Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) versus Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) & Number Needed to Treat (NNT); example shows how FDA, CDC, NIH, Fauci, Francis Collins, Bourla (Pfizer), Bancel (Moderna) misled us
Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) versus Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) & Number Needed to Treat (NNT); example shows how FDA, CDC, NIH, Fauci, Francis Collins, Bourla (Pfizer), Bancel (Moderna) misled us
These people in pharma, for drugs and vaccine etc. and the alphabet agencies lie e.g. FDA, on the benefits of drugs and medical devices and vaccine etc. They lie to you the public using RRR & not ARR
STATISTICAL TRICKERY: RELATIVE VS ABSOLUTE RISK IN MEDICAL STUDIES
Study authors and the media often report results in terms of RELATIVE rather than ABSOLUTE numbers, which vastly overstate the advantages of a therapy. Here is how it works.
To understand this, consider a medication that cuts heart attack rates in half, from 2 percent a year to one percent. This RELATIVE risk improvement sounds great, but it is misleading and some would say fraudulent. The all-important ABSOLUTE risk improvement—decrease in heart attacks for everyone who gets the therapy—is only one percent. Only one percent of those who took the drug benefitted.
The characteristics of the group that receives therapy is critically important. If the patients who are treated have severe heart disease with a heart attack rate of 25 percent instead of two percent a year, cutting this in half would be consequential. The ABSOLUTE improvement is still 50 percent but the RELATIVE improvement is 12.5 percent when the 25 percent heart attack rate is cut in half.
Billions of people coerced to take an experimental drug, with no medium and long term safety data, to reduce absolute risk by 0.7%.
That is, billions of people took on entirely unknown risk - could be negligible, could be catastrophic - to reduce their already minuscule risk of severe disease by 0.7%. Insane!
Even more insane when we consider the 0.7% was the result of fraudulent trials. That is, the ARR is likely negative.
if you don't know the difference between RRR and ARR and that drug companies state benefits in relative terms which exaggerates them and harms in absolute terms which minimizes them, if you don't know what NNT means and what it is for each drug or shot that you take, if you don't know that vaccine makers are not liable for any damages and that EUA vaccine makers are even more protected, if you don't know that the trials lasted only two months before the control group was obliterated so that there is no long term safety data, if you don't know that vaccinating en masse in the midst of a pandemic with a leaky vaccine creates evolutionary pressure that CAUSES escape variants so that it's the vaccinated driving the pandemic and not the unvaccinated, THEN FOR GOD'S SAKE, stop feeling smug and superior for walking blindly into an uncontrolled experiment with no knowledge of what you were signing up for, stop judging those who used their brains and didn't take everything that was spoon fed to them on faith, stop ridiculing those who actually read some papers and know a few things, stop believing that you are entitled to your inalienable rights while others are not.
you did nothing to deserve the pats on the back you've given yourself. you went along. you simply regurgitated all the bullshit that the rachel madcows of the world told you to regurgitate. you didn't read the doctors and scientists who were censored. you trusted without any critical thought. you swallowed a slick ad campaign. you were willing to turn in your neighbors, abandon your friends and disown your relatives. you were so afraid that you were willing to trade your rights for a piss poor illusion of safety. that's on you.
"Rachel Madcow"! I like that. It is such an embarrassment that she & the Clinton spawn & Obama's live -in White House handler are all Stanford graduates.
RRR Has been the standard of practice for many years to hoodwinking physicians into prescribing high priced drugs that are no better than old drugs! Snake oil salesman are alive and well and are sophisticated today!
Excellent post Dr Alexander. The public are being massively conned.
Most of the “vaccinated” think that if they don’t get Covid then the “vaccine” must be protecting them, unaware that over 99% of the placebo group (who got a saline injection) in the trials for EUA didn’t get Covid either!
