Test bias assessing Covid injection effectiveness?
In Sweden there is a lawyer on X asking questions, making statments and giving information on the falsifications of Covid-19, the Covid mRNA injections and other drugs and vaccines. His name i Axel Berglund and I will today share some of his insights. His approach is very straight to the point and it is enligthening to see the philosophical and ethical stances his questions make way for and how a lawyer resons on these matters. He microblogs in Swedish so I will give english translations. More people should find him on X (use the translate function on X to see what he is up to). X account: @axbelund
It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers. James Thurber
“How often do researchers and authorities account for test bias when assessing a vaccine's effectiveness? For example, there was initially no policy to test covid-vaccinated people for infection. Based on the way the vaccine was praised, many probably thought that it would give virtually sterile immunity.”
“If the patient or healthcare staff is convinced that they are already protected against a disease, they may not be tested for it. And if you are convinced that the unvaccinated are unprotected, you test them to a greater extent. Causes data to be distorted; the vaccine appears more effective.”
The first statement by lawyer Axel Berglund above is a correct assesment. The swedish physician Dr. Sture Blomberg has explained how Big Pharma uses false marketing techniques when it comes to vaccines.
“The pharmaceutical companies Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen claimed in their applications for Emergency Use Authorization to the FDA (= Food and Drug Administration) in the USA that their anti-Covid-19 injections had an effectiveness of 95%, 94.1% and 66.1% respectively. This has been wrongly interpreted by most as that a "vaccination" reduces the risk of becoming moderately or seriously ill in Covid-19 by 95%, 94.1% and 66.1% respectively, and conversely this risk increases by the same numbers if you are " unvaccinated”. However, the development of the disease after starting with "vaccination" against Covid-19 has clearly shown that this is not true in the long run. There may therefore be reason to go back to the original documents from the applications to the FDA to investigate how these incorrect and downright false numbers could have arisen and why the FDA has approved this. For those who need help with this review, I can recommend a 4.5 hour lecture by the doctor and researcher Dr. Richard Fleming from Dallas, Texas”
“There are several different measures of risk reduction: 1. Relative risk reduction (RRR), 2. Absolute risk reduction (ARR) and 3. the number of patients who must be vaccinated in order to avoid one more patient becoming ill (NNV, "Number Needed to Vaccinate”). Relative risk reduction is often used by pharmaceutical companies because this can give an enormously higher figure on the effect than the real effect. There is therefore certainly a reason why many pharmaceutical companies choose to report their results in relative and not absolute numbers when it comes to risk reduction. All listed pharmaceutical companies have done this when they applied to the FDA to have their “vaccines approved for EUA. The reasons for this are obvious, as we will soon see. Had they used a different and more adequate measure of effectiveness than relative risk reduction, their preparations would most certainly never have been approved.”
Relative Risk Reduction (RRR): “Before the vaccination campaign was rolled out, Pfizer had tested its "vaccine" over a 2-month period on approx. 35,000 healthy subjects and then evaluated how many became moderately to severely ill with Covid-19. Experimental and control groups consisted of 17411 and 17511 people respectively [2]. For unclear reasons, it was decided to exclude all people in the vaccination group who were affected by Covid-19 before 7 days had passed after the second injection. It was then found that 8 and 162 people respectively in the experimental group (= vaccination) and the control group (placebo) were affected by moderate to severe Covid-19. This gives the proportion 8/162 ≈ 5/95, i.e. the Covid-19 patients in the vaccination group make up only 5% of the patients in the control group, which is why it is concluded that Pfizer's "vaccine" has a 95% protective effect.”
Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR): “The objection to this way of counting is that you have to look at the whole material. In the experimental group, the 8 Covid-19 patients make up only 0.05% (= 8/17411) of the "vaccinated", while the 162 in the control group make up 0.93% (= 162/17511). The difference between the groups is only 0.88% (0.93%-0.05%), a difference that is not even one percent and would have been even smaller if you had not excluded all patients in the vaccination group with Covid-19 before 7 days after the second dose.”
mRNA Covid injection protective effect is very low: “Even more important to know is how many are NOT affected, which gives the true protective effect of a vaccination. Since 99.95% and 99.07% did not get sick from Covid-19 in the vaccination and placebo groups, respectively, the true protective effect of Pfizer's vaccine is only 0.88% - if even that. The same is the case with Moderna's and Janssen's "vaccines". Moderna's and Janssen's survey included approximately 28,000 and approximately 42,600 patients, respectively. Here too, there is no big difference between the people who were NOT affected by Covid-19 in the vaccination and placebo groups. Modern states 99.92% versus 98.67% for vaccination or placebo group while Janssens states 99.47% resp. 98.46%. In both of these cases, it is therefore an absolute risk reduction of only 1.25% or 1.01%”
The second statement by Axel Berglund was what was done in Sweden and this created a false impression concerning the covid injections and the infection rates and that the Covid injections protect against being infected since the injected were excluded from the testing. The question of test bias from the PCR test have been debunked legally both in Portugal and in Switzerland.
The wise man doesn't give the right answers, he poses the right questions.
Claude Lévy-Strauss
“How ineffective does a vaccine need to be for a producer to churn out as many vaccine doses as possible?”
“Exactly how bad does a vaccine have to be so that everyone should get vaccinated?”
There is no such thing as a worthless conversation, provided you know what to listen for. And questions are the breath of life for a conversation. James Nathan Miller
The Swedish page covid19vaccinen.se responds to the last questions on the Covid-19 mRNA injections by lawyer Axel Berglund and why this mRNA / ModRNA technology is faulty. This information has been posted on this blog before - it can be of interest to those who missed this informationa and to new followers of this blog.
Information from the Swedish site Covid19vaccinen.se in English:
The covid-19 vaccines do not produce immunity against covid-19 because they are not designed to trigger an immune response against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Instead, the vaccines are designed in such a way that the body's immune response should act against the spike proteins on the surface of the original virus (the so-called Wuhan 1 virus). Additional: This synthetic immune response is a risk factor for autoimmune diseases and harms the immune system. It is (polymer) microplastic and goes against european regulation that states microplastic is prohibited in medical products.
The Covid-19 vaccine contain genetic instructions that cause the body to produce a huge number of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins in order to provoke an immune response against the spike proteins. Unfortunately, it turns out that the spike proteins are toxic to the body's cells. Endothelial cells, for example, are the cells that keep the blood flowing properly. Endothelial cells are found on the inside of arteries. If the endothelial cells are damaged, the risk of microscopic blood clots being formed increases. These microscopic blood clots can travel to the lungs, increasing the risk of developing arterial hypertension, a serious progressive condition that overworks and weakens the heart.
A preclinical study on laboratory animals conducted by Pfizer shows that the lipid (nanoparticles) and mRNA genetic instructions enter the bloodstream and accumulate in several organs, including the spleen, bone marrow, liver and adrenal glands and concentrate in the ovaries. The body then begins to produce spike proteins where these mRNA instructions are found.
A laboratory study in Sweden shows that the Pfizer/BioNTech covid-19 vaccine can penetrate a human liver cell where it is reverse transcribed into DNA within hours. (Additional: there are discussions on GMO legislation and the genetic covid injections. But the elephant in the room is not adressed by polticians discussing the harms of these experimental injections - in Sweden these genetic injections are completely illegal GMOs according to swedish law on genetic integrity (section 3 on gene-therapy and paragraph 4) since the GMO process of the covid mRNA / modRNA injection is passed on to offspring. Science on this: Covid mRNA shots permanently alter the DNA of those who receive the injections. Alarmingly, however, these dangerous changes to the DNA will be passed on to the offspring of the Covid-vaccinated. Study published by U.S. National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Library of Medicine. The problem we face in Sweden today on the illegal GMO’s of the mRNA injections is the Swedish Medicines Agency. They, against what the science has shown, stick to an unscientific claim: "Nucleic acid sequences (RNA and DNA) that are introduced into cells using lipid particles are not considered GMOs."). “Not considered?”
