This one seems to work
http://dl.free.fr/oTyRx6Wfi

> What options do you have to protect your self from Van eck phreaking?

One option to consider seriously is: paper ballot inserted, in a voting booth protected by opaque curtain, into an opaque paper envelope, which is then publicly dropped into a transparent urn, which is left under public view during the voting, and publicly shaked before the counting process.

That's how 90% of the votes are cast in France for decades [the "transparent" bit was added some 45 years ago]. Not only is it secure against Van Eck phreaking before its invention, it has great resilience against many kinds of fraud, and most voters are able to understand and check the process.

You still have to guard against quite a few things, including
* unsuitably opaque envelopes;
* bulletins printed on paper of different color/size/material [even if the envelope is opaque, it is usually not sealed, and sometime some portion of the bulletin (hopefully the back side, if the bulletin is folded) may be glanced at thru the opening; also the weight/stiffness of the bulletin may be revealing]
* hidden cameras in the voting booth; including those built into cellphones held by the voter [because the voter could be trying to prove what (s)he voted [in order to sell her/his vote or avoid retaliation if s/he did not vote as instructed].

Actually, in some locations much closer to you than half the circumference of planet earth, it may happen that voters are threatened to be beaten/killed is they do not vote as instructed; and maybe, on election day, a few of those who voted could be beaten publicly (often: regardless of what they actually voted, or based on their perceived opinion), in order to make the threat credible to those who did not vote yet. In these circumstances, the voters must be able to really trust the secrecy of their vote.

François Grieu

According to numerous online sources, raw numbers are:
51 out of 8187 found infected in the vaccinated group;
74 out of 8198 found infected in the control group.

The most basic course of statistics tells how to proceed from here: test if the null hypothesis (vaccine has no effect) remains plausible despite this evidence. Conditions are ideal for the chi-squared test.
We get Observed values 51, 74, 8147, 8123; Expected values 62.504, 62.496, 8135.5, 8134.5; then sum((O-E)^2/E) = 4.267, with two degrees of freedom.
Conclusion: the null hypohesis is rejected with only 88% confidence level.

This is not enough to confortably say that the vaccine has any benefit. Odds of the contrary are about 1/17.

This is much less reason to trust that the vaccine reduce infection rate by 31.1%, as reported in some press articles. Odds are 1/2 that it is less efficient than this.

    Francois Grieu