Safe And Effective
Unsafe And Ineffective
Oracle films have just released a doco, ‘Safe And Effective ~ A Second Opinion’. ‘Produced in collaboration with Oracle Films and Mark Sharman; Former ITV and BSkyB Executive and News Uncut, it is a self-financed, one-hour TV programme, formatted for 2 commercial breaks’.
Not yet mandatory viewing for New Zealand MSM, police, regulators, academe, and politicians?
It should be.
Take a look. It’s recommended viewing.
To those that have followed this orchestrated and unethical travesty there may not be too much information with which they are not already familiar. The presence of individuals afflicted with serious adverse events of special interest (a Pfizer euphemism running to 9 pages and over a thousand conditions), and whose lives and livelihoods have been profoundly compromised, brings to life the terrible and ongoing consequences of an unrestrained corporate globalist monster, at least evidenced by those still alive.
The dead however, can only speak from the legion of emerging excess deaths, observed here in New Zealand and elsewhere. The protagonists of the travesty staunchly deny them a platform or anything except the most trivial, quietly whispered recognition.
Many will recognise the respected names of the UK diagnostic pathologist Dr Clare Craig, or more recently, the UK Consultant Cardiologist (just where are the New Zealand cardiologists?) Dr Aseem Malhota. The latter speaks to the ubiquitous distribution of the auto-antigenic spike protein throughout the organs of the body for several months in many, an unknown consequence that may lead either to a direct inflammatory and/or to an autoimmune response. His observations echo that of many other doctors and scientists and they are neither new nor recent.
Dr Clare highlighted the use of language foisted on a trusting public. A synthetic polynucleotide sequence in a lipid nanoparticle envelope is a new technology and a country mile away from what the man in the street understands as a more traditional ‘vaccine’, although the word ‘vaccine’ was the required official vernacular. The same might be also applied to the use of the word ‘pandemic’ by the WHO who conveniently altered the definition away from pathogenicity to mere transmission.
As Saul Alinsky opined, ‘control the language, you control the people’.
Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) And Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)
Dr Malhota explained and discussed the marketing term ‘relative risk reduction (RRR)’ and contrasted it with the ethical imperative of ‘absolute risk reduction (ARR)’. These are important distinctions. An RRR for Pfizer is 95%. It sounds impressive; it’s meant to. It’s a sales pitch.
However, the more revealing ARR figure of 0.84% is cited for the Pfizer jab together with the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID presentation, in this case 119. These data arose from an early study in Israel, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room (Olliaro P, Torreele E, Vaillant M, 2021) and should have been a glaring alarum.
The problem here, as anyone can well see, is that all this is nothing new. It was well known and published in the literature, in The Lancet Microbe in June 2021, and it has taken nigh on 18 months to surface and glean a measure of publicity. And although it has been widely regurgitated it was verboten ‘disinformation’ in the MSM.
The only reported indication of vaccine effectiveness is the Israeli mass vaccination campaign using the Pfizer–BioNTech product. Although the design and methodology are radically different from the randomised trial, (2) Dagan and colleagues (11) report an RRR of 94%, which is essentially the same as the RRR of the phase 3 trial (95%) but with an ARR of 0·46%, which translates into an NNV of 217 (when the ARR was 0·84% and the NNV was 119 in the phase 3 trial).
So, what is the other implication of this trivial ARR that unequivocally demonstrate ineffectiveness?
The implication is the unbridled obscenity revealed by the findings of Walach and colleagues that was also suppressed and retracted at the time of publication, but which now finds a home on ResearchGate:
Methods: We calculated the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one death from a large Israeli field study. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions database of the Dutch National Register (Lareb) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side-effects and the number of cases reporting fatal side-effects.
Results: The NNTV is between 200 and 700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer. NNTV to prevent one death is between 9,000 and 100,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate.
Thus, for 6 (95% CI 2–11) deaths prevented by vaccination, there were approximately 4 deaths reported to Dutch Lareb that occurred after vaccination, yielding a potential risk/benefit ratio of 2:3.
More recently still, such findings have been underscored by an analysis of the initial Pfizer and Moderna trials in which Fraiman and colleagues state, ‘We found excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest (AESI) to exceed the reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations in both Pfizer and Moderna trials’.
…aka…negative risk benefit.
