COVID vaccine revelation sinks like a stone; disappears

by Jon Rappoport

November 11, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

In major media, certain stories gain traction. The trumpets keep blaring for a time before they fade.

Other stories are one-offs. A few of them strike hard. Their implications—if anyone stops to think about them—are powerful. Then…nothing.

“Wait, aren’t you going to follow up on that? Don’t you see what that MEANS?”

Apparently not, because…dead silence. “In other news, the governor lost his pet parakeet for an hour. His chief of staff found it taking a nap in a desk drawer…”

One-offs function like teasers. You definitely want to know more, but you never get more.

Over the years, I’ve tried to follow up on a few. The reporter or the editor has a set of standard replies: “We didn’t get much feedback.” “We covered it.” “It’s now old news.” “There wasn’t anything else to find out.”

Oh, but there WAS.

A few weeks ago, I ran a one-off. The analysis and commentary were mine, but the story was an opinion piece in the New York Times. The Times called it an opinion piece to soften its blow. I suspected it would disappear, and it did.

Its meaning and implication were too strong. It would be a vast embarrassment for the White House, the Warp Speed COVID vaccine program, the vaccine manufacturers, the coronavirus task force, and vaccine researchers.

And embarrassment would be just the beginning of their problem.

So…here it is again. The vanished one-off, back in business:

COVID vaccine clinical trials doomed to fail; fatal design flaw; NY Times opinion piece exposes all three major clinical trials. [2]

Peter Doshi, associate editor of the medical journal BMJ, and Eric Topol, Scripps Research professor of molecular medicine, have written a devastating NY Times opinion piece about the ongoing COVID vaccine clinical trials.

They expose the fatal flaw in the large Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna trials.

September 22, the Times: “These Coronavirus Trials Don’t Answer the One Question We Need to Know” [1]:

“If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?”

“The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.”

“But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.”

“According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”

“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.”

This means these clinical trials are dead in the water.

The trials are designed to show effectiveness in preventing mild cases of COVID, which nobody should care about, because mild cases naturally run their course and cause no harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.

There. That’s the NY Times one-off. My piece analyzing it went on much longer, but you get the main thrust:

The leading vaccine clinical trials are useless, irrelevant, misleading, and deceptive.

But now, it gets much worse. Because Pfizer has just announced their vaccine is almost ready. CNBC headline, November 9: “Pfizer, BioNTech say Covid vaccine is more than 90% effective—‘great day for science and humanity’” [3].

And not a peep about the NY Times one-off. That’s gone, as if it never was.

Trump’s coronavirus task force knows the truth. Biden’s new task force, waiting in the wings, knows the truth. But they don’t care. They’re criminals. They’d sell a car with a gas tank ready to explode to a customer with cash.

But you care, because you can read and think.

You can raise hell.

Now, in case anyone is interested in knowing WHY the major clinical trials of the COVID vaccine are designed only to prevent mild cases of COVID, I’ll explain.

A vaccine maker assumes that, during the course of the clinical trial, a few of the 30,000 volunteers are going to “catch COVID-19.”

They assume this because “the virus is everywhere,” as far as they’re concerned. So it’ll drop down from the clouds and infect a few of the volunteers.

The magic number is 150. When that number of volunteers “catch COVID,” everything stops. The clinical trial stops.

At this point, the vaccine maker hopes that most of the volunteers who “got infected” are in the placebo group. They didn’t receive the real vaccine; they received the saltwater placebo shot.

Then the vaccine maker can proudly say, “See? The volunteers who caught COVID-19? Most of them didn’t receive the vaccine. They weren’t protected. The volunteers who received the real vaccine didn’t catch COVID. The vaccine protected them.”

Actually, the number split the vaccine makers are looking for is 50 and 100. If 50 people in the vaccine group catch COVID, and 100 in the placebo group catch COVID, the vaccine is said to be 50% effective. And that’s all the vaccine maker needs to win FDA approval for the vaccine.

But wait. Let’s look closer at this idea of “catching COVID.” What are they really talking about? How do they define that? Claiming a volunteer in the clinical trial caught COVID adds up to what?

Does it add up to a minimal definition of COVID-19—a cough, or chills and fever? Or does it mean a serious case—severe pneumonia?

Now we come to the hidden factor, the secret, the source of the whole con game.

You see, the vaccine maker starts out with 30,000 HEALTHY volunteers. So, if they waited for 150 of them to come down with severe pneumonia, a serious case of COVID, how long do you think that would take? Five years? Ten years?

The vaccine maker can’t possibly wait that long.

