Thank you so much for everything you are doing! I have three sons and based upon everything I saw from you, I advised them to NOT get the vaccine, no matter what pressure would be applied by schools and/or employers (they are 19, 22 and 24) they are healthy and in no high risk group (2 have already had it) - without your reporting, it would have been easy to succumb to the public pressure campaign to "do their part" - extremely grateful for everything you do
Humans have survived multiple pandemics throughout the ages ... mainly due to enough people getting natural immunity via infection so that the disease would die off even if the infection rate wasn't 100%. The big question that always needs to be asked is, should we let it happen naturally or try to suppress it to drag it out? ... most of the push for the later is to minimize impact to medical infrastructure. In the US, the Trump administration mobilized the medical infrastructure to a wartime footing and quickly exceeded the capacity needed to deal with the first large set of infections. Had we continued down that path, there is evidence based on previous pandemics that this would have hastened the infection rate and immunity rate of the US and this pandemic would have been over six months ago.
Alex, great information. Very few know that the 'absolute risk reduction' measure (ARR, the vaccine 'effectiveness') of these shots is less than 2%! The ARR is how much the shots reduce your risk of infection.
The "95% efficacy" touted everywhere, is the 'relative' risk reduction measure (RRR, vaccine 'efficacy.') That is the % reduction in risk of infection between the placebo (unvaccinated) group and the vaccinated group. Guess what? Using Pfizer's clinical trial data, the risk of infection of the placebo group was .761%. The risk of infection of the vaccinated group was .044% (pg. 63, Table 14). So the % reduction from .761% to .044% is 95%, which is Pfizer's RRR. But both groups' risk of infection was less than 1%.
The 'absolute' risk of reduction for Pfizer's vaccine is .761 - .044=.75. So Pfizer's vaccine reduces the risk of infection by a measly .75%. NOT 95%. This is directly from the vaccine manufacturers' clinical trial data they submitted to the FDA for their EUA application and is on the FDA's website. Also, Pfizer, Moderna and J&J failed to disclose their ARR to the public, as well as the FDA, violating the FDA's Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide. The vaccine efficacy is being misrepresented as the vaccine effectiveness and that is gross misleading.
So we were already at herd immunity last year when these clinical trials were conducted because their data shows the placebo/unvaccinated group's risk of infection was .761% AND the shots reduce the risk of infection by less than 2%.
Which begs the question, why are we spending billions of $ to vaccinate millions when we were at herd immunity last year (as censored scientists were repeatedly stating) and the shots don't even reduce the risk of infection (nor do they prevent infection or the spread per their own fact sheets).
People need to wake up! When you want to know the truth, follow the $$$$$$$$$$.
In Dr. Brown's video, he also mentions the flu vaccines' ARR is also around 1%. The 50-60% figure we hear is the RRR, not the ARR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkwn5I8tLmE
FDA Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide. This guide repeatedly states that the ARR must be reported. https://www.fda.gov/media/81597/download
Alex Berenson delivers truth bombs. So happy you announced this platform on Tucker. Would like a couple of trial days before I commit dollars! Thanks for all you do👍
I don't pay for any journalism today, but for yours, I gladly will. Thanks for giving it to us straight, you are a spring of fresh water to this thirsty soul.
Great glimpse of the data. I’d like to see a discussion of PCR testing. It’s one of the topics that people dance around, but I have yet read a solid explanation of the issues with its ability to accurately detect COVID.
I heard a pathologist state that these experimental injections can have negative effects on the naturally immune. There is no testing for natural immunity, so it is also possible these "vaccines" given to people who were naturally immune actually reduced their immunity. But with no prior testing, no decent data collection/verification, who knows?
Thank you for doing the work that other journalists have refused to do. Every newspaper in the country should be reporting this. People have the right to know the risks.
I appreciate, respect, and support your work, so thank you again.
Thank you so much for everything you are doing! I have three sons and based upon everything I saw from you, I advised them to NOT get the vaccine, no matter what pressure would be applied by schools and/or employers (they are 19, 22 and 24) they are healthy and in no high risk group (2 have already had it) - without your reporting, it would have been easy to succumb to the public pressure campaign to "do their part" - extremely grateful for everything you do
Thank you for being on Tucker and sharing this important info with the public
Alex, I appreciate what you do and gladly support you in my own limited way. I hope this project becomes the success it deserves to be.
heard about this site on tucker; now I have a lot of reading to do! thanks for the info, it does not hurt to ask questions
Humans have survived multiple pandemics throughout the ages ... mainly due to enough people getting natural immunity via infection so that the disease would die off even if the infection rate wasn't 100%. The big question that always needs to be asked is, should we let it happen naturally or try to suppress it to drag it out? ... most of the push for the later is to minimize impact to medical infrastructure. In the US, the Trump administration mobilized the medical infrastructure to a wartime footing and quickly exceeded the capacity needed to deal with the first large set of infections. Had we continued down that path, there is evidence based on previous pandemics that this would have hastened the infection rate and immunity rate of the US and this pandemic would have been over six months ago.
Alex, great information. Very few know that the 'absolute risk reduction' measure (ARR, the vaccine 'effectiveness') of these shots is less than 2%! The ARR is how much the shots reduce your risk of infection.
The "95% efficacy" touted everywhere, is the 'relative' risk reduction measure (RRR, vaccine 'efficacy.') That is the % reduction in risk of infection between the placebo (unvaccinated) group and the vaccinated group. Guess what? Using Pfizer's clinical trial data, the risk of infection of the placebo group was .761%. The risk of infection of the vaccinated group was .044% (pg. 63, Table 14). So the % reduction from .761% to .044% is 95%, which is Pfizer's RRR. But both groups' risk of infection was less than 1%.
The 'absolute' risk of reduction for Pfizer's vaccine is .761 - .044=.75. So Pfizer's vaccine reduces the risk of infection by a measly .75%. NOT 95%. This is directly from the vaccine manufacturers' clinical trial data they submitted to the FDA for their EUA application and is on the FDA's website. Also, Pfizer, Moderna and J&J failed to disclose their ARR to the public, as well as the FDA, violating the FDA's Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide. The vaccine efficacy is being misrepresented as the vaccine effectiveness and that is gross misleading.
So we were already at herd immunity last year when these clinical trials were conducted because their data shows the placebo/unvaccinated group's risk of infection was .761% AND the shots reduce the risk of infection by less than 2%.
Which begs the question, why are we spending billions of $ to vaccinate millions when we were at herd immunity last year (as censored scientists were repeatedly stating) and the shots don't even reduce the risk of infection (nor do they prevent infection or the spread per their own fact sheets).
People need to wake up! When you want to know the truth, follow the $$$$$$$$$$.
Steve Kirsch (MIT engineer, medical philanthropist and Silcon Valley entrepreneur) article on the vaccines' data. https://www.skirsch.com/covid/vaccineRequirementResponse.pdf
Dr. Ronald Brown's article also confirms that Pfizer's and Modern's ARR is less than 2%. https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm#B11-medicina-57-00199
In Dr. Brown's video, he also mentions the flu vaccines' ARR is also around 1%. The 50-60% figure we hear is the RRR, not the ARR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkwn5I8tLmE
An article published in The Lancet also confirms the ARR of the Covid19 shots are less than 2%. "COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
This article explains why you should always use the ARR. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/absolute-vs-relative-risk/
FDA Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide. This guide repeatedly states that the ARR must be reported. https://www.fda.gov/media/81597/download
Alex Berenson delivers truth bombs. So happy you announced this platform on Tucker. Would like a couple of trial days before I commit dollars! Thanks for all you do👍
Thanks for starting this. Glad I watched Tucker tonight. Will share with everyone I know
Great work Alex and you need to be on Tucker, or anyone else that will have you, that's a short list I know, every Thursday. #AlexBerensonThursdays
Thanks Alex for everything you do for the public! I’m so appreciative of your work.
I don't pay for any journalism today, but for yours, I gladly will. Thanks for giving it to us straight, you are a spring of fresh water to this thirsty soul.
Great glimpse of the data. I’d like to see a discussion of PCR testing. It’s one of the topics that people dance around, but I have yet read a solid explanation of the issues with its ability to accurately detect COVID.
I heard a pathologist state that these experimental injections can have negative effects on the naturally immune. There is no testing for natural immunity, so it is also possible these "vaccines" given to people who were naturally immune actually reduced their immunity. But with no prior testing, no decent data collection/verification, who knows?
Thank you for doing the work that other journalists have refused to do. Every newspaper in the country should be reporting this. People have the right to know the risks.
I appreciate, respect, and support your work, so thank you again.
There is nothing noble about spreading vaccine hesitancy. You do realize you are aiding and abetting anti-vaxxers, right?
Thanks Tucker, and of course A.B!!