Connect with us

Health

The Fascinating Link Between The Pyramids & Otherworldly Visitors

Avatar

Published

on

I have always been fascinated by the Egyptian pyramids. As a kid, I wasn’t even aware of the many other types of pyramids that exist on this planet, their significance, or incredible history. All I knew of were the huge yellowish orange triangular Egyptian pyramids that gave me a sense of wonder and amazement about our past.

advertisement - learn more

Who built them? How did were they built? Why were they built? Could it have been ET’s?! It was all so fascinating to me.

-->Listened to our latest podcast episode yet? Joe speaks with journalist Derrick Broze about the need for journalistic standards, Qanon, and agorism. Click here to listen!

As I was doing research for an article I wrote about anomalies with the Great Pyramid that Graham Hancock outlines, I came across a number of interesting aspects to the pyramids that not only lined up with space, but that also suggest there may have been beings in our history that new things far beyond what we humans apparently knew at the time.

Other Worldly Connections

According to the accepted version of history, the three massive Pyramids on the Giza Plateau in Egypt were built by armies of Hebrew slaves for the glory of the Pharaohs of Egypt. This idea was introduced to the world by the visit to Egypt of the 5th century Greek historian Herodotus. He claimed that the Pyramids were built by teams of 100,000 men, changed every few months, over a period of 20 years. The fact that this meant that one block of stone had to be laid exactly in place every 3 1/2 minutes 24 hours a day seems to have been overlooked by recent Egyptologists!

The fact that there wasn’t this kind of manpower in 4th Dynasty Egypt for almost 5000 miles around is equally ignored! Not to mention the ludicrous theories about the stones being rolled on logs – when the only trees endemic to Ancient Egypt were date palms (a valuable food source, so unlikely to be cut down, and far too soft a wood to withstand the weight of such stones for more than a few feet!) – or pushed up a ramp (a ramp which would have entailed more work than the construction of the Pyramid itself, and would have left behind around 6 billions pounds of construction garbage, none of which has ever been found!)

The Pyramids are supposed to be monuments to the Pharaohs, tombs to preserve the royal bodies for a continued existence in the afterlife, and yet no bodies have ever been found inside them. This misconception of history has led to some very basic misunderstandings about Egyptian culture and history, and has led to perhaps the greatest conspiracy of all time: who built the Pyramids?

advertisement - learn more

Let’s start by examining some hard facts about the pyramids and in turn look at what these facts might represent or mean:

1. The Great Pyramid (known as that of Khufu/Cheops) contains no Pharaoh’s body, no treasure chamber, and no treasures. There is no indication that it ever has contained these things. The popular myth of the Pyramids being royal tombs is clearly nonsense. The tombs archaeology has accepted – those in the Valleys of the Kings and Queens –are obviously tombs, storehouses of the Pharaoh’s earthly riches, intricately prepared to ensure his survival in the next world. The Great Pyramid contains none of the obvious trappings of a tomb.

2. The only reason it is known as the Khufu/Cheops Pyramid at all is due to some Victorian graffiti! When Colonel Howard Vyse blasted his way into the Great Pyramid he was determined to make his name as an Egyptologist. He longed for nothing more than to make some monumental discovery which would make him famous. His disappointment at finding the Pyramid empty was too much for him to bear – it was his last season in Egypt – and in the dead of night it is said that he crept up into the ‘air shafts’ (known as ‘spirit stones’ to the Egyptians) above the King’s Chamber and daubed some hieroglyphs in red paint. The following morning he made his ‘discovery’ and subsequently earned his place in the history books as being the man who discovered the identity of the owner of the Great Pyramid!

It is worth mentioning in addition that the symbols he painted were not even accurate ones for the period in which the Pyramid was then believed to have been built. The symbol for ‘Ra’ – chief amongst the Egyptian gods at that time – was depicted wrongly. Now surely if an Egyptian had painted that symbol he would have got it right! Not to do so would have been a grave insult to the most highly respected and feared of the Egyptian pantheon.

3. The stone sarcophagus which is contained within the Great Pyramid is too large to have been brought into the chamber in which it stands. Many books on the subject of this particular anomaly either point blank ignore the question or state rather bizarrely that the sarcophagus must have been installed during the building process.

