Ross Walter Nutritionist and Naturopath health articles and blog

COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers manipulate their clinical trial data to give false effectiveness % to get approval for use

1/6/2021

The 3 major COVID vaccine manufacturers in 2020 proudly and publicly self-flagellated over their alleged efficiencies of their vaccines at 94-95%. The media and medical industries and pro-sciencism fanatics went wild with the hopeful news that humanity would be saved from a deadly virus (that 99% of the population never got, and 99.9% of those who actually did get it survived anyway!). Hooray!

But never mind the skipped and fast-tracked clinical trials that would normally have taken 7-10 years to produce a vaccine (but questionable on the "safe and effective" descriptions).

How did the manufacturers come up with their approx 95% effectiveness rate? Briefly, they excluded unhealthy people - the very people that are being targeted for the vaccine - and also excluded pregnant women and children too. They gave half a group of healthy people the vaccine and half got a placebo. In the very short study period, the vaccinated group got a small number of infections, but the placebo group got a lot of infections. The ratio of placebo group infections to vaccinated group infections was about 95% : 5%. While this might seem statistically to be quite definitive and successful, the studies deliberately did not actually determine the "effectiveness" of the vaccine (Tenny & Hoffman, 2021):

- in producing antibodies - that wasn't checked for when it should have been
- in preventing a COVID infection - not tested for
- in reducing severity of symptoms - not checked
- in reducing visits to hospitals - not checked
- in preventing complications from the infection - not checked
- in or even reducing the death rate (or causing no deaths) - not checked.

How on earth then can the vaccines be 95% successful?! Simple, they aren't.
There is a concept in the statistics of clinical trials called Relative Risk - being the ratio of the risks for an event in the exposure group compared to those in the control or placebo group (Tenny & Hoffman, 2021). This is the sneaky technique that the vaccine manufacturers used in their trials to come up with 95% : 5% and therefore 95% "effective". But it's not...

However, the Relative Risk does not provide information about the true Absolute Risk of the event occurring. The Absolute Risk is the ACTUAL risk of the event happening, or success or effectiveness rate, and considers the whole population.

The attached pictures show a visual example of the difference between the Relative Risk vs the Absolute Risk for the Pfizer vaccine trial results.

A study published in the prestigious The Lancet medical journal (Olliaro, Torreele & Vaillant, 2021) investigated the statistics used by the major vaccine manufacturers in their trials, and instead of their sneaky Relative Risk or effectiveness %, they calculated their ACTUAL Absolute Risk percentage of each the vaccines. The true effectiveness of them are:

AstraZeneca - 1.3% (previously reported as 95% effective!)
Pfizer - 0.84% (previously reported as 95% effective!)
Moderna - 1.2% (previously reported as 94% effective!)
J&J - 1.2% (previously reported as 67% effective!)
Gamalaya (Russian Sputnik vaccine) - 0.93% (previously reported as 90% effective!)

Another technique used in the statistical analysis of vaccine clinical trials is the concept of the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV), being the number of people needed to be vaccinated to prevent ONE incidence of COVID-19 in this case. The NNV for these vaccines are:

AstraZeneca - 78
Pfizer - 117
Moderna - 76
J&J - 84
Gamalaya - 80.

That's a LOT of people who need to be vaccinated to prevent just one case of COVID-19.

It is important in your decision to decide getting the vaccine as to whether the effectiveness of a particular vaccine is worth the risk of the side effects. If you are not being told the true or correct effectiveness or even the actual risks, then it makes it an unrealistic and incomplete decision. In any case, YOU are an individual with your own personal risks, based on your health history, age, existing conditions, and other factors. It is impossible to work out your personal risk ratio. But you need the best information to help you decide (which is called "informed consent") - but you are not being given this information by the authorities or from your doctor.

What you have been told are lies and statistics, being one and the same thing. Statistics and science, sadly, can be manipulated by clever people to trick and confuse other people, such as in this situation. The authors of the Lancet study mentioned above, showed that the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines is not as straightforward as it seems.

Be informed. Stay healthy!

