How “Safe and Effective” Became The Most Deceptive Marketing Slogan in Medical History

This article was originally published by Lance D. Johnson at Natural News. 

The relentless chant of “safe and effective” has been drilled into the public consciousness for over three years, a hypnotic mantra used to justify unprecedented mandates and societal pressure. But what if this foundational claim was never rooted in robust, long-term clinical science? What if the entire narrative was built on a carefully constructed illusion, one that ignored inherent risks and manipulated data to push a global vaccination campaign that has since been linked to a staggering number of injuries and deaths?

A closer examination of the original clinical trials and emerging data reveals a disturbing truth: The public was never fully informed of the risks, and the term “safe and effective” was always a marketing phrase, not a medical conclusion.

Key points:

• • The clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines were not designed to test for long-term safety or to determine if the shots prevented transmission of the virus.

• • The celebrated “95% effective” claim was derived from a misleading Relative Risk Reduction calculation, obscuring a very small Absolute Risk Reduction benefit.

• • Internal documents and government reports show that officials were aware of manufacturing and safety problems long before the public.

• • Post-market surveillance data from systems like VAERS show an alarming number of serious adverse events, including deaths, that demand scrutiny.

• • The coercion of entire populations to take an experimental medical product, based on incomplete and deceptive data, represents a catastrophic breach of medical ethics.

The clinical trial sleight of hand

According to an analysis by the Brownstone Institute, the endpoint for the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials was remarkably narrow. The trials did not test whether the vaccines stopped people from getting infected with the virus or from spreading it to others. The sole focus was on reducing mild symptoms in a very specific group of healthy individuals. The trials were not set up to adequately capture long-term health consequences, and serious adverse events that occurred were often minimized or dismissed. Former pharmaceutical executive Sasha Latypova expressed deep suspicion, noting that mRNA technology was known to be inherently dangerous and was suddenly being rebranded as a safe prophylactic for the entire population. The trials were shortened, control groups were dismantled by offering the vaccine to placebo recipients, and the largest experimental medical campaign in human history was launched on an unsuspecting global populace.

The now-famous “95% effective” claim is a masterclass in statistical deception. This number represents Relative Risk Reduction, a figure that makes a small benefit appear monumental. The more meaningful number for informed consent is Absolute Risk Reduction. In the Pfizer trial data, for instance, the absolute risk of developing COVID-19 symptoms (not severe illness, just symptoms) was reduced by less than one percent. This means that over 99 percent of both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups in the trial had the same outcome. Presenting the 95 percent relative risk figure instead of the less-than-one percent absolute risk figure created a false perception of immense benefit, a perception that was used to steamroll vaccine hesitancy and mandate the shots for billions.

A trail of red flags and hidden dangers

While the public was assured of safety, internal government and regulatory bodies were quietly documenting a cascade of problems. Senior officials in both the Trump and Biden administrations were aware of severe oversight and quality assurance failures at the Emergent BioSolutions plant in Baltimore months before it contaminated 15 million Johnson & Johnson vaccine doses. A June 2020 report warned that the company’s manufacturing plan was inadequate and that it could not guarantee success, yet this critical information was withheld from the public.

Meanwhile, passive surveillance systems like the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) began collecting a mountain of disturbing data. As of late February 2021, over 25,000 adverse events had been reported, including 1,265 deaths and 4,424 serious health issues. While health authorities were quick to state these reports required further investigation, they were equally quick to dismiss any potential link. This included reports of 180 pregnant women experiencing adverse events, with 56 resulting in miscarriage or premature birth, despite the fact that none of the vaccines had been tested for safety in pregnant women during clinical trials. The World Health Organization’s flip-flop on recommending the Moderna vaccine for pregnant women within 48 hours revealed a disturbing lack of certainty.

The dangers were not theoretical. In Germany, 25 percent of a nursing home’s residents died after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. European regulators eventually found a “possible link” between the AstraZeneca vaccine and rare, fatal blood clots, with a senior official even stating the connection was “clear” before the agency walked back the claim. A recent preprint study from researchers including those from MIT and the University of Florida found that adults who received the Pfizer vaccine had a significantly higher risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality over 12 months compared to those who received the Moderna vaccine, suggesting concerning differential effects.

The unethical push and the silenced science

Despite these glaring red flags, the campaign of coercion intensified. Universities like Cornell announced vaccine mandates for students. Government programs and media outlets created a two-tiered society, vilifying the unvaccinated and restricting their access to travel, employment, and education. This pressure occurred in a complete vacuum of informed consent, as the true risks revealed in the clinical trials and post-market surveillance were systematically suppressed.

A reanalysis of the original Pfizer and Moderna trial data published in the journal Vaccine found the mRNA vaccines were associated with a significantly increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest. The study concluded there was an excess risk of 12.5 serious adverse events per 10,000 people vaccinated. The authors noted this points to a clear need for formal harm-benefit analyses. Yet, such nuanced discussions were branded as misinformation. When Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a respected surgeon, penned a letter to the FDA urging pre-screening for SARS-CoV-2 to mitigate vaccine injury risks, he was ignored.

The system was designed not to question the narrative, but to enforce it. The phrase “safe and effective” was not a scientific conclusion; it was a weapon used to shut down debate and mandate compliance in the largest and most unethical medical experiment the world has ever seen.