And even if the “vaccinated” DO get Covid they still believe their symptoms would be worse if they hadn’t had the “vaccine” even though, by the trial endpoint definition ( 1 Covid symptom and a +ve PCR test), developing even mild Covid was deemed a vaccine failure. The vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorisation for the “PREVENTION OF Covid 19 Disease” so if you get even mild Covid, your “vaccine” has failed under the terms of the authorisation.
Similar story with evil statins and NNT: 1 in 104 were helped (preventing heart attack)
1 in 154 were helped (preventing stroke)
Harms in Statins NNT: 1 in 50 were harmed (develop diabetes*)
1 in 10 were harmed (muscle damage), yet physicians ignore patients reports of side effects and continue to prescribe, insisting the patient is better off taking! It’s insane.
Not sure if it has changed but for a long time, when cleaning up hazardous material releases to soil, groundwater, etc, the decision criteria for determining if the site pose an unacceptable risk to human health was if there was an increase chance of a single person developing cancer in a population of 1 million. This applies/applied to many military bases. Have we blown past that screening criteria with the human health catastrophe underway with the experimental gene therapy injections?
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) is somewhat like throwing dice. In the case of the Pfizer 0.7% ARR it would be like throwing a single die with 127 faces. If you had really good luck you would be the one in 127 people (1/127=0.7%) who was protected from COVID-19.
Since government officials must have known about the difference between RRR and ARR and they still approved the vax despite the date, this is a huge scandal.
I believe we all should use the words "vaccine" and "placebo" in quotation marks in the Covid context. The "vaccine" is not a vaccine in that it does not prevent infection or transmission. The "placebo" was not saline but was chosen for adverse effects so the "vaccine" didn't look so bad by comparison.
Peter Doshi at the BMJ called this out from the beginning. He demanded to see the actual data.
exactly, well said, this was the trickery they used...
STATISTICAL TRICKERY: RELATIVE VS ABSOLUTE RISK IN MEDICAL STUDIES
Study authors and the media often report results in terms of RELATIVE rather than ABSOLUTE numbers, which vastly overstate the advantages of a therapy. Here is how it works.
To understand this, consider a medication that cuts heart attack rates in half, from 2 percent a year to one percent. This RELATIVE risk improvement sounds great, but it is misleading and some would say fraudulent. The all-important ABSOLUTE risk improvement—decrease in heart attacks for everyone who gets the therapy—is only one percent. Only one percent of those who took the drug benefitted.
The characteristics of the group that receives therapy is critically important. If the patients who are treated have severe heart disease with a heart attack rate of 25 percent instead of two percent a year, cutting this in half would be consequential. The ABSOLUTE improvement is still 50 percent but the RELATIVE improvement is 12.5 percent when the 25 percent heart attack rate is cut in half.
From Butchered by "Healthcare"
thank you Sir as always for your sage and smarts.
Billions of people coerced to take an experimental drug, with no medium and long term safety data, to reduce absolute risk by 0.7%.
That is, billions of people took on entirely unknown risk - could be negligible, could be catastrophic - to reduce their already minuscule risk of severe disease by 0.7%. Insane!
Even more insane when we consider the 0.7% was the result of fraudulent trials. That is, the ARR is likely negative.
yes!
There is no RRR of 95%
The clinical trials were fraudulent and fake.
Even if that were true (which is not), you cannot mandate a medical treatment to anyone. Period.
True...with completed trials over many years this number would be far lower.
if you don't know the difference between RRR and ARR and that drug companies state benefits in relative terms which exaggerates them and harms in absolute terms which minimizes them, if you don't know what NNT means and what it is for each drug or shot that you take, if you don't know that vaccine makers are not liable for any damages and that EUA vaccine makers are even more protected, if you don't know that the trials lasted only two months before the control group was obliterated so that there is no long term safety data, if you don't know that vaccinating en masse in the midst of a pandemic with a leaky vaccine creates evolutionary pressure that CAUSES escape variants so that it's the vaccinated driving the pandemic and not the unvaccinated, THEN FOR GOD'S SAKE, stop feeling smug and superior for walking blindly into an uncontrolled experiment with no knowledge of what you were signing up for, stop judging those who used their brains and didn't take everything that was spoon fed to them on faith, stop ridiculing those who actually read some papers and know a few things, stop believing that you are entitled to your inalienable rights while others are not.
