Covid Vaccine Informed Consent? This Info Comes Close





by Mike Lynch

January 24, 2022



The Canadian Covid Care Alliance has produced a video and downloadable pdf that points out many scientific inadequacies of the Pfizer trials that was used to approve emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Covid-19 “vaccine”.* It is titled “The Pfizer Inoculations for Covid-19 More Harm Than Good”.



Before consenting to receive any FDA regulated medical procedure, device, or biological the patient is supposed to receive information that outlines the likely benefits and possible risks of injury or adverse events, among other things. (FDA “A Guide to Informed Consent”, at fda.gov, and codified in 21 CFR 50.25)

Ever since the Covid “vaccines” were approved for EUA and made available in late 2020 they have been administered to willing participants without informed consent. Did these participants give their consent? I assume they did. Were they adequately informed beforehand? Not likely. Unless the medical professional who administered the shot took it upon themselves to attempt to inform their participants by giving them information they have gathered under their own initiative, the participants were definitely not properly informed.

How can I make such a claim? The proof is found with the insert that is delivered (by law) with the “vaccines”. Drugs that are FDA regulated require these inserts in order to comply with the informed consent regulations. The insert contains all kinds of basic information regarding the drug and includes the risks and dangers known to be associated with the use of that drug. Therefore it contains the information necessary to make an informed decision to use the drug. However, the inserts for the Covid “vaccines” are mostly blank. They do not contain any information whatsoever on the risks or dangers of injury or adverse events possible. Many medical professionals across the U.S. have come forward pointing this out in interviews and in personal videos they made. All a person would have to do to confirm it is to request to read the insert themself. Every person about to receive the “vaccine” has that right.

For over a year now the “vaccines” have been administered to virtually all participants without informed consent.

If you want to be informed about the “vaccines” you cannot get the information you need from the CDC, the FDA, or the “vaccine” manufacturers. You must search for it yourself. There is a lot of inaccurate information on the internet about the “vaccines”. There has been an unprecedented effort by big tech internet companies to suppress “misinformation“. They are joined by the efforts of the mainstream media, Dr. Fauci who is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and is the Chief Medical Advisor to the President, medical licensing boards in all the states, as well as governmental medical authorities around the world. The problem is that misinformation is the label being given to any information contrary to Dr. Fauci, the CDC, the FDA, and the “vaccine” manufacturers. Accurate information is also being caught up in the suppression by these people. This is making it even more difficult to search out correct and accurate information on your own.

I have seen and read a lot of info related to the “vaccines” over the last year or so and I am impressed with the video by the CCCA. One of the most important facts explained in the video is something that every consumer of pharmaceutical drugs should know and understand, the difference between relative risk and absolute risk as reported or claimed in drug trials to prove efficacy. Drug manufacturers like to report their results in relative risk because the numbers look better. The public assumes that absolute risk is being reported. The public is misled into believing the drug is better than it really is.

Take for example the efficacy of the “vaccine” in the Pfizer trial report. They reported 95% reduction in risk of getting Covid-19. So the public takes that number and assumes it means that 95 out of 100 “vaccinated” people will not become infected. The public automatically assumes the results are reported as absolute risk reduction. But Pfizer was using relative risk reduction which is the improvement over the placebo case, basically the change between the placebo and the “vaccine”.

The Pfizer report shows that 0.88% of the “un-vaccinated” got the virus. This would be the absolute risk of getting the virus if you are not “vaccinated”. The report also shows that 0.04% of the “vaccinated“ group got the virus. This would be the absolute risk of getting the virus if you are “vaccinated”.

Looking at it another way, the numbers reported translate into a 99.12% chance you will not get infected if you are “un-vaccinated” and a 99.96% chance with the “vaccine”.

Pfizer reported a 95% reduction in the risk of getting the virus. How did they come to that conclusion? They calculated the difference between the two cases, the relative risk reduction. This is the reduction in risk divided by the total risk and reported as a percentage.

(0.88 - 0.04) / (0.88) x 100% = 95.45%

The absolute risk of getting Covid-19 in the placebo group was less than 1%. With that low of a risk to start with is it really worth taking the shot? Had you known that single fact would you still have given your consent?

There are other science based fallacies pointed out in the video. To the degree that, in my opinion, this video, along with one other source of information provides the consumer enough information to make a logical decision whether to be “vaccinated“.

The video does not go into the risks or possible adverse events. It focuses mainly on the many fallacies of the trials and the lack of traditional procedural methodology used. And yet the drug was still given approval. Why?

The other source of information I suggest would be the VAERS data. VAERS stands for vaccine adverse event reporting system. It is run by the CDC and FDA. It is available at vaers.hhs.gov. It takes some training to be able to get reports from the system so another resource is openvaers.com. This site makes it easier to see the numbers from the VAERS database.


Here are some of the numbers for the Covid “vaccines” as of January 7, 2022:

21745 Covid “vaccine” reported deaths, 115,754 total Covid “vaccine” reported hospitalizations, 1,033,992 Covid “vaccine” adverse event reports

With all other previous vaccines if the death count got above about 25 they stopped using it, according to Dr. Peter McCullough. Why hasn’t this “vaccine” been stopped yet?

openvaers.com Redbox summaries page (partial view) data as of Jan. 7, 2022.

In my estimation, if a person saw the VAERS results, and watched the video by CCCA, they would have enough information to make a logical conclusion and thus a decision to receive or not receive this drug inoculation. It is not true informed consent but it’s better than nothing at all. The CCCA video and pdf are available at Canadiancovidcarealliance.org.

* Vaccine and related words are in quotations because the Covid-19 shots do not provide immunity and do not prevent transmission, the two requirements for a true vaccine.

32 views0 comments
1/7