The vaccine effectiveness trick

How to turn salt water into a 100% effective vaccine.

A simple thought experiment.

Imagine you have two groups of people with ten people in each. Each person has a 1 in ten chance in the next 21 days of developing COVID symptoms. Now treat everyone in one of the groups with an injection of salt water. In the next 21 days, take anyone in the treated group who develops COVID and put them in the untreated group.

Question: After 21 days, what is the effectiveness of salt water as a vaccine?

During the 21 days, one person in each group will develop COVID. So the salt water has an effectiveness of 0% as a vaccine — the same number of people develop COVID who have been injected with it as who have not. As you would expect.

But at the end of the 21 days, under the rules of the trial, the number of infected people in the treated group is zero. The number of infected people in the untreated group is two. So the the salt water appears to have had 100% effectiveness at preventing infection in this 21 day period. And the probability of developing COVID in the group not lucky enough to benefit from the injection of salt water has apparently doubled in 21 days.¹

Shifting infected people out of the treated group for 21 days after treatment is the foundation of how manufacturers and agencies create the appearance of treatment effectiveness where there is little or no benefit, or actual harm.

---

This trick was used at various stages by the “vaccine” manufacturers in the fabrication and presentation of the efficacy of their experimental gene therapies when applying to the Regulator for permission to market them without a license, and to Government to be relieved of the threat of prosecution if they injured or killed us by doing so. As soon as they got authorisation, they injected all of the untreated group with the experimental treatment, destroying the evidence of waning treatment effectiveness.

The trick is also used by the UK health authority to exaggerate the apparent effectiveness of the experimental gene therapy. Everyone who develops COVID within 21 days of receiving an injection is counted as not having received the injection. They are moved out of the treated group and back into the untreated group, just like in our thought experiment.

Of course, they don’t display the data as a graph that the public might find easy to digest — we have to compute them for ourselves by comparing the numbers as they vary from week to week. But here’s what it looks like when we do:

Vaccines are a class of medicine that prevent infection. This class of medicine appears to increase infection. This class of medicine is apparently the opposite of a vaccine, but marketed as a vaccine.

Repeated exposure to the experimental gene therapy is apparently inducing impairment of its recipient’s immune response, possibly as a consequence of antigenic imprinting with an extinct variant of the virus. But it’s unlikely that only being double injected increases susceptibility to infection by such a catastrophic amount. Much of the difference between 2nd and 3rd injection is the trick explored in our thought experiment of taking everyone who developed infection after “boosting” and putting them back into the double-injected bucket.

It’s why the “boosters” appear to have been effective. It’s also why their effectiveness is declining so quickly — the numbers catching up in the next 21 day period.

But even with the counting trick, the double and triple injected are still more likely to develop symptomatic infection than the injection-free in most age groups. After correction, they are much more likely, and in all age groups except the under 18 year olds.

These 18 year olds:

---

Of course, they can’t keep the trick up for ever. Eventually the numbers catch up:

“So– and we know that the two doses of the vaccine offer very limited protection, if any.” - Albert Bourla, CEO Pfizer

But it doesn’t matter. By then, the trick has done its work. The public doesn’t know (or care), and the authorities are complicit:

“Pfizer Expects $33.5 Billion In Vaccine Revenue In 2021” - Forbes

And they are ready to rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat:

Now, we are working on a new version of our vaccine– the 1.1, let me put it that way– that will cover Omicron as well. And, of course, we are waiting to have the final results. The vaccine will be ready in March. And the vaccine, we’ll be able to produce it massively,” - Albert Bourla, CEO Pfizer

Every version will be purchased on the basis of efficacy data that has been cooked with this trick. The illusion of effectiveness will be sustained with this trick. The illusion of waning effectiveness and the need to purchase the next version to tackle it will be sustained with this trick. The persecution of the uninjected, inflated with the infected treated, will be sustained with this trick.

It’s a diabolical pandemic Ponzi scheme.

Pfizer is the most heavily sued and fined Pharma company in the world, for repeatedly faking medical effectiveness and safety trial data and bribing supervising doctors. £2 billion of its $33.5 billion 2021 revenue was taken from the National Health Service — now reformed as the National Covid Service — that lacks the capacity to treat your loved one’s heart attack even before they sack 73,000 staff for refusing an experimental medical product that increases their susceptibility to symptomatic COVID infection. All on the basis of estimates of “vaccine” effectiveness cooked up under this racket. Right under our noses.

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith once said, “The process by which money is created is so simple the mind is repelled.”

The trick by which the illusion of vaccine effectiveness is created is also so simple, the mind is repelled.

1. It’s actually worse than this for the experimental vaccines. Trials show that the odds of developing symptomatic infection actually increases for two or three weeks after treatment when the antibodies are strong enough to bind but not strong enough to neutralize. The odds of developing infection in the treated and untreated groups are not the same as assumed in our thought experiment — they’re higher in the treated group. This trick allows them to convert negative effectiveness — treatments that do more harm than good — into appearing to have positive effectiveness. Handy.