You were misled, lied to with Pfizer and Moderna reporting of relative risk reduction (RRR) & NOT the absolute risk reduction (ARR); this was done between the vaccine developer and FDA to lie to you!

by Paul Alexander

Why does this matter? Because when information is given as RRR ONLY, your decision-making is flawed & misinformed; it is vital to get the ARR also & even the FDA demands this; now they do not look it

Over to our focus here: this simple example below is where it all went wrong day 1 and why we are where we are today, for the vaccine developers and the FDA cooked the numbers and reporting, so that you would be happy with the data and the EUA would be granted; remember, there was a 50% efficacy threshold for EUA…

Omitting the ARR leads to outcome reporting bias and impacts your interpretation of the findings. You just cannot properly assess the vaccine efficacy. The RRR and ARR can be so different that it is imperative that both be reported to you so that you are properly informed…on surface blush, the 2 numbers 0.02% and 0.01% has a RRR of 50%, yet an ARR of 0.01%…telling you that a drug reduces risk of stroke by 50% versus 0.01%, I am sure your decision to take the drug differs if you were told the latter measure and the drug had burden to take it and adverse effects. You would likely forgo on the very modest benefit and place ‘value’ on avoidance of the harms.

Similarly, if the numbers were 5% and 2.5%, the RRR is 50% but the ARR is 2.5%…

2.5% is not attract like 50%, right?

Let us do a mock exercise to show how the pharma and media and medicine lie to you all the time…

Assume baseline risk is 0.5% of a disease (CER) and a drug reduces risk to 0.25% (EER):

The RRR is calculated as:

Control event rate (CER) or baseline (control/placebo arm) is 0.5% and the experimental (intervention/vaccine arm) event rate (EER) is 0.25%, then the RRR is

((CER-EER) / CER) X 100%=

((0.5-0.25)/0.5) X 100% = 50%

AAR = CER - EER = 0.5-0.25 = 0.25%

The number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to vaccinate (NNTV)= 100/ARR = 400

Interpretation if the outcome was mortality, is that you would need to vaccinate 400 persons to prevent 1 death…

How does this relate to the lies by Pfizer and Moderna? Yes, they did lie to you and sought to deceive you to take the vaccine and the FDA did not ensure they gave you the ARR and here it is and you now tell me if the vaccine before they rolled it out was really efficacious? They were running around saying 95% RRR so this is fabulous…thats all you heard…so lets look:

Pfizer vaccine reported to FDA:

RRR: 95.1%

ARR: 0.7%

NNT or NNTV: 100/0.7% = 142

Moderna vaccine reported to FDA:

RRR: 94.1%

AAR: 1.1%

NNT or NNTV: 100/1.1 = 91

Based on how the NNT is calculated, then for the Pfizer, you may say well, 142 people needs to be vaccinated for one person, ‘me’, to benefit. “I do not like those odds given the cost, the burden, the possible toxic side effect and risks to me”. So 141 people must take it, pay for it (well the insurance), have possible side effects, and have no chance for benefit, for one of us to benefit. So 1 out of 142.

This is how you use the ARR and the NNT/NNTV to interpret the drug or vaccine efficacy results, per outcome. The ideal NNT/NNTV is 1. You vaccinate 1 persons and that 1 person will benefit. This never happens but ideally, you want a very low NNT.

Problem is, one of the vaccine makers omitted 3500 or so subjects from the analysis and thus arrived at over 90% RRR. But when we put the 3500 back into the data, the RRR dropped to about 20% and would have not met the 50% EUA threshold. Bear that in mind always. They, the vaccine developers and FDA, cooked the data and thus why I have argued the vaccines NEVER ever worked. They are criminals. They lied and this is why today all are getting infected with infectious Omicron for the vaccines do not work. Never did!