The COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’: Unsafe and Ineffective

Science is supposed to be an impartial and ruthless quest for facts. In reality, much of what is presented as 'science' today is sheer nonsense. Modern science has long since degenerated into a bastion of corruption and politically motivated propaganda.

The two main funders of scientific research today are government agencies and companies whose products are under investigation in that research. In the medical arena, the overwhelming majority of clinical trials are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. The pitfalls of this arrangement go far beyond an unavoidable and inherent risk of bias. All niceties aside, history has confirmed time and time again the drug giants are little more than white collar crime cartels.

As cases in point, let's look at three of the main manufacturers of the so-called COVID 'vaccines,' which of course are not really vaccines but experimental gene therapies: Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson.

The Pfizer Crime Cartel

Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer racked up $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. The charges included cost report fraud, payment of kickbacks to physicians, fraudulent billing, and fraudulent marketing practices.

In 2012, US authorities charged Pfizer (and its subsidiary Wyeth) with paying millions of dollars in bribes to officials, doctors and healthcare professionals in Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Serbia during 2001-2007 in violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Pfizer and Wyeth were forced to cough up over $60 million in penalties.

The AstraZeneca Crime Cartel

AstraZeneca was created in 1999 as a result of the merger between Swedish company Astra AB and the British Zeneca Group. The company wasted little time in establishing its criminal credentials. Since its formation in 1999, AstraZeneca has been hit with over $1.8 billion in fines for dishonesty offences, including fraud, illegal marketing, false and misleading advertising, rorting Medicare/Medicaid, and sexual harassment and discrimination. The company is an unabashed serial corporate felon.

The Johnson & Johnson Crime Cartel

The corporate rap sheets of Pfizer and AstraZeneca, while truly shameful, are a mere warm-up act compared to that of Johnson & Johnson. Since 1995 alone, the company and its various subsidiaries have paid out over $8.2 billion in criminal fines and civil settlements.

J&J's dishonesty offences seem to cover just about every product line the company and its subsidiaries are involved in, be it drugs, baby powder, cosmetics, hip replacements, glucose monitors ... even condoms.

Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson: This is the cream of the criminal crop whose COVID 'vaccines' are being relentlessly rolled out around the world. We are being told not to question these drugs, but to have faith they are "Safe and Effective™."

Sorry, but I don't use experimental drugs produced and trafficked by criminal cartels.

I'm here to tell you the COVID-19 vaccines are not only produced by crooks, but don't prevent Jack Schitt and are far more dangerous than the featherwight COVID-19 influenza virus, with its piddling 0.15% infection fatality rate, could ever dream of being.

These drugs are propped up by an illusion of efficacy that has no foundation in reality. This illusion rests heavily upon one of Big Pharma's favourite tricks for manipulating research data, a trick that makes ineffective treatments appear effective.

The Great Relative Risk Swindle

Double-blind, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard of medical research. Criminals, however, can be a crafty bunch. The drug companies, and their accomplices in the regulatory agencies, have devised all sorts of ways to corrupt and pervert the clinical trial process.

Their chicanery begins before the trials even kick off. The trials are designed in a way that maximizes the odds of achieving a predetermined outcome. When this careful pre-planning fails to deliver the desired result, as it often does, the data is massaged, distorted and twisted in ways that would leave even the most flexible gymnast groaning in pain.

And when this barrage of flimflammery still fails to produce the desired result, clinical trial authors and their industry masters have a time-honoured trick that can often transform the most uninspiring results into headline-generating material.

This butt-saving trick involves quoting study results in terms of "relative risk" (RR), which gives far more impressive-sounding risk reduction figures than "absolute risk" calculations.

If you're not familiar with the above terms, let me give give you a detailed hypothetical example, before explaining how this relates to the current COVID sham. Stay with me, because this is important to understanding how the majority of modern-day research is (mis)reported.

The Story of Itchy-Scratchy-19 and PuraCrotch®

It's late 2019, and reports begin to surface about a mysterious new strain of jock itch in China. The rest of the world takes little notice at first, but the mainstream media gradually turns up the volume dial, insisting this new strain of jock itch poses a dire threat to the survival of humankind. The symptoms of this novel jock itch are pretty much identical to those of normal jock itch, but the mainstream media has never let a little thing like the facts get in the way of a good story.