References:
Olliaro, P., Torreele, E., & Vaillant, M. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room. The Lancet, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00069-0
Tenny, S. & Hoffman, M.R. (2021). Relative Risk. Retrieved 31st May 2021 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430824/

2 Comments

Facebook to no longer censor posts suggesting that the coronavirus was man-made

1/6/2021

0 Comments

I reported very early in 2020 of a pre-published scientific study that proposed that the SARS-2 coronavirus was likely NOT of a natural origin and more likely was man-made. The authors of the study looked at the genetic sequence of the coronavirus and found that it was mostly comprised of genes from the earlier SARS virus, but also had several other sequences from the HIV virus not found in other coronaviruses. Those HIV sequences couldn't have just appeared or mutated from other coronaviruses. The authors of this study were hounded and ridiculed, and were forced to retract their study under pressure. Facebook then started their censorship of posts on this topic (such as mine) with their unscientific "fact-checking" processes, or deleting such posts.

Within a few months, another 6 published studies also investigated the coronavirus genetics and reported that the virus was not and could not have originated naturally - that it was indeed man-made. I published articles on these too, with more censorship from FB to hide this information.

In early February 2021, nearly 12 months after the first study appeared questioning the natural origins of the coronavirus, Facebook reaffirmed their policy of fact-checking and removing "false claims" related to the coronavirus including that it was "man-made or manufactured".

But in a new policy update on 26th May 2021, Facebook's Vice President of Integrity (a little ironic department in FB!) published an announcement that they will no longer remove posts that suggest that the coronavirus was man-made! (Facebook, 2021)

To all the denialists out there, including my own colleagues, who abused me and said I was spreading fear and conspiracy theories - I TOLD YOU SO...

Facebook said "In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps".

If this critical piece of news is now seen as "not fake news" or "an accepted truth", what else in this saga that has been suppressed, censored or hidden actually true also? Or another thought, if the coronavirus WAS man-made, then WHY and for what purpose? I guess we will be finding out more truths soon!

I wonder what other topics they will reverse their "fact-checking" on? Let's hope they return to being a social media platform again, not a government- and corporate-sponsored propaganda and censorship platform. The same goes to mainstream media and news outlets - stop censoring doctors, medical experts and scientists, just because they publish information that goes against the government narrative.

Fact-check this FB!

And stay healthy!

References:
Facebook. (2021). An Update on Our Work to Keep People Informed and Limit Misinformation About COVID-19. Retrieved 29th May 2021 from https://about.fb.com/news/2020/04/covid-19-misinfo-update/

0 Comments

New UK strain of coronavirus is not as contagious as we are being told

8/2/2021

0 Comments

The recent and allegedly new UK strain of the coronavirus, which caused the lockdown of Brisbane for 3 days when just ONE case was found, is said to be 70% more contagious than before. Except that this was based on a lie... or at least, very poor research.

A colleague of mine located the study which "found" that the new UK strain was allegedly more contagious is not even a published study, and has not even been peer-reviewed (verified and approved) by other scientists. It's not worth the paper it's printed on.

Scientific studies are not all they seem to be in the media. There are many different types of scientific studies of differing quality of evidence. Many studies are very poorly designed, make terrible assumptions or conclusions which don't match their data, or they can be completely made up or fraudulent. It happens. To make things worse, many research studies (or the scientists performing the study) are funded by the very company that sets to profit from a positive outcome, and they design the study for that particular outcome. And then the media often takes an exaggerated and sensationalist story of the study outcomes, because reporters don't know how to read the study in full or how to critically analyse it. And many people still believe what they are told in the media. This is why one week coffee is bad for you, or chocolate, or red meat, or red wine... and the next week comes out with another study showing the opposite! We've all seen this again and again!

You cannot believe the media. You need to read the real source - the study itself. Or get unbiased and independent experts to analyse the studies for you. It seems that Queensland Health and other governments and media have jumped all over the media story that the new UK strain of coronavirus being much more contagious is worthy of scaring everyone, not reading the real study, and then informing clueless politicians take this poor advice and make poorer decisions, based on a lie. Qld Health officials responsible for the recent lockdown should be sacked.

The unpublished study (Davies et al., 2020) which points to the UK strain being so dangerous found:

1. That the new strain was ESTIMATED (yes, their words) to be about 56% more transmissible (NOT 70%!), based on a MATHEMETICAL MODEL, not from real statistics
2. They were unable to find evidence that the new strain results in greater or lesser severity of disease
3. Even if the tiered restrictions in the UK were maintained, these will not bring down the rate of transmission, unless schools and universities are closed
4. The new UK strain has increased incidences despite all the lockdown measures in place (or in other words, the lockdown measures are NOT working)
5. The UK strain has multiple mutations compared to the original strain
6. The study looked at vaccine effectiveness in their modelling, and recommended more vaccinations to attempt to slow the incidence rate. But as I already wrote about recently, the 95% effectiveness of the 2 available COVID vaccines is also a lie, so this modelling cannot be believed
7. Increased transmission of the virus will increase the percentage of herd immunity. The authors then recommend increasing the vaccine coverage to increase herd immunity, but that's a faulty concept, as her immunity ONLY occurs in natural infections not from vaccinations which may only give a temporary immunity before wearing off and you are no longer immune...

Whether a virus is contagious is one thing, but whether it is deadly is another. A mathematical model used in this study cannot factor in all the variables to come up with an accurate outcome that matches reality. They admit that their results are just "estimates", yet they make major recommendations regarding closing down more services, and vaccinating more people (with unproven and experimental vaccines). The recent lockdown in Brisbane, or the tightening restrictions in the UK or other countries isn't working, and isn't justified - a different approach is needed.

Break the incidence and infection cycle - look after your immune system, so that even if you encounter any strain or mutation of this (or any other) virus, your immune system will know what to do to fight it and get rid of it. If you want more information on how to do this, see me!

Stay healthy!

References:
Davies, N.G., Barnard, R.C., Jarvis, C.I., Kucharski, A.J., Munday, J., Pearson, C.A.B., Russell, T.W., Tully, D.C., Abbott, S., Gimma, A., Waites, W., Wong, K.K.M., van Zandvoort, K., Eggo, R.M., Funk, S., Jit, M., Atkins, K.E., & W.J. Edmunds. (2020). Estimated transmissibility and severity of novel SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern 202012/01 in England. medRxiv. DOI: 10.1101/2020.12.24.20248822

0 Comments

December 04th, 2020

4/12/2020

0 Comments

Several of the major pharmaceutical companies who are close to finishing their clinical trials of their COVID-19 vaccines have announced some very impressive results of their effectiveness, at around 95%.

Considering that no vaccine in history has come close to being 95% effective in allegedly preventing an infection, and many vaccines have never been able to be produced despite huge budgets and years of trying (such as the common cold virus, HIV, and the SARS and MERS coronavirus vaccines) how are these companies getting such results just in a few months after the outbreak? Let's look into this in more detail...

Some of the major pharmaceutical companies close to finishing their trials and producing COVID vaccines include AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna. I'll look into each of them in turn.

AstraZeneca
AstraZeneca have been running multiple trials together with Oxford University, in the UK, USA, India, Brazil, Japan, and South Africa (AstraZeneca, 2020).

AstraZeneca are being very secretive about the details of their clinical trials and their results, and not releasing the data which allegedly shows positive results (The Guardian, 2020b). After some of their competitors released their trial protocols, AstraZeneca finally released their trial protocol, but not their data. They aim to develop a vaccine with 50% effectiveness (being the FDA requirement for vaccine approval) (Becker's Hospital Review, 2020).

AstraZeneca are creating a genetically-modified vaccine using a defective modified chimpanzee adenovirus with the coronavirus spike protein. The vaccine attempts to stimulate an immune response to the coronavirus spike protein, so that the immune system will recognise the spike protein in a future infection (AstraZeneca, 2020).