Now, surely, to a civilisation as advanced as that of the Ancient Egyptians, this solution would have made no sense whatsoever. If the reason for making the sarcophagus – which incidentally shows no indication of ever having been occupied – larger than the doorway was to put off thieves, surely the subsequent sealing of the chamber with huge stone portcullis blocks, and the thorough blocking off of the Ascending Corridor which leads to the King’s Chamber by three enormous granite plugs, would have been sufficient. It is highly unlikely that the opportunistic thieves of Ancient Egypt would have taken the time to plough through that much solid rock just to get into a chamber which they must have known was empty of all riches. And if the chamber was completely barren and empty, why go to such great lengths to ensure that it wasn’t opened up ever again? What secrets does the so-called King’s Chamber hold?

4. Some visitors, including the great and fearless Emperor Napoleon himself, have experienced strange visions and environmental distortions whilst inside the Great Pyramid, particularly the King’s Chamber. In the 1930s, author Paul Brunton spent a night there and was assailed by visions of “a circle of hostile creatures” which he likened to “elemental creations, grotesque shapes, madmen, hulking and devilish apparitions”. Was this mere hallucination? In more recent times such ideas have been put down to the background radiation given off by the black granite of the chamber, but surely if it was that simple then everyone who visited the chamber would experience a similar thing, wouldn’t they?

Early experiments indicated that the King’s Chamber ‘spirit stones’ did seem to generate an electrical field which caused minor shock to at least one poor visitor drinking from a metal hip flask! It has been suggested that the Pyramid, because of its granite blocks, could transmit and receive radio and even microwave signals very well, and some believe that it gives off energy in an ’emanating apex’ – this means that energy spirals off the top of the structure in a circle which widens as it permeates the atmosphere. Whilst some have seen this as mere New Age hokum, others have said this confirms their suspicions that the Pyramid is some kind of beacon intended for use from space.

More recently, ex-NASA consultant Richard Hoagland has stated that radioactive sand was found in a chamber behind the Queen’s Chamber, which might explain both the weird experiences of Napoleon et al, and the anomalous radioactive date readings given by the Pyramid -in which it appears that the top of the structure is 1000 years older than the bottom! This has led some people to speculate that the Pyramid was constructed upside down in mid air by alien technology and then swung over into place on the Giza Plateau. I could not possibly comment.

5. A road eight feet wide and four inches thick could be built from San Francisco to New York and put inside the Great Pyramid. It has also been speculated that a wall three feet high and one foot thick could be built all the way around France with the amount of stone it took to build the Great Pyramid. Its perimeter is almost 1 kilometre, and the inside area – a massive 53,000 square metres – would be able to incorporate the cathedrals of Florence, Milan and St Peter’s (The Vatican), as well as Westminster Abbey and St Paul’s. And this was accomplished by people of the Stone Age, yes?

6. They are the sole remnant of the Seven Wonders of the World. The Pyramids are also, apart from the Great Wall of China, the oldest surviving artificial structures on Earth.

7. There are no true hieroglyphic markings inside the Pyramids – remarkable for a nation which carved them into just about every available surface they had. Nor are there any real clues from hieroglyphs elsewhere as to how the Pyramids were built. The only hieroglyphs inside the Great Pyramid are the red paint daubings of Howard Vyse and are not genuine Ancient Egyptian carvings. Although Pyramids elsewhere in Egypt, most notably those of a much later date than the Pyramids at Giza, do contain hieroglyphs – the derivation of the so-called ‘Pyramid Texts’ – the Great Pyramid and its two companions of the Giza Plateau are untouched by the scribe’s knife.

8. As Giza Pyramid investigator August Tornquist states: “The Great Pyramid was the greatest single undertaking in the whole history of mankind. And yet there is not one picture or drawing, not one artefact, not one inventory or tally sheet to tell of its construction. The Egyptians left us some 3000 years of written and pictorial history covering virtually everything that happened in their culture. From babies being born, to ploughing and harvesting, building, weaving, sacrificing, praying, embalming… but nothing about the Pyramids of Giza. Why?”

For a nation that loved to boast, they seem strangely reticent to tell us anything about the Pyramids at Giza. Perhaps the reason was simply because they were as much a mystery to the Ancient Egyptians as they are to us.

There is in fact documentary evidence – from Sumerian clay tablets unearthed in the great historical library of Nineveh – that the Great Pyramid was known to the Sumerians of 10,000 years ago, 6000 years before the first Pharaoh of Egypt was even born!

