TheCOVIDBlog.com
May 31, 2021
Pfizer announced in November 2020 that its experiment mRNA shots (“vaccines”) are 95% effective against COVID-19. Moderna announced around the same time that its experimental mRNA injections are 94.5% effective against COVID-19.
Pfizer parlayed this gaudy statistic into an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the following month. Pfizer also received $2 billion from the U.S. government. Moderna received its EUA a week later. Both EUAs are legally unsound since several adequate alternative treatments were available at the time – mainly hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and vitamin D. Further, a new Lancet report just revealed a statistical manna from heaven that college students, employees and others can possibly use to excuse themselves from mandatory injections.
Absolute risk reduction (ARR)
Randomized controlled trials are interpreted by applying several statistical measures. We’ll turn to the book Smart Health Choices: Making Sense of Health Advice for guidance here. The book is a guide that helps consumers understand and assess health advice to make informed medical choices. It was published in 2008 but is an important addition to anyone’s book collection in this age of compromised, Bill Gates and big pharma-owned doctors, hospitals, media and government agencies. Our focus is Chapter 18 of the book.
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) is “the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making,” according to the authors. ARR is the difference between infection rates with and without the medical intervention (in this case mRNA and viral vector DNA). In other words, it measures the absolute effectiveness of the intervention. A hypothetical, keep-it-simple example of ARR is as follows:
A randomized, well-designed (meaning with few, if any confounding variables) study finds that 20% of the control group had “bad outcomes” compared to 12% of the group that received the experimental treatment. The ARR is the difference between those percentages. Thus the ARR is 8% in this example. That means 80 people out of 1,000 would benefit from the intervention. The statistical value “number needed to treat” (NNT) speaks for itself. In this example, 1,000/80 = about 13. Thus it takes 13 subjects for just one to benefit.
Relative risk reduction (RRR)
Relative risk reduction (RRR) measures how much the intervention REDUCES the risk of bad outcomes. It’s like a 30% off coupon at your local supermarket. The greater your risk of becoming infected with something, the more useful the intervention is. In the supermarket example, if you never intended to buy the product in the first place, the coupon is useless.
Dr. Terry Shaneyfelt of the University of Alabama Birmingham breaks down in very simple terms how RRR is misleading.
All of the vaccine manufacturers reported relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction.
Pfizer “95% efficacy”
These were the headlines back in November 2020 as it related to Pfizer. Note you can substitute Moderna in these headlines for the same effect.
CNN also pumped up the “95%” rhetoric.
A Pew Research Center survey released around that same time found that 60% of Americans would definitely or probably get the experimental shots. That number increased to 69% in February 2021. It’s safe to conclude that most Americans who have already received or will receive experimental shots believe the Pfizer and Moderna injections are 95% effective in preventing COVID-19. That is not the case at all.
Dr. F. Perry Wilson provides the simplest explanation as to how Pfizer came up with the 95% number.
Further, these numbers were based on only two months of observation. The “95% efficacy” is completely arbitrary and has zero scientific significance as it relates to testing a new drug.
The Lancet Report
Dr. Piero Olliaro of Oxford University led the team that produced the new Lancet report. We also uploaded it to our servers, as these things have a tendency to disappear. The report is a meta-analysis of seven studies about the efficacy of Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Sputnik V and Johnson & Johnson “vaccines.” Here is an important excerpt from the report:
Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 90% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Furthermore, excerpts of these results have been widely communicated and debated through press releases and media, sometimes in misleading ways.
Another report by University of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada) researchers also concluded that relative risk reduction leads to reporting bias and misinterpretation of vaccine efficacy.
The next relevant excerpt from the Lancet report is as follows:
Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1.3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1.2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1.2% for the J&J, 0.93% for the Gamaleya, and 0.84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.
Conclusions
The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer mRNA is 0.84%, 1.2% for Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, etc. Now let’s look at absolute risk reduction for some other treatments against COVID-19 as prophylaxis (preventative):
Hydroxychloroquine: 21%
Ivermectin: 5%
Povidone-iodine: 24%
Zinc and Vitamin C: 23%
Of course mainstream media have already dispatched their “fact checkers” as it relates to the Lancet report. Politifact published a word-salad, manipulative diatribe concluding that the Lancet report is “mostly false.” Bottom line is that Pfizer et al. publish RRR efficacy numbers, not ARR efficacy numbers. Laymen interpret 95% efficacy (RRR) as near-immunity, whereas the true 0.84% ARR isn’t sexy enough for publication and mass dissemination.
Lying and manipulation are norms for mainstream media, big pharma and their big tech buddies. All messaging coming from the foregoing entities must at minimum be taken with a grain of salt, or, preferably, ignored all together. The truth is revealing itself more and more everyday. We all need to keep spreading truth, forcefully and unapologetically in this information war.
Stay vigilant and protect your friends and loved ones.
COVID Legal USA is your partner in fight mandatory vaccines and other COVID mandates. Follow us on Telegram and Twitter. Read about white pine needles and order them here.
Thank you for that article I’m still learning about this. Will check out the Lancet.
It’s the 95% figure that I could never believe. Now I know why.
–Watching the Highwire last week this information was presented but the numbers were different. Here is what was what discussed by Dr. Jim Meehan :
Informed
Consent Requires Reporting of All 3 Metrics:
-RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION 95%
-ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION 0.76%
NNTV: Number
Needed to Vaccinate to Prevent one COVID infection: 132
Dr, Meehan explained that 131 people would have no protection from the shot and the132nd person would be protected 0.76 %.
Lancet & Meehan are on the same page.
