Home » Preventative Medicine » Don’t Shoot the Messenger

Don’t Shoot the Messenger

You’re going to have to blame this article on my sister Brenda because, I’ve been warned previously, to avoid vaccine discussions as no one in the health department
at the CDC or the FDA at cetera wants to hear any dissenting views on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. But, when my sister, a board-certified gynecologist, mentioned that she hoped people like Dr. Mercola would be sanctioned for spreading untruths about the vaccine, I just had to take issue with her. Show me one discrepancy, one untruth the doctor Mercola has said and I will cease bombarding you with article after article about the vaccines and their serious lack of efficacy and even more serious safety. So far the bombardment has continued unabated.

First off, it is TRUE that the very definition of vaccine had to be changed to allow these new modalities to be called vaccines. It’s very important to someone that they be called vaccines rather than experimental delivery systems, because the bulk of the public believes in the long and safe history of vaccination. Don’t take my word for it. Compare the 2013 definition of vaccine with the 2021 definition in Marriam Webster. Is it nitpicking? Do words matter?

Secondly, can we look to the global reality for a moment? Sweden did the least in response to COVID and has been affected the least. Very low death rates, very low hospitalization rates, when compared to many many countries with very restrictive rules and very aggressive vaccine mandates. Find out which countries are doing the best in any arena and do what they do. That seems like a reasonable approach, which our health agencies completely ignore.

The mantra, the credo, the remonstration from on high is, Get the shot or you
are not intelligent. Get the shot or you will kill grandma. Get the shot or you are not patriotic. Get the shot to protect others. If it’s so safe and effective why are they bribing people and shaming people into getting the shot? Although they admit they don’t have accurate data, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research all testified before Congress admitting that probably 40% of their staff have not been vaccinated. If these vaccines are saving the world why isn’t there 100% compliance from the people who study them? Isn’t that a fair question?

Why didn’t this next story make every headline in every news channel in the world? In response to a request for a complete copy of the all important Pfizer study (upon which our entire government response relies) the FDA has petitioned the courts (we paid for it and have to sue the FDA for access, really??) to allow them until 2076…that’s 55 years from now. If this is the most important vaccine of all time then free and clear and immediate access to the data should be a foregone conclusion. This should all be on a PDF that anyone and everyone can download. We paid for the trials. We paid for the vaccines. There is no rational reason this data needs 55 years to release. As the attorneys for the researchers trying to get access to the data pointed out, they took 108 days for the FDA to carry out a very thorough and complete analysis of the vaccine trial. It shouldn’t take longer than that to release the data. Sorry but it just makes me think they are hiding something. Could it be safety data? Could it be efficacy data? And just as importantly this story of government agency mismanagement and delay is buried. Don’t believe me, type “55 years to release Pfizer data,“ on your search bar.

So let’s get to the heart of the matter. Safety and Efficacy. My training has involved using the Number Needed to Treat as a marker of efficacy. This translates into how many people have to receive treatment for one person to benefit.

Usually if the NNT is greater than 50 it’s considered a low benefit intervention. According to the Lancet the number needed to vaccinate is 81 for the Moderna–NIH, 78 for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 84 for the J&J, and 119 for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines. Those numbers are to prevent one infection. To prevent one serious complication or one death the number needed to vaccinate is between 16,000 and 100,000. That’s a lot of shots to prevent one death but would be worth it as long as there are no safety concerns.

You hear all the time that vaccines have a greater than 90% efficacy. But that’s relative risk which looks impressive, if you use absolute risk it looks quite differently. From an article published in the NIH National Library of Medicine, “The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.” Here is the reference PMID: 33652582. It’s pretty clear from a series of trials that the vaccine can cut down the risk of infection for a few months but it’s also very clear that the protection wanes over just a few months. From a personal standpoint most of the patients I am treating now have been vaccinated. Our health department has the data about the number of vaccinated and unvaccinated in the hospitals or the number of people who have died from Covid who have been vaccinated or not vaccinated. They chose not to report them. The National Health Service in Great Britain does release this data and it clearly shows no difference in death rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. The Pfizer trial actually had more deaths in the treatment group than the placebo. The extra deaths were primarily due to heart related issues and were not considered related to the vaccine .

As commented on the NNT website, “In the end, we feel it is an embarrassing dereliction that vaccine trials performed in the shadow of the worst pandemic in a century have not produced answers to the world’s most pressing questions. That is a product of trial design and data transparency. These two matters were left, inexplicably, to the discretion of drug makers.”