These 150 COVID cases the vaccine maker is looking for would be mild. Just a cough. Or chills and fever. That scenario would only take a few months to develop. And face it, chills, cough, and fever aren’t unique to COVID. Anyone can come down with those symptoms.

THEREFORE, THE WHOLE CLINICAL TRIAL IS DESIGNED, UP FRONT, TO FIND 150 CASES OF MILD AND MEANINGLESS AND SELF-CURING “COVID.”

About which, no one cares. No one should care.

But, as we see, Pfizer is trumpeting their clinical trial of the vaccine as a landmark in human history.

And THAT’S the story of the one-off the NY Times didn’t think was worth a second glance.

Because they’re so stupid? No. They’re not that stupid.

They’re criminals.

And the government wants you to take the experimental COVID vaccine, whose “effectiveness” was designed to prevent nothing worth losing a night’s sleep over.

The only worry are the adverse effects of the vaccine, about which I’ve written extensively. These effects include, depending on what’s in the vial, a permanent alteration of your genetic makeup, or an auto-immune cascade, in which the body attacks itself.


SOURCES:

[1] nytimes.com/2020/09/22/opinion/covid-vaccine-coronavirus.html

[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/09/24/covid-vaccine-clinical-trials-doomed-to-fail-fatal-design-flaw/

[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/09/covid-vaccine-pfizer-drug-is-more-than-90percent-effective-in-preventing-infection.html


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

COVID vaccine clinical trials doomed to fail; fatal design flaw; NY Times opinion piece exposes all three major clinical trials

Or do the vaccine manufacturers have a devious trick up their sleeves?

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

PART ONE: THE FAILURE

Peter Doshi, associate editor of the medical journal BMJ, and Eric Topol, Scripps Research professor of molecular medicine, have written a devastating NY Times opinion piece about the ongoing COVID vaccine clinical trials.

They expose the fatal flaw in the large Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna trials.

September 22, the Times: “These Coronavirus Trials Don’t Answer the One Question We Need to Know”:

“If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?”

“The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.”

“But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.”

“According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”

“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.”

This means these clinical trials are dead in the water.

The trials are designed to show effectiveness in preventing mild cases of COVID, which nobody should care about, because mild cases naturally run their course and cause no harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.

Now let’s go deeper. Read the next section from the Times piece, and then I’ll make comments.

“The Moderna and AstraZeneca studies will involve about 30,000 participants each; Pfizer’s will have 44,000. Half the participants will receive two doses of vaccines separated by three or four weeks, and the other half will receive saltwater placebo shots. The final determination of efficacy will occur after 150 to 160 participants develop Covid-19…”

Here’s how it works. The vaccine companies are looking for a total of 150 (mild) COVID cases to occur, combined, in the two groups; those receiving the placebo and those receiving the vaccine. How would that happen? The researchers believe ‘the coronavirus is spreading everywhere and it will pounce on some of the volunteers in the clinical trial.’

Let’s say that, during the trial, 100 people receiving the placebo develop mild COVID-19, and only 50 people receiving the vaccine develop mild COVID.

The vaccine companies would say, ‘We just proved the vaccine is 50% effective in preventing COVID, and that’s all we need to do, in order to win authorization from the FDA. Release the vaccine. Inject the world.’

The irrelevant outcomes for 150 people equal ‘let’s shoot up seven billion people.’ That’s staggering.

But it gets even worse. The magic number of 150 COVID cases? How is a COVID case defined? The authors of the Times piece have the answer:

“In the Moderna and Pfizer trials, even a mild case of Covid-19 — for instance, a cough plus a positive lab test — would qualify and muddy the results. AstraZeneca is slightly more stringent but would still count mild symptoms like a cough plus fever as a case.”

But wait. The NY Times itself recently published an article stating that up to 90% of US COVID cases could very well be false positives—in other words, not cases at all. Why? Because the diagnostic PCR test, as it is performed by many labs, is too sensitive. It registers ‘positive for COVID’ when it shouldn’t.

So, in these vaccine clinical trials, the whole process of determining that ‘150 people developed COVID-19’ is completely unreliable, useless, absurd, and nonsensical.

Other than that, the clinical trials are perfect. Yes, perfectly ridiculous.

There is much more in the Times opinion piece, but I’ll leave it there.

“So the magic number is 150? That’s the number that will decide the immediate fate of the planet?”

“Of course.”

“And these 150 people, who you say develop COVID-19…you really can’t confirm that because the definition of a COVID case is so vague and the PCR test is so unreliable.”

“Correct.”

