Pfizer (Albert Bourla) defrauded America with mRNA COVID vaccines & FDA & CDC knew & played along; here's how; we will discuss efficacy, relative risk reduction (RRR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) &
by Paul Alexander
removal of approximately 3,000 participants in order to reach the 50% threshold that was set; we will model based on 20,000 vaccine & placebo arms & 8 & 162 events vaccine & placebo respectively
What I share below is how Pfizer and Moderna were able to manipulate the reporting and data and analysis in their submission to the FDA for the initial EUA, that allowed these COVID injections to be rolled out in the first place.
Modelling based on 20,000 per trial arm, give or take. It is around this figure per arm.
1)when you heard 95% efficacy, you thought it was 95% reduction in death, or hospitalization, in ICU, in infections etc. These are the patient-important outcomes you would expect to see as the outcomes in such a study. But ‘efficacy’ was for mild COVID symptoms, not even moderate or severe symptoms. Just mild symptoms and Pfizer knew when they and FDA and CDC and the complicit media kept saying ‘95% efficacious’, that you would think it’s 95% reduction in death etc. They knew they were lying and deceiving you and you did not know they were.
2)Pfizer removed 3,000 participants or so, from their study that was used by FDA to grant the EUA. They stated in their submission, that para these persons were ‘suspected’ but not yet lab confirmed COVID. So they removed them. The accounting has never been complete or satisfactory.
3)They presented to you the relative risk reduction (RRR). It is computed as:
(control event rate-experimental event rate/control event rate) X 100%
Control event rate (CER)= 162/20,000 control arm= 0.0081
Experimental (vaccine) event rate (EER)= 8/20,0000 vaccine arm = 0.0004
RRR= (0.0081-0.0004/0.081) X 100%= 95%…so RRR is 95%
But RRR is the calculation based on the risk in one group relative to the risk in another group. It yields information on how much the intervention reduced the risk of bad outcomes relative to the control group that did not get the treatment. It is not the outcome measure we seek when we present research for decision-making.
4)The Absolute risk reduction (ARR) or risk difference (RD) is the outcome we seek when presenting research results and to aid in decision-making. It is computed as:
Control event rate - experimental event rate = 0.0081 - 0.0004 = 0.0077 ( x 100%) or 0.77% …this is the absolute actual benefit.
5)Thus the RRR that we were given as ‘efficacy’ in the news and by CDC and Fauci and Francis Collins and Bourla and NIH and Pfizer was 95%. They did not tell us the risk difference or the ARR that we needed to know, which is the pure absolute risk of 0.77%.
Similar was done by Moderna, and their ARR I think was approximately 1% but the advertised ‘efficacy’ was also around 95% as was for Pfizer. They, Pfizer and Moderna and CDC and FDA kept saying ‘efficacy’ and never told you it was the RRR of 95% they were giving you, so were fooling you as you were thinking this ‘efficacy’ was for death or infection or hospitalization that you wanted to know. Not mild COVID, not coughs. Does it reduce my risk of death? Also, they did not say it was RRR, so you did not know. For they knew you really needed to know the ARR which was 0.77% and they did not want you to get that measure. RRR of 95% was correct math but it is an outcome measure of no real value here in decision-making here. They knew this yet were deliberately deceiving you.
The ARR is key and you can use it to calculate the number needed to treat (NNT). NNT is 100/ARR% so in the case of Pfizer, it is:
100/0.77=approximately 130; thus you would need to vaccinate 130 people to reduce mild symptoms in one person with these vaccines. Thus is it worth it? Is it worth the risk?
So if you were ‘CORRECTLY’ told the ARR of 0.77% in the news, you would have likely said, “well, 0.77% is no real benefit, the vaccine is new, I do not know how it will behave long term, they did not do safety tests, there are costs such as risks, side effects, toxicity, burden to get the shot etc. I am likely COVID recovered and seems this COVID is not so serious etc.” A reasonably well informed person (population) of the benefits and risks, would have likely said “given the modest ARR of 0.77%, and given the possible burden and side effects, and given I likely have recovered from COVID, and given the uncertain but possible harms, then I would place more value on avoiding the likely adverse effects and burden, than accept this modest very vanishingly low benefit of 0.77% risk reduction in mild symptoms like cough. This is not even reducing death risk by 0.77%”.
But you could not make that value judgement being informed because FDA, CDC, Pfizer and all the corrupt persons and entities told you RRR of 95%, yet did not tell you it was RRR which is a means to misguide you, and also did not tell you that ‘efficacy’ was reduced coughs etc.
6)FDA etc. set a 50% threshold efficacy reduction to grant EUA. Thus 95% makes it easily, but this is efficacy of reduced mild symptoms. Again, 95% RRR does not sound as attractive if you knew it was really 0.77% ARR.
7)The true fraud emerges now when we take the 3,000 participants and we model by including them in the calculations.
So for this modelling, let us take the 3,000 formerly excluded participants were actual events and accept that 1,500 events happened in each arm, the vaccine arm and the placebo arm.
Thus the new findings are:
(CER-EER)/CER x 100% = 9.1%
You then understand quickly that, if we used that re-imputation model, Pfizer does not even meet the 50% threshold set and also, if we accept this adjusted calculation, then the mRNA Pfizer vaccine failed out of the box. It never even worked in providing any appreciable benefit, even in reducing mild symptoms of cough.
Moreover, if I were to model another way where I say 2/3 of the participants were in the placebo group and got the events and 1/3 were in the vaccine arm and got the event. This in effect, the control placebo group did worse and got 2/3, 66% of the events. Let us model that. Then the math would be:
Approximately 50% RRR and 0.05% ARR. Just meeting the 50% threshold for EUA. I have accepted my model of 50:50 allocation of the events and as such, the RRR which is not the correct measure, falls to 9% and the ARR which is the correct measure to report for decision-making, becomes 0.7%. With this information, you would have not taken the injection. And just remember, the ‘efficacy’ was never about efficacy in reducing deaths or infection or ICU etc. It’s mild COVID symptoms etc.