I wrote a piece the other day titled, “Absolute Risk Reduction for Available COVID “Vaccines” is not 95% – It’s Closer to 1%.” Don Armentano, who writes at Lew Rockwell.com, reached out to say hi and shared a link to something he wrote that goes into more detail on the subject.
In the article titled, “What Does Vaccine Protection Really Mean?” Don walks us through it.
The print and visual media–and even most health care professionals–continue to maintain (either out of ignorance or just a good-faith effort to get everyone vaccinated) that 95% effective means that in a cohort of, say, 100 participants all of which were vaccinated, (5%) would get Covid19 symptoms while 95 (95%) would not. So get vaccinated!
But, actually, a vaccine that is 95% “effective” does NOT mean that at all.
To see why this is so, we must understand that when Pfizer performed its clinical trials, it had to COMPARE the results from its fully vaccinated cohort group with a reasonably similar placebo group that had NOT been vaccinated at all. And it is THAT comparison that actually reveals the degree of protection provided by vaccination.
In the Pfizer clinical trials, there were 21,830 participants in the vaccine group and 8 developed symptoms associated with a Covid infection. There were 21,830 participants in the placebo group and 162 developed symptoms associated with a Covid infection. Thus the actual “risk of infection” in the vaccine group was 0.04 % while the risk of infection in the placebo group was 0.74%. The question then is: What level of protection (risk reduction) is actually provided by vaccination in comparison with the non-vaccinated placebo cohort?
Warning, the actual math and science that follow may not produce what you expect. There are also measures excluded from those calculations that Don mentions later that should inform public policy.
Should!
Anyone paying attention is aware that the COVID policy advocates have not been forthright about anything, just that their response is it, and there can be no other.
The recent release of a few documents that the FDA and Pfizer wanted to hide for another 55 years might explain why. We’re also looking down the barrel of a vaccine that has killed more people than any in history—many times higher than all the vaccinations in the US combined over the past 35 years.
Just shut up and take it.
But no one knows how many boosters you might need, and excess mortality rates are higher the more vaccinated you’ve got. That seems contrary to the stated goal of public health.
And now might be a good time to reread the Spartacus letter.
We can also add any number of other infringements upon rights and property, making the current approach to public policy an abysmal failure.
And while the 95% effective narrative could be the poster child for the covid cult’s commitment to fraud, I’m still thinking that killing “a few kids” with a vaccine they don’t need will inevitably take top honors in the bottom dweller category for COVID public policy.
Dr. Armentano is professor emeritus in economics at the University of Hartford in Connecticut.