When cases of this new jock itch, dubbed Itchy-Scratchy-19, are reported in Spain and Italy, where people's nethermost regions are usually the cleanest in the world thanks to widespread use of bidets, the entire planet becomes downright hysterical.

Travel bans, lockdowns, crotch masks and crotch distancing become the "new normal." The whole scenario is fucking ridiculous, but it seems the more absurd a scam is, the more likely humans are to fall for it.

The then-president of the US, Donald Trump, tells people to get a fucking grip and stop being such a pack of soft-cocks. "Don't let your lives be dominated by a crotch fungus," he wisely advises the American people. In response to this sage advice, he is hysterically denounced as an evil, heartless murderer who refuses to take the global Itchy-Scratchy-19 pandemic seriously.

Folding to pressure, he announces Operation Warped, which will devote billions of taxpayer dollars to finding a cure for Itchy-Scratchy-19. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the dishevelled leader of the UK, Boris Johnson, proudly announces Oxford University has partnered with multinational drug giant, AstraGenitals, to develop a new drug for Itchy-Scratchy-19 called PuraCrotch®.

The UK collaboration conducts a clinical trial involving 2,000 people deemed to be at risk of Itchy-Scratchy-19.

1,000 of these people are assigned to a placebo group, and 1,000 are assigned to take PuraCrotch®.

The study is scheduled to run for two years but, in an unprecedented move, authorities grant PuraCrotch® emergency use authorization based on "interim analysis" of a mere two months of trial data.

That interim data showed that, after 2 months, 4 people in the placebo group developed Itchy-Scratchy-19, while 2 people in the PuraCrotch® group became infected with the novel Chinese jock itch.

Or, to put it another way, 0.4% of the placebo subjects got Itchy-Scratchy-19, while 0.2% of the PuraCrotch® subjects got Itchy-Scratchy-19.

Or to put it another way again, 99.6% of the placebo subjects remained free of Itchy-Scratchy-19, while 99.8% of PuraCrotch® subjects remained free of the novel jock itch.

No matter which way you frame it, the difference in Itchy-Scratchy-19 rates between the two groups at 2 months was 0.2%. This is known as the absolute risk reduction (ARR).

It is a piddling difference, and could be (and probably is) entirely due to chance. It does not even begin to justify the expense and possible risk of adverse reactions inherent in taking a new and poorly tested drug. People at risk of Itchy-Scratchy-19 (or any other form of jock itch), quite frankly, would be better off using more traditional treatments or simply adopting more stringent personal hygienic habits.

So, based on these results, taking PuraCrotch® is a waste of time.

The trouble is, AstraGenitals has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the development of PuraCrotch®. Based on the product's target price and the estimated number of global jock itch sufferers, the company's bean counters have forecasted an annual $15 billion in sales if PuraCrotch® can get emergency use authorization.

AstraGenitals, like most drug companies, is all about the money. And those behind the Itchy-Scratchy-19 sham are all about the power and control.

But even the most obedient stooges inside regulatory approval agencies like the FDA, MHRA, EMA and TGA are going to feel uncomfortable granting emergency use authorization to a drug based on a miniscule 0.2% risk reduction.

And this is where relative risk reduction (RRR) rushes in to save the day. Relative risk reduction is the mathematical equivalent of an optical illusion: You take the same set of figures, and without materially altering them, make them appear much larger and far more impressive than what they really are.

How so?


If four people in the placebo group got jock itch, compared to 2 in the PuraCrotch® group, that means twice as many people in the former group got jock itch.

All of a sudden, AstraGenitals and PuraCrotch® are back in the game. Because the company can now tell the world that PuraCrotch® slashes the risk of Itchy-Scratchy-19 by half!

In scientific terms, this is a 0.5 relative risk or 50% relative risk reduction.

To put it another way, those randomized to placebo instead of PuraCrotch® suffered a 100% relative risk increase of Itchy-Scratchy-19!

Sounds a lot more impressive than 0.2%, doesn't it?

Now AstraGenitals and those behind the Itchy-Scratchy-19 campaign have something to work with. They can now create and submit scientific papers eagerly trumpeting a 50% reduction in the risk of Itchy-Scratchy-19 as a result of PuraCrotch® use! Because most journal readers don't get any further than the study abstract, AstraGenitals can bury the pathetic absolute figures deep in the paper, where most people will never see them.

