By insta_photos @ Shutterstock.com
At LewRockwell.com, Alex Berenson outlines some major flaws in the trials for Moderna’s and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines. He writes (abridged):
The clinical trials that Pfizer and Moderna ran last year didn’t show a 100 percent reduction in Covid cases. They also showed no evidence of what’s called antibody-dependent enhancement, that they would cause people to create antibodies that actually helped the virus attack our cells.
Very few UNVACCINATED (as well as vaccinated) people developed serious infections in the trials, and only one unvaccinated person out of more than 30,000 in the mRNA trials died of Covid.
The trials couldn’t provide definitive evidence on how well the vaccines work against serious cases of Covid. In contrast, the trials for monoclonal antibodies did prove they worked, because the companies that ran those focused on people at high risk.
The trials had at least two other major flaws. They followed most participants for only about two months after the second dose. And when they calculated vaccine efficacy, they ignored cases that occurred just after the first dose was given.
This meant that when Pfizer and Moderna said in November 2020 their vaccines were about 95% effective at preventing Covid, what they meant was that the vaccines were 95% effective at peak protection FOR A MATTER OF WEEKS.
Neither the companies nor anyone else had any way of knowing how well the vaccines would work in a year, much less in five years – or 20 years. They simply did not have any long-term data. How could they? The vaccines hadn’t even existed until months before, and they used technology that had never been approved for any drug or vaccine.
Alex Berenson
If you’re willing to fight for Main Street America, click here to sign up for my free weekly email.
