Pfizer reported that its “vaccine” shows a 95% efficacy. That sounds like it protects you 95% of the time, right? That’s not actually what that number means.

That 95% refers to your Relative Risk Reduction but it doesn’t tell you how much your overall risk is reduced. For that you need to look at Absolute Risk Reduction.

In the Pfizer trial 8 out of 18,198 who were given the “vaccine” developed covid-19 and in the placebo group 162 out of 18,325 people got it.

Which means that even without the “vaccine” the risk of contracting covid-19 is extremely low at 0.88% which the “vaccine” then reduced to 0.04%.

So the net benefit or the Absolute Risk Reduction that you’re being offered is 0.84%.

That 95% refers to the relative difference between 0.88 and 0.04. That’s what they call 95% Relative Risk Reduction.

And Relative Risk Reduction is known to be a misleading number which is why the FDA recommends using Absolute Risk Reduction instead.

Which begs the question: How many people would have chosen to take the “vaccine”  had they understood that they offered less than 1% overall benefit?

 

In the Pfizer trial 8 out of 18,198 who were given the “vaccine” developed covid-19 and in the placebo group 162 out of 18,325 people got it.

 

Which means that even without the “vaccine” the risk of contracting covid-19 is extremely low at 0.88% which the “vaccine” then reduced to 0.04%.

So the net benefit or the Absolute Risk Reduction that you’re being offered is 0.84%.

That 95% refers to the relative difference between 0.88 and 0.04. That’s what they call 95% Relative Risk Reduction.

And Relative Risk Reduction is known to be a misleading number which is why the FDA recommends using Absolute Risk Reduction instead.

Which begs the question: How many people would have chosen to take the “vaccine”  had they understood that they offered less than 1% overall benefit?

 

VIDEO: Ryan Cristián , The Last American Vagabond breaks it all down in detail…

ARR vs RRR

Interview With Canadian physicist and interdisciplinary scientist, Denis Rancourt

He’ll explain the scientific method and how it has not been followed.

Very insightful words from Ottawa-based physicist and interdisciplinary scientist, Denis Rancourt, a former tenured professor of physics at U of Ottawa (for 20+ years) and currently a researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. He has written over 100 papers in leading scientific journals.

Denis speaks about a variety of issues pertaining to Covid, the faulty science around all things Covid, Ontario’s incompetent chief medical officers, the brutality of lockdowns—especially on the disadvantaged of society, and more.

Follow Denis:

-on Twitter: https://twitter.com/denisrancourt

-his blog:
https://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2021/07/questioning-global-pandemic-response.html
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2020/07/links-to-denis-rancourt-articles-and.html

RELATED LINKS

https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/31/phantom-virus-in-search-of-sars-cov-2/

“No certified uncontaminated samples of the purported pathogen (SARS-CoV-2) were or are available for scientific study and biotech development. The genetic sequence was concocted in the absence of a purified sample of the presumed pathogen, using indirect methods.”
https://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2021/01/what-i-believe-about-covid.html?m=1

https://www.rt.com/usa/528865-fauci-pfizer-vaccine-booster/

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/520504-ontario-lockdown-north-america/

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/519837-covid19-lockdowns-mask-wearing-isolation/

https://off-guardian.org/2021/04/28/what-will-we-lose/

Please share this, pass it along,
comment and start a conversation.

ConcAmDad.MarkTwain-01

 

 

 

Leave a Reply