Pfizer
Pfizer are developing a new "messenger RNA" (mRNA) vaccine, which does not actually contain the COVID-19 virus. Instead, the mRNA vaccine trains cells to produce a piece of protein which matches the "spike protein" on the surface of the coronavirus, which the cells release and this stimulates an immune response and trains the immune system to recognise and destroy the virus (Pfizer, 2020). Allegedly.

Pfizer is testing their mRNA vaccine on 44,000 volunteers. They reported 170 COVID-19 cases in the volunteers, with 162 in the placebo group and 8 in the vaccine group.

They get their 95% effectiveness by comparing the COVID cases between the placebo group against the vaccine group, as (8/162) * 100% = 4.9% or rounded up to 5% COVID cases in the vaccinated group compared to 95% in the non-vaccinated group. Therefore, they say their vaccine is 95% effective!

Moderna
Moderna are producing a very different mRNA based vaccine, and currently testing on 30,000 volunteers. In this trial, 95 people still contracted COVID-19, with 90 of them in the placebo group and 5 in the vaccine group.

Moderna claim their 95% vaccine effectiveness using the same method as Pfizer: (5/90) * 100% = 5.5%, hence 94.5% effectiveness or rounded up to 95%.

The COIVID vaccine clinical trials are supposed to be about:

1) Testing for efficacy (ie, effectiveness) of the vaccine to PREVENT infections, to prime the immune system and produce ANTIBODIES against the infection, to prevent TRANSMISSION of the infection, and prevent DEATHS!
2) Testing for safety, to make sure that those receiving the vaccine do not get any serious adverse effects (or ANY adverse effects, which is actually impossible), and that the vaccine is not worse than the actual infection in the short term or in the long term.

But none of the major clinical trials of the COVID-19 vaccines have been designed to record or test for these 2 critical elements of safety or efficacy! None of the current vaccine trials have been setup to detect that the vaccine will result in a reduction of infections, a reduction of symptoms, the production of antibodies, a reduction of serious outcomes such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths, or a reduction in transmissions (Doshi, 2020). Then what the hell are they actually testing?! It seems they are "testing" NOTHING at all. Other than perhaps some basic maths, which they have no real evidence for...

The vaccine companies are in fact just committing FRAUD, to deceive the regulators, the media, politicians, doctors, and YOU, for their personal financial gain. The "testing" of their vaccines is simply a race to the finish line - to be the first to be able to mass-produce billions of vaccines, while fudging the paperwork to make it look like it works, when it doesn't. As shown above, they aren't even testing their vaccines properly.

And the vaccine companies are committing FRAUD by skipping over the usual test phases (ie, animal trials, which have typically found a lot of problems in past vaccines) as well as ignoring proper safety and efficacy outcomes that they are supposed to be testing for (British Medical Journal, 2020).

They also have no idea of the long-term implications of the COVID vaccines in 3 or 6 or 12 months, or years after vaccination, as no long-term testing will be done before being released to the public. The manufacturers are also not looking at testing specific age groups - for children who have had next to no effects or deaths from the virus, or the elderly with their reduced immune response to all other vaccines, or pregnant women, or those with comorbid conditions. There will be no testing done on these factors, and people in these groups have actually been excluded from the vaccine trials (Doshi, 2020). See the attached table showing all these groups being excluded from the major vaccine trials (Doshi, 2020).

Many governments and health regulators have said that they would approve "safe and effective" COVID vaccines. I hope they will read far more into the manufacturer's testing data than the fudged effectiveness figures they are already quoting... UPDATE: I was confident that the regulators would do the right thing, but then this is 2020 and common sense and science has completely gone out the window. The UK health regulator has today (2nd Dec, 2020) approved the Pfizer COVID vaccine based on their fraudulent 95% effectiveness claims. The UK will begin rolling out this vaccine within days). (The Guardian, 2020). Also, if the Pfizer vaccine has only recently been completed and only just approved, how can they start rolling out millions of doses within days, as the company and government have said, unless it had already been producing that many vaccines for months?! So they have been producing an untested and unapproved vaccine for months, and just doing the paperwork (ie, "testing" and data manipulation) as a formality...