The mRNA covid-19 vaccine contains problematic ingredients. Both Pfizer's and Moderna's vaccine contains polyethylene glycol (PEG) as an active ingredient. For example , PEG is not recommended in ointments applied to damaged skin because some burn patients who received a PEG-based antimicrobial cream experienced renal tubular necrosis and died of kidney failure. PEG is used in the Moderna vaccine and matches the description of a PEG product manufactured by Sinopeg, a company in China. According to the Sinopeg website, that product is intended for "research
only". The Moderna vaccine also contains a lipid known by the name SM-102. The Pfizer vaccine also contains a lipid known by the name ALC-0315. According to the safety information on the Cayman Chemical Company website, that manufactures SM102 and ALC-0315, both of these products are intended for “research purposes – not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.” Despite this, PEG is used in these covid-19 vaccines.
Since the covid-19 vaccine does not trigger an immune response against SARS-CoV-2, mutations of the spike protein makes it possible for the virus to escape the effects of the vaccine and thus survive.
After 2 doses no one can form natural immunity after a covid 19 mrna genetic injection. After 3 - 4 doses, IGg4 classswitch occurs where the antibodies protect the virus - leading to a worsening health status when someone is infected with sars-cov-2.
Lawyer Axel Berglund on the official Covid death and Covid injection statistics in Sweden:
Regarding the covid vaccine, studies have indicated that the more doses, the greater the risk of infection. Negative efficiency in other words.
In addition:
~ 96 percent of 70 or older are vaccinated
~ 96 percent deceased are covid vaccinated
I don't pretend we have all the answers. But the questions are certainly worth thinking about. Arthur C. Clarke
In 2022 Axel Berglund had a piece published in the Swedish tabloid Expressen:
People were excluded, blackmailed and some were also harmed by the covid-19 vaccine, some seriously.
Will leading politicians and their campaigners feel any responsibility for the affected? writes lawyer Axel Berglund.
DEBATE. That's how the healthy skin of determination passes in the sickly pallor of reflection. Serious political failures have passed review ever since a coronavirus began to spread in Wuhan, China. Now the time is ripe for a summary of what actually happened. The well-known quote from Shakespeare's "Hamlet" comes to mind here.
This happened.
An empty vessel produces the loudest sound . People got high on horror produced by empty vessels. The so-called precautionary principle meant that political decision-making was adapted to the very worst scenarios and interpretations, regardless of probability. The disease was considered serious but at the same time produced no symptoms, or moderate cold symptoms, in a large proportion of the population.
Conclusion: All people can spread infection without knowing it themselves (the word "can" was used extensively in communication). The elderly and those with multiple illnesses were hit hardest by the disease, but younger people could also get hurt. Conclusion: "no one is safe until everyone is safe". Empty vessel, loud noise.
Rulers wet dream
Live media updates of the number of infected and deceased, as well as gruesome images from China, fueled fear and uncertainty in society. It paved the way for leading politicians around the world to live out the ruler's wet dream. Lead, point with the whole hand, show action in a perceived crisis situation. Perhaps even preying on people's fears in order to increase their own power. Data that pointed to the disease not actually being as dangerous to society as initially feared were ignored. The hatches were already open.
It became particularly farcical when leading political propagandists for the vaccine pass, one by one, announced that they had tested positive and isolated themselves.
The result? Stink from 15 million rotting minks. Curfew for people, healthy and sick. Mouth protection requirements, closures, social distancing between people - physically and not least mentally. Young people who lost their best years, entrepreneurs who lost their life projects. And perhaps the most tragic of all: Elderly people locked in their homes, left to their own fate. Mourners who didn't get to say their last goodbyes. Increased mental illness. Ugly wounds in nations that are supposed to represent enlightened democracies.
No evidence for the benefits of restrictions
Restrictions were put in place to flatten that curve. But the curve went in slightly different directions. No one has been able to prove any positive net effects of restrictions. It is not even made clear that restrictions in the long run contribute to fewer deaths from covid-19.
In the midst of the ongoing spread of infection, vaccines began to be rolled out on a large scale in Sweden. According to the manufacturers, they were 80-90 percent effective against symptomatic covid-19. And a bit into 2021, when everyone in the risk group had already been offered vaccination, it suddenly became very important that everyone get vaccinated.
It was considered as disloyalty to not take one's emergency or conditionally approved vaccine of questionable effectiveness. The people who did not want to play war and who refused vaccination were now seen as irresponsible. That many had already had the disease the vaccine was intended to protect against (and thus acquired superior immunity) did not matter. They had not sacrificed themselves.
