Relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR) & how BIG pharma & vaccine makers use RRR to misled, lie, deceive the public; the FDA knows for the FDA/NIH/HHS is part of the lie!

Let us do an exercise where your risk of a disease is 0.00005 in the population (baseline risk) & a new vaccine A is said by Pfizer to reduce the risk to 0.000025; pharma & FDA says a RRR of 50%

And they would be correct for the RRR is found by the following equation: Control event rate (or even placebo) known as CER is 0.00005 (the estimate before you took the vaccine)

Two very small numbers can be presented with completely difference results, one inflated (yet correct but meant to deceive).

Back to calculations.

The experimental event rate (EER) which is the risk after the vaccine is reduced to 0.000025

The equation for RRR that is often and ONLY reported by drug, medical device, vaccine makers like Pfizer, Glaxo, Moderna, Eli Lilly etc. is:

(CER-EER/CER) x 100%

= (0.00005-0.000025/0.00005) x 100% = 50%

This is what is reported in breaking CNN and FOX news, and you say WOW! This is a fantastic vaccine for it cut my risk by 50% (risk of whatever it was, could be a drug, so cut risk of stroke by 50%) and the news says ‘breakthrough vaccine cuts risk by 50% and you the consumer think this is great. You did not yet think about cost, if it expensive, is there toxicity to it, is there a burden to take it, what are long-term implications etc.

This is the RRR. It is the computed risk of one estimate RELATIVE to the other (control vs experimental/intervention risk). That is it, but it is reported as your, YOUR actual risk.

Now there is the ARR (absolute risk reduction) also known as the RISK REDUCTION (RD) (the absolute difference in outcomes between one group, the treatment group receiving one and the other group, the control one and as such how much the risk decreases (or increases)) that is NEVER reported which is the actual risk computed by the difference between the CER and the EER which is your actual risk:

CER-EER = 0.00005-0.000025 = 0.000025 (if as a % then multiple by 100% = 0.0025%), so is it a percentage or proportion? and basically same thing. You know that, just multiply one (proportion based on 1.0) by 100 to bring it to percentage % format. If it makes more sense to you to interpret the estimates of effect etc. To interpret the numbers. It is ok to do that. Do it in your head or back of an envelope.

ARR is the most beneficial method to display results for your informed decision-making.

There is also the number needed to treat (NNT) often not reported and also very useful to your informed decision-making which is the number you would need to vaccine or number needing to take a drug to get one cure, stop one hospitalization, stop one infection, or death etc. Whatever the outcome is. NNT is calculated as 100/ARR (if ARR expressed as a %) or if a proportion, then 1.0/ARR.

In this case, 1/0.000025 = 40,000 so that you would need to vaccinate 40,000 persons with the new vaccine to get one favorable outcome (if as a %, then 100/0.0025 =40,000). Of course, the higher the NNT (or number needed to harm (NNH)), the worse the drug or vaccine or device is. So, you should have NNT to compare across alternative courses of action.

So anytime from now on you hear the CNN or FOX idiotic reporter tell you the risk from taking a drug or vaccine etc. is reduced by X, and says breakthrough drug or vaccine, see if they tell you if they are reporting RRR or ARR. I guarantee it is the RRR meant to con and lie to you for FDA and pharma, and you need to then question it. It will be overly inflated to mislead you into thinking it provides for a huge benefit. It is a lie! Ask yourself “do I want to take this advertised drug when there is a cost, there are reported side effects, burden, contra-indications, drug-drug toxicity etc., what are the downsides etc.? Ask them for the ARR or calculate it yourself…then decide!

Always ask, what are the upsides AND downsides, what are the benefits versus the risks? Demand that you are provided the ARR and the NNT along with the RRR.

Pfizer and Moderna lied to you and the FDA partook in the lie with the Malone Bourla Bancel et al. deadly mRNA transfection vaccine for the RRR was reported and it was reported 24/7 on the news even today that the vaccine reduced risk by 95%. Yes, it was the RRR but when you looked at the 160 events in placebo and the 8 in vaccine group in Pfizer trial (fraud clinical trial) and calculated the ARR it was only about ~ 0.7%.

You were not told 0.7% which is what you needed to know, not the 95% RRR, rather the 0.7 ARR. Then you would have not thought this was such a good vaccine as it was not for there were harms, toxicities etc. and you would have said NO WAY! The crude NNT was about 130 to 140…again, you would need to vaccinate 140 persons for one to benefit from the vaccine and most, say 139 would not. Would you like to take something, a drug etc. where you had a 1 in 140 chance of benefitting? If it were told to you by the pharmacist?

No!