Where they got their 95% efficacy lie

Be the 1st to vote.

It’s not a lie, but it’s a completely meaningless number.

It’s called lying with statistics.

Using Pfizer’s figures, the relative risk reduction is 100(1 – (0.044/0.88)). Which is 95%. Voila!

This sounds fantastic and is a much better marketing strategy than reporting the absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk of developing COVID 19 symptoms without the vaccine is supposedly 0.88% and with the vaccine 0.044%. In absolute terms, the effectiveness of the vaccine is (0.88-0.044)%.

A risk reduction of 0.84%. Oh! A barely perceptible “efficacy.”

By using the relative instead of absolute risk reduction, the mainstream media (MSM) were free to market the mRNA vaccine for Pfizer and BioNTech (and other interested parties) with impressive sounding claims. These weren’t remotely truthful, not only because they relied upon statistical manipulation but because no one had a clue about BNT’s safety or efficacy. To this day, there are no clinical trial results.

off-guardian.org/2021/01/03/wh…

No tags for this post.

4 thoughts on “Where they got their 95% efficacy lie

  1. tokarski

    Johnny Carson was a late night talk show host in the US, 1960s, 70s and 80s. Probably Canada too. He was a comedian, and had a saying, which was like shop talk, or inside baseball, with other comedians: “If they buy the premise, they will buy the bit.” It means that if audiences think that something going in is real, when they are surprised that it wasn’t, they will laugh. That is comedy.

    When talking about vaccines and the supposed virus, the virus is the premise, the vaccine is the bit.

    They can lie with statistics, but there’s an underlying problem: When you are dealing with zero, there are no statistics to rescue you. Zero is zero. There cannot be any reduction in risk when risk to begin with was zero. There is no virus, no vaccine. It is something else going on.

    I heard a news report when they locked down Britain recently that a new strain of the virus was “70% more contagious” than the old. since they have never isolated the old, indicating it doesn’t exist, the question any good journalist would ask is “What is 70% of zero?”

    We don’t have journalists, period, however. It’s just people like us, AB.

      1. tokarski

        Hey AB, I am available anytime now … not a great observation on the state of my life, I guess. Would love to have a chat with you, and I even have a good microphone and Skype. Does that work? Given the quality if your work since this all has happened, I think I’ve more to learn from you than you from me. But I see you picked up on the English translations of Lanka, and that is a great starting point. The guy is ground zero.,

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.