The syringe would free us from incompetence
To sacrifice yourself, that's what you do by "taking one for the team" as Magnus Snäckestrand so aptly expressed himself in a debate article in GP . If you opt out of the syringe, you have to "take the consequences", said the chief physician. Not the consequences of being unvaccinated at risk of becoming seriously ill, which an effective vaccine can counteract, but the consequences in the form of discrimination and exclusion from society.
Many were hit hard by covid-19. No death, regardless of cause, shall be downplayed. The point here is that the syringe would free the population from the incompetent actions of the rulers. It became for many a symbolic act and an identity, an initiation rite where it was important to be able to accept a bodily intervention (vaccination) in order to be ennobled into the new social class.
The vaccine evidence was a farce
Responsible authorities were happy to point out that among the unvaccinated, low-educated and non-European immigrants were overrepresented. The poorly hidden message: Those who refuse the injection do not understand better. In India, a myth is spreading that you "become a monkey" from the vaccine, Agnes Wold pointed out in Expressen . Who wants to join the crazy club?
About a hundred people have so far been deemed eligible for compensation by Läkemedelsförsäkringen based on high evidentiary requirements.
Many stayed in the crazy club. And in order to, one may assume, highlight how important it was to get vaccinated, the government launched the vaccination certificate "as an infection prevention measure". Just a couple of weeks after implementation in December 2021, the infection exploded out into the community and reached extreme, unprecedented levels. The failure was total and particularly farcical when leading political propagandists for the vaccine pass, one by one, announced that they had tested positive and isolated themselves.
Who takes responsibility now?
What else is, is silence . Many would probably like to forget what they did and said. People were excluded, blackmailed and some were also harmed by the vaccine, some seriously. Causal relationships can be difficult to prove, but around a hundred people have so far been deemed eligible for compensation by the Medical Insurance Company based on high evidentiary requirements. Relatively few cases have been tried. The dark story is today unknown. It is not unreasonable to assume increasing numbers in the future, not least if vaccination is to be seen as a recurring feature. Will leading politicians and their campaigners feel any responsibility for those affected?
On a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively. / The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years.
“The Public Health Authority overestimated the virus's lethality by one thousand (1,000) percent in connection with the development of the unconstitutional covid-19 law. ALL introduced corona restrictions in Sweden were careless, unscientific, disproportionate. AND counterproductive.”
“Here is a link to the bill regarding changes to the Infection Control Act. See page 19. No proper IFR analysis was done at any time during the preparation of legislation linked to covid measures.”
Added in - Axel Berglund has also had several articles published in Dagens Juridik (a law magazine).
From april 2020 (excerpt) - on defending civil- and human rights and questioning restrictions due to the actual health data. Politicians want to appear in charge of things. The data Axel Berglund showed from spring 2020 shows:
The 2017 flu season culminated in weeks 1-4. The combined daily average of the number of deaths per week during the period amounts to 1,243. ·
The 2018 flu season culminated weeks 8-11. The combined daily average of the number of deaths per week during the period amounts to 1,227. ·
The 2020 Corona pandemic culminated in weeks 14-17. The combined daily average of the number of deaths per week during the period amounts to 1,376
What we know about the virus today reinforces the picture that it can be compared to seasonal flu rather than the Spanish Flu in terms of mortality. It will never be possible to precisely specify a figure, but the comparison with seasonal flu is not irrelevant in the light of the data we have access to today. At the same time, healthcare and other actors have prepared for a horror scenario.
Fundamental freedoms and rights protected by the constitution are sacrificed without strong evidence (rather guesses) that life and health are protected, this through panic-like measures when politicians must prove to be capable of taking action.
In the long run, a careless handling of civil liberties and rights can have a much more serious impact on our lives than the virus has.
December 2020 (excerpt) The idiocy of the swedish pandemic act:
What is the infection mortality rate for covid-19 assessed by the government? In February it was estimated to be 2 percent of those infected, today it is estimated by some epidemiologists to be 0.15-0.20 percent globally, i.e. at least ten times lower than the government's estimate from February and thus within the range for seasonal influenza mortality.