9. It is built to face true North, supposedly at a time when such computations could not have been possible. Are we to believe that the Ancient Egyptians – on top of all their other wonders – were also the first civilisation to possess knowledge of mathematics so precise that they could determine true North from magnetic North? Come to that, are we to believe that they could even find magnetic North, or know what its significance was? Tied in with this idea of being able to locate true North is the notion that the Earth is round, a fact not generally accepted until the last few centuries. Some still dispute it even today!

10. The Great Pyramid is located at the exact centre of the Earth’s land mass. That is, its East-West axis corresponds to the longest land parallel across the Earth, passing through Africa, Asia, and America. Similarly, the longest land meridian on Earth, through Asia, Africa, Europe, and Antarctica, also passes right through the Pyramid. Since the Earth has enough land area to provide 3 billion possible building sites for the Pyramid, the odds of it having been built where it is are 1:3 billion. As previously discussed in my article on Anomalous Maps, the ability to compute longitude was not supposedly available to cartographers or anybody else until the 18th century.

Without an understanding of longitude it would be exceptionally difficult to be able to pinpoint the size, shape, and relative mappings of the Earth’s land masses and seas. Without longitude it would have been near impossible to undertake major sea journeys, and yet if the evidence (such as Egyptian mummies containing cocaine traces) is reliable, the Egyptians did actually undertake such exploratory missions, even as far as South America (the only place the cocaine could have come from). (All this despite their apparent hatred of sailing on the open seas!) And even if we accept that the Egyptians of thousands of years ago were competent navigators, how could they have known about the exact interrelation of the rest of the Earth’s land mass? And then there are the statistics…

11. Like 20th century bridge designs, the Great Pyramid’s cornerstones have balls and sockets built into them. Several football fields long, the Pyramid is subject to movements of expansion and contraction from heat and cold, as well as earthquakes, settling, and other such phenomena. After 4,600 years its structure would have been significantly damaged without such construction. Recent construction experts called in to offer suggestions as to how the Pyramid could have been built make reference to the ‘settle factor’ of any large building. They have publicly stated that while the acceptable settle factor of a modern skyscraper is 6″ per hundred years, the simple fact is that the Pyramid – using more construction material than 35 Empire State Buildings – has settled less than 1/2″ in 5000 years! Modern construction has also averred that although for a large modern tower block the acceptable variance from complete alignment of all four sides is 6″, the four sides of the Pyramid are out of perfect alignment by less than 1/4″!

The casing stones, 144,000 in all, were so brilliant that they could literally be seen from the mountains of Israel hundreds of miles away. For those interested in possible symbolic significance, in Bible prophecy 144,000 is the number of people – 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel – who are supposed to evangelise the world in the days before the Apocalypse. The outside surface stones are cut within 0.01″ of perfectly straight and at nearly perfect right angles for all six sides. And they were placed together with a gap between them of only 0.02″. Modern technology cannot place such 20-ton stones with greater accuracy than those in the Pyramid. As already noted above, the variance from perfect alignment seen in the Pyramid is still something which is unattainable today.

What can we deduce from these facts? That whoever built the Pyramids used a technology that we still do not possess today to cut, move, and cement stones. Whoever built it also had some considerable knowledge of the Earth, because they were built in one of the few locations with a strong enough bedrock to support the great weight. The builders also knew where the greatest land mass of the Earth was in both the North-South and East-West directions. After studying the detailed measurements made by the investigators before him, Sir Isaac Newton (who was fascinated by the Pyramids) recognised that many key measurements would be in round numbers if the standard unit of measure was just 0.001″ (1/1,000) larger than the British inch – which just happens to be the Sacred Jewish Inch. (The Sacred Jewish Inch, 1/25 of a cubit, equals 1.00106 British inches.) This discovery allowed the secrets of the Pyramid to be unlocked and revealed unmistakable and mathematical relationships.

For instance: A – We know from geometry that there is a universal relationship between the diameter of a circle and its circumference. Consider this: The height of the Pyramid’s apex is 5,812.98″, and each side is 9,131″ from corner to corner (in a straight line). If the circumference of the Pyramid is divided by twice its height (the diameter of a circle is twice the radius), the result is 3.14159, which just happens to be pi. Incredibly, this calculation is accurate to six digits. So the Pyramid is a square circle, and thus pi was designed into it 4,600 years ago. Pi is demonstrated many times throughout the Pyramid.

B – Other numbers are also repeated throughout. Each of the Great Pyramid’s four walls, when measured as a straight line, are 9,131″, for a total of 36,524″. At first glance, this number may not seem significant, but move the decimal point over and you get 365.24. Modern science has shown us that the exact length of the solar year is 365.24 days.

C – The average height of land above sea level (Miami being low and the Himalayas being high), as can be measured only by modern-day satellites and computers, happens to be 5,449″. That is the exact height of the Pyramid.

D – All four sides of the Pyramid are very slightly and evenly bowed in, or concave. This effect, which cannot be detected by looking at the Pyramid from the ground, was discovered around 1940 by a pilot taking aerial photos to check certain measurements. As measured by today’s laser instruments, all of these perfectly cut and intentionally bowed stone blocks duplicate exactly the curvature of the earth. The radius of this bow is equal to the radius of the Earth. This radius of curvature is what Newton had long been seeking.

All this has led many to see the Pyramids (particularly the Great Pyramid) as being built by visitors from another planet, since the technology was obviously not such as would have been available to Stone Age Man. The theorists speculate that the Pyramid is a message, a symbol of knowledge which we as early humans learnt to decipher, and hence built our own versions of the Pyramid, examples of which litter the Egyptian desert plateau in crumbling ruins. This message indicates that whoever built the Pyramid knew the Earth well: the length of the year, the radius of curvature, the standard measurement techniques, the average height of the continents, and the centre of the land mass. They were able to construct something that we still cannot construct today, and they were able to tie all these things together in this single structure. Were they extraterrestrial, or perhaps even supernatural? Some people think so. You be the Judge.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Health

Study: Weekly Use of Disinfectants Greatly Increases Your Risk of Fatal Lung Disease

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A 30-year study conducted by Harvard researchers and the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research found that people who use disinfectants once a week have a 22-32% increased chance of developing lung disease.

  • Reflect On:

    How reliable are regulatory agencies when it comes determining how safe the products we use for cleaning are for our health and environment? Did you know that there are a number of effective alternatives and products available out there?

Follow me on Instagram here. Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be on Facebook.

What Happened: A 30-year study conducted by researchers at Harvard University alongside researchers at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm) found that regular use of bleach and other commonly used disinfectants can increase your chances of developing fatal lung disease. The study found that those who used these types of products just once a week had up to a 32% increased chance of developing the condition.

It’s called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Researchers looked at the incidence of the disease for the study in more than 55,000 nurses in the United States. Nurses were used for the study because they use disinfectants to clean surfaces on a regular basis. In this study population, 37 percent of nurses used disinfectants to clean surfaces on a weekly basis and 19 percent used them to clean medical instruments on a weekly basis.

In the UK alone, COPD is present approximately 1.2 million people. It includes various lung conditions like chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Obviously there are multiple factors that play a role, but according to this study, disinfectants are definitely one of them or at the very least, can’t be ruled out. Correlation may not mean causation but it’s safe to assume that breathing in these substances is not really safe, in my opinion, and can be detrimental to our health.

As far as deaths go, 25,000 people a year die from COPD in England. This number represents the third highest death rate from the disease. This study is thought to be the very first to identify such a link between COPD and specific cleaning products/chemicals known as “quaternary ammonium compounds (quats).”

To the best of our knowledge we are the first to report a link between disinfectants and COPD among healthcare workers, and to investigate specific chemicals that may underlie this association…Some of these disinfectants, such as bleach and quats, are frequently used in ordinary households, and the potential impact of domestic use of disinfectants on COPD development is unknown…Earlier studies have found a link between asthma and exposure to cleaning products and disinfectants at home, such as bleach and sprays, so it is important to investigate this further.- Inserm researcher Orianne Dumas (source)

The researchers analysed data from a mass study on female US nurses commenced by Harvard in 1989. In 2009, they looked at those who were still working as nurses who had no history of COPD and tracked them until May this year. During that period, 663 were diagnosed with the condition.

A follow up study published in 2019 examining more than 70,000 nurses came to the same conclusions.

We found that use of several specific disinfectants was associated with higher risk of COPD development; these included hypochlorite bleach (chlorine), hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, and quaternary ammonium compounds (commonly used for low-level disinfection of noncritical items, such as environmental surfaces) and glutaraldehyde (used for high-level disinfection). Several of these exposures often occurred concurrently, and disentangling the role of each product was challenging. When studying combinations of exposure to specific disinfectants, we found the highest risks of COPD incidence among nurses exposed to hypochlorite bleach or hydrogen peroxide and in those combining these exposures with exposure to aldehydes. Both the chemical properties of specific products and the greater number of products used could explain these elevated risks. Moreover, all of the agents that were associated with COPD incidence when evaluated separately have been described as airway irritants.