And its friendly stooges on the MHRA Emergency Authorization Panel - Shawn Shameless M.D, Paul Prostitute Ph.D, and Anthony Foulchee - now have an impressive risk reduction they can use to cajole their fellow panel members into approving PuraCrotch®. Foulchee also moonlights on the EMA approval board, so getting authorization in Europe should be a cinch too.

And so PuraCrotch®, the drug that achieved diddly squat in controlled research, is unleashed on an unsuspecting public. AstraGenitals launches a relentless marketing blitz, the media hails it as a wonder drug that will forever change the world of pubic health, and governments and their corporate buddies offer everything from free holidays to junk food to convince people to roll up, uh, I mean roll down, and apply their first dose of PuraCrotch®.

The Aftermath

As you might expect, the story does not have a happy ending - it's never a happily-ever-after tale when it comes to drugs approved on such dodgey grounds. Within weeks of PuraCrotch's release, the adverse event reports start flooding in. PuraCrotch® users in their hordes report suffering burning rashes, erectile dysfunction, loss of libido, infertility and blood clots. Devastated female users suffer five times the usual rate of miscarriages (or, in relative risk terms, a 400% increase. Of course, adverse effects are never reported by authorities in terms of relative risk, but in far more benign  "per 1000" figures. Funny that).

Frighteningly, PuraCrotch® triggers an unprecedented number of death reports, the likes of which have never been seen for any other prescription topical cream.

PuraCrotch® users become social outcasts, despite a sustained government and media campaign to prop up the drug. Airlines warn PuraCrotch® users against flying, and businesses begin banning PuraCrotch® users from sitting anywhere in their premises for fear of PuraCrotch® shedding.

On online dating sites, people start warning would-be suitors in their profiles, "DON'T CONTACT ME IF YOU ARE UNEMPLOYED, HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR STALKING, OR HAVE EVER USED PuraCrotch®!"

Things are looking dire. And so Victorian premier and communist dictator-in-hiding, Dan Andrews, releases a Scientific Statement on PuraCrotch®, formulated after hours of careful consultation with Victorian health 'experts.' The statement reads as follows:

"PuraCrotch® is not dangerous ... it's not!"

Unfortunately for Andrews, the rumour mill is alive with speculation that his disappearance has nothing to do with "wet slippery stairs" and everything to do with getting a vigorous bashing after molesting a teenage girl.

And so the people ignore Chairman Dan.

The Prime Minister of Australia, Scott "the Pedophile-Protector-Protector" Morrison, who has signed a multi-billion dollar deal with AstraGenitals to have have PuraCrotch® produced at the CSL facility in Geelong, then steps in to save the day. He dresses up like a bogan in his favourite rugby team outfit, and appears on TV publicly receiving an application of PuraCrotch®.

Unfortunately, the sight of a paunchy, ugly, prematurely-aged bogan man having his raisins rubbed with PuraCrotch® simply sends sales of the shady jock itch treatment tumbling even further.

Scott Morrison, 52 at the time of this picture but looking like a man in his late 60s. His other claims to fame include shitting his pants after getting blind drunk, being fired from Tourism Australia under suspicious circumstances, threatening to imprison legitimate refugees indefinitely, and publicly praising pedo-protector Brian Houston as his "mentor." Tell me again why I should take health advice from this degenerate?

Australia, a bastion of shameless bullshit, first insists that PuraCrotch® is Safe and Effective™! It then announces it is recommending PuraCrotch® only for those over 50. A short time later, it changes this to over 60s. When even the normally compliant media can't help itself from reporting on a marked rise in genital blood clots, the Australian authorities announce they are "phasing out" PuraCrotch® and instead recommending PFizzer's new NovaJox® cream. This revolutionary cream features historically problematic mRNA technology; when users apply this cream, it causes every cell in the body to reproduce a specific protein found in the Itchy-Scratchy-19 fungus molecule. The theory is that this will cause the body to produce antibodies to Itchy-Scratchy-19, and stop the infection dead in its tracks.

Instead, NovaJox® seems to be stopping users dead in their tracks. The death count of NovaJox® surpasses that of PuraCrotch®, so the Australian government announces it is sponsoring development of an Itchy-Scratchy-19 pill, which will eliminate the need to rub a cream into one's nethermost regions. How this will prevent any side effects is not explained, but the Australian government has never been one for transparency and logical explanations.

