LIAR’S MATH

Wildly exaggerating the efficacy of the Pfizer and Moderna jabs

Welcome!

In March of 2021 I began reading that the Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” were about 95% effective. Quite soon after I was hearing from the Truthosphere that the efficacy was more like 1%. That’s quite a spread. We will now see that both statements are true.

Although it took me a good six hours back in 2021 to understand the math and write it up, you can fully grasp what’s going on by the end of this short paper. The elements discussed are well known statistical protocols used for decades in describing medical treatment efficacy.

We now know the jabs were ineffective, but this topic is still relevant because Big Pharma won’t stop telling the same LIES over and over again.

First, let me quote a thoroughly mainstream news source (PBS) as to the numbers we will discuss:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/pfizer-moderna-covid-vaccines-clinical-trials/

28 Nov 2020

Today, Pfizer … announced that their new experimental Covid-19 vaccine is 95% effective in preventing infections…

The news comes just two days after the biotech company Moderna Inc. said its experimental vaccine was 94.5% effective in preventing disease…

Moderna’s study involved 30,000 volunteers. …“There were 95 instances of Covid-19 illness among the study participants; only 5 of those cases were in the vaccinated group…

The results for Pfizer… The companies’ trial has enrolled more than 43,000 volunteers in six countries… Pfizer “counted 170 cases of coronavirus infection among volunteers who took part in the trial. It said 162 infections were in people who got placebo, or plain saline shots, while 8 cases were in participants who got the actual vaccine,” Maggie Fox and Amanda Sealy write for CNN.

Using the above numbers, we will now learn about

Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)

Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)

Number Needed to Treat (NNT)

Simple example first. Let’s say out of 100 men, age 50-60, that 10 of them will get Ferguson Disease in a given year. Let’s say a group of such men was given the FD-vax and in the following year only 5 get Ferguson Disease.

10 of 100=10% versus 5 of 100=5%

Relative Risk Reduction is calculated using DIVISION, comparing the two affected groups relative to each other only:

5% versus 10% or 5 divided by 10 equals 0.5 _ _or a 50% improvement (risk reduction)

Absolute Risk Reduction is calculated using SUBTRACTION, comparing the affected groups, and keeping focus on their mathematical relationship to the sample size.

10% versus 5% or 10 minus 5 equals 5 (percent) _ _or a 5% improvement (risk reduction)

Let’s do another. Out of a group of 7800 men, half were given the Fauci Syndrome vaccine and half were given placebo. A year later, 273 in the placebo group got Fauci Syndrome, but only 46 in the vaccine group got this dread disease.

273/3900 = 7%            46/3900= 1%

RRR method:

1% divided by 7% equals 14% _ _or an 86% improvement (risk reduction) [moving from 7 to 1 is a change of 86%]

ARR method:

7% minus 1% _ _or a 6% improvement (risk reduction)

OK, let’s do coronavirus. The following grid was found during my research [yes, the first number is 44000 in contrast to the 43000 mentioned by PBS, but the difference is trivial]:

We see the same crazy discrepancy between the two interpretations.

The FDA was urging the people of the USA to get a vaccine that was “95% effective”, and still about half the country said, “No thanks”.

How many would have gotten jabbed knowing it was virtually worthless?

Bonus topic: Number Needed to Treat (NNT)

NNT is simply and always the inverse of ARR.

Let’s apply it to our three examples:

First example ARR is 5% _ _ _ _ _ so 1 divided by .05 equals 20

Second example ARR is 6% _ _ _ _ _ so 1 divided by .06 equals 17 (always round up)

Pfizer example ARR is 0.7% _ _ _ _ _ so 1 divided by .007 equals 143

Number Needed to Treat means “how many patients need to receive the treatment in question in order for 1 patient to benefit”.

Now consider the following two quotes:

According to Dr. Julian Whitaker: “An NNT above 40 is a crapshoot”.

According to Dr. Nortin M. Hadler, professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in Business Week: “Anything over an NNT of 50 is worse than a lottery ticket; there may be no winners.”

The numbers we’ve used are from the pharmaceutical companies. The terms and procedures are taught in colleges across the land.

“Relative Risk Reduction” was created expressly to exaggerate and deceive. I can’t see any other use for it. It’s obvious why the pharmaceutical companies love it for their public announcements.

Just another reason why our motto here at LIAR$$WORLD is:

I hope you found this interesting, and I hope you explore all the other wonderful writers working at Substack right now, sharing important knowledge with their fellow citizens.