Yes, Politifact is all over it. Politifact is owned by Poynter Institute (2018–present). The Poynter Institute received $737,400 in federal loans from the Paycheck Protection Program during the COVID-19 pandemic. President Neil Brown noted that this was not the first time the institute received government funding, noting past training contracts with Voice of America.[14] Couple of Funders of Poynter: MacArthur Foundation-involed in all aspects of heath care including reproductive & population grants to various organizations, Facebook and Google News Initiative. Politifact is bias and they has been busted for this in the past.
Of course the RRR is even worse because there is absolutely no consideration given for side effects of a given treatment. I read a report from a researcher in Israel who did all cause mortality analysis for three weeks following Covid vax versus age matched unvaxxed controls. Odds of death were 14.6 times greater within 3 weeks for those over 60 who had the Pfizer jab. You’d need over two years of 100 percent efficacy to break even on the deal…
Why is there virtually no discussion, when the topic is Pfizer’s efficacy or safety testing, of the fact that the efficacy and safety assessments were based on 170 “confirmed cases” of COVID-19 while 3410 “suspected cases” of COVID-19 were left out of the calculations?
These 3410 “suspected cases” were people who developed symptoms of COVID-19 during the trial period but who were *not* tested for COVID-19. The final trial protocol for the Pfizer vaccine required trial subjects to report possible COVID-19 symptoms, but left it up to the site investigator’s discretion whether or not a person who developed possible COVID-19 symptoms within 7 days after a vaccine injection would be tested for COVID-19. This left an enormous loophole for carelessness, bad judgment, bias, and outright cheating among site investigators to prejudice the trial results.
No ethical vaccine manufacturer would have proposed a trial protocol that included such a loophole, and no ethical regulatory agency would have approved such a trial protocol.
Re: my sources: I learned from a reliable source that these 3410 “suspected cases” were not mentioned in Pfizer’s published report of its trial results, but I did not confirm this by reading the report myself. I did confirm for myself that the FDA’s briefing paper (for ACIP) mentioned the 3410 “suspected cases” only in the section on safety, and only to say that it was not expected that inclusion of these cases would have changed the conclusions on the safety of the vaccine.
My information about the loophole in Pfizer’s final trial protocol came from reading the relevant sections of the protocol. I have read that Moderna’s trial protocol provided a similar loophole allowing site investigators to decide re: testing of subjects who reported possible COVID-19 symptoms within 7 days after vaccination, but I haven’t confirmed this by reading the relevant sections of the Moderna protocol.
I am not opposed to test vaccines, as they appear to work in the longer term, however, what else they might do to the body is an unknown factor and that, to me, is a much scarier issue and what their long term impact will be on those who have been “test” vaccinated.
Coronavirus Achilles Heel: A Coronavirus is a virus that causes an infection in your nose, sinuses, or upper throat. It can lead to pneumonia (4)(5). Most Coronaviruses are not dangerous. Some types of them are serious, such as MERS and SARS (6). The name comes from the crown-like appearance the virus displays. Mercola
1 heaped teaspoon of salt in a mug of warm water, (can be cold) cup a hand and sniff or snort the whole lot up, spitting anything which comes down into your mouth – no reaction fine, blow out your nose, flush away, washing your hands afterwards, you don’t have a virus .
A reaction, you have a virus – retain the salt water in your head for as long as the soreness lasts (2-3 minutes) then blow out your nose, flush away, washing hands afterwards and do this treatment 3 times a day, morning, noon, night, or more often, until the soreness goes away, when you have killed off the virus in your head and you won’t get the disease it will become, as I have done these past 26.5 years and to this (I am never ill), I add those virus related diseases which remain unknown to us, but are delivered by a virus, as in (unspecified) air pollution. Simple.
Try it, if you are satisfied with the results, pass the cure along, if results are not excellent, there are still the untested, trial vaccines to fall back on.
I never have Flu shots, or this vaccine either. No point doing the above salt water cure and then having vaccine shots too – like Duh!!
About 26 years ago, I read the report from a posh Research Center in America, where the author suggested, in his research paper, that his experiments with Salt Water cured flu type colds and he in turn referred to the Swedish or Norwegian Army (I think), who had barrels filled with Salt Water, attached to a hose, out of the bottom, which soldiers used to flush out their heads, when they thought they were getting a cold – and their troops never got colds.
I have been doing it ever since and neither do I, from any virus related “thing”.
There are weak salt water spray preparations you can buy from your local chemist, to clear your head. To my way of thinking, (as above) you need a stronger salt water solution to wash out your inner head and no spray is ever going to be enough to do that, which is proof of safety concerns, regarding salt, as above.
If you are allergic to salt – don’t do as I suggest!!
Virologists are not interested in the head, they are only interested in Covid, once it is in the body (10 to 14 days of self isolation later), but I say, kill off the Coronavirus in the head, before it ever gets to become Covid in the head and body, which makes total sense to me, because never getting Covid or whichever new variant it has become is the safest option avaiable.
It comes down to choice. Yes or No, as simple as that. Your life, your choice!!
Long COVID is a condition in which symptoms such as fatigue, cognitive dysfunction and hair loss continue after infection has passed. A Japanese researcher who studied the cause published a paper confirming that SARS-Cov-2 infects the brain. It says symptoms vary according to the area of the brain that is infected. Separately, a Japanese national medical institution has developed a blood test to predict who could get severe COVID-19.
My salt water cure flushes the head out of all Coronavirus symptoms, including around the brain stem, so not only does it kill Coronavirus, but it protects you brain and brain stem too.
Do my free, salt water sniffle and remain safe and please, pass my salt water cure around to anyone who will listen and ask them to pass it around too.
Richard Noakes