clinical trial, shouldn’t the cause of an infection be determined?
The Expose used Pfizer’s formula to determine the real-world effectiveness of the jabs. The chart below shows the results.
Hat Tip…The Expose
Clearly the jabbed are more susceptible to COVID infection that the unjabbed. And old “Rainbow Socks” up there in Canada wants to inflict this useless therapy on more truckers.
The Expose goes on to delve into the nitty gritty of just what happens when one is truly immunized.
… vaccine effectiveness isn’t really a measure of a vaccine, it is a measure of a vaccine recipient’s immune system performance compared to the immune system performance of an unvaccinated person.
Vaccines train the immune system to act and then once they’ve done the training they disappear. If you encounter the Covid-19 virus after being vaccinated then it isn’t the vaccine that springs into action to defend you against it, it’s your vaccine trained immune system that’s meant to spring into action. Therefore, when authorities tell you that the effectiveness of a vaccine wanes over time, what they really mean is the immune system performance of the vaccinated person wanes over time.
That is not how vaccines are supposed to work. They should provide long-term protection. Before the CDC changed the definition on their website, a vaccine prevented infection. So what is the measured effect in the real world the mRNA therapies? It is not pretty.
Hat Tip…The Expose
This shows that an unjabbed person’s immune system is much better at preventing infection. It is remarkably consistent across age cohorts.
Another thing that we heard from the leaders of our public health agencies was that the jab protected against severe illness and death. The chart below shows that to be another lie in a long list. As many people had learned over the last two years, the mortality rate among people below 50 was miniscule. Older people were more susceptible by far.
Hat Tip…The Expose
It is still incredible to see that the death rate among jabbed individuals is so much higher than those who refuse the jab. And let’s be reminded that this is death due to COVID not any of the other myriad causes of death among the elderly.
The Expose article goes on to talk about other issues including the possibility that has been reported in multiple locations about a new form of AIDS being created through the jabs.
One thing is clear and that is that the jab is damaging the innate immune response and that it is getting worse over time.