COVID Vaccine Efficacy Data

COVID Vaccine Efficacy Data

Pamela A. Popper, President

Wellness Forum Health

According to newly disclosed government data and emails, vaccinated seniors were much more likely to get COVID than those who were unvaccinated. The report was provided by Humetrix Cloud Services, which was hired by the U.S. military to analyze vaccine data for seniors.

For the week ending July 31 2021, 73% of COVID-19 cases were people who had been vaccinated, and the infection rates were higher in those who were vaccinated earlier. The rates were two times high for people vaccinated 5-6 months prior, as compared to people vaccinated 3-4 months prior, indicating that vaccine efficacy rapidly declined. That same week, 63% of COVID-19 hospitalizations were among those fully vaccinated, with the same trend of waning efficacy over time.

Seniors who had already had COVID-19 and recovered were more likely to avoid hospitalization than the vaccinated. This is particularly important, since natural immunity was denied as a justification for exemption from COVID vaccine mandates.

The Humetrix data showed that at the time of the report, there had been 133,000 cases, 27,000 hospitalizations and 8300 intensive care admissions among the fully vaccinated since the vaccines became available. These data were shared with the CDC in August 2021.

Humetrix CEO Dr. Bettina Experton sent an email to FDA officials on September 15, 2021 that included this statement:

“Our observational study VE [vaccine efficacy] findings show a very significant decrease in VE against infection and hospitalization in the Delta phase of the pandemic for individuals vaccinated with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for those 5–6 months post vaccination vs. those 3–4 months post vaccination.”

Emails show that FDA and public health officials were aware of the data:

Peter Marks MD PhD, Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at FDA wrote “It would have been nice to know [the military] was conducting this prior to now. Also would have been nice for CDC to share the data.”

Janet Woodcock, acting FDA commissioner at the time, wrote, “This is more worrisome than the other data we have in my opinion.”

Frances Collins, then director of NIH, wrote, that the study provided “pretty compelling evidence that VE is falling 5-6 months post vaccination for both infection and hospitalization for those over 65. Even for those 4-5 months out there is a trend toward worsening VE.”

While clearly aware that there was a problem, the FDA, CDC, NIH and other agencies did not make the data public and continued to support vaccine mandates. The agencies also did not provide the data to their own committees. 

The CDC held a meeting with its vaccine advisors on August 30 2021, during which waning vaccine efficacy was discussed. The Humetrix report was not provided. Instead, CDC presented data from COVID-NET which showed that the vaccines were still 80% effective and data from Israel showing that protection against infection ranged from 39% to 84%; against hospitalization vaccine efficacy ranged from 75-95%.

The FDA held a meeting with its vaccine advisors on September 17 2021, and also did not present the Humetrix data. The FDA approved the Pfizer booster for most Americans, and the CDC agreed that most people should be boosted. The Moderna booster was added as another option, and eventually officials recommended that all Americans ages five and older be given a COVID booster.

Trust in public health officials and institutions has never been lower than it is right now, and for good reason. As more and more data are made public, this will most likely get worse. The individuals involved in this spectacular and unprecedented fraud must be punished for their roles, and their agencies need to be defunded, disbanded, and replaced with smaller entities that are more accountable to legislative bodies. Accomplishing these goals will take considerable resources and time.

In the meantime, Americans should commit to learn as much as possible about health (informed consumers know when to ignore public health directives); to contribute to litigation (the government will never punish or fix itself – it’s up to us to do this!); and more important – REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH MEDICAL TYRANNY DISGUISED AS PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORIES AND ORDERS! Remember that agencies and officials are only as powerful as we allow them to be.

Zachary Stieber. FDA, CDC Hid Data on Spike in COVID Cases Among the Vaccinated: Documents. Epoch Times Sept 3 2023

Visual Examination For Skin Cancer

Visual Examination for Skin Cancer

Pamela A. Popper, President

Wellness Forum Health

The only justification for cancer screening programs is that they should reduce the risk of dying of the particular cancer for which the screening test is used. Enthusiasm for cancer screening is based on the idea that if cancer is found early, when it is more treatable, the risk of death is lower.

At this time, only one screening test has been shown to deliver this result – pap tests that screen for cellular changes that can lead to cervical cancer. In every country in which pap testing has been instituted, the death rate from cervical cancer has dropped – significantly.

