The mRNA Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective and save lives, right? Well, for safety it’s only if nobody asks to see the data (#574061) but what about efficacy? It is actually easy to know since the data is published by Pfizer and Moderna themselves in reputable journals (here N. Engl. J. Med.), so what does the data say?
After announcing the 95% efficacy data and moving the markets in the process, Pfizer released the results of their study on Dec 10th 2020:
“Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine”
The biggest takeaway was that without vaccination (i.e., placebo group), one had only 0.75% risk to get Covid. That number went down with vaccination but only 0.713% less in absolute terms. So where did that 95% efficacy come from? Well, the only way to make the numbers look better was to report a relative efficacy where (0.75-0.037)/0.75*100 = 95%. If the numbers had been reported this way by health agencies and the media, who in their own mind would have taken an experimental treatment to reduce the risk of getting Covid from 0.75% to 0.037%? Especially for age groups with a favorable risk profile (i.e., low risk of getting it or having a deadly outcome), why on earth would you mandate a therapeutic with unknown risk and so little benefit?
Shortly on 30 Dec 2020, Moderna reported very similar efficacy results using the same relative efficacy twist, boosting the efficacy to 94% while the absolute efficacy was only 1.15% (i.e., reduction from 1,22% risk to 0.07%).
“Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine”
If you don’t believe it the numbers are also relayed by so-called science and health agencies but none of them bothered to look at the numbers and what they meant. Instead of being debated, science these days is to be taken at face values because it is manipulated to serve the interests of the government and their pharma (or insert your favorite lobby) backers.
The founding fathers believed that freedom was only possible if the people was well-informed, who would have taken mRNA vaccines if they had been presented the efficacy and safety data in a more objective way, skewed of corporate interest and government lust for power and control?
With this entire situation - I can't believe we had 70%+ take the experimental jab that had no medium or long-term studies. Goes to show how much of our population is sheep-like.
The worst part of this whole thing, is all of these companies are for profit. That should make one question the trust worthiness.
People don't know how drug and vaccine development works, how long it usually takes to get it right and how many corners had to be cut to develop these ones. They think that companies are usually lazy and fuck around but if the government pushes them then the solution suddenly appears? Well yes in a way since governments lowered the bar so low that in the end any treatment starting with a "v" was approved. With the consequences that we know for J&J and Astrazeneca so dangerous that they had to be taken off the market
I can tell you that unfortunately in my social circle, > 95% of everyone I knew took the jab (multiple times) and did regular testing.
Nicely explained. Yep I realised what they had done with regards to relative vs absolute efficacy. Dr Aseem Malhotra also did an expose on it.
Whenever a pharma company claims a high efficacy number people should immediately be suspicious.
Exactly, I am surprised that it has not come up more in the mainstream news, out of so many physicians and clinicians around the world more people had to have picked it up. Anecdotally, after a few years not seeing each other, I met up with a physician friend and I brought up the relative vs absolute efficacy data thinking she would scream at me like other brainwashed normies, well she did scream at me and said this efficacy is impossible! Well maybe there is something to it then...