Here's an interesting video my BIL sent me about how Pfizer came up with their 95% efficacy figure. The report is based on Pfizer's own tests. The 95% efficacy sounds like it protects you 95% of the time but that's not what it really means. It was a word game...or you might say, it was an outright lie. The 95% is the "
Relative Risk Reduction," but what you really should know is the
absolute risk reduction. Here's how the word game works;
In the Pfizer trial they took 18,198 people and gave them the jab. Out of that group, 8 people got covid. The other group of 18,325 people got a placebo and 162 of them got covid.
In the jabbed group, .04% got covid (8/18,198 = .00043961 ... or .04%)
In the Placebo group, .88% got covid (162/18,325 = .00884038 ... or .88%)
Note:
Less than 1% of either group got covid!
The
Absolute risk reduction is the difference between .04% and .88% which is
.84% risk reduction for getting the jab. Less than 1% difference between jabbed and not jabbed. Doesn't sound that good but how can you fool a population of people into taking an inefficient drug like that?
Pfizer's 95%
Relative Risk Reduction figure is the reduction from .88% to .04%. You calculate this by subtracting .04 from .88; so .88 - .04 = .84 then .84 divided by .88 = .9545 or
95% relative risk reduction.
View attachment 31277
View attachment 31278
The FDA says this;
View attachment 31279
Pfizer didn't follow this advice and
our government let them do it!
If Pfizer told the truth and said there is a .84% (less than 1%) difference between being jabbed and not being jabbed but the potential side affects are;
View attachment 31280
Who would have chosen to get the vaccine? And why would our government allow it?
Video