Most governments, such as in the USA and Australia, have already exempted the vaccine manufacturers from any liability from lawsuits due to any side effects, adverse reactions, or deaths that may result from their COVID vaccines. This isn't helping those companies to keep them honest or to test for or make a safe or effective product, as we have just seen.

Some of these concerns, and more, have been raised by other doctors and scientists, including Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the British Medical Journal, who I have referenced in this article (Doshi, 2020). He has been calling for independence and transparency in the COVID-19 clinical trials and their data and findings.

And the worst thing is... the government, and your favourite airline, cafe or restaurant, and even your job, are ready to stop you using any of these services, based on a BS pathology test which doesn't work, and a BS vaccine which also hasn't been tested properly, not likely to work or be as effective as the manufacturers say, or even be safe (as it has not been tested for this!)... All of our future lives are likely to depend on the outcomes of these vaccines, the lobbying from the pharmaceutical companies, and the stupid politicians that implement new laws based on all these fraudulent and untested vaccines.

If you make more people aware of this information and that our lives cannot and must not be dependent on these vaccines, we can stop this madness.

My next article will be on other findings of theses vaccine trials...

References:
AstraZeneca. (2020). Clinical Study Protocol - Amendment 2 -A Phase III Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Multicenter Study in Adults to Determine the Safety, Efficacy, and Immunogenicity of AZD1222, a Non-replicating ChAdOx1 Vector Vaccine, for the Prevention of COVID-19. Retrieved 3rd December 2020 from https://s3.amazonaws.com/ctr-med-7111/D8110C00001/52bec400-80f6-4c1b-8791-0483923d0867/c8070a4e-6a9d-46f9-8c32-cece903592b9/D8110C00001_CSP-v2.pdf

Becker's Hospital Review. (2020). AstraZeneca releases COVID-19 vaccine protocol. Retrieved 3rd December 2020 from https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/astrazeneca-releases-covid-19-vaccine-protocol.html

Doshi, P. (2020). Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us? British Medical Journal, 371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4037

Pfizer. (2020a). mRNA - Technology at the forefront during a global pandemic. Retrieved 3rd December 2020 from https://www.pfizer.com/news/hot-topics/mrna_technology_at_the_forefront_during_a_global_pandemic

Pfizer. (2020b). A Phase 1/2/3, placebo-controlled, randomized, observer-blind, dose-finding study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, immunogenicity, and efficacy of SARS_COV-2 RNA vaccine candidates against COVID-19 in healthy individuals. Pfizer.

The Guardian. (2020a). UK approves Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine for rollout next week. Retrieved 3rd December 2020 from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/02/pfizer-biontech-covid-vaccine-wins-licence-for-use-in-the-uk

The Guardian. (2020b). Oxford Covid vaccine works in all ages, trials suggest. Retrieved 3rd December 2020 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/27/covid-vaccine-uk-oxford-university-astrazeneca-works-in-all-ages-trials-suggest

0 Comments

Why we should not rely on PCR testing for COVID-19

4/12/2020

0 Comments

I've written about the PCR testing being used for testing COVID incidences in the past, in detail. Here's just a quick summary and reminder:

The PCR testing process used for COVID and other viruses was never invented for or intended to be used for diagnostic purposes! It was only designed to generate an increasing amount of genetic material (DNA or RNA) given a subset of some existing DNA/RNA.

The rt-PCR test being used for COVID testing involces a cycling function of a number of rounds that the test is repeated to generate enough DNA/RNA or genetic material from a sample to determine an alleged positive or negative result. The more cycles or rounds done in the lab, the more DNA/RNA material is generated, giving more genetic material, and therefore more people test positive for COVID.

If you cycle the test sample material 60 times, EVERY sample will generate a high amount of genetic material which is interpreted as a positive test result!
If you cycle the test sample material 30 times, SOME samples will generate a moderate amount of genetic material which can be interpreted as a positive test result, or a negative result!

If you cycle the test sample material just 10 times, every sample will have a low result of genetic material and NO-ONE tests positive!

There is no "gold standard" rule or recommendation by the WHO or anyone for how many PCR cycles are used for COVID testing. Different countries have a different number of cycles! Hence very different results of alleged incidences...