The absolute number of deaths in the Pfizer trial attributed to Covid were one in the vaccine group and two in the placebo group so there was one less death out of 20,000 people which hardly seems big enough effect to justify mandating this shot to everyone. Onto safety…the official line is the vaccines are safe but the government controlled and sponsored site that reports on these issues, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting Site, VAERS, has listed over 850,000 adverse events and over 18,000 deaths attributed to the vaccine. Now multiple studies have shown that these events are grossly underreported and that the actual numbers are 10 times to 40 times what’s listed in the VAERS. Toby Rogers put together this list of people who have looked at this issue. ”Director David Kessler in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association stated that “only about 1% of serious events are reported to the FDA.” A report for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Inc. confirmed that VAERS undercounts actual vaccine injuries by a factor of 100.

More recently several scholars have attempted to refine these initial estimates. Kirsch, Rose, and Crawford estimate that VAERS undercounts fatal vaccine reactions by a factor of 41. Dr. Jessica Rose, a statistician in Israel, recently calculated an under-reporting factor of 31 for all severe adverse events following vaccination.

So, if 18,000 deaths have been reported, what’s the real number…180,000 or was it 700,000? Either way, these vaccines are not as safe as they have been touted.

As I write this Dr. Gundry of the Plant Paradox fame, a cardiac surgeon who now focuses on holistic medicine and who has a very vested interest in avoiding controversy has submitted an abstract to Circulation documenting his findings that Covid vaccines DOUBLE the heart attack markers he measures on all patients. He wasn’t looking for this…he was just following the same data on all his patients and noticed this obvious change in the inflammatory markers that affect heart attack risk. Maybe those ‘unrelated’ heart attacks in the Pfizer trial were not unrelated at all. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

It’s pretty evident that the vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission, but they at least prevent hospitalizations and death, so it’s worth it. Unfortunately the most recent data from Europe (where they report vaccinated and unvaccinated data) does not show ANY real reduction in excess mortality in the vaccinated group. Actually in the age group between 16-49 there has been an uptick in excess mortality (not seen at all during the first year of Covid) SINCE the introduction of vaccines for that age group. Hospital admission numbers were not routinely reported in the trials for vaccine efficacy so when they say the vaccine prevents severe disease and death it’s not really based on the trial data.

Speaking of deaths and hospitalizations…in the short, small trial that Pfizer did to get approval of the vaccine in children in the 5-12 age group there was absolutely no difference in the vaccine group or placebo group in terms of serious adverse events. There were ZERO adverse events in either group. So there is no evidence whatsoever that the vaccines prevent serious illness in this group and there is growing evidence that the vaccines can cause serious myocarditis especially in the younger age group. Multiple studies including Dr. Toby Rogers have calculated that since children have a very very low risk of serious injury or death, that the vaccines will do more harm than good.

https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/ten-red-flags-in-the-fdas-risk-benefit. The reference listed is a pretty stunning indictment of the trial, and points out that the FDA wants to vaccinate every child regardless of prior infection. In the study, Pfizer excluded children that already had COVID. The CDC has admitted that 40% of children have already had the infection and they want to give all kids the shot even though they have not studied giving the shot to kids that have already had natural immunity.

I have not brought up the infertility issue because we will not have real data here for years. I have not brought up the issue of antibody induced enhancement which was the principal reason prior coronavirus vaccine research had been shut down. The vaccine actually made the animal who received the vaccine much sicker when they were subsequently exposed to the virus again. That’s right…the vaccine made things worse. Here’s a reference from Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00789-5. If people who have been vaccinated multiple times start getting sicker… what will they think? Will they clamber for yet another booster, thinking that will help? It will be hard to figure out since we have essentially stopped the control groups on all the trials done so far. Control groups are vital in any study but apparently not important in the biggest and most important vaccine study in the world.

So, efficacy, limited as it is, is waning. Safety concerns are mounting by the day. High risk patients should certainly be vaccinated. The rest of us should make our own decisions without the bullying, and mandating that our government seems to be so focused on. You can continue to just follow the sound bites and headlines or you can decide, on this important health issue, to do your own research. Any of the references listed above will start you on your own journey of discovery. Dr Faucci says an attack on him is really an attack on science. I’m saying that science is no monolith and that refusing to acknowledge any problems with the vaccine is not scientific. Until next month…do your own research…get well and stay well.

Dr. Barry