It's black on white: real Covid vaccines efficacy only around 1%

[Karamela]

It's been already mentioned in various threads on this forum but it's so big that it deserves more attention: at least two independent research publications (the second one is from The Lancet) confirm now that the real efficacity of Covid vaccines is far from the boasted 90% or even more. In reality it is 1% but this information was not revealed by the pharmaceutical companies nor by the FDA or EMA that gave approval to those vaccines:

(PDF) Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials

PDF | Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room

Approximately 96 COVID-19 vaccines are at various stages of clinical development.1 At present, we have the interim results of four studies published in scientific journals (on the Pfizer–BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine,2 the Moderna–US National Institutes of Health [NIH] mRNA-1273 vaccine,3 the...

www.thelancet.com

This is nothing new for the people on this forum. But while milions around the world are being manipulated and pressured to take them with endless booster shots in sight, I believe that it is our mission to serve as multipliers and spread this information as widely as possible: send it to our contacts (especially those not yet vaccinated), Youtubers and other influencers on social media and to the traditional media outlets where we live. This is real science, not marketing techniques employed by Pf...er and others to push their products. It can save lives but it would also be an interesting social experiment to see impact of it. I'm already doing my part.

 

[FitnessMike]

Foking hell, im curious of the conversation on this paper

 

[rei]

Foking hell, im curious of the conversation on this paper

don't hold your breath, this is the same scam they use when introducing any medicine. Statins would not have entered the market unless they could say something like 50% reduction in heart attacks when control group had 2 heart attacks in 1000 patients, and test group 1. Sounds much better than "number needed to treat for preventing one heart attack is 1000 patients."

 

[hierundjetzt]

Which Lancet article are you referring to?

 

[Perry Staltic]

Which Lancet article are you referring to?

Click DEFINE_ME in original post.

 

[solothesensei]

A 95% relative risk reduction is still impressive if you think about it.

If 100 out of 10,000 people die of heart attacks and you invent a medicine that reduces it to 5 out of 10,000, that's about a 1% absolute risk reduction but it's still very, very huge progress.

 

[yerrag]

A 95% relative risk reduction is still impressive if you think about it.

If 100 out of 10,000 people die of heart attacks and you invent a medicine that reduces it to 5 out of 10,000, that's about a 1% absolute risk reduction but it's still very, very huge progress.

Hogwash.

Here, take this drug. I guarantee you that you'll have a better chance of winning in bingo when you take it.

 

[Missenger]

Foking hell, im curious of the conversation on this paper

A lot of shitty math.


1.4%

 

[Drareg]

A 95% relative risk reduction is still impressive if you think about it.

If 100 out of 10,000 people die of heart attacks and you invent a medicine that reduces it to 5 out of 10,000, that's about a 1% absolute risk reduction but it's still very, very huge progress.

Their death might not get categorized as a heart attack, longevity and quality of life is a better indicator, we can hypothetically induce hibernation and live longer but it’s not conducive to thriving.

Whats the risk of dying from covid19 without comorbidity’s.......

 

[yerrag]

It's been already mentioned in various threads on this forum but it's so big that it deserves more attention: at least two independent research publications (the second one is from The Lancet) confirm now that the real efficacity of Covid vaccines is far from the boasted 90% or even more. In reality it is 1% but this information was not revealed by the pharmaceutical companies nor by the FDA or EMA that gave approval to those vaccines:

(PDF) Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials

PDF | Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room

Approximately 96 COVID-19 vaccines are at various stages of clinical development.1 At present, we have the interim results of four studies published in scientific journals (on the Pfizer–BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine,2 the Moderna–US National Institutes of Health [NIH] mRNA-1273 vaccine,3 the...

www.thelancet.com

This is nothing new for the people on this forum. But while milions around the world are being manipulated and pressured to take them with endless booster shots in sight, I believe that it is our mission to serve as multipliers and spread this information as widely as possible: send it to our contacts (especially those not yet vaccinated), Youtubers and other influencers on social media and to the traditional media outlets where we live. This is real science, not marketing techniques employed by Pf...er and others to push their products. It can save lives but it would also be an interesting social experiment to see impact of it. I'm already doing my part.

Thank you!

I've been looking for these absolute numbers. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Bogdar]

It's "absolute" risk reduction of 1%.
But relative of 95%.

Absolute so low because not many people are infected with corona among the population, what makes sense is the relative not absolute

 

[Missenger]

It's "absolute" risk reduction of 1%.
But relative of 95%.

Absolute so low because not many people are infected with corona among the population, what makes sense is the relative not absolute

I have no idea what any of that means, whatever test they used the infection rate without the vaccine was 1.4%. They effectively reduced the 'transmission rate' by 1%.

 

[Nemo]

A 95% relative risk reduction is still impressive if you think about it.

If 100 out of 10,000 people die of heart attacks and you invent a medicine that reduces it to 5 out of 10,000, that's about a 1% absolute risk reduction but it's still very, very huge progress.

That's based on data reported by the manufacturers, who made sure to avoid meaningful trials.

 

[Bogdar]

That's based on data reported by the manufacturers, who made sure to avoid meaningful trials.

Anyway whether it's biased or not, which could be, it's more about whether the article was correctly interpreted, and it was not

I have no idea what any of that means, whatever test they used the infection rate without the vaccine was 1.4%. They effectively reduced the 'transmission rate' by 1%.

Well actually it is quite intuitive, if vaccine makes half as much infected, you get a "relative" reduction of 50%

Now you look the whole population, there are only 2 ppl out of 100 infected, of which half (=1) won't be infected thanks to vaccine. So 1 ppl over 100 was saved that is a 1% "absolute" risk reduction

 

[Missenger]

Well actually it is quite intuitive, if vaccine makes half as much infected, you get a "relative" reduction of 50%

Now you look the whole population, there are only 2 ppl out of 100 infected, of which half (=1) won't be infected thanks to vaccine. So 1 ppl over 100 was saved that is a 1% "absolute" risk reduction

Did you just repeat yourself?

 

[Perry Staltic]

It's "absolute" risk reduction of 1%.
But relative of 95%.

Absolute so low because not many people are infected with corona among the population, what makes sense is the relative not absolute

The RRR is meaningless. If you keep the number of infections the same in each arm and multiply both arms by 1000, the RRR remains the same, but the ARR becomes a thousand times less. RRR tells you nothing about actual risk reduction. For all practical purposes it's just a meaningless ratio.

 

[Bogdar]

Did you just repeat yourself?

No I didn't?

 

[Perry Staltic]

RRR tells you nothing about actual risk reduction. For all practical purposes it's just a meaningless ratio.

I need to qualify that with one exception. RRR does have the practical purpose of deceiving the public about actual risk reduction.

 

[Mito]

“Approximately 96 COVID-19 vaccines are at various stages of clinical development.1 At present, we have the interim results of four studies published in scientific journals.....”

“Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 90% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.”

DEFINE_ME

 

[tankasnowgod]

A 95% relative risk reduction is still impressive if you think about it.

If 100 out of 10,000 people die of heart attacks and you invent a medicine that reduces it to 5 out of 10,000, that's about a 1% absolute risk reduction but it's still very, very huge progress.

It might be........ it if were based on a trial that lasted longer than two months, were for a disease as serious as heart attacks (not the common cold), and if the numbers themselves were genuine.

The first two clearly aren't true in this case (Covid is basically a common cold virus plus a 16 month propaganda an tyranny campaign), and the data taken from those trials were only from the first two months (at most) of clinical trials that are still ongoing.

As for whether you can even believe those numbers....... well, Peter Doshi brought up several very damning criticisms of the Pfizer trial, and they were all completely ignored-

Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data - The BMJ

On 5 February 2021 we published a clarification to this piece. It is available here. Five weeks ago, when I raised questions about the results of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s covid-19 [...]More...

blogs.bmj.com

“Suspected covid-19”

All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”

With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators. Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29% (see footnote).

If many or most of these suspected cases were in people who had a false negative PCR test result, this would dramatically decrease vaccine efficacy. But considering that influenza-like illnesses have always had myriad causes—rhinoviruses, influenza viruses, other coronaviruses, adenoviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, etc.—some or many of the suspected covid-19 cases may be due to a different causative agent.

But why should etiology matter? If those experiencing “suspected covid-19” had essentially the same clinical course as confirmed covid-19, then “suspected plus confirmed covid-19” may be a more clinically meaningful endpoint than just confirmed covid-19.

However, if confirmed covid-19 is on average more severe than suspected covid-19, we must still keep in mind that at the end of the day, it is not average clinical severity that matters, it’s the incidence of severe disease that affects hospital admissions. With 20 times more suspected covid-19 than confirmed covid-19, and trials not designed to assess whether the vaccines can interrupt viral transmission, an analysis of severe disease irrespective of etiologic agent—namely, rates of hospitalizations, ICU cases, and deaths amongst trial participants—seems warranted, and is the only way to assess the vaccines’ real ability to take the edge off the pandemic.

There is a clear need for data to answer these questions, but Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine.

The 371 individuals excluded from Pfizer vaccine efficacy analysis

Another reason we need more data is to analyse an unexplained detail found in a table of FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine: 371 individuals excluded from the efficacy analysis for “important protocol deviations on or prior to 7 days after Dose 2.” What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna’s trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for “major protocol deviation”—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.)

What were these protocol deviations in Pfizer’s study, and why were there five times more participants excluded in the vaccine group? The FDA report doesn’t say, and these exclusions are difficult to even spot in Pfizer’s report and journal publication.

Remember, there were only 170 TOTAL Covid cases in the Pfizer trial in both groups, so an extra 251 excluded from the vaccine group is more than enough to erase any "efficacy" of the Pfizer Vaccine, and have more total COVID cases in the vaccine group.