But, But, But

"Safe and effective."

How many times have we heard that in relation to the Pfizer 'vaccine'? Our media have shoved it down our throats ad nauseum, to the point of irritating. The only sanity saving option has been to turn off the TV. Even Aunty Hillary Barry has turned into a patronising scold.

Let's leave the 'safe' part for a later post and for now deal with the 'effective' part of this oft repeated phrase.

We've apparently forgotten that the new breed messenger RNA 'vaccines' were billed as the silver bullet to save us all. Some months down the track and with longitudinal studies beginning to appear, not only are expectations having to be reset, but much of our political class has gone into over-drive to denounce anyone referencing these new findings as "spreading misinformation" or "anti-vax".

If you want a satirical take down on the slow and steady slide from silver bullet saviour, there's an excellent video someone has done here. 2.26 minutes well worth watching.

In a study from Oxford University, researchers found that protection from Delta with Pfizer's jab drops over three months. In situations of high viral load, the observed efficacy of the Pfizer jab went from 92% at 14 days to 78% after 90 days. The researchers also found that infected vaccinated people had similar peak levels of virus as infected unvaccinated people. In short, vaccinated people just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated.

The researchers found that the "time between doses does not affect effectiveness in preventing new infections, but younger people have even more protection from vaccination than older people". Since healthy younger people are less at risk of the virus itself, with often mild symptom and resulting broad natural immunity, you would have hoped that the at risk older group, who are surely the target group, would have found more benefit from this medical intervention?

It gets worse.

In a 9 month, longitudinal study from Sweden the finding was that Pfizer waned progressively from 92% at day 15 - 30 to 47% at day 121 - 180, and from day 211 onwards? No effectiveness. So between 7 -9 months after their last shot, those double jabbed here in New Zealand will have the same level of protection as those who are unvaccinated.

"Men and older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities" (obesity, heart disease, diabetes etc) fair less well when it comes to protection from severe illness. Yet this is the group most needing protection. Consider that, at this stage, our Government will not allow other medications to be used. Some of these have been prescribed to humans for decades and have a known low risk profile that limit both severity and duration of illness.

Given limited durability of the vaccines, is it any wonder Governments from Israel to UK to US are frantically moving to get a 3rd booster shot approved, a 3rd shot no-one knew we needed. As Europe heads into their winter and with cases spiking, the German Government is warning their double vaccinated to be just as vigilant as the non-vaccinated and are making the booster shot available 6 months after the second shot.  

What happens after the 3rd shot and what impact could it have on our immune systems? We're repeatedly told this novel mRNA vaccine technology is not experimental but no-one apparently knew that it wasn't durable and a third shot would be needed. How come those doing the clinical trials didn't know about waning efficacy? Or, maybe they did and that'll be a post for a later date.

As to the question of efficacy, and keeping in mind the original starting point of a vaccine to give us back our freedoms, here's what we now know: 1) The vaccine will not stop you from contracting the virus. 2) The vaccine will not stop you transmitting and infecting others with the virus. 3) At best it will protect you for around 6 - 7 months from severe illness, if you are young and healthy. 4)  If you are male and/or medically vulnerable, this protection is further reduced.

Here's what we also know.

The virus will keep mutating. It's already done so, from the original Alpha to the more transmissible Delta making both big Pharma and Governments appear flat-footed.

It is worth noting that both Merck and Pfizer have developed an anti-viral medication. Surely this shouldn't be needed and wouldn't pass a cost/benefit analysis if what we're told by our Government is correct? That the jab is all that's needed for all but a very few.