The authors also concluded, ‘Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, as we approach 2 years after release of COVID-19 vaccines, participant level data remain inaccessible. [45], [46]. (Fraiman J, Erviti J, Jones M, et al. 2022)
It would seem the official narrative cares not for those in its care.
Neither Safe Nor Effective
Once again, to those who have been following closely, there is nothing new to see here, other than perhaps the stirrings of a wider awareness. At NZDSOS, which as everyone knows is one of the leading political and media slandered sites of ‘disinformation’ in New Zealand, discussion around this very fact took place in December 2021, when a well known public health epidemiologist in New Zealand decried the use of ‘absolute risk reduction’.
At the time I highlighted a number of commentaries in the literature that go to the heart of the issue and its crucial relevance to ethics and informed consent, which appeared absent. This also became the focus of a commentary article in February 2022, ‘Is New Zealand Ready For Carwright 2.0?'
The literature emphasises the established importance of ARR in the ethical process and in informed consent.
Reporting relative measures may be sufficient to summarize evidence of a study for comparisons with other studies, but absolute measures are also necessary for applying study findings to specific clinical or public health circumstances. (Schechtman E. Value Health. 2002 Sep-Oct; 5(5):431-6.).
Omitting absolute risk reduction findings in public health and clinical reports of vaccine efficacy is an example of outcome reporting bias, which ignores unfavorable outcomes and misleads the public’s impression and scientific understanding of a treatment’s efficacy and benefits. (Catalogue of Bias Collaboration, Thomas ET, Heneghan C. 2017)
Furthermore, the ethical and legal obligation of informed consent requires that patients are educated about the risks and benefits of a healthcare procedure or intervention. (Shah P., Thornton I., Turrin D., Hipskind J.E. 2022)
Yet, the manufacturers failed to report absolute risk reduction measures in publicly released documents. As well, the U.S FDA Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) did not follow FDA published guidelines for communicating risks and benefits to the public, and the committee failed to report absolute risk reduction measures in authorizing the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines for emergency use. Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent. (Brown RB, 2021)
Big Cracks In The Dam ~ Now
ICAN’s (Informed Consent Action Network) Dashboard: Lawsuits Finally Produce [US] CDC V-Safe Data
By Wendi Strauch Mahoney - October 5, 2022
After two lawsuits filed by Siri & Glimstad on behalf of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), the Network finally has its first set of data from the [US] CDC’s v-safe program.
ICAN’s legal team, led by attorney Aaron Siri, has obtained “over 144 million rows of health entry data” from 10,094,310 users. According to the press release obtained by UncoverDC:
“Out of the approximate 10 million individuals that registered and submitted data to v-safe, 782,913 individuals, or over 7.7% of v-safe users, had a health event requiring medical attention, emergency room intervention, and/or hospitalization. Over 25% had an event that required them to miss school or work and/or prevented normal activities.”
Post Script
I think it is reasonable to suggest that a tsunami of consequences is taking place. And like tsunamis, a prelude to their arrival is the disappearance of coastal water in the process of being drawn out that reveals a sea bed of horrors, of serious adverse events, their denial, and worse, a legion of ignored dead and the official widespread collusion required to orchestrate the silence in favour of the narrative.
New Zealand’s PM Ardern and her administration, and many like her elsewhere, together with the MSM and the medical bureaucrats may well come to experience first hand the reality of being washed up on the rocky shoals of their own highly selective disinformation.
In the end it could well prove rather more than a ‘learning experience’, perhaps even one of a more judicial nature?
The dead and injured, the ignored and silenced, they will be heard.
Be reassured that "95% RRR efficacy" is a country mile from the ARR or OR, or whatever, as cited in the literature.
Conflating 'efficacy' with 'effectiveness" is, as you know and they do as well, groundless.
Your tribulation is as unwarranted as it is an exemplar of reactive defensive persecution.
And without formal controls, the science left the room a long time ago.
I am going before the medical practitioners disciplinary tribunal because I pointed out to the public at a freedom picinic in October 2021 that the ARR had by that time fallen into negative figures. Which it had. The Medical Council of NZ as of September 2022 still emphatically states that the vaccine is 95 percent effective and completely safe. They should be up for manslaughter, as should every single doctor and politician and scientist who promotes this poison. I would go so far as to say up for murder.
The woman with the hideous teeth is Satan at his worst.