Why This Is Important: 

The everyday use of bleach currently has no specific health guidelines, and that’s very true with many other products as well. Cosmetics is a great example, that particular industry is not quite regulated as it should be, and products that do pass through federal health regulatory regulation and inspection are not always safe. Glyphosate is a great example, and there is a growing concern today among academics, journalists and everyday people regarding the close relationship between these regulatory agencies and the companies that manufacture these products. Sure they may work, but the case with many of these products is that there are alternatives that are just as effective and much more safer.

Whether it’s banking soda and vinegar, tea tree oil and lemons, or something else, the market and natural health stores are now filled with cleaning products that do not pose the same threat as mainstream conventional cleaning products. They’re not hard to find, all it takes is a simple internet search, or a trip to your local natural health food store. Many regular chains are also starting to carry more health and environmentally sound cleaning/disinfectant products as well. If you’re truly concerned and put effort into searching, you’ll have no problem finding these products.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Health

How Effective is The Covid-19 Vaccine?

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The 95% efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is widely touted by the media and the medical establishment, but there are important questions to be asked about this claim.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we being given all information available from covid vaccine study to make informed decisions? Are the studies even being done in a way that represents what effects the vaccine may have on the whole population?

Are you going to decline the Covid-19 vaccine if it is offered to you? Why or why not? No matter how certain you are in your reasoning there will no doubt be someone else who feels exactly the opposite to you and will be just as certain of their position. We trust different sources of information, we have had different experiences with vaccines and we have different impressions of the threat of SARS-COV2 to us and our species.

I would suggest that those in the “vaccine cautionary” community would decline the vaccine based on their ideas around its potential risks. On the other hand, supporters of the vaccine are more likely to focus on its potential benefits. The debate has largely been centered around the disagreement people have about the risks. In this essay I will consider the uncertainty I and others have about its benefits.

Is the Medical Community biased about the Vaccine?

As a contributor to Collective Evolution I am well aware of the “cautionary” perspective on vaccinations and CDC directives. As a physician, I have a reasonable understanding of how those in the medical community regard the “best of what modern science has to offer”. I am part of a Physician group on social media where doctors can seek advice from each other around all matters Covid-19, from interesting cases to rare side effects to how to address special concerns raised by patients. It has been alarming to realize how unilateral the support of vaccination is in this community. 

I mean no disrespect to my medical colleagues. Many of those in this community have seen their patients die from this very real virus. They have had to struggle with the divergent directives coming from the CDC. They have had to work through many weeks where Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was in short supply as their hospital wards rapidly reached capacity and overflowed. Now that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have met minimum requirements for efficacy under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), they are faced with yet another impediment to getting themselves and their patients through this pandemic: growing skepticism around the vaccine coming from the very same people they are endeavoring to help. Their frustration around the situation is understandable, but is it biasing them?

Before consenting to any intervention it is important to understand its relative risks and benefits. As I mentioned earlier, there has been much concern in the “vaccine cautionary” sphere about side-effects and deaths. Here I will take a closer look at what we know about the benefits of the vaccine based on Pfizer-Biontech’s  briefing document to the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. How confident can we be in the efficacy of the vaccine? Has the manufacturer done its due diligence in its analysis and in being transparent? These are the central questions that need to be answered.

Understanding False Positives and Negatives

There has been a lot of discussion about the rate of “false-positives” with regard to the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test for confirming infection with SARS-COV2. The PCR test can return a positive result even if only trace fragments of the virus are present. Fragments of the virus on a nasal swab is not necessarily representative of an active infection or transmissibility. Moreover the sensitivity of this test is dependent on the number of amplification cycles, or the cycle threshold (Ct), used.  The Ct is not standardized. It is not unreasonable to say that there will be a percentage of people who test positive that do not have the disease. Nevertheless, without a better test we as the public must treat all positive PCR tests as an indication of an infection. We must assume the test is right. The rate of false positives, whatever it is, is directly proportional to the overestimation of the prevalence of the disease. 

Here I would like to discuss the significance of “false-negatives”. These are people who get a negative PCR result but may still be infected. The rate of false negatives is directly proportional to the underestimation of disease prevalence. This aspect of the inaccuracy of our primary diagnostic test gets relatively little attention for practical reasons. If you are suffering symptoms consistent with Covid-19 but have a negative PCR test we assume that you have Covid-19 anyway. In other words, if someone is symptomatic we assume that the test is wrong, i.e. that it is a false-negative, and necessary measures are taken. We quarantine and isolate until we feel healthy again whether we have Covid-19 or not. 

