He continues: “He studied the FDA’s own EUA documents, and using THEIR data submitted to them by the vaccine-making pharmaceutical companies, he concluded that THERE WAS NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE that any of the vaccines slow the spread of COVID-19. This was not HIS data, but EUA data provided by the vaccine manufacturers to the FDA. NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE that these vaccines slowed the spread of infection. The media is saying there is 96% “efficacy.” But really what they’re saying, he says, is that 96% won’t have immediate side effects from the vaccines!!! That’s what the mainstream media is pushing as efficacy!” Is this correct?

This is not correct. Here again there is a distortion of the truth utilizing a narrow interpretation of the clinical data. They were not studying the spread of the virus per se, but only the occurrence of symptoms and infection within those vaccinated and not its consequence within the larger population. So this is a misdirection to create the impression that there was something deliberately manipulative and self-serving on the part of the vaccine makers when such is not the case. They were measuring endpoints to show the development of an inner resistance within the vaccinated individuals themselves, not whether they were able to spread it or not and whether vaccination would protect the population in a significant fashion. That is a much more difficult, lengthy, and expensive challenge, so to simply restrict the vaccine trial to the use of the clearest and quickest way to obtain a useful endpoint, namely the induction of a state of heightened immunity within the vaccine recipient, is generally viewed as ample evidence by the medical authorities to warrant implementation as a public health measure of a vaccine that will produce such an end result, because that is based on ample precedent throughout centuries now of medical practice.