Days earlier, Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer chief scientist for allergy and infectious diseases/current chief science officer for America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) minced no words on the following:
Commenting on fake news about Pfizer’s claim of safety and effectiveness of its toxic mRNA, gene-altering, flu/covid drug, Yeadon accused his former employer of “fraud.” See below.
His remarks followed publication of an article in The Lancet on alleged “efficacy and effectiveness” of jabs, saying the following:
“(F)ully understanding the efficacy and effectiveness of (jabs) is less straightforward than it might seem.”
“Depending on how the effect size is expressed, a quite different picture might emerge.”
“(E)fficacy (of jabs) 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 (jab)—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” jabs.
“However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with (flu/covid), which varies (among) populations and over time.”
“Although the RRR considers only participants who (allegedly) could benefit from the (jab), the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a (jab), 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” jabs.
“Pfizer reported that its (mRNA drug) showed a 95% efficacy (sic).”
“That sounds like it protects you 95% of the time. But that’s not actually what that number means.”
“That 95% refers to the ‘relative risk reduction’ (RRR), but it doesn’t tell you how much your overall risk is reduced by” jabbing.
“For that, we need ‘absolute risk reduction’ (ARR).”
“In the Pfizer trial, 8 out of 18,198 people who were given the (jab) developed” flu/covid.
“In the un(jabbed) placebo group, 162 people out of 18,325 got it, which means that even without the (jab), the risk of contracting (flu/covid) was extremely low, at 0.88%, which the (jab allegedly) reduced to 0.04%.”
“So the net benefit, the absolute risk reduction, that you are being offered in the Pfizer (jab) 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 (opted to be jabbed if they) understood that (it) offered less than 1% benefit?”
In response, Yeadon stressed the following:
Reality is “worse” than what’s claimed above.
“(T)he Pfizer study (that claims) 95% (effectiveness is based on) clear evidence of fraud.”
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?”
“The story of how a large state within India solved its (flu/covid) 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 that highly qualified physicians and scientists are well able to treat and save (the vast majority) of people” who contract flu/covid, including over 99.9% of all children, adolescents and young adults.
“The methodology is simple.”
“Attack the virus and the inflammatory and ultimately thrombotic disease phases rationally by administering” known safe and effective protocol treatments.
“These include Vitamin C and Vitamin D but in particular, Ivermectin, zinc and a zinc ionophore such as one of several old antibiotics like azithromycin.”
“Used in sequence depending on the presentation, in excess of 80% of patients avoid hospitalization and death, including (for individuals) we regard as at high risk.”
“Dr. Peter McCullough and colleagues have put themselves in harm’s way professionally in pressing home these simple messages.”
“Two remarkable meta-analyses (the highest level of medical evidence, a review of randomized, controlled clinical trials)” affirm the above.
Authored by Medical Consultancy director Tess Lawrie MD and lung/ICU specialist Pierre Kory MD, they “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 (flu/covid).”
“Reviews by Lawrie and 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…”
“(I)n a few short weeks, it crush(ed) soaring (flu/covid) deaths in this large(est) Indian state. They didn’t do much” jabbing.
The latter was “shown by Steve Kirsch’s team to have resulted in a median estimate of 150,000 deaths shortly after jabbing in the US alone.”
Kirsch updated his estimate of US fatalities to over 200,000 — in around 9 months since mass-jabbing began.
His team “made these calculations solely based on the publicly accessible database which collects adverse event reports, VAERS.”
“Additionally, they used mechanistically plausible assessments of the most common, serious adverse events, finding for example that pulmonary embolism occurs at over 400 TIMES the rate observed” from all vaccines combined “since the database began operations a few decades ago.”
“These novel technology gene-based agents cause our bodies to manufacture (health-destroying) spike proteins…”
“(T)hese are responsible for a substantial proportion of the adverse effects of being infected by the virus.”
“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.”
Noting remarks by Dr. Vladimir Ze’ev Zelenko, Yeadon added:
“Having done this (in the run-up to and since mass-jabbing began last December), I’m confident that their actions comprise deliberate mass murder.”
“Their objective appears to be to keep people as fearful as possible and receptive to (toxic jabs).”
“(T)hese claims are supported by plentiful public sources.”
“But the scandal of depriving people of effective treatments while coercing them into submission to dangerous (jabs) is the worst thing that’s happened in the world for decades, arguably forever.”
Yeadon urged Americans and others abroad to “see the true scale of the lie before injecting their children” — with what’s designed to destroy their health, not protect it as falsely claimed.