Fake science strikes again! This time from Israel, a country whose government has been subjecting its people to pharmaceutical Nazism for months, forcing them to take the COVID vaccine or else be excluded from normal life.
The so-called study titled “Impact and effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths following a nationwide vaccination campaign in Israel: an observational study using national surveillance data” was published in The Lancet, a journal whose lack of credibility is widely known by now. This “observational study” published on May 5th is essentially the duplication of an earlier fake science study conducted by CDC, one that looked at data and estimated that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are 90% effective.
The Israeli study claims it looked at the numbers of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people among those who tested positive for COVID 19 during the period January 24 to April 03, 2021. And since they found a much higher percentage of unvaccinated people in the COVID-positive cases during this period, they estimated that the vaccine was highly effective in preventing COVID infection. Sounds cleverly deceptive, right? It is!
As underscored in my previous post about the CDC study (linked above), “estimate” doesn’t equate scientific fact. It’s just one’s personal guess, more an opinion than fact. The estimate of this study is just the same story sold as science to people via the corrupt and fake news media. Many different factors could be responsible for the difference in the number of unvaccinated versus vaccinated people among the COVID-positive cases during the study period. And the study, as required by scientific principle, discloses it in the Discussion section of the published paper. The paper says:
In the absence of randomisation, there could have been unmeasured differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons (eg, different test-seeking behaviours or levels of adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions) which might have confounded our vaccine effectiveness estimates.
In fact, further down in the same section, the paper acknowledges that it’s results do not establish vaccine effectiveness but mere estimates.
Further real-world effectiveness studies of BNT162b2, and other COVID-19 vaccines, in other populations and settings are needed.
The study calls its findings “real world effectiveness of vaccines”, which is nothing more than a self-recommending term. In a real world research, you will need to take two groups of people – vaccinated and unvaccinated – and keep them under identical conditions and expose them to the COVID-causing corona virus (which hasn’t been scientifically proven yet), then test them for COVID and see who is doing better. That is the study these so-called researchers wouldn’t dare do as it will expose the high rate of COVID infection among the vaccinated since the vaccine infects them with the pathogen that causes this infection.
But what else does the propaganda mobs not tell their audiences to keep them dumb as always? The conflict of interest—the background of those who are carrying out the so-called research—yes those looking at the numbers and making estimates. Are they getting money directly or indirectly from the vaccine-makers?
Near the end of the published paper is a section called Declaration of interests whereby any conflict of interest among the authors are supposed to be declared. So what do we find in that section of this paper? The following:
FJA, JMM, FK, GM, KP, JS, DLS, and LJ hold stock and stock options in Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests.
We find that 8 out of the 15 authors of this paper actually hold stock in Pfizer—that is more than 50%. They earn from Pfizer’s business. In other words, the more the vaccine sells, the more these authors earn. How can this be considered science? A single member of a research team with conflict of interest should raise red flags about the credibility of that research. And here, you got more than half of the team business partners of the vaccine-manufacturer whose vaccine effectiveness they are assessing. A dark day for science again. Not to mention for journalism too but then we know those presstitues way too well, don’t we?