Many other screening tests have become “routine,” but there is no evidence that use for population screening reduces death rates. For example, colonoscopy has some value as a diagnostic tool, but not as a means for reducing death from colorectal cancer. The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care removed it from the list of standard screenings several years ago.[1] A recent large randomized controlled trial showed that colonoscopy did not reduce the risk of developing colorectal cancer, death from colorectal cancer, or risk of all-cause mortality.[2] 

The data is even worse for prostate cancer screening: the chance of benefit is extremely low, while the risk of being harmed is at least 30 times higher.[3]

What about skin cancer screening? It’s summertime, and people are outside in the sun more regularly. Many doctors and the sunscreen industry promote the false idea that almost any sun exposure is a risk factor for skin cancer, and regular visual examinations are encouraged. There is no evidence that this is reducing death rates, but not only dermatologists, but also family practice docs and internists are looking for skin cancer. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends against this practice because it has led to more diagnoses but without any change in the death rate. It is estimated that 4000 excisions are required to prevent one death from melanoma. Additionally, specialists (dermatologists) have no better track record than general practice docs in finding early-stage cancer.[4]

The belief in early detection as a means for reducing death remains high despite these data, and one company has developed a direct-to-consumer screening app with the idea that people can examine themselves and find cancer. Perhaps artificial intelligence might be better than doctors?

Well, not so much. A study presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology showed that the consumer app incorrectly classified Merkel Cell Carcinomas as low risk 17.9% of the time, and a particular type of melanoma was categorized as low risk 22.9% of the time. Nearly two-thirds of benign lesions (62.2%) were classified as high risk. This means that if widely used, most people with harmless moles and lesions would be told they had serious cancer who did not – exactly the problem with other cancer screening programs.

You might think that in response to this dismal result, the dermatologists would lose enthusiasm for this app. You would be wrong. Full speed ahead. It just needs more work and development, was the conclusion.[5]

Bottom line: Before agreeing to any cancer screening test, make sure it has been proven to reduce the risk of dying from cancer.

[1] accessed 7.31.2019

[2] Bretthauer M, Loberg M, Wieszcry P et al. “Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death.” NEJM

[3] Turini G, Gjelsvik A, Renzulli J. “The State of Prescreening Discussions About Prostate-specific Antigen Testing Following Implementation of the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force Statement.” Urology 2017 Jun;104:122-130

[4] Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman D, Curry S et al (USPSTF members). “Screening for Skin Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement: US Preventive Services Task Force.” JAMA. 2016;316(4):429-435.

[5] Skin Cancer App Fails to Identify Rare, Aggressive Cancers. Oct 15 2021

The First Randomized Controlled Trial Re Colonoscopy

The First Randomized Controlled Trial Re Colonoscopy

Pamela A. Popper, President

Wellness Forum Health

For many years, I have been providing people with objective information about colonoscopy so that they could make informed decisions about it. Until very recently, there were no randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of population screening with colonoscopy for reducing the risk of colorectal cancer, death from colorectal cancer, or all-cause mortality. It’s hard to fathom how an invasive and risky procedure could become a standard recommendation for all adults ages 45 and older without any evidence showing that it was beneficial. Some public health organizations recognized this and responded accordingly. The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Healthcare updated its recommendations for colon cancer screening in 2016, advising against colonoscopy as a primary screening test due to lack of evidence.[1]

The reason most people agree to regular cancer screenings is because they have been told that doing so “saves lives.” But most people are not given accurate information BEFORE screening that addresses what is most important to them – reducing the risk of death; not just for the type of cancer that the screening test is designed to detect, but also all-cause mortality. There are risks associated with cancer screening, which range from turning healthy people into sick patients, to diminished quality of life or even death due to aggressive treatment. These risks should be considered when making a decision about screening. A 2016 paper that looked at the results of the most commonly recommended cancer screenings showed that none of them resulted in a reduction in all-cause mortality.[2]

During the last 15 years, the US Preventive Services Task Force has increased the recommended options for colorectal screening to include fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) and blood-based cancer screening for methylated DNA.[3] The USPSTF has also expanded the recommended ages for colorectal cancer screening to 45-70 years; previously it was ages 50-70 years.[4]

In 2016 a USPSTF evidence report stated that there were no colorectal cancer screening methods that reduce all-cause mortality. However, a reanalysis showed that flexible sigmoidoscopy slightly reduced all-cause mortality by three deaths per 1000 persons screened.[5]

Another 2016 article concluded that while blood-based screening might result in more people being screened (adherence to both invasive and noninvasive tests is low), these tests have little utility. The manufacturer of one of the tests proposed including a warning with the test stating that a negative result “does not guarantee absence of cancer” and that patients should still pursue other screening methods.[6] Translation: this test is useless and should never have been approved.

Finally, there is good news for patients who are concerned about colorectal cancer screening and struggling to figure out what to do as they try to reconcile the information included in this article with the pressure they receive from health professionals who insist that screening is necessary. The results of the first randomized controlled trial investigating colonoscopy are now available. This study included over 84,000 subjects, ages 55-64. The primary end point was risk of colorectal cancer and related death. The secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The study design was excellent and resulted in significantly greater long-term follow-up due to the use of unique personal identification numbers which were linked to cancer registries and cause of death registries for all participants in each country.

