2.12.7 Vaccines pushed on Relative Risk Reduction. But Absolute Risk Reduction around 1%.

Other Sources

Absolute Risk Reduction is what matters, and not relative risk reduction. [Why so many Americans are refusing to get vaccinated?] All cause mortality is far more important than relative risk reduction of COVID deaths, by taking the experimental vaccines and this is being ignored. There isn’t a single study showing reduced all-cause mortality with the vaccines. For a vaccine whose safety has been questioned, shouldn’t we require proof of all-cause mortality benefit before we approve the vaccines and/or mandate the vaccines?

Source: Awaken India Movement

Reference: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.30.21259439v1.full

Even assuming there is a disease and these injections work as they claim, the actual/absolute risk reduction is as follows for the various injections:

Comments from Awaken India Volunteer on the above study

In simple language, out of 12221 participants who got Covaxin only 24 has symptomatic COVID-19, which means 0.2% fell sick rest 99.8% were safe. Out of 12198 who were on placebo, only 106 participants got symptomatic COVID-19, which means only 0.87% fell sick and 99.13% were safe . Which means by giving no vaccines also only 0.87% of total participant population fell sick and 99.13% people were safe. No information available on underlying conditions amongst participants. Assuming there was no bias in the study, 99.13% people in the country are safe even if they don’t vaccinate.

For a miniscule 0.67% possible relative benefit, look at the collateral damage from lockdowns, adverse events from experimental injections, and harm from corona measures. To sell their injections, they are projecting 77% relative benefit by subtracting 0.2% from 0.87% = 0.67% and 0.67% divided by 0.87% is 77% relative risk reduction. Which means first of all the chance of you falling sick is less than 1%, and if in case you fall sick, had you taken a vaccine you are less likely to have fallen sick by 77% chance. So overall likely-hood of you falling sick would vary between 0.2% and 0.87% irrespective of whether you took the vaccine or not.

And recovery rates are 99% of this 0.2% to 0.87% people. If you remove people with underlying conditions, from these tests you will find nothing. Moreover, these tests are funded by ICMR & the Bharat Bio-Tech themselves. This is conflict of interest. How can this be mandatory then? What if someone doesn’t want to trust the ICMR and the manufacturer? What if they put more toxic jabs to placebo group? How can people who may have evolved into a natural lifestyle be forced to now trust ICMR which represents Allopathy? Have you understood how they have converted healthy 99% people into customers of Allopathy? People with adverse events will again rush to hospitals, and give further business.

Source: No Jab For Me by Paul Adams

Pfizer and Moderna used Relative Risk Reduction as evidence that their “vaccines-gene therapeutics” are 95.1% and 94.1% effective, respectively, for which they obtained EUA from the FDA. This analysis underscores the fact that the Absolute Risk Reduction for both jabs is around 1%.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply