95% Effective – Pfizer said it’s Covid Jabs were 95% Effective – What Does That Mean?
HOME -
My Rumble Channel -- Waking the World up
Please Visit my other Blog Sites - Answers to Mysterious and Chronic Health Conditions
95% Effective – Pfizer said it’s Covid Jabs were 95% Effective – What Does That Mean?
All the propaganda stated over and over again that “this vaccine is about 95% effective.”
“It’s 95% Effective against the disease.”
“The vaccine is 95% effective at reducing symptomatic Covid-19.”
Does that mean that 95% of the people who take it will not get Covid?
What does it mean?
Pfizer’s Original Clinical Trial Report – December 31, 2020
The Report showed that the vaccine was Safe and had 95% Efficacy after the second dose.
This was Relative Risk Reduction.
Absolute Risk Reduction was 0.84%.
Dr. Aseem Malhotra – “Relative Risk Reduction is a way of exaggerating the benefits of any intervention, clearly in the case of people trying to sell you something and in this case the Pharmaceutical Industry1.”
Pfizer reported that it’s vaccine had 95% efficacy, does it mean it protects you 95% of the time?
NO.
The 95% is referring to the Relative Risk Reduction and its doesn’t state how your Overall Risk is reduced by Vaccination, which we need to look at Absolute Risk Reduction.
What is the Difference Between Relative Risk Reduction and Absolute Risk Reduction?
In the clinical trial2 is stated the risk of the unvaccinated contacting Covid-19 was .88% and the risk of vaccinated developing Covid was 0.04%.
The Net Benefit or the Absolute Risk is: .88 - .04 = .84%
The 95% Effective refers to the difference between 0.88% and 0.04%.
0.88% down to 0.04 = 95% Relative Risk Reduction
It is not a 95% benefit, it is less than 1% benefit. A 0.84% benefit.
Just to note: both these numbers seem way off from the eye test of what really happened. It seemed like everyone I knew who was vaccinated got Covid, so the eye test says the vaccine wasn’t effective and definitely didn’t prevent 95% of the people from getting covid.
From the book “Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidene-Based User's Guide”
“Absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to treat (NNT). When explaining risks associated with treatment, three approaches exist to describe how the treatment changes risk. For example, when explaining the benefits of taking chemoprevention to prevent breast cancer, risk reduction could be described as (1) a 50% risk reduction (relative risk reduction), (2) a reduction from a 6% risk of breast cancer to 3% (absolute risk reduction) or (3) the number of women needed to take chemoprevention to prevent cancer in one of them (NNT)3.”
This Pfizer Study was designed to follow participants for safety and efficacy for 2 years after the second dose, but they didn’t stick with the “design.”
Why?
Here is what Pfizer said in their report of this clinical trial -- “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine”, published in “The New England Journal of Medicine” on December 31, 2020:
“Although the study was designed to follow participants for safety and efficacy for 2 years after the second dose, given the high vaccine efficacy, ethical and practical barriers prevent following placebo recipients for 2 years without offering active immunization, once the vaccine is approved by regulators and recommended by public health authorities. Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy for this vaccine will occur, but it cannot be in the context of maintaining a placebo group for the planned follow-up period of 2 years after the second dose2.”
At the time this was published Pfizer had received EUA – Emergency Use Authorization 11 days prior, on December 20, 2020.
As with all vaccines, we NEVER get to see a true comparison of health between the Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated.
Pfizer stated because of how “Effective” their vaccine was, the “ETHICAL and PRACTICAL BARRIERS” prevent following the Placebo group for 2 years without offering the safe and effective vaccine.
How could Pfizer claim that the “ethical” decision was to offer everyone in the placebo group the vaccination after just two months, when on average, the safety testing should last for YEARS?
How could they offer the Placebo group the vaccine with known benefit of the vaccine to be UNDER 1%?
Are you feeling lied to yet?
Does this pass the “Eye Test” of what we all witnessed?
The Eye Test says that the real Covid Pandemic began AFTER the Vaccines were introduced.
Sources:
1. True Stories from the Health Forum NZ -- https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=663063416447963&rdid=2B8XlKXDLPPCG79p
2. Polack, Fernando P., et al. “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 383, no. 27, Dec. 2020, pp. 2603–15. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2034577. *Note: Pfizer Covid mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trial Claiming Vaccine is Safe & 95% Effective.
3. Fischhoff, Baruch. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence Based User’s Guide. Government Printing Office, 2012. *Note: Relative Risk vs Absolute Risk - 95% Effective isn't what you think when using "Relative Risk."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROTECT YOURSELF: Protect yourself, your children and loved ones from the harmful EMF from the newly installed 5G Towers. We are constantly being Bombarded by Harmful Radiation, being hit from all directions, every single day.
Up
to 75% OFF!
Hope
& Tivon’s EMF Protection Products:
https://www.ftwproject.com/our-special-offers/ref/528/
Check out the Special Offers on all the EMF PROTECTION
Products – including:
1. Phone
& Laptop Shields
2. Pyramids
3.
Sleeping
Pods
4. Charge
Plates
5. GardenSets
6.
Shungite
Tiles
7. Pendants.
***PLEASE FOLLOW My BLOG → https://mrnavac.blogspot.com/
END. 4/28/2025 3:00 PM
*******************************************************
Comments
Post a Comment