This means that the governments and labs have full control of how many people test positive or negative to COVID. And the results can be manipulated as needed...

We all should be very concerned by this abuse of science, being used to create fear of a pandemic that doesn't really exist. There MAY be a virus, but in many people who test positive but don't have or get any symptoms, there is something else going on - with the major issue being the PCR testing and interpretation of the results.

0 Comments

New COVID-19 vaccines may increase the risks of HIV infection

4/12/2020

0 Comments

In a troubling article published today (31st October 2020) in the prestigious The Lancet medical journal, and scarily ironic being Halloween, the authors of the article express concern that several of the current COVID-19 vaccines in testing may actually increase the risk of acquiring HIV, the Human Immuno-deficiency Virus linked to causing AIDS (Buchbinder, McElrath, Dieffenbach & Corey, 2020).

The COVID vaccines being developed and tested are based on new technologies, rather than tried and tested techniques of vaccine development and delivery in the past. Several of the current COVID vaccines underway are using a genetically-modified type of virus called adenovirus type-5 (Ad5) with parts of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, in an attempt to stimulate an immune response and therefore immunity to the virus. An article in the Science journal (Cohen, 2020) shows 4 of the current COVID vaccines being tested are using the Ad5 vector that raised these concerns 10 years ago.

The authors of the Lancet article published today were involved in the attempted development and testing of an HIV vaccine over 10 years ago, using the same genetically-modified Ad5 virus, but all studies during testing found that the HIV vaccine actually INCREASED the risks of acquiring HIV. This finding confirms similar studies in monkeys (Buchbinder, McElrath, Dieffenbach & Corey, 2020).

A strange finding in several studies earlier in the coronavirus pandemic, which I wrote about at the time, found that the coronavirus was a genetically-modified mix of several viruses, including the 2003 SARS coronavirus AND the HIV type 1 virus... Coincidence?! I think not.

Considering that it is the strength and good functioning of your immune system that is the ONLY thing that can prevent and protect you from any infection, and also assist you in overcoming the infection and get you back to health, the findings from the old HIV vaccine testing, and in the published Lancet article, are very concerning. The alleged purpose of any vaccine is to IMPROVE your immune system function and prevent a future infection of that pathogen. But these studies and many more show this not to be true. Some of the new COVID vaccines may INCREASE your risk of getting HIV, which reduces your immune system function (as allegedly HIV infects your immune system's white blood cells), and can then lead you to be more susceptible to COVID or ANY other infection in future.

The authors of the Lancet paper suggest that some of the new COVID vaccines will increase the risks of acquiring HIV, and they recommend testing should be done more thoroughly to prevent this. They also recommend people getting this vaccine be given full informed consent documents so they can weigh up the considerable risk of HIV based on a large amount of published studies showing this risk using the modified Ad5 virus in the COVID vaccines. Wishful thinking perhaps, as sadly, "informed consent" is never given by doctors who administer any vaccine, and the repercussions of not getting the COVID vaccine based on government warnings (despite the 99.9% survival rate of those who get it) will be severe.

Stay informed, and stay healthy!

References:
Buchbinder, S.P., McElrath, M.J., Dieffenbach, C., & Corey, L. (2020). Use of adenovirus type-5 vectored vaccines: a cautionary tale. The Lancet, 396 (10260), E68-69. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32156-5

Cohen, J. (2020). Could certain COVID-19 vaccines leave people more vulnerable to the AIDS virus? Science. Retrieved 31st October 2020 from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/could-certain-covid-19-vaccines-leave-people-more-vulnerable-aids-virus. Doi:10.1126/science.abf3359

0 Comments

COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers manipulate their clinical trial data to give false effectiveness % to get approval for use

Facebook to no longer censor posts suggesting that the coronavirus was man-made

New UK strain of coronavirus is not as contagious as we are being told

December 04th, 2020

Why we should not rely on PCR testing for COVID-19

New COVID-19 vaccines may increase the risks of HIV infection

COPYRIGHT

Archives

Categories