Posted on

New Lancet report shows Pfizer, Moderna et al. misled the public with deceptive efficacy statistics




New Lancet report shows Pfizer, Moderna et al. misled the public with deceptive efficacy statistics

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. In other words, 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.”



Link To Full Article @ Source_TheCovidBlog





The Lancet – COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room


Link To Document_COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room