In the US, officials ban anyone treated with NovaJox® and PuraCrotch® from attending Bruce Springsteen concerts. People are devastated - Bruce seemed like such an enthusiastic leftie. But not to worry, the administration of Deep Fake President Joe "I'm Joe Biden's Husband!" Biden decrees that anyone who has been treated with the home-grown Jerkoff & Jerkoff cream, known as nanoJox®, can have free passage throughout the continental union, so long as they agree to use a booster cream every six months, irrespective of whether they have been re-infected with Itchy-Scratchy-19. nanoJox® is a proprietary blend of donkey genital fungus and liquified asbestos, delivered in a special mix of phospholipids and propylene glycol.

And so the circus continues.

A New Study Gives the Gig Up. And Is Promptly Ignored.

If any of you are reading this and thinking, "what the hell is Colpo on about, this is too ridiculous to be true," then wake the hell up, because it is pretty much the exact scenario that is playing out with the COVID 'vaccines'. Insert COVID-19 vaccines wherever I've mentioned Itchy-Scratchy-19 creams, and maybe nix the liquified asbestos bit, and you pretty much have the insane shit show that is currently playing out on this mentally ill planet.

And a recent study in the Lancet shows as much. Despite appearing in one of the world's most widely-read medical journals, this Lancet paper has been pretty much ignored. The reason being is that it completely undercuts the ridiculous efficacy claims being made for the COVID 'vaccines.'

The authors of this article are Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele (both from the UK) and Michel Vaillant (Luxembourg). Interestingly, and somewhat ironically, Olliaro is a researcher at Oxford University, the same institution that collaborated with AstraZeneca to create the dodgey AstraZeneca–Oxford ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine (he was not a member of the Oxford Vaccine Group and, judging by his critical stance, had little or nothing to do with the AZ-Oxford collaboration).

The authors note that results of the COVID 'vaccine' trials "have been widely communicated and debated through press releases and media, sometimes in misleading ways."

That's something of an understatement.

They note the propaganda has cited "relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines."

However, the researchers caution, relative risk reductions should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. This is a crucial point, because the risk of becoming infected with COVID-19, and the dangers presented by infection, have been exaggerated beyond belief.

In contrast to relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction - the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine - considers the whole population.

Read that again, if it didn't sink in the first time.

Governments and media have been incessantly telling you that taking a COVID 'vaccine' reduces your risk of getting a COVID infection by up to 95%.

That is complete and utter bullshit.

Even if the clinical trial data could be taken at face value (which it can't, because it's conducted by criminals and contains numerous glaring anomalies), the RR figures only apply to those in each group that were infected. Those two groups are then compared with each other in order to contrive the RR figures.

The RR figures do not apply to the placebo and 'vaccine' groups as a whole, because they pretty much ignore the overwhelming majority in both groups who remained infection-free (in some of the trials, we're talking tens of thousands of people).

As the authors note, absolute risk reductions "tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs."

And so what were the absolute risk reductions seen for the 'vaccines' in their clinical trials?

Read them and shake your noggin:

1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford drug;
1·2% for the Moderna–NIH mRNA drug;
1·2% for J&J;
0·93% for Gamaleya;
0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech mRNA drug.

These drugs are a sick joke. Based on these results alone, they should never have been released to market.

And that's before you consider the numerous glaring discrepancies that stand out in the trial results. The only positive data for the AstraZeneca drug came from single-blind trials, where the researchers affiliated with the corrupt company were aware of who was getting which treatment and therefore could have easily altered the results.

In stark contrast, the only double-blind trial data released thus far involving the AstraZeneca drug has failed to show any benefit against COVID-19 whatsoever.

And in the Pfizer trial, 311 Cominarty subjects were excluded from the study for unnamed "other important protocol deviations," but only 61 in the placebo group. Given that this was a randomized trial, the numbers should have been similar (and they were for other more specific dropout reasons, such as failing to receive both doses of the specified treatment within the allotted time).

This disparity demands an explanation, because it is highly unusual and also wielded the power to completely sway the results of the study (there were only 170 confirmed COVID diagnoses reported in the study). But of course, no explanation was provided. This raises the possibility that data from Cominarty recipients who experienced infection or significant side effects was quietly excluded from the study by reclassifying these subjects as dropouts.

