At face value, not having looked at any of the underlying stats, nor the research being cited, it looks to me that Iain Davis is making a plausible case for the jabs, Pfizer specifically, being minimally effective.
Worth a look
3 Likes
Virtually 100% ineffective for officially-claimed purpose; actually pretty effective for their real purposes.
Thanks for posting this well written piece, it poses some challenging questions in the first few paragraphs:
"We appear to have serious problems with the Covid-19 vaccination programme. The evidence underpinning the claimed efficacy and safety of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine is highly questionable. Statistical analysis raises numerous issues, and until these are addressed, the alleged benefits cannot be shown to outweigh the risks.
With wider concerns expressed by some of the worldâsleading immunologists, virologists and epidemiologists, justification for the continued vaccination programme appears to be lacking. Possible unacceptable risk is evident in every nation which has vaccinated a significant proportion of its population.
The vaccines appear to increase the mortality risk from Covid-19, something the authorities and the regulatory agencies have so far shown little or no interest in investigating.
Some of what we are about to discuss is necessarily speculative. It is based upon a full statistical analysisâbut, absent a comprehensive investigation, we cannot be certain why this analysis appears to show an increased Covid-19 mortality risk following vaccination."
The last paragraph above suggests that it may be only secrecy that stands between the triumphal vaccine programme and monumental failure, which in reality will be tantamount to monumental crime.
Davis asks good questions about the Yellow Card scheme:
"We might ask what the point of the MHRA Yellow Card scheme is. On the one hand, the agency states that its purpose is to act as an âearly warning systemâ for possible vaccine harm. Yet the MHRA " also states:
The suspected ADRs described in this report are not interpreted as being proven side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.
âThis would be acceptable if the MHRA had investigated those possible adverse reactions to establish whether they were ADRs. Again, there is no evidence that they have. All we can say is that the MHRA does not interpret them as vaccine ADRs. Therefore, the chance of their Yellow Card scheme actually providing an âearly warningâ would appear to be nil.â
The YCâs seem to be there for show - to show there is a âsystemâ to flag up âsignalsâ, while nothing is actually accepted as being a real signal.
The most challenging question is about the long window before covid cases and outcomes following vaccination are counted; a forgotten period when most of the non-covid vaccine damage seems to be happening.
Cheers
2 Likes
1 Like