you did nothing to deserve the pats on the back you've given yourself. you went along. you simply regurgitated all the bullshit that the rachel madcows of the world told you to regurgitate. you didn't read the doctors and scientists who were censored. you trusted without any critical thought. you swallowed a slick ad campaign. you were willing to turn in your neighbors, abandon your friends and disown your relatives. you were so afraid that you were willing to trade your rights for a piss poor illusion of safety. that's on you.
"Rachel Madcow"! I like that. It is such an embarrassment that she & the Clinton spawn & Obama's live -in White House handler are all Stanford graduates.
RRR Has been the standard of practice for many years to hoodwinking physicians into prescribing high priced drugs that are no better than old drugs! Snake oil salesman are alive and well and are sophisticated today!
This short video explains it well too. I can’t believe they are still trying to pull this nonsense!
RELATIVE RISK VS ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION - AS PER PFIZERS' OWN DOCUMENTS - YOU'VE BEEN PLAYED
https://www.bitchute.com/video/W5sgLUekMmVT/
grateful...
I didn’t understand this until I was in my early 60s
I would bet 98% of doctors have no clue either.
Even less know about NNT and NNR!! Here is a great article about it that I share often....
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2022/06/14/should-the-patient-really-get-the-drug/
What is (RRR) for saline injection?
There is no RRR of 95%
These vaxxines are toxic, and the clinical trials were forged.
I think everyone with at least half a brain knows that already.
Excellent post Dr Alexander. The public are being massively conned.
Most of the “vaccinated” think that if they don’t get Covid then the “vaccine” must be protecting them, unaware that over 99% of the placebo group (who got a saline injection) in the trials for EUA didn’t get Covid either!
And even if the “vaccinated” DO get Covid they still believe their symptoms would be worse if they hadn’t had the “vaccine” even though, by the trial endpoint definition ( 1 Covid symptom and a +ve PCR test), developing even mild Covid was deemed a vaccine failure. The vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorisation for the “PREVENTION OF Covid 19 Disease” so if you get even mild Covid, your “vaccine” has failed under the terms of the authorisation.
Similar story with evil statins and NNT: 1 in 104 were helped (preventing heart attack)
1 in 154 were helped (preventing stroke)
Harms in Statins NNT: 1 in 50 were harmed (develop diabetes*)
1 in 10 were harmed (muscle damage), yet physicians ignore patients reports of side effects and continue to prescribe, insisting the patient is better off taking! It’s insane.
Do you have a link for these numbers? I’m trying to convince my daughter of the harms Statins do. Thanks!
try this, https://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-prior-heart-disease-2/
Thank you!
Not sure if it has changed but for a long time, when cleaning up hazardous material releases to soil, groundwater, etc, the decision criteria for determining if the site pose an unacceptable risk to human health was if there was an increase chance of a single person developing cancer in a population of 1 million. This applies/applied to many military bases. Have we blown past that screening criteria with the human health catastrophe underway with the experimental gene therapy injections?
100%
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) is somewhat like throwing dice. In the case of the Pfizer 0.7% ARR it would be like throwing a single die with 127 faces. If you had really good luck you would be the one in 127 people (1/127=0.7%) who was protected from COVID-19.
Since government officials must have known about the difference between RRR and ARR and they still approved the vax despite the date, this is a huge scandal.
I believe we all should use the words "vaccine" and "placebo" in quotation marks in the Covid context. The "vaccine" is not a vaccine in that it does not prevent infection or transmission. The "placebo" was not saline but was chosen for adverse effects so the "vaccine" didn't look so bad by comparison.