Because we are in the midst of a pandemic we have no choice but to make these assumptions. We are responding appropriately given the limitations of the test. Because of the assumptions we are forced to make, we are exaggerating the prevalence of the disease and our response to it to some extent. It is the nature of the situation we are in.

How do we know that the Vaccine is 95% effective?

With this in mind I would like to discuss a post in the opinion blog of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that appeared earlier this month. The author, Peter Doshi (PhD and Associate Editor at the BMJ), takes a rigorous look at the results reported by Pfizer regarding the efficacy of their mRNA vaccine. The success of their vaccine has been widely publicized to be 95%. Where exactly does this figure come from?

During the four weeks of observation (three weeks between 1st and 2nd dose followed by 7 days), 162 participants who received the placebo expressed symptoms of Covid-19 and tested positive by PCR. Compare that with only 8 in the group that received their experimental vaccine. The chance of getting Covid 19 after receiving the vaccine was about 20 times lower than if you got the placebo. This is the basis of the claim that their vaccine was 95% effective, well over the 50% threshold required for Emergency Use Authorization that allows their product to be deployed despite the fact that the two-year Phase III trial is still 20 months from completion.

How did Pfizer handle study participants in the “Suspected Covid-19” group?

It is less commonly known that of the nearly 38,000 participants in the Pfizer study, 3,410 fell into a group labeled “suspected Covid-19”. These are people who developed symptoms consistent with disease but tested negative by PCR. 1,594 of those in this group received the vaccine and 1,816 received the placebo. It should be quite clear that how we regard this much bigger group of symptomatic participants will have an enormous impact on the true efficacy of the vaccine. In other words, if we assume that the PCR test was accurate in all of these people and that they didn’t have Covid-19 and developed symptoms from another virus, the flu for example, then the vaccine would in fact be 95% effective as reported. On the other hand, if the PCR test was wrong every time and they all in fact had Covid-19, the efficacy of the vaccine would be much different: 1602 (1594 + 8) in the vaccine wing vs. 1978 (1816 + 162) in the placebo wing results in a vaccine efficacy of only 19%. 

The PCR test (like any test) can be wrong some of the time and right some of the time. No test is 100% accurate, however in this situation the accuracy of the PCR test has a very large impact on how we interpret the results of the vaccine trial. The true efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine can be known only if we know how many symptomatic people in each wing had Covid-19 despite testing negative by PCR.

It is likely that the percentage of false negatives are different in each arm. As the FDA briefing document on the Pfizer study and the BMJ piece correctly note, there should be fewer false negatives in the vaccine group. Why? It is because there is a greater chance of developing Covid-19 symptoms after receiving the vaccine compared to getting a placebo. Reactogenicity, or the acute response of the body to the vaccine, is common. Most of the acute inflammatory reaction to the vaccine occurs in the first seven days after receiving the vaccine. Looking more closely at the data, 409 patients in the vaccine group developed symptoms in the first seven days after inoculation. Compare this to 287 in the placebo group. If we assume that any participant who expressed symptoms in the first seven days must be suffering from the side effects of the vaccine or the placebo and not a new Covid-19 infection, the efficacy of the vaccine would still only be 29% if everyone else in that group was a false negative. This is admittedly a very large assumption but it is not outside the realm of possibility.

There are other more extreme possibilities. If all of the vaccinated participants who were suspected of Covid-19 truly did not have the disease and all of the unvaccinated (placebo) participants who were suspect did have the disease we would have a true miracle vaccine. Why? It would mean that only 8 people got the disease in the vaccinated group compared to 1978 in the placebo group. This would mean that the vaccine was approximately 99.6% effective. On the other hand, if all those who got vaccinated in the suspected group got Covid-19 and those who got the placebo didn’t, the vaccine would be not just ineffective, it would be dangerous.

Putting aside extreme and unlikely possibilities, the matter of the 3,412 “suspected Covid-19” participants and our assumptions about them still has very large implications. Let us say hypothetically that we as a nation decide to vaccinate our entire population with the Pfizer vaccine assuming that it has a 95% efficacy in preventing the disease. In other words, we are assuming that none of those “suspected” of having Covid-19 actually have the disease. This is in fact the assumption that the FDA is making when approving the use of the vaccine under the EUA. We can predict that within a month about 6.3% people will develop Covid-like symptoms from something other than vaccine reactogenicity or the disease itself. This is based on the number of participants who became symptomatic (from something other than reactogenicity) despite getting the vaccine and testing negative (1,185) divided by the total number who got the vaccine (18,801) = 0.063. That’s what happened in the study.