In its current form, the proposal for the covid-19 act is a document that should preferably be consigned to the dustbin. The document is not something the government should be proud of and because the government now also wants to rush the proposal and seek to get a decision during the Christmas break is serious.
November 2021 (excerpt) The vaccine passport is unconstitutional:
Rules for vaccination certificates include restrictions on fundamental rights such as e.g. freedom of assembly, freedom of demonstration, freedom of association and the right to bodily integrity. According to chapter 2 § 21 of the Swedish constitution, restrictions of these rights may never go beyond what is necessary with regard to the purpose that has led to them. A so-called proportionality assessment is required.
The EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights requires proportionality assessments to be made. The very lack of a proportionality assessment makes the proposal contrary to the constitution, the European Convention and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
According to the Swedish constitution (chapter 2 § 6) everyone is protected vis-à-vis the public against forced bodily intervention, which includes vaccination, and this right may only be limited by law and must be subject to review by the Riksdag (chapter 2 § 20 and 22 §§ swedish constitution) . Vaccination certificates are now proposed to be introduced by regulation after authorization in the covid-19 act. Thus, the proposal escapes the Legislative Council's review and the Swedish Parliament's review. In our opinion, the Legislative Council should be involved to review the proposal in its entirety, including the continued application of the covid-19 act. Adequate analysis of the proposal's proportionality must take place. In addition, the Patient Act's rules on informed consent must be taken into account. A consent to vaccination is not voluntary if it means that rights are taken away from a person who does not vaccinate. Issues of illegal discrimination are also brought up.
Evidence of recovery from infection is not included in the government's proposal, nor is the possibility of using tests for ongoing infection. The proposal differs from the EU's green passport.
We must not forget that people are at varying risk of serious illness from covid-19 and that many have already had the infection and have acquired broad T-cell immunity. The balance between risk and benefit must be made individually. Indirectly forcing people who do not want or need to be vaccinated against covid-19 through vaccination passes can never be a proportionate measure. It should be added here that the government has not even assessed or in any way succeeded in quantifying any goals with regard to reducing the spread of infection.
Our view is that the proposal is not proportionate regardless of the spread of infection and is therefore judged to be contrary to the constitution, the European Convention and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and that the government should therefore withdraw the proposal.
January 2022 (excerpt) - Discrimintory Vaccine Passport
In our opinion, discrimination laws should be clarified and strengthened further in order to prevent attempts at violations at an early stage. We can compare with the discrimination laws of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, which are perhaps the most progressive in the world today. The constitutions of these countries emanate from the the human rights violations that affected the Balkans in the 1990s. The grounds of discrimination include specifically discrimination on the grounds of "health condition" as well as "political or other opinion" (which is also covered by Article 14 of the European Convention).
Government and authority representatives who implement regulations contrary to current discrimination regulations risk prosecution and several years in prison. Even attempts at discrimination are criminalized. For this reason, responsible politicians in Bosnia-Herzegovina have now been forced to roll back a previous proposal to introduce vaccine passports. Likewise, the fact that Bosnia also applies the European Convention has been important for the decision.
It is probably no coincidence that some of the most critical voices against vaccine passports come from people who have previous experience of oppression in their home countries and here the Balkan countries and the countries of the former Eastern Bloc stand out. We believe that we have something to learn from MEPs Cristian Terheș and Ivan Sinčić to that extent. They were early on in protesting against the introduction of the so-called green passport within the EU. Not least, we also have something to learn from the Bosnian lawyer Mirnes Ajanović, who through his appeals to the Bosnian government managed to prevent the implementation of vaccine passports in Bosnia. With inspiration from the Bosnian and Croatian legislation, one should ask the question whether there is no reason to include "health conditions" and "political or other opinion" as grounds for criminal discrimination in the Swedish criminal code as well. Should attempts at such discrimination also be penalized?
In this post on the Hope Accord petition you will find research of relevance on the effects of the Covid-19 injection campaign and why the mRNA / modRNA product must be stopped.
Hope Accord Petition to stop the Covid mRNA injections
Asking the right questions takes as much skill as giving the right answers. Robert Half