A novel analysis of the Pfizer trial:vaccine effectiveness was nowhere near 95%
Analysis by epidemiologist Professor Eyal Shahar shows that the COVID vaccines reduced the risk of symptoms, not infection. The impact on infections was likely small and possibly zero.
Executive summary
Professor Eyal Shahar used statistics to prove, using Pfizer’s own data, that the COVID vaccines were nowhere near 95% effective against infection.
A novel analysis of the Pfizer trial: vaccine effectiveness was nowhere near 95%
Very innovative approach and totally legit.
Basically, if the vaccine reduces symptoms, not infections, the Pfizer will not detect it.
AI summary here. It’s pretty detailed, so not for the casual reader But it’s quite an innovative approach.
Pfizer claimed ~95% “vaccine efficacy” based on symptomatic, PCR-confirmed cases in vaccinated versus placebo groups.
But that number assumes:
All infections were detected equally in both arms.
Symptomatic infections were correctly ascertained.
The vaccine prevented infection, not merely symptoms.
Those assumptions are now very well known to be false.
He introduces two empirically supported premises:
The vaccine does not prevent infection, only symptoms in infected individuals.
This is consistent with later real-world data showing breakthrough infections common even among the fully vaccinated.The asymptomatic:symptomatic infection ratio is roughly known — about one-third to one-half of infections are asymptomatic.
Armed with these, he explores what happens when we combine:
Pfizer’s data on asymptomatic infections (via anti-N antibody testing), and
The reported risk ratios (RR) from published tables.
Eyal’s work on the Pfizer shots
Miracles in the (In)famous Pfizer Trial | by Eyal Shahar | Oct, 2025 | Medium
Summary
He’s likely right about 2 things:
No journal will publish this because it’s against the narrative.
The Pfizer vaccine likely had no impact whatsoever on infections.
For further confirmation, see this article showing essentially the same thing that the benefit was a mirage.
they knew they were never effective. They never tested people in the vaccinate arm if they had covid like symptoms to see if they actually had covid. so they were lying from day 1 and they knew it.
The claimed 95% was also Relative risk reduction.
Absolute risk reduction was IIRC- 0.84% when comparing both groups identically.
That was evident at the time, though I am surprised that they went with only 95% and not the bullshit 97% figure used by global warming enthusiasts.
Still.
We live and learn*.
*Never to trust:
Pharmaceutical companies.
The government.
Politicians.
Local authorities.
Experts.
The science™.
The police.
The media.
Medical journals.