Bias in Efficacy Reporting for mRNA “vaccines”
7 July 2021
In a study titled “Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials” originally published online in February 2021 (PDF mirror) the author demonstrates the evidence of the statistical sleight-of-hand and dishonest reporting related to the alleged effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna experimental gene-therapy injections masquerading as “vaccines”.
It has long been known by those paying attention that these companies are among the most dishonest and untrustworthy on the planet, with Pfizer copping a $2.3 billion fine in 2009 for bribing doctors with “free golf, massages, and resort junkets”, that being the fourth large fine in the space of a decade.
It really should not come as a surprise to anyone that big pharmaceutical companies being asked to provide evidence their products are safe and effective would game the system that is rigged entirely in their favour. The fines are simply the cost of doing business and while $2.3 billon might seem like an eyewatering sum, it’s factored into the accounts of these companies and amounts to a slap on the wrist.
And here we are, with the COVID fraud being jackpot time for these companies and an opportunity for them to conduct the largest genetic experiment on humans in history they are obviously at it again.
The Governments who are usually directly connected to these massive pharma companies with a revolving door, plus the propaganda wing of the Government AKA the mainstream media have been telling everyone these so-called vaccines are around 95% effective at reducing risk, and because the fear-mongering surrounding a respiratory ailment that has a 99%+ chance of survival if you’re under the age of 70 and a prevalence of approximately 1% if you take the huge amounts of false positives at face value, many people have been frightened and coerced into taking this unapproved, experimental injection based on the purported efficacy figure of 95% as they think they are reducing their chances of catching and dying from COVID by that stated 95%. That simply isn’t true though and not only does this study prove that, it proves it by using Pfizer’s and Moderna’s own documentation.
In the abstract of this study it explains:
Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy.
Page 1 – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/pdf/medicina-57-00199.pdf
It goes on to explain the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction like this:
Based on data reported by the manufacturer for Pfzier/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2, this critical appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.0% to 97.6%; p = 0.016; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.59% to 0.83%; p < 0.000. For the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273, the appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 94.1%; 95% CI, 89.1% to 96.8%; p = 0.004; absolute risk reduction, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.97% to 1.32%; p < 0.000
So the 95.1% relative risk reduction for the Pfizer/BioNTech injection which is the figure reported by Pfizer, the Governments and media is actually an absolute risk reduction of 0.7%. Yes, you did read that correctly, 0.7%. For the Moderna injection the touted 94.1% relative risk reduction, again the figure you’ll see reported everywhere actually turns out to be an absolute risk reduction of 1.1%.
Do you think the take-up of what is an emergency use only, experimental gene-therapy injection that’s never before been used on humans with zero long-term safety data and skipped animal trials would have been quite as enthusiastic if the actual efficacy figures of 0.7% and 1.1% for Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna respectively were the advertised figures? Of course not.
This is fraud, pure and simple. But how do they do it? How do they appear to get away with representing 0.7% as 95.1%? The trick is this “relative” risk as opposed to “absolute” risk. In this context the word “relative” seems quite benign, like it’s related somehow. This illustrative image from the study shows the trick in effect:
So there you can see how you can take something that affected 2 out of 100 in your control group and only 1 out of 100 in your “vaccine” group and engineer it to look like 50% risk reduction. The actual difference between 1 out of 100 and 2 out of 100 is barely statistically significant, especially as the definitions these companies use (see page 8) to decide what constitutes a COVID infection or not are garbage.
So when they say risk reduction is 95%, they are referring to the “relative” risk reduction. The actual reduction, i.e. the difference between the overall figure and the control group figure, compared to the difference between the overall figure and the “vaccinated” figure is so miniscule it can easily be explained by the number of other non-scientific aspects to these studies, such as:
- the nonsensical methods of diagnosing infection (e.g the appearance of only one symptom and the PCR “test” which isn’t a test)
- the non-replicable nature of this entire thing as once someone has been injected that cannot be repeated with the same person
- everyone’s varying tolerances to disease and injected substances
This is not unique to Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. They are all at it and not just with the COVID injections. These tricks have been played on an unsuspecting public for years. Governments lie, the media lies and pharmaceutical companies lie. They all have a vested interest in lying about this and defrauding the public not just of billions of pounds, but also their health and ultimately in some cases, their lives.