Part 2 of Critique of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Efficacy and Safety Trials
By: Yohanan Gregorius
Tags: Vaccines, Moderna, Pfizer, Clinical Trials

Part 2 of Critique of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Efficacy and Safety Trials

Exposing the claim of symptom prevention as totally unsupported by the studies

First, the public needs to understand that neither Pfizer nor Moderna claim that their vaccines prevent infection. Instead, they claim that their vaccines are 95% effective at preventing illness. In other words, the claim is if you get infected, there is a strong likelihood that you will not get sick. Sounds great. Does the data support the claim?

It is generally accepted that 20% of Covid-19 infections are asymptomatic without any intervention. 95% efficacy indicates to the consumer that 95% of infections would be asymptomatic. How can a study that only tests the few participants who self-report symptoms do more than ASSUME that there are thousands more asymptomatic infected persons in the vaccinated group than in the control group? What is the reasonable basis for this assumption? Why not remove the need for assumption by testing?

I posed the following question on Quora:

The answers would be comical if this were a laughing matter. A couple of hours ago I received this answer among the total of 4 answers received, which mirrors much of the responses I have received from my immediate family who so want to believe we have turned the corner that they throw logic out the window:

In order to make sure the illness is caught, you would need to test every patient every week. Pfizer had 44,000 subjects. 44,000 x 15 weeks = 660,000 tests. Now keep in mind how many different companies are testing vaccines, and we don’t know which ones will work. We could have used up 20 million tests just on the vaccine trials. This would have required federal approval, and would pull tests away from hospitals and from people trying to know whether they should self-isolate. Also, it takes time for the participants to have their swabs taken. It takes time for the medical professionals to collect them. For 44,000 people, every week. Instead, they asked patients to report their symptoms, and if the subject had symptoms, then they did a test. So no one was counted if they weren’t positive for COVID-19, but some asymptomatic cases were undoubtedly missed, for both the vaccine and placebo groups. That is why they are accurately describing their vaccine as preventing illness rather than claiming it prevents infection. In the short term, finding something which prevents illness and doesn’t harm people is the priority. Now that we know which vaccines are the most promising, we can put more resources into them and learn more. The most key questions are, do the vaccines prevent transmission to other people, and how long does immunity last. The answers to those questions will decide which vaccines we keep using long term, and which ones are immediate stopgaps.

Let’s parse and take apart this answer together:

In order to make sure the illness is caught, you would need to test every patient every week. Pfizer had 44,000 subjects. 44,000 x 15 weeks = 660,000 tests.

Ummm, yeah, so what? During the same 15 week period between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 tests PER DAY were administered in the United States.

660,000 / (15 x7) = 6,286 tests per day. Clearly, well within Pfizer’s, Moderna’s and the CDC’s resources for the vaccine discovery effort likened to the Manhattan Project and named Operation Warp Speed.

Now keep in mind how many different companies are testing vaccines, and we don’t know which ones will work. We could have used up 20 million tests just on the vaccine trials.

I have no idea how she gets the 20 million test figure, but again — so what? Approximately 158,000,000 tests were administered across the US during the terms of the studies.

This would have required federal approval, and would pull tests away from hospitals and from people trying to know whether they should self-isolate.

Ooooh, federal approval, how would a study that requires federal approval get federal approval???!!! That statement is right out of an MLM playbook — “How to legally deceive the consumer with obfuscations and diversions.” Oh my, yes, how can we risk diverting assets from the tremendously important self-quarantine analysis in favor of the unimportant vaccine trials?

This makes me sick.

That is why they are accurately describing their vaccine as preventing illness rather than claiming it prevents infection.

I already debunked that.

In the short term, finding something which prevents illness and doesn’t harm people is the priority.

I agree. Let’s keep looking for that please. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE EVERYONE CONTINUE TO WEAR MASKS AND PRACTICE SAFE-DISTANCE-SOCIALIZING.

I wrote yesterday that the failure to test was an intentional design flaw. This answer and the rationalizations for the intent that do not begin to hold water, seem to prove my point — the intent was to deceive. Perhaps with good motive, but deceiving the public about the vaccine is immoral — impure and simple.