The conclusions:

Point #1: Risk of colorectal cancer:

In order to prevent just one case of colorectal cancer, 455 people have to be screened.

Point #2: Risk of death from colorectal cancer:

Risk of death was 0.28% in the colonoscopy arm and 0.31% in the non-colonoscopy arm.

Point #3: Risk of all-cause mortality (death from any cause)

Risk in the colonoscopy arm was 11.03%; in the non-colonoscopy arm it was 11.04%

In other words, colonoscopy made no real difference in outcomes.[7]

An intention-to-screen analysis concluded that the risk of colorectal cancer for screened patients would be 0.98% as compared to 1.20% in the usual care group, a risk reduction of 0.22%. But even this miniscule risk reduction is not realistic since the assumption is that 100% of patients instructed to get a colonoscopy would comply. This is not currently the case in the U.S. – the compliance rate is only 70%.

Now we have data – from a well-designed trial. Colonoscopy does not reduce the risk of developing colorectal cancer, dying from colorectal cancer, or all-cause mortality. There are risks associated with the procedure that include perforation of the colon. Add in the fact that almost everyone agrees that it is an unpleasant experience that involves drinking awful fluids to clean out the colon, taking time off from work or other activities for the procedure and recovery from it, and most people would just say “no.”

There are a few take home points:

  • Well-designed Randomized Controlled Trials should be performed BEFORE screening programs are instituted.
  • Screening often turns healthy people into patients who do not benefit from medical intervention.
  • Billions of dollars is spent on cancer screening tests every year. This money would be better spent on teaching people how to prevent cancer and other common degenerative diseases with diet and lifestyle change.


[2] Prasad V, Lenzer J, Newman DH. “Why cancer screening has never been shown to “save lives” – and what we can do about it.” BMJ 2016;352:h6080

[3] Powell K, Prasad V. “Colorectal cancer screening at a younger age: pitfalls in the model-based recommendation of the USPSTF.” BMJ Evid Based Med 2022 Aug:27(4):206-208


[5] Swartz AW, Eberth JM, Josey MJ, Strayer SM. “Reanalysis of All-cause Mortality in the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2016 Evidence Report on Colorectal Cancer Screening.” Ann Intern Med 2017 Oct;167)8):602-603

[6] Parikh RB, Prasad V. “Blood-Based Screening for Colon Cancer. A Disruptive Innovation or Simply a Disruption?” JAMA 2016 Jun;315(23):2519-2520

[7] Bretthauer M, Loberg M, Wieszcry P et al. “Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death.” NEJM

How the CCP Collects DNA Data From Americans

How the CCP Collects DNA From Americans

Pamela A. Popper, President

Wellness Forum Health

On March 20, 2023, Roman Balmakov at Epoch Times reported that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is synonymous with the Chinese military, had developed a large-scale biowarfare program and that the Wuhan lab was just a small part of it. One of the most concerning aspects of this program is that it involves the collection of DNA from Americans. In fact, the CCP now has a larger collection of DNA from Americans than the U.S. does. Much of this DNA comes from a company called BGI, one of the largest makers of prenatal tests in the world. BGI has been sending data from pregnant women in 52 countries to the Chinese military, which, according to Balmakov, is using this DNA to develop a biological weapon that can target and attack DNA strands specific to certain racial and ethnic groups.[1]

This news piece caught my attention because I had posted an article covering BGI’s collection of genetic data from Americans for the CCP in February 2021. It appears that the CCP’s activities in this area have accelerated since then. Below is the piece that I wrote in 2021 which contains more detail about this program and its potentially terrifying consequences.

According to a fact sheet from the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC), China has been collecting healthcare data and DNA from Americans for a very long time.[2] One of the means for collecting this data has been through investing in American biotech companies and partnering with hospitals and universities.

In 2010, Chinese genetics company BGI received a $1.5 billion loan from the Chinese government-run China Development Bank for the purpose of expansion. The company entered the U.S. market and started its data gathering when it purchased California sequence-machine maker Complete Genomics for $118 million in 2013. BGI, along with other Chinese companies, has formed partnerships with American hospitals, university research centers, and research institutes.[3]

According to the NCSC fact sheet, the partnerships are welcomed by American institutions because they enable expanded research opportunities, “…while Chinese firms gain access to more genetic data on more diverse sets of people, which they can use for new medical products and services.”[4]  According to a 2019 report, at least 15 Chinese firms are licensed to perform genetic tests or sequencing in the U.S.[5]

Bill Evanina, a former top counterintelligence official and veteran of the FBI and CIA, warned in early 2021 that BGI was connected both to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and to its military and that the Chinese could collect, store, and exploit data collected from COVID-19 tests.[6]

What does the Chinese government do with this information? According to FBI Supervisory Special Agent Edward You, the Chinese are building a huge genomic database and are particularly interested in the U.S. population due to its ethnic diversity. The assumption is that the data base will be used to develop artificial intelligence and new personalized medicines.[7] One potential downside is that this could make the U.S. even more dependent on China for drugs and treatments. And some of the ways in which the CCP is already using artificial intelligence is frightening.

