“Follow the Science” recap. RRR vs ARR
January 20 | Posted by mrossol | CDC NIH, FDA, Malone, Math/Statistics, New Zealand, Pharma, Science, VaccineVideo clips from down under summarizing the COVID vaccine fraud and propaganda, and these words are not hyperbole. [Watch the clips. New Zealand was one of the worst, but most western countries shared the league with New Zealand]. I am posting this highlight the complete dishonesty, the total capture of governmental bodies by pharmaceutical [and WEF, et.al,] by use of the “pandemic narrative”; complete nonsense and obfuscation. Those humans with any, ANY capacity to think should never be conned again. mrossol
Source: “Follow the Science” recap – by Dr. Robert W. Malone
|
|
 |
She skeptically asks, “Is the COVID vaccine 100% Effective?”
These videos and text were obtained from various posts on “X” provided by Kiwi accounts “coronavirus plushie” and “reality check radio”
 |
 |
The “95% effective” Scam
How many people would have chosen to take the Covid-19 vaccines had they understood that they offered less than 1% actual protection from infection?
“The 95% number was relative risk reduction — real efficacy was just 0.84%. That’s what should’ve been told to the people of New Zealand.” – Dr Alison Goodwin
Big Pharma’s spin, backed by government silence, painted a false picture of safety and efficacy.
What does the CDC have to say about this? The propaganda push and denialism continue unabated.
 |
Did you ever hear the full truth about the vaccine trial data?
And it turned out that “less than 1% benefit” wasn’t even true, because the mRNA products often had negative efficacy. That means that the more doses you receive, the more likely you are to develop COVID disease
 |
Abstract
Relative risk reduction [RRR] and absolute risk reduction [ARR] measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. The present article uses clinical epidemiologic tools to critically appraise reports of efficacy in Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials. Based on data reported by the manufacturer for Pfzier/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2, this critical appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.0% to 97.6%; p = 0.016; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.59% to 0.83%; p < 0.000. For the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273, the appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 94.1%; 95% CI, 89.1% to 96.8%; p = 0.004; absolute risk reduction, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.97% to 1.32%; p < 0.000. Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.
 |
Conclusions
A critical appraisal of phase III clinical trial data for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 and Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 shows that absolute risk reduction measures are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Yet, the manufacturers failed to report absolute risk reduction measures in publicly released documents. As well, the U.S FDA Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) did not follow FDA published guidelines for communicating risks and benefits to the public, and the committee failed to report absolute risk reduction measures in authorizing the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines for emergency use. Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.