surprised this would come from the British medical establishment - they are even more comprised than is the US establishment. But then again, it's really global,so maybe not "more" compromised, but still surprising
Well, it introduces two ideas, the relative risk and absolute risk. Paragraphs 2-3 explain that, and that absolute risk is lower than relative risk. The summary is that they are not nearly as effective for absolute risk as for relative risk.
They confuse the public by using absolute or relative statistics when it benifits them.
Example: a study is done on a new drug to prevent breast cancer from recurring.
A group of 100 participants is chosen verses a 100 person control group. Over the course of the 2 year study 2 woman in the control group had a recurrence, and in the group that took the drug 1 person had the cancer come back.
In absolute terms, an approx 1% advantage over the control group. However the drug company using relative stats goes out and sells doctors that their miracle drug reduces the chance of recurrence by 50%
You're reading it correctly. None of the vaccines give you anything better than a 2% edge versus battling the vaccine naturally.
Now go read the Moderna study for 12-17 year olds. They gave the shot to 2400 people and then had 2400 unvaccinated in the control group. A few weeks later they checked in with everyone. None of the Moderna kids had gotten the coof, but four of the unvaxed did.
Based on this data, they gave the Moderna vaccine a 100% prevention rating!
But this also tells us only 1 in every 600 kids contracted the virus naturally in the same timeframe.
The key piece of info in this article is the number of people that need to be vaccinated to prevent one more case of covid. It is 76 for Moderna up to 114 for Pfizer. This implies that the natural infection rate is very low to start with and the vax protects ~1% of the people that take it.
Wasnt Lancet 1 of the 2 med journals that published that fake 'rona study?
https://i.ibb.co/f0WHsmb/Lavell-Crawford-Maybe.gif
Yes.
surprised this would come from the British medical establishment - they are even more comprised than is the US establishment. But then again, it's really global,so maybe not "more" compromised, but still surprising
Well, it introduces two ideas, the relative risk and absolute risk. Paragraphs 2-3 explain that, and that absolute risk is lower than relative risk. The summary is that they are not nearly as effective for absolute risk as for relative risk.
They confuse the public by using absolute or relative statistics when it benifits them.
Example: a study is done on a new drug to prevent breast cancer from recurring.
A group of 100 participants is chosen verses a 100 person control group. Over the course of the 2 year study 2 woman in the control group had a recurrence, and in the group that took the drug 1 person had the cancer come back.
In absolute terms, an approx 1% advantage over the control group. However the drug company using relative stats goes out and sells doctors that their miracle drug reduces the chance of recurrence by 50%
or am i reading this wrong?
You're reading it correctly. None of the vaccines give you anything better than a 2% edge versus battling the vaccine naturally.
Now go read the Moderna study for 12-17 year olds. They gave the shot to 2400 people and then had 2400 unvaccinated in the control group. A few weeks later they checked in with everyone. None of the Moderna kids had gotten the coof, but four of the unvaxed did.
Based on this data, they gave the Moderna vaccine a 100% prevention rating!
But this also tells us only 1 in every 600 kids contracted the virus naturally in the same timeframe.
That's CRAZY. Three weeks is not enough time to know if they were exposed to anything yet, let alone presume infection was prevented.
Getting picked up by other sites now:
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2021/05/28/top-tier-medical-journal-the-lancet-blows-lid-off-of-vaccine-lie-pfizers-efficacy-rate-0-84-as-in-less-than-1-as-in-statistically-zero-in-other-words-these-injections/
The key piece of info in this article is the number of people that need to be vaccinated to prevent one more case of covid. It is 76 for Moderna up to 114 for Pfizer. This implies that the natural infection rate is very low to start with and the vax protects ~1% of the people that take it.