Jon Rappaport has an interesting post today concerning the Pfizer vaccine and all the hoopla about it. He pointed out that all they are testing for is mild sickness. They started with 43,538 healthy volunteers. Half got the vaccine, and half got placebo. Then they just waited. They figured some would get sick with Covid because "the virus is everywhere." 94 developed mild symptoms. Then, they opened the envelopes to see how many of them had received the vaccine, and 90% of them had not- implying that those that did were protected.

Jon's point is: What good is a vaccine that only protects against mild illness? I get it, but there is a bigger issue than that. First, what is the most distinguishing, defining characteristic of Covid? It's a positive Covid test! Nothing else. Yesterday, they told us that Covid patients can present with blood sugar disturbance. And mild symptoms can occur from the usual causes like colds and flu. I read the fine print, and they did not consider whether any of the test subjects became asymptomatic carriers over the course of the study. But, isn't that how Covid affects a lot of people? If they were going to go by mild symptoms, they should have taken it all the way down to no symptoms. And if a subject did develop symptoms, without a positive Covid test it means nothing.

So, they went about this all wrong. The positive test is what matters, not the symptoms.

Don't get me wrong: I think the test is bull shit. But, they believe in it, and that's what they have to go by because, according to them, Covid infection can exist with or without symptoms.

So, did they determine a negative Covid status in every subject at the outset? Obviously, they should have. And then, did they determine a positive Covid test result in those who developed symptoms? This is what it said: "Volunteers were tested for the virus only if they reported symptoms."

That is crap. The paradigm is that when Covid infects you the symptoms range from nothing to death and everything in-between. There is NO symptom that is pathognomonic for Covid. The only thing that is pathognomonic for Covid is a positive Covid test. So, they are going about this all wrong.

And it's especially true when you consider that it involved 43,538 people. It means that the effect that it had on 43,444 of those people is being ignored. Every single one of them should be tested for Covid positivity. This is crap. However, I also have a question for Jon Rappaport. Pfizer is saying that of the 94 people who developed mild symptoms, 90% did not receive the vaccine. How do we explain that? I mean: how do we explain it outside their paradigm of the vaccine protecting them? I don't claim to know. I can only speculate. Were there subtle design flaws? How did they determine who would get the vaccine and who would get the placebo? Was it random? And without any hitches? And since they were looking for mild acute symptoms like fever and coughing, is it possible that their vaccine has a suppressive effect? Again, I am just speculating. But, I still maintain that they went about this all wrong. What they should have done is taken their 43,538 subjects, made sure that they were Covid-negative starting out, and then determined if they registered a positive Covid test over time. That should have been the criteria. That way, they would be assessing the results in 43,538 people rather than a measly 94. What a travesty this is.