By Children’s Health Defense Team

Excerpts from article:

  • On Monday, Moderna announced that its mRNA-1273 COVID vaccine candidate was 94.5% effective, based on interim Phase 3 trial data.

  • Last week Pfizer announced that analysis of preliminary Phase 3 trial data indicated its BNT162b2 COVID vaccine, developed in partnership with Germany’s BioNTech, was “more than 90% effective.”

Both announcements came in the form of press releases — with neither company providing the actual data behind their claims.

In short, neither company can state if and how long the vaccine will provide protection, yet they are seeking EUA status from the FDA, which BTW will allow them to skip standard safety and compliance standards.  Isn’t that nice?

The press release caused stock to rise yet according to STAT:

“Every Tuesday Moderna’s top doctor gets about $1million richer” by selling his existing stock like clockwork through pre-scheduled trades, “earning him more than $50 million since the dawn of the pandemic.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla also sold $5.6 million of Pfizer stock on the same day the vaccine maker made its “90% effective” announcement.

The article then points out that a high amount of ADRs are expected, which I posted about here:

The vaccine by Moderna:  By  Rob Verkerk PhD

In this article, the author points out that Pfizer’s claim that its vaccine is 90% effective is unsubstantiated by Peer-reviewed journals and the WHO. Since it is excluded from Operation Warp Speed it didn’t need to share its data to a monitoring committee.

Further, press released statements don’t prove anything.

Evidently, Pfizer’s Phase 3 trial was reported on my an “external, anonymous independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC)” which according to the Kaiser Family Foundation is anything but independent.  Source: article 

This report on the interim study results simply can not be found.

The author points out that the press release points to unknowns such as the possibility that some of the confirmed cases could be other coronaviruses that have triggered immunogenicity which means results are either false positives OR COVID-19 viral fragments, as well as the fact these dead viral fragments triggering immunogenic reactions could not have caused infection anyway.

Peter Doshi, an associated editor of the BMJ and also associate professor of pharmaceutical health services at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, “The lack of data is very concerning … All we have right now is a headline by Pfizer.”

And then there’s that needling issue about risk of vaccine harm such as triggering autoimmune conditions which can not be detected in the study’s few months of reporting, as well as the fact the vaccine might fail to be effective just a few months after the second dose.

Verkerk goes onto question governments’ risk-cost-benefit analysis justifying the rollout of these vaccines.  There are effective treatments, and herd immunity is very real and attainable:

For more on this:  


  1. Firstly, it was wrong to claim that this virus was novel.
  2. Secondly, It was even more wrong to claim that the population would not already have some immunity against this virus.
  3. Thirdly, it was the crowning of stupidity to claim that someone could have Covid-19 without any symptoms at all or even to pass the disease along without showing any symptoms whatsoever.
%d bloggers like this: