Dr. David Martin reveals that Moderna concealed the evidence that their vaccine was ineffective by waiting 14 days to perform a confirmatory RT-PCR test on the test subjects. The Moderna study shows that within 7 days of both the first and the second vaccinations, the group receiving the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines displayed greater systemic symptoms of COVID-19 than did the control group. But Moderna ignored those systemic COVID-19 symptoms by reporting them not as symptoms of COVID-19 caused by the vaccine but systemic adverse reactions to the vaccine. Attached below is the study that was presented to the FDA by Moderna to obtain an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA for the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccination.
Moderna was able to avoid reporting the COVID-19 systemic symptoms caused to the vaccine recipients within 7 days of receiving the first and the second vaccinations as being “confirmed COVID-19 cases” by not testing the vaccine recipients with the RT-PCR test during that time. By not performing the RT-PCR test, Moderna was able to report the COVID-19 symptoms during that 7 day period under a category of “systemic adverse reactions” to the vaccine instead of “systemic symptoms” of COVID-19 caused by the vaccine that were confirmed COVID-19 cases. Moderna did not do any confirmatory RT-PCR tests on the test subjects until 14 days following the second vaccination. Thus, by waiting until 14 days after the second vaccination to conduct the confirmatory RT-PCR tests, Moderna was able to report that their vaccine was 94.1% (interim results were 94.5%) effective in preventing COVID-19.
The 94.5 % interim efficacy results for the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine reported by the FDA is misleading because they are not telling you that is a relative risk reduction and not a total risk reduction.
In the Moderna study, the subsequent COVID-19 infection rate for the vaccinated group was .0359%. The COVID-19 infection rate for the placebo group was .6483%. That means that the rate of those who were infected by COVID-19 after receiving the vaccine was reduced by .6124% as compared to those who were infected by COVID-19 after receiving a placebo (.6483% – .0359% = .6124%). Thus, the vaccine has an efficacy of .6124%. One can expect that there will be a reduction of .6124% in COVID-19 infections in the population after being vaccinated. Out of a group of 10,000 people who are vaccinated with the Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, there will be approximately sixty-one (61) fewer illnesses from COVID-19.
But that is not how Moderna reported the results. Instead of a .6124% efficacy rate, which is the total efficacy rate, Moderna reported a 94.5% efficacy rate, which is a relative efficacy rate. The relative efficacy rate is misleading because it gives the false impression that out of 10,000 people, 9,450 people would be protected from getting COVID-19. How did Moderna come up with the 94.5% figure? They divided the rate of subsequent COVID-19 infection in the vaccinated group (.0359%) by the rate of subsequent COVID-19 infection in the placebo group (.6483%) and then subtracted that difference (.0554) from one (1) to arrive at (.9446). After rounding the FDA reported the interim effectiveness for the Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine of 94.5%. But that is not the total efficacy, which is what people want to know. That 94.5% figure is a relative risk reduction, which is different from a total risk reduction.
The false impression given by that figure is that the vaccine will effectively protect 9,450 out of 10,000 people from COVID-19. In reality, 9,935 are at no risk of getting COVID-19 (10,000 – 65 = 9,935). That means that out of every 10,000 people to get vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine it will only prevent sixty-one (61) people from becoming ill from COVID-19 (65 – 4 = 61). According to the study, a total of only 65 people out of every 10,000 are at risk to get COVID-19, and the vaccine will only protect 61 of those 65 people. That is a total efficacy rate for the vaccine of only .6124 % (61 people out of 10,000) and not 94.5 % (9,450 people out of 10,000) as suggested by Moderna.
Furthermore, Moderna limited the measure of efficacy for their COVID-19 vaccine as follows: “The primary efficacy endpoint was efficacy of the vaccine to prevent protocol-defined COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days after the second dose in participants with negative SARS-CoV-2 status at baseline.”
What is a confirmed COVID-19 case? Moderna defined it thusly in its study submitted to the FDA:
For the primary efficacy endpoint, the case definition for a confirmed COVID-19 case was defined as:
• At least TWO of the following systemic symptoms: Fever (≥38ºC), chills, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s), or
• At least ONE of the following respiratory signs/ symptoms: cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, OR clinical or radiographical evidence of pneumonia; and
• NP swab, nasal swab, or saliva sample (or respiratory sample, if hospitalized) positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR.
Notice in the chart below the systemic symptoms for COVID-19 (fever, chills, myalgia, and headache) were significantly greater within 7 days of the second vaccination. But Moderna did not perform any confirmatory RT-PCR test during that period. Consequently, those systemic symptoms of COVID-19 were reported not as systemic symptoms of COVID-19 caused by the vaccine that were confirmed COVID-19 cases but as “systemic adverse reactions” to the vaccine.
Moderna reported that an astounding 81.9% of the vaccinated group aged 18-64 years old suffered systemic adverse events after the second vaccination. That is more than double the systemic adverse events occurring in the placebo group. Even more telling is that 17.4% of the vaccinated group aged 18-64 years old suffered grade 3 systemic adverse events after the second vaccination. A grade 3 adverse event is defined as a severe adverse event. That is more than eight (8) times the grade 3 severe systemic adverse events in the placebo group. Furthermore, 10 people in the vaccine group suffered a grade 4 systemic adverse event. A grade 4 adverse event is a life-threatening adverse event. That is more than five (5) times the rate of grade 4 systemic adverse events in the placebo group.
Indeed, it has been now confirmed that the COVID-19 vaccines from both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNtech do not prevent COVID-19. The vaccines were authorized to be used on an emergency basis to prevent COVID-19, but they have been shown not to do that. So, the pharmaceutical companies just changed the rules for what it means to be effective. Now the standard is no longer whether the vaccine prevents COVID-19 but, instead, whether it lessens the symptoms of COVID-19. When Democrat Rep. Stephen Lynch tested positive to COVID-19 after receiving both shots of the Pfizer vaccine, the Daily Mail explained that “Pfizer’s vaccine does not necessarily prevent COVID-19 infection, but is said to be 95 percent effective in stopping the serious symptoms that are caused by the coronavirus.”
Moderna knew from the outset that their vaccine would not prevent COVID-19. A careful reading of Moderna’s study indicates that its vaccine likely causes COVID-19. Indeed, there have been many reported cases since the use of both the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNtech vaccines were authorized under the FDA’s EUA where the recipient of a COVID-19 vaccination became subsequently ill from COVID-19 and the COVID-19 illness was determined to have been caused by the COVID-19 vaccination.
It seemed to have been known by the insiders from the outset that the COVID-19 vaccines would not prevent COVID-19 and very likely cause COVID-19. Before either vaccine was authorized, Anthony Fauci explained that reducing symptoms of COVID-19 was the “primary endpoint” of the vaccines. Fauci said that getting rid of the virus through immunity was only a “secondary endpoint.” On October 28, 2020, Carol Crist, writing for WebMD, summarized Dr. Fauci’s argument as meaning that “with reduced severe symptoms, the coronavirus would pose a lower threat as a pandemic. Then scientists could focus on developing a solution that would reach the full goal of preventing initial infection.”
“If the vaccine also allows you to prevent initial infection that would be great,” [Fauci] said. “But what I would settle for, and all my colleagues would settle for, is the primary endpoint, which is to prevent clinically recognizable disease. That’s what we hope happens.”
Fauci said that reducing symptoms of COVID-19 was the “primary endpoint” of the COVID-19 vaccines and not the prevention of COVID-19. But Moderna claimed in its petition to obtain an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA for their COVID-19 vaccine that “[t]he primary efficacy endpoint was efficacy of the vaccine to prevent protocol-defined COVID-19.”
Moderna and Pfizer-BioNtech got their COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the FDA under EUAs based on their alleged effectiveness in preventing COVID-19. They then promoted the vaccines to the public on that basis. When the vaccines are increasingly proving to be ineffective in preventing COVID-19, they just change the standard for success to lessening symptoms. They knew full well that the FDA could not approve an EUA for lessening symptoms and nobody would take a vaccine that would not actually prevent the targeted disease. So they used the classic bait and switch strategy with a willing partner in the FDA.
The chart below is from the Moderna COVE Study Group and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. It was annotated by me to indicate certain percentages and circle the “systemic symptoms” of COVID-19 as defined by Moderna but reported by Moderna as “systemic adverse events.”
11 thoughts on “How Moderna Rigged Its COVID-19 Vaccine Trials To Falsely Show Effectiveness”
Thank you for sharing this alarming information. I believe there is an agenda to separate man from God through DNA manipulation by introducing some type of tracking system to control a person ability to buy and sell thereby disobeying Revelation command not to take the mark of the beast.
Thank You for reporting on this. Like Moderna, Pfizer has an ARR of only 1.23%, but a RRR of 94.1% is reported, a decrease from 1.31 to 0.077%. AstraZeneca’s vaccine saw a decrease from 2.18% to 0.219%, or an ARR of 1.96%, which is the highest ARR. Ironically, it has the highest ARR, but is considered the least effective vaccine because of vaccine effectiveness quoted of 70%.
Even the CDC double-masking study, using a poorly described dummy model, reports the 95% reduction in particles measured with 2 masks, which in actuality only lowers the rate of particle detection by 12.5% when compared with 1 mask. Apart from numerous study design flaws, all of the vaccine studies are misleading in their results due to very early follow-up, too early for antibody formation in some, and the use of the relative rate reduction.
Additionally, on page 409 of the interim analysis, it appears that patients are included in the primary analysis who have not even reached the 2 week interim post-2nd injection. “As of November 25, 2020, the participants had a median
follow-up duration of 63 days (range, 0 to
97) after the second dose, with 62% of participants
having more than 56 days of follow-up”
The study analysis of efficacy, in the per-protocol population (receiving 2 doses), includes people with zero days follow up, which is another reminder that they interim analysis was hurried; a rubber-stamp interim analysis.
The final results will be much lower, because it will be too difficult to show a major statistical difference when the RT-PCR tests provide useless data, and the results will be on par with influenza studies, which include ranges that cross 50%. Already variants are being implicated as to why they will eventually be much lower, where there are more than 500,000 variants on GenBank, which is further proof that scientists lack the appropriate tools to 40-100 nm viral particles from other exosomal RNA particles- a well-published phenomena the last 6-7 years (HIV-1 and exosomes, Welch et al , 2015).