“And come to think of it, the people receiving the vaccine in the clinical trials could develop symptoms indistinguishable from COVID-19, as a result of the effects of the vaccine.”

“Yes, that’s right.”

“But you’re very confident in the success of the vaccine.”

“Indeed.”

“Why?”

“I have to be confident. If we’re exposed as incompetent frauds, our bottom line will take a huge hit.”

“Thank you, sir. And that’s tonight’s news. Make sure you take the vaccine, everyone. It’s vital. This is Fred J Clown, for CBS-NBC-ABC-CNN-FOX-PBS-AP-Reuters and all official news sources East, West, North, and South. The News, brought to you by Venom-X-2, a medicine that has only 463 adverse effects. Ask your doctor if Venom is right for you.”

PART TWO: THE DEVIOUS TRICK

Now I’m going to go over the vital information again, but this time I’m going to show you how…

The vaccine companies can use the fatal flaw in their protocol design to…

Actually win approval of their COVID vaccine.

Stick with me. This is big.

Only 150 people are needed to make the major clinical trials of a COVID vaccine look like a success.

Out of 30,000 volunteers in a trial, researchers are waiting for 150 people to “come down with COVID-19.” MILD cases. They assume this will happen because they believe the coronavirus is everywhere, and it’ll infect their volunteers.

Of course, their definition of a mild case of COVID-19 is meaningless. Cough plus fever, and a positive PCR test. The test spits out false positives like a rigged slot machine, and the visible symptoms could result from flu, polluted air, or too many candy bars.

Nevertheless, the researchers are waiting for a total of 150 people to “catch a mild case of COVID.” When that number is reached, everything stops.

Now comes the big moment. How many of those 150 COVID cases occurred in the group that received the vaccine, and how many in the group that received the placebo shot of salt water?

Let’s say only 50 COVID cases occurred in the vaccine group, and 100 in the placebo group. The researchers pop champagne corks. They say, “Look, the vaccine is 50% effective at preventing COVID, and that’s all we need to win authorization from the FDA.”

BUT suppose 70 cases occurred in the vaccine group and 80 in the placebo group? No good. No good at all. No way to call the vaccine effective.

Now comes the “reshaping of the data.”

HERE WE GO.

The researchers say, “Wait. Thirty of the COVID cases in the vaccine group were REALLY just adverse reactions to the vaccine. They weren’t cases of COVID. You see, the vaccine can cause symptoms that are indistinguishable from mild COVID. Cough, fever, chills. ACTUALLY, there were only 40 cases of COVID in the vaccine group. Half as many as in the placebo group. The vaccine IS 50% effective. We don’t really need to wait until we have a total of 150 COVID cases. We’re good. We’re golden. We can get authorization from the FDA right now to shoot up everybody in America!”

Vaccine manufacturers HAVE KNOWN ALL ALONG that they could pull this trick.

Why leave things to chance?

Why risk a few hundred billion dollars of profit on a random distribution of mild COVID cases among the volunteers in their clinical trials?

There is yet a further devious twist. The New York Times article I just analyzed torpedoed the vaccine manufacturers for designing their trial protocols to prevent MILD cases of COVID. Why?

Because no one needs a vaccine that can do that. Mild cases are not a problem or a threat. They cure themselves quickly. No vaccine is necessary in the first place.

BUT the definition of a mild COVID case is EXACTLY what the vaccine manufacturers needed. It enabled them to hatch a plan, to make sure they didn’t fail.

They could pawn off a MILD case of COVID on a vaccine reaction. They could fake that without causing ripples. The FDA would say, “The vaccine reactions aren’t serious. All right, no problem. We’ll approve this vaccine for emergency use.”

However…If the manufacturers designed their clinical trial protocol to prevent serious cases of COVID, they would be waiting to see 150 cases of really sick people to occur. That might never happen.

If it did happen, and the manufacturers had to pull their devious switcheroo trick and blame the vaccine for some of these SERIOUS cases…

They would have to tell the FDA that their vaccine was causing life-threatening pneumonia; and the FDA, under a lot of scrutiny these days, would find it very difficult to overlook that.

FDA: “We can’t approve this vaccine. It could cause a few million cases of dire pneumonia…”

The vaccine companies didn’t make a titanic stupid mistake in their protocol design. In gearing the protocol to prevent MILD COVID cases, they did what they did on purpose. It allows them to “reshape their data” and win FDA approval for their vaccine.

These companies have no intention of failing, starting over, and spending a year recruiting 30,000 new volunteers. They want success and money now. They want to win the race.

And they could win, if the truth isn’t known and shared widely.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.