The vaccination scam

Hits: 170


The statement: “two doses of the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine administered 21 days apart can prevent 95% of adults aged 16 and over from developing the COVID-19 disease” (//https://www.aifa.gov.it/domande-e-risposte-su-vaccini-covid-19, Consenso Covid-Pfizer) is completely false and misleading.

This reports only the estimated efficacy, a projection based on the elaboration of 170 positives (0.5% of the total) out of 43.548 participants in the trial.

The pharmaceutical industry suppresses on the other hand the publication of the data of the guaranteed efficiency, which corresponds only to 30%.

The vaccinee is therefore not fully informed, as the informed consent is MISLEADING, so that every vaccination constitutes an illegal act.

The FDA states: to ensure that a widely deployed COVID-19 vaccine is effective,….. the primary efficacy endpoint estimate is >30%, i.e. only one in three vaccinees becomes immune. Pfizer itself points this out in its publication, basis of the authorization.

The misleading “Advertising” of the 95% “efficacy e Pfizer) andncourages people to submit to new vaccines, despite possible side effects both immediate (see what is currently happening) and long term (from which the producers exclude themselves: see Pfizer consent).

Likewise the current political pressure to have to be vaccinated to be able to travel, continue to work etc. is in stark contrast to the European Parliament resolution 2361 of 27/01/2021, which declares: “7.3.1. ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves;

7.3.2. ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated”.

This resolution is probably the result of having realized that forcing the population to have a vaccine which is not very effective and not very safe, would make the suspicion of a political- medical-economic collusion a certainty signed: “European Community”.

As Henry Gadsden, at that time CEO of Merck, said thirty years ago in an interview with Fortune (the second most important economic magazine in America):

Our dream is to produce drugs for healthy people.

This would allow us to sell them to everyone like the Chewing gum giant Wrigley’s.

The trials are going in the same direction, aiming to produce vaccines for healthy children from 6 months to 12 years of age, precisely from AstraZeneca. There is no scientific evidence that children get sick or infect others.

That is why all this constitutes a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.


The statement that the Pfizer vaccine “prevents up to 95% (95% efficacy), adults aged 16 and over from developing the Covid-19 disease (Pfizer-BioNTech Covid vaccine:  efficacy and safety, Le FAQ di Aifa-Quotidiano Sanità)”is one of the greatest falsehoods in the history of recent medicine.

PfizerBioNTech, in its admission statement to the FDA explicitly stated that: the actual efficacy of the vaccine is higher than 30% (Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine, 2020). Therefore it is guaranteed that only one vaccinated person in three becomes immune, not 95%.

The 95% efficacy refers to another statistical processing data used in medical statistics. As soon as 170 (only 0.5%) of the total 43,548 participants in the Pfizer study became positive, the trial was ended (there was no mention of antibody titre etc.).

Of these 170 participants, 162 were in the unvaccinated group and  8 in that of the vaccinated. If you put 162 in relation to 8 you get a quotient = 95%, which in English is called: “efficacy” (relative efficiency), which definitely not to be confused with efficiency” (absolute efficiency) (according to Pfizer-BioNTech at least 30% become immune).

These famous 30% are required by the FDA to accept vaccines produced at a time of emergency (Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/139638/download), way below normal standards.

A statistical model of common consent has been created (political-medical-industrial) in order to give everyone (more than 200 centres worldwide) the authorization for trials, production and marketing of the vaccines without any basis of valid medical statistics.

At this point we need to make some elementary statistical observations:

Setting up a statistical study in medicine requires criteria, so that it is significant not only statistically but also clinically relevant.

The criteria are as follows:

  1. Unambiguous definition of the single events of the study (the definition e.g. of “Covid patient” in the Pfizer study is clinically totally insufficient: see attachment),
  2. Determination of the level of significance: in medicine the p<0.05 level is mostly used (which allows for only one error in 20 forecasts/tests)
  3. Determination of the desired benefit to be achieved (e.g. how low does the blood pressure have to drop to justify the administration of a drug, or: how effective does the vaccine have to be to be able to administrate it).
  4. The necessary number of participants is calculated from these last two criteria (2-3). Choosing a higher number a difference will be seen, but not more clinically significant. This appears to be a contradiction. But increasing the number of samples serves only to put the insignificant efficacy of a vaccine/drug on the front page, which however in practice produces more negative than positive effects. In the case of the Covid vaccine this means that a substantial part of the world is subjected to an ineffective vaccine (statistically it guarantees 30% protection) connected to all the associated dangers for those vaccinated besides the economic, administrative etc. efforts.        

The statement, that 95% of those vaccinated is protected from Covid infection, is maybe due to a mistaken translation from the specific terms in English.

But it is also possible, that the realization, that they had not interpreted the data provided by the drug companies correctly, prompted the authorities to carry out vaccinations, omitting two basic principles for vaccinations:

  1. Determination of the actual infective state: it is mandatory to take a swab immediately before vaccination to avoid serious adverse events caused by a double entry into the body of two similar antigens (virus and vaccine),
  2. Determination of the actual state of immunity: it is mandatory to carry out a serological test before vaccination. Omitting this, maybe they hope in the end to be able to add the number of naturally immune tothat of  thevaccination, interpreting this result as the success only of thevaccination, putting a tombstone on the errors made and also on the general number of naturally immune. If in the end the immunity is still not that promised, the variants of the virus will be blamed, now presented daily as one of the main “enemies”.

The statement: that the Pfizer vaccine “prevents up to 95% of adults aged 16 and over from developing the Covid-19 disease” is misleading, which exposes people to submit to vaccines on the one hand unsafe because of the shortened approval and on the other not very effective (30% of immunization), as scientifically proven.

The European Parliament resolution 2361 (27/01/2021):

“7.3.1. ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves;

7.3.2. ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated”.

has exempted politicians etc. from the risk of being accused of promoting a vaccination which is not very effective but full of potential risks. The suspicion of collusion between politicians and the pharmaceutical industry would have become a certainty.


The definition “suffering from Covid-19” applied by the Pfizer trial is based on epidemiological evidence, on the presence of multiple symptoms common to many other  similar diseases and on confirmation by positive swab (by PCR).

The Nobel Prize winner, inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis declared:

  1. PCR does not show that someone is sick … and does not show that what has been found would have been harmful.
  2. With PCR, if it is done well, you can find almost anything in everyone.

However the latter does not show an ongoing infection, but only contact with the coronavirus. A person who was with smokers, is not necessarily a smoker (the transmission of the coronavirus is similar to that of passive smoke).

The confirmation of an entry into the body and the reaction of the body to the virus is shown only by the presence of specific antibodies in the blood (serological test).

The search for these antibodies

  • was not done so as not to lose the number of “positives” necessary to be able to present the vaccine as soon as possible,
  • is not even done on those currently vaccinated (very serious medical error), so as to lose the traces of a previous immunity and not to have to admit that there have been very many false positives because of swabs, which have created tremendous economic, psychological etc. harm.