The COVID-Cult dogma is rich in exaggeration and weighted down by deception. Nothing they have claimed is clinically or statistically accurate, and COVID-Gallielo’s are quickly put before the inquisition to be examined by its Holy Officers.
Galileo was found guilty of “vehement suspicion of heresy” and forced to repent his sins before God and the masters of his time by reading remarks prepared for him by The Church.
These days, the blasphemers are nurses, doctors, clinicians, oncologists, epidemiologists, numerous professionals in scientific disciplines, all of whom have found themselves put before the inquisition – much like the climate scientists who dare to question that political endeavor.
This Church preaches a globalist Public Health agenda. A COVID Dogma that continues to suffer the science of many whose interests are not politics or policy but actual science and public health.
These blasphemers continue to ignore the Cult’s Pharisees, releasing mountains of research and analysis that contradict the preferred “revealed truths.”
One of the most egregious of which is that the Cult’s mRNA cure is 95% effective.
This fraud references relative risk reduction instead of absolute risk reduction to confuse the debate. What’s the difference?
It’s actually pretty rare (especially in my world of oncology) to see Absolute Risk Reduction reported in a study. You’ll find that you have to calculate it for yourself. But if it’s so important, why do you have to manually calculate it for most studies? Why isn’t it reported with the findings?
Absolute Risk is less sexy than Relative Risk. It doesn’t make for good press headlines. …
Simply put, Absolute Risk Reduction is the only way to identify the true context of something reported in a clinical trial. It’s usually a much smaller number than Relative Risk Reduction (RRR), but it helps you assess the real-world impact of a study finding.
Even if we ignore the health risks from side effects, the mRNA injections cannot achieve the stated goal. Flatten the curve.
Instead of returning us to normal, they are the new normal. One that proliferates deceptions to protect the perception that public health is the driving interest. It is not, and the Absolute Risk Reduction, if widely known, would end the program and inspire more rebellion.
What is the actual number?
Dr. Joseph Mercola’s analysis states: While the COVID injections have been characterized as being somewhere around 95% effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, this claim is the product of statistical obfuscation.
In short, they’ve conflated relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is actually right around 1% for all currently available COVID shots.1
In “Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials”2 Ron Brown, Ph.D. calculates the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s injections, based on their own clinical trial data, so that they can be compared to the relative risk reduction reported by these companies. Here’s a summary of his findings:
-
-
- Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 — Relative risk reduction: 95.1%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.7%
- Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 — Relative risk reduction: 94.1%. Absolute risk reduction 1.1%
-
Sure, some folks would still line up, and others would line up their children because the propaganda campaign has been fierce and relentless. But the Absolute risk reduction number explains things that the 95% lie cannot.
Global Warming continues to be low on most people’s priority lists because they can see it not happening as described or predicted. The same needs to hold for the COVID cult.
None of this is as they have claimed or predicted.
Galileo, by the way, continued his work under house arrest, and so should you, no matter what that looks like in the 21st century.