In a population of 300 million, we would expect roughly 19 million people to develop symptoms of Covid from something other than SARS-COV2 within a month. We can agree that we must be extremely confident about whether these 19 million people have the disease or not. Why would we assume they all don’t have Covid-19 when the vaccine trial itself considered them to be “suspected” of having it? We won’t. We shouldn’t, and practically speaking, we will be in the same situation we are in right now.

Pfizer either did not do or report additional testing that would have helped

The real issue here is that we shouldn’t be guessing about such important numbers. What do you suppose Pfizer did, knowing that this larger pool of symptomatic participants could have an enormous impact on the estimation of their vaccine’s efficacy? In my opinion, they should have tested everyone who developed symptoms for antibodies to help quantify the percentage of false negative PCR tests. If a participant felt like they were coming down with Covid-19 but had a negative PCR test, it seems clear that performing an antibody test would have offered additional clarity. This was either not done or not reported.

We must be careful when interpreting the power of a vaccine study. Although tens of thousands of people were enrolled, the only meaningful numbers with regard to efficacy have to do with those who contracted the disease during the period of observation. This is the only way to assess the efficacy of the vaccine. When Pfizer only considers participants that became symptomatic and tested positive we only have a group of 170 cases to cross compare.

The 3,410 people who became symptomatic but tested negative during the four weeks of observation would represent a much larger set of cohorts and would amplify the power of the study 20 fold if infection could be confirmed or ruled out through additional testing. In other words, the 3,410 symptomatic people should be the ones that Pfizer were hoping would emerge when they enrolled 37,000+ individuals in their study. I find this lapse in diligence suspicious and at the very least inexplicable, especially in light of the latitude they are granted under the EUA. The fact of the matter is that we do not know if this was done. Pfizer, per their own protocol, will not make this data available until the trial is completed 20 months from now. 

Why didn’t Pfizer look harder?

This forces us to ask some sobering questions. If Pfizer is required (or has agreed) to make all data available in two years, would they have conducted antibody tests on the “suspected Covid” group? If those results told a different story it would be quite damning, if not now, eventually. Their product would not be permitted for use under the EUA if a 50% efficacy requirement could not be met. On the other hand, if antibody tests were conducted and the results confirmed the impressive efficacy of the vaccine, why wouldn’t they have made the data available right now?

It should be clear that if Pfizer’s primary goal was to obtain approval under the EUA they would have had little incentive to do further testing to confirm their product’s efficacy. Why would they take the risk of seeking more information on 3,400 participants that could potentially overturn their results that were based on only 170 outcomes? This is where we must be very careful in our assessment of the situation. If you believe Pfizer and vaccine manufacturers are only out for profit, it would be easy to conclude that they are being manipulative. If you believe that these corporations are seeking to improve public health and safety you may grant them a lot of latitude here. To be truly objective we must ask if they have been scientific in their approach.

At the very least I feel that they have not been diligent, and their position hints at disingenuousness: Pfizer didn’t mention this group of participants in their 92 page report or in their publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. This group was only mentioned in two paragraphs of a 53 page briefing to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA submitted December 10, 2020. The FDA, an agency of the department of Health and Human Services that ostensibly serves to protect the public by ensuring the safety of drugs, biological products and medical devices, continues to remain silent around this issue.

The Take Away

The 95% efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is widely touted by the media and the medical establishment. Why didn’t Pfizer test or report the testing of an enormously important group of participants in their trial? We can predict that without these additional tests deploying the vaccine will not change our behavior nor our attitude to this pandemic.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Norway Investigates 29 Deaths in Elderly Patients After Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccination

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Norway has registered a total of 29 deaths among people over the age of 75 who’ve had their first Covid-19 vaccination shot, raising questions over which groups to target in national inoculation programs.

  • Reflect On:

    Should freedom of choice always remain here? Should governments and private institutions not be allowed to mandate this vaccine in order to have access to certain rights and freedoms?

What Happened: 29 patients who were quite old and frail have died following their first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination. As a result, Norwegian officials have since adjusted their advice on who should get the COVID-19 vaccine.

