Study: Because of reasons, whole truth omitted in communication about vaccine efficacy and effectiveness

Vaccine efficacy and effectiveness is to be weighted against risk.
What they are currently doing with the new Covid vaccines (experimental treatment) is implying high effectiveness. Which is a fat lie (see above, they use tricks and have no sufficient data, exactly what also Bhakdi was saying).
When Fauci and others say "highly effective", they are either not informed or they lie. Fauci is a doctor (AFAIK), politiciens might just be uninformed about these facts.

When looking into different age groups, this lie becomes even more disgusting.
Younger people have not been very much at risk from Covid-19, it really might NOT be worth for these groups taking the risk of severe side-effects (including death e.g. due to blood clots) in order to prevent mild disease.

Compromised communication via the media and lacking data are no basis for these groups to reach informed consent. People are currently basically tricked into taking great risks.

The bad coordination of the trials currently being done, will NOT help to make people better informed in the long run either.

It will, however, help to continue to trick them into taking potentially grave risks.

This should not be acceptable.

Absolute risk is the size of your own risk. Absolute risk reduction is the number of percentage points your own risk goes down if you do something protective, such as stop drinking alcohol. The size of your absolute risk reduction depends on what your risk is to begin with.

RRR (Relative Risk Reduction) and ARR (Absolute Risk Reduction).

FDA guidelines for communicating evidence based risks and benefits to the public - quote: “Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach: this can result in supoptimal decisions. Thus an absolute risk format should be used”. .
..Did any of the vaccine trials release Absolute Risk Reductions? Nope. Omitting absolute risk reduction findings in reports of vaccine efficacy is an example of outcome reporting bias, which ignores unfavourable outcomes and misleads the public’s impression and scientific understanding of a treatments efficacy and benefits.

Several researchers have taken the figures quoted in the phase 3 trials and concluded:
Pfizer reported RRR efficacy? 95%.
Pfizer ARR? 0.7%.
Moderna efficacy? 94%.
Moderna ARR? 1.1%


To conclude: Absolute risk is the size of your own risk. Absolute risk reduction is the number of percentage points your own risk goes down if you do something protective, such as taking this jab. The size of your absolute risk reduction depends on what your risk is to begin with, and per the phase 3 trial data, the trial participants experienced only a 0.7% - 1.1% Reduction in Risk of developing symptomatic covid by taking this jab.

It truly shows why the media nor gov nor big pharma will even mention the absolute risk reduction - NOBODY WOULD TAKE THE DAMN JAB - because the risk reduction to oneself is not worth it let alone worth it in face of all the medium and long term health impacts of taking an experimental gene tech. They also will not mention it because it would expose the fall to of their claims that mass vaccination is behind the lowering of cases and deaths

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue."
-- The Lancet
[link to www.thelancet.com (secure)]

An easy example of how absolute risk reduction rates should be always communicated:
Your absolute risk of dying from Ebola in the USA is so minuscule that it’s practically nil, 0%.
But big pharma can come along with its new Ebola vaccine and claim that’s its 95% effective against dying from Ebola.

The population that can no longer reason does not stop to ever consider that without that vaccine their risk of dying from Ebola is all but 0%. In other words, the absolute risk reduction to themselves by taking the vaccine is practically 0% as well, the benefit to themselves NOT BEING WORTH TAKING THE POTENTIAL HEALTH ADVERSE EFFECTS OF TAKING THE JAB.

This is important to remember when the gov and its media keep telling us that the benefits of taking the covid shots outweigh the risks?

Do they really?

Pfizer reported RRR efficacy? 95%.
Pfizer ARR? 0.7%.
Moderna efficacy? 94%.
Pfizer ARR? 1.1%

The red is the absolute risk reduction in developing symptomatic covid that the trial participants experienced? Is that low risk reduction worth it?

The type of hoodwinking shown in this thread, is how the religion of scientism is in general able to try to tout itself as “pure scientific method”; and followers of the cult just eat it up.

“Because of reasons”

*The science* is indeed religion.
It has its priests *the scientists*.
It has its dogma to be believed as infallible and on faith.
It mandates all believe its theories as the truth.
It labels dissenters of itself as heretics.
It relies on slight of hand, misinformation and sorcery.

Thank you, that's often the angle people aren't getting.