Havent watched the video yet, cause I'm at work. But I did look up some research done on this "95% Effectiveness" crap.
They're using the RRR (Relative Risk Reduction) to get the 95% figure. This number only considers those who got sick in both control groups - not the over all groups themselves. This is deceptive - no surprise there.
For a more accurate efficacy rate, they should've disclosed the ARR (Absolute Relative Risk), which equals only .08% - 1.2% for ALL brands of the Gene Therapy shot.
It's also worth noting that the FDA requires BOTH of those figures to be disclosed to the public for trials like this, but nobody would inject a serum into their arm that's only .08% - 1.2% effective, now would they?
Probably why Merck stopped their gene therapy testing and simply said it's better to get this common cold and achieve natural immunity than to get this infection injection.
excellent concise logical informative rhetoric. needs to be stickied, mod frens!
Havent watched the video yet, cause I'm at work. But I did look up some research done on this "95% Effectiveness" crap.
They're using the RRR (Relative Risk Reduction) to get the 95% figure. This number only considers those who got sick in both control groups - not the over all groups themselves. This is deceptive - no surprise there.
For a more accurate efficacy rate, they should've disclosed the ARR (Absolute Relative Risk), which equals only .08% - 1.2% for ALL brands of the Gene Therapy shot.
It's also worth noting that the FDA requires BOTH of those figures to be disclosed to the public for trials like this, but nobody would inject a serum into their arm that's only .08% - 1.2% effective, now would they?
Probably why Merck stopped their gene therapy testing and simply said it's better to get this common cold and achieve natural immunity than to get this infection injection.
My pleasure...Share it...
I even forgot about that risk reduction stuff. Thanks for bringing it up. People mentioned it from the beginning