This doesn’t come as a surprise to many given the fact that the clinical trials were conducted with people who are healthy. Older and sick people with co-morbidities were not used in the trials, and people with severe allergies and other diseases that can make one more susceptible to vaccine injury were not used either. It can be confusing given the fact that vaccination is being encouraged for the elderly in nursing homes and those who are more vulnerable to COVID-19.

Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”

On the 15th of January it was 23 deaths, Bloomberg is now reporting that a total of 29 deaths among people over the age of 75 who’ve had their first COVID-19 shot. They point out that “Until Friday, Pfizer/BioNTech was the only vaccine available in Norway”, stating that the Norwegian Medicines Agency told them that as a result “all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine.”

“There are 13 deaths that have been assessed, and we are aware of another 16 deaths that are currently being assessed,” the agency said. All the reported deaths related to “elderly people with serious basic disorders,” it said. “Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.”

Madsen also told the BMJ that,

There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly. We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease. We are not asking for doctors to continue with vaccination, but to carry out extra evaluation of very sick people whose underlying condition might be aggravated by it. This evaluation includes discussing the risks and benefits of vaccination with the patient and their families to decide whether or not vaccination is the best course.

The BMJ article goes on to point out that the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany is also investigating 10 deaths shortly after COVID-19 vaccination, and closes with the following information:

In a statement, Pfizer said, “Pfizer and BioNTech are aware of reported deaths following administration of BNT162b2. We are working with NOMA to gather all the relevant information.

“Norwegian authorities have prioritised the immunisation of residents in nursing homes, most of whom are very elderly with underlying medical conditions and some of whom are terminally ill. NOMA confirm the number of incidents so far is not alarming, and in line with expectations. All reported deaths will be thoroughly evaluated by NOMA to determine if these incidents are related to the vaccine. The Norwegian government will also consider adjusting their vaccination instructions to take the patients’ health into more consideration.

“Our immediate thoughts are with the bereaved families.”

Vaccine Hesitancy is Growing Among Healthcare Workers: Vaccine hesitancy is growing all over the globe, one of the latest examples comes from Riverside County, California. It has a population of approximately 2.4 million, and about 50 percent of healthcare workers in the county are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that they have top priority and access to it.  At Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, one in five frontline nurses and doctors have declined the shot. Roughly 20% to 40% of L.A. County’s frontline workers who were offered the vaccine did the same, according to county public health officials. You can read more about that story here.

Vaccine hesitancy among physicians and academics is nothing new. To illustrate this I often point to a conference held at the end of 2019 put on by the World Health Organization (WHO). At the conference, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, having  stated,

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen…still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.

A study published in the journal EbioMedicine  as far back as 2013 outlines this point, among many others.

Pfizer’s Questionable History:  Losing faith in “big pharma” does not come without good reason. For example, in 2010 Robert G. Evans, PhD, Centre for Health Services and Policy Research Emeritus Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, UBC, published a paper that’s accessible in PubMed titled “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR.”

In it, he outlines the fact that,

Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. The 2.3-billion settlement…set a new record for both criminal fines and total penalties. A link with Pfizer might well advance the commercialization of Canadian research.

Suppressing clinical trial results is something I’ve come across multiple times with several different medicines. Five years ago I wrote about how big pharma did not share adverse reactions people had and harmful results from their clinical trials for commonly used antidepressant drugs.

Even scientists from within federal these health regulatory agencies have been sounding the alarm. For example, a few years ago more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations have on government policies. They were referred to as the  Spider Papers.

The Takeaway: Given the fact that everything is not black and white, especially when it comes to vaccine safety, do we really want to give government health agencies and/or private institutions the right to enforce mandatory vaccination requirements when their efficacy have been called into question? Should people have the freedom of choice? It’s a subject that has many people polarized in their beliefs, but at the end of the day the sharing of information, opinion and evidence should not be shut down, discouraged, ridiculed or censored.

In a day and age where more people are starting to see our planet in a completely different light, one which has more and more questioning the human experience and why we live the way we do it seems the ‘crack down’ on free thought gets tighter and tighter. Do we really want to live in a world where we lose the right to choose what we do with our own body, or one where certain rights and freedoms are taken away if we don’t comply? The next question is, what do we do about it? Those who are in a position to enforce these measures must, it seems, have a shift in consciousness and refuse to implement them. There doesn’t seem to be a clear cut answer, but there is no doubt that we are currently going through that possible process, we are living in it.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!