Another serious anomaly comes from Pfizer's convenient omission of "suspected" COVID cases. Remember, in the real world, authorities and doctors have been quick to diagnose anyone with a sniffle as having "suspected" or "probable" COVID-19 infection. Little surprise, then, that in 2020 seasonal influenza miraculously near-disappeared, while the media instead kept bombarding us with alarming numbers of new 'COVID cases.'

You can bet your sweet ass much of what was being called COVID last year was in fact the regular flu being rebranded.

But when it comes to clinical trials, all of a sudden a different standard emerges - Pfizer counted only confirmed COVID-19 cases!

As noted, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in its hallmark trial paper - the one that gave rise to all the "95% effective!" hooplah - was a piddling 170 out of over 36,000 subjects!

But as Peter Doshi noted in the BMJ back in January, these numbers were dwarfed by suspected COVID-19 cases — those with symptoms of COVID-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to the FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were 3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population: 1,594 in the vaccine group versus 1,816 in the placebo group.

As Doshi noted, "With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% — far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators."

And the so-called double-blind Moderna trial? It's not double-blind. As the seminal journal report for its vaccine admitted, "Designated team members within Moderna have unblinded access to the data, to facilitate interface with the regulatory agencies and the data and safety monitoring board." What a sick joke; members of an aggressively entrepreneurial company, led by a CEO known for his bullying and emphasis on profits over science, have unfettered access to make-or-break trial data involving the company's own drug.

I'll reiterate: The COVID-19 vaccines are a sham and should never have been allowed to market.

The figures cited by Olliaro et al and Doshi clearly belie the overblown figures cited by drug company-sponsored researchers and plastered all over the media.

But the real situation is even worse: When you ignore the inherently untrustworthy 'evidence' presented by the corrupt drug companies, the reality is there exists absolutely no evidence these drugs do anything positive at all.

In fact, a trend is emerging around the world in which countries with the highest vaccination rates are experiencing the highest resurgance of COVID-19. Hopeless mainstream shills like Forbes try their best to rationalize this away, but the figures speak for themselves.

Uruguay, which until the COVID charade was considered the freest and most progressive country in Latin America, has well and truly jumped over to the dark side. Despite having "one of the world’s most successful inoculation drives," as Forbes perversely describes it, Uruguay was subsequently rewarded with the highest COVID-19 death rate in the world per capita.

I'm not sure how the word "successful" fits into that scenario, but right from the word go Forbes has been a shameless disseminator of mainstream COVID nonsense.

Bahrain (0.9 deaths per 100,000 people) and the Maldives (1 per 100,000) have also had very high vaccine uptakes - and reported far greater death rates than countries like the U.S. (0.15) and India (0.29) for a large part of May.

Forbes also noted countries like Chile and the Seychelles rank among the worst COVID infection surges in the world, despite each having higher vaccination levels than the U.S.

Are these poorly tested and clearly dangerous drugs weakening people's immune systems and making them more susceptible to the very disease these drugs are supposed to prevent?

One thing for sure is that the vaccines are highly effective at hurting and killing people. In the United States from 14 December 2020 through 21 June 2021, the VAERS database received 5,479 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. While the highly corrupt CDC, a vaccine business masquerading as a Federal agency, tries to write this off as coincidence, the fact remains this absolutely dwarfs the death toll from all other vaccines.

That's quite a coincidence.

The UK is also experiencing this same remarkable coincidence. As of 16 June 2021, 1,356 people have died after receiving their clot shot.

Lo and behold, Australia is also experiencing this remarkable coincidence, with 318 reports of death in people who have recently been vaccinated up to 20 June 2021.

These are, without question, the deadliest 'vaccines' in history. Thanks to the refusal of authorities to pull these drugs from the market, they are on track to also prove themselves the deadliest medical drugs in history.

COVID-19 Vaccines: Unsafe and Ineffective.

If You Found This Article Helpful, Please Consider Leaving a Tip

This site is self-funded and relies on reader generosity. Researching and writing articles like this takes a lot of time, so any and all tips are greatly appreciated!

Send a Tip via PayPal

The Mandatory “I Ain’t Your Mama, So Think For Yourself and Take Responsibility for Your Own Actions” Disclaimer: All content on this web site is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathetic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on this web site does so of their own volition and their own risk. The owner and contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm, real or imagined, from the use or dissemination of information contained on this site. If these conditions are not agreeable to the reader, he/she is advised to leave this site immediately.