Big Pharma data showed high mRNA efficacy which politicians conflated with "prevention of infection"
The studies that preceded FDA approval of the vaccines don't really answer the key questions
For most of my life (and until this pandemic) I understood vaccine to mean: “a suspension of attenuated or killed microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, or rickettsiae), administered for prevention, amelioration, or treatment of infectious diseases.” I came to that understanding owing to that definition appearing in medical dictionaries. The mRNA “vaccines” widely touted by Pfizer and Moderna are devoid of attenuated or killed microorganisms, have limited ability to “prevent” COVID infection and are not used in the treatment of the disease. It is a stretch to call them “vaccines” by the traditional definition.
The mRNA vaccines have been very effective in ameliorating COVID, contributing to milder infections and lower rates of hospitalization or death, and for that we must be thankful. But the promotion of these drugs by political leaders assured us they would prevent infection and if everyone was vaccinated the pandemic would soon end. That claim was patently false when made and remains false today. Political leaders continue to blame the persistence of the pandemic on the “unvaccinated” despite Canada’s success in having about 90% of eligible people vaccinated. This may be the first time in history the failure of a drug to achieve political goals is blamed on those who did not take it.
In an article published in the prestiguous Nature journal, the researchers stated:
“A potential safety concern of m1Ψ mRNA vaccination is the possibility of generalized immune suppression caused by long-lasting tolerogenic effects on the dendritic cells that take up RNA lipoplexes.”
That finding suggested mRNA vaccines might have a role in dealing with autoimmune diseases, but also implies a risk that mRNA vaccination might be responsible for lower immunity to some pathogens. I don’t recall our Medical Officers of Health making any comments on that finding, if they even knew about it.
In the race to develop a vaccine, called “Operation Warp Speed” in the United States, a few corners may have been cut in the interests of speed. The limited size of the test populations in the early stages should give anyone with knowledge of statistical analysis a headache.
On May 21, 2021 Pfizer’s and Moderna’s first trials of their respective vaccines were released by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) touting them as having high effectiveness in preventing COVID-19. The subjects were health care workers.
The number of people involved in the study was reported as follows: “As of March 18, 2021, 623 case-patients and 1,220 controls had been enrolled.” That’s right, a total of 1,843 subjects.
The report goes on to describe the vaccine status of each of the subjects and controls. Quoting from the report:
“Ten percent of case-patients and 20% of controls had received 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine ≥14 days before the test date, and 3% of case-patients and 15% of controls had received 2 doses ≥7 days before the test date (Table 2). Among vaccinated persons, 76% of case-patients and 78% of controls received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; the remainder received the Moderna vaccine.”
Breaking that down into plain language, 64 case-patients and 241 “controls” received one dose of vaccine and 20 case-patients and 183 “controls” received 2 doses. Forty-five case patients and 143 “controls” received the Pfizer vaccine and 17 case-patients and 40 “controls” received the Moderna product. In total, 489 of the 1,843 test subjects received some level of vaccination.
The study found that the two-dose Pfizer regime was 94% effective against “symptomatic infection”. In plain English, that outcome means 1 of the 20 case-patients receiving two doses of vaccine was nonetheless infected and the 94% figure (versus 95%) must account for one person who must have received two doses of Moderna. The report does not comment on patients who had “unsymptomatic” infection. If there were none, it is had to see why the report used the “symptomatic” modifier.
Given the tests were completed in the early weeks of the pandemic, I would find unsurprising it that if 20 people were chosen at random from the American population and monitored for the test period only one would have been found to have suffered COVID infection even if all were not vaccinated, since after the first six months of pandemic the total number of cases identified in the United States was comprised less than 5% of the U.S. population. Stated another way, the test process could have given 20 randomly-chosen subjects Tootsie Bars instead of two doses of mRNA and found with the same conviction that Tootsie Bars prevented COVID.
The trial itself was a “test-negative case control study”. That approach is predicated on the assumption that the vaccine being tested is not effective against non-targeted pathogens that manifest the same symptoms. COVID symptoms of fever, cough, fatigue, etc. are common outcomes of other infections such as the flu or common cold. Throughout this pandemic, the prevalence of seasonal flu has declined to virtually zero, suggesting the vaccines are in fact effective against other viruses.
Studies with larger populations of subjects followed and ultimately showed enough promise the mRNA vaccines received emergency use authorization from the Federal Drug Administration. Now that the vaccines have been in use for two years and millions of persons vaccinated, we have reliable data that the vaccines worked to mitigate symptoms of the disease, and the rate of infection among vaccinated persons was materially less than among the unvaccinated. The vaccines did their job.
As the virus mutated through the Greek alphabet, different strains emerged with differing levels of transmissibility and differing virulence. The recent Omicron strain has pretty well taken over and is rapidly infecting millions worldwide. Initial data suggest this is a milder strain but that may be a short term reprieve as the virus mutates further. What is clear, however, is that even “fully vaccinated” persons are subject to infection at relatively high rates and hospitalizations and ICU’s are now populated with more “fully vaccinated” persons than “unvaccinated”, in large part because of the success in getting a very high percentage of the population to take the vaccine and the ineffectiveness of vaccines in preventing infection.
It remains to be seen whether the vaccination campaign (which has seen over 10 billion doses injected into arms worldwide) will be recorded by history as a success in ending the pandemic but there is no doubt it will be seen as a financial success for Pfizer and Moderna. Ignored in the plethora of studies and statements by current political leaders are three unanswered questions which I believe were key issues big Pharma chose to leave open:
Would older, cheaper drugs like hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin have been just as successful as mRNA in limiting morbidity from COVID 19?
Why didn’t our political leaders devote material resources to studying those and other lower cost alternatives which would have saved government treasuries billions if they were found to be effective?
Why have Pfizer and Moderna delayed release of their detailed data publicy?
While I have no evidence of corruption, a lot of money changed hands and big Pharma has a powerful lobby. I am hopeful some independent journalism (if any still exists) will explore those issues and inform society of what actually took place. In the meantime, this pandemic is running its course and if history has any lessons will reach the endemic stage within a few months.