According to Sophie Richardson, director of the China program for Human Rights Watch, one of the ways in which the Chinese use artificial intelligence is to monitor the Uyghurs, a minority Muslim population. The Chinese use facial recognition software, surveillance cameras, WF-FI sniffers and other technology to constantly monitor the region in which these people live. The Uyghurs are forbidden to use their language, and to practice their religion. And they are subject to forced collection of DNA which is used both to target other family members and to further develop the CCP’s facial recognition software. Approximately one million Uyghurs have been arrested and jailed in camps in China, in part due to this program.[8]

In July 2020 the U.S. Department of Commerce sanctioned two subsidiaries of BGI for participating in Uyghur repression, and for collecting genetic information from the Uyghurs without consent.[9]

The COVID-19 debacle presented a great opportunity to accelerate data gathering. BGI Group aggressively promoted COVID-19 tests, and by August 2020 had sold 35 million rapid COVID-19 tests to 180 countries and built laboratories in 18 of them.[10]

In March 2020, when Washington State had only a few COVID-19 cases, BGI proposed in a letter to the state that it would build and operate COVID-19 testing labs and provide technical expertise, high throughput sequencers, and even to “make additional donations,” whatever that means. BGI’s proposal to build labs in Washington State, and five other states, was turned down after federal officials warned against the partnerships. But the tests and sequencing equipment are in use in the U.S. According to Evanina, the Chinese fetch the data electronically and give a copy back to the lab that houses the sequencing machines.

Additionally, according to both You and Evanina, China is the world’s leader in cyber hacking. In December 2020 John Ratcliffe, director of national intelligence, called China the number one national security threat to the U.S. due to the CCP’s theft of data and technology.[11]  Evanina says that 80% of American adults have had all of their personally identifiable information stolen by the CCP.[12]

Indeed, China has been caught stealing the healthcare data of Americans. In February 2015, Chinese hackers managed to hack the servers for health insurer Anthem and obtained the personal health data of over 78 million people.[13] According to Evanina, a major concern about this is that there are no private companies in China. Chinese laws actually require that companies like BGI must share their data with the government if asked to do so by the CCP. This means that all of the DNA data gathered on Americans by BGI through their COVID and other tests is, by extension, also the property of the Chinese government.[14]

This is very disconcerting. It is likely that any thinking person would feel uncomfortable knowing that personal DNA obtained through a COVID-19 test – or a computer hack – was in the possession of the CCP or any foreign government. And there is nothing that can be done about it. A demand from the U.S. to the CCP return the data without retaining copies is not likely to be made, and if made it is not likely to result in any response from the CCP.

The chance for your DNA to end up in the hands of one of the most dangerous regimes in the world is one more reason to refuse testing for COVID-19 and for anything else that is not absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, doctors’ offices and medical institutions have turned into data-gathering businesses that track your psychological health, your vaccination status, and now your DNA (see previous article on the use of ICD codes for data gathering).

[1] Roman Balmikov. China’s New DNA-Based Bioweapons Target Specific Ethnic Groups, Races/Facts Matter. Epoch TV March 20 2023.

[2] China’s Collection of Genomic and Other Healthcare Data From America: Risks to Privacy and U.S. Economic and National Security. Feb 2021

[3] Cathy He. China is Collecting Americans’ DNA, Posing Major Security Risks: US Counterintelligence Agency. Epoch Times Feb 3 2021

[4] China’s Collection of Genomic and Other Healthcare Data From America: Risks to Privacy and U.S. Economic and National Security. Feb 2021

[5] U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. China’s Biotechnology Development: The Role of U.S. and Other Foreign Engagement

[6] Jon Wertheim. China’s Push to Control Americans’ Health Care Future. 60 Minutes Jan 31 2021

[7] Prepared Statement of Edward H. You, Supervisory Special Agent, Biological Countermeasures Unit, Countermeasures and Operations Section, Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. Federal Bureau of Investigation.

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10] Cathy He. China is Collecting Americans’ DNA, Posing Major Security Risks: US Counterintelligence Agency. Epoch Times Feb 3 2021

[11] Ibid

[12] Jon Wertheim. China’s Push to Control Americans’ Health Care Future. 60 Minutes Jan 31 2021

[13] Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs. Member of Sophisticated China-Based Hacking Group Indicted for Series of Computer Intrusions, Including 2015 Data Breach of Health Insurer Anthem Inc. Affecting Over 78 Million People.

[14] Jon Wertheim. China’s Push to Control Americans’ Health Care Future. 60 Minutes Jan 31 2021