Definitions:
Vaccine Efficacy (VE)is the percentage reduction of disease outcomes in a vaccinated group of people compared to an unvaccinated group, using the most favorable conditions. It is best measured using double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trials, which are rarely done. A VE of 60% means that a vaccinated group of people has a 60% Relative Risk Reduction (see definition immediately below) of a given outcome compared to an unvaccinated group.
Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)is a deceptive statistic that is commonly-used by Big Pharma and the CDC to over-estimate the reduction in risk or outcome for a treatment group when compared to an untreated control group (ideally a placebo-controlled group). RRR is commonly a gross exaggeration of the actual effectiveness of a drug or vaccine and is therefore favored by entities that want to promote a drug or vaccine by exaggerating its efficacy. The more useful Absolute Risk Reduction statistic (see below) is essentially never used in medical journal reporting, perhaps because it more accurately describes the weaknesses, adverse effects, risks and failures of any treatment modality.
Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)signifies the absolute or actual difference in the reduction in risk between an untreated group and a group of treated individuals.The importance in being able to understand the difference between RRR and ARR is well illustrated in the Merck Fosamax Fraud case described further below.
The Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) is the number of individuals that must be vaccinated for an expected benefit to be attained in one individual.
(Some examples of NNV are listed below.
The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) is the number of individuals that must be treated with a drug, vaccine or surgery that results in a measurable benefit to one individual. It is the inverse of ARR.The larger the NNV (or NNT) is, the more useless is the treatment.
Examples of NNV and NNT Statostocs
A Cochrane Review publication from 2018, states:71 healthy adults would have to be vaccinated with a flu shot to prevent one case of influenza. (NNV = 71)
Another example of NNV comes from a Pediatrics journal article from 2007:“Between 4255 and 6897 children ages 24–59 months of age would have to be vaccinated for influenza to prevent one hospitalization.” (NNV = A number between 4255 and 6807)
“6000 to 32,000 hospital workers would need to be vaccinated with the flu shot before a single patient death would be averted.”(NNV = A number between 6,000 and 32,000 for hospital healthcare workers to prevent one patient from dying because of influenza contagion from an un-vaccinated worker) - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163586
“33,784 - 38,610 infants would need to be vaccinated with the Group B meningococcal vaccine in order to prevent one case of invasive Group B meningococcal disease.”(NNV for Group B Meningococcal Vaccine = >33,000) – From BMC Infect Dis, 12 (1) (2012), p. 202
And from a 2007 UCLA publication: 231 adults 70 years of age or older would have to be vaccinated for shingles to prevent 1 case of Herpes Zoster.” (NNV = 231)
“The NNV for Prevnar-13 to prevent one case of invasive pneumonia in low-risk asthmatic adults is estimated to be as high as 1059.”(NNV = 1059 for Prevnar-13 to prevent one case of invasive pneumonia)--https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4173976/
“Assuming that Gardasil procures lifelong protection and that its vaccine efficacy is 95% (both irrationally over-optimistic assumptions!), and if vaccine protection is assumed to wane at 3% per year (also an over-optimistic assumption), the predicted NNV would increase to 9,080. In other words, one would have to vaccinate and give booster Gardasil shots regularly to 9,080 girls to prevent one case of cervical cancer).”–One of the conclusions of a Canadian Medical Association Journal article (3 of the authors actually had financial conflicts of interest with Gardasil’s maker, Merck & Co. From www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/177/5/464/DC1
Common experience will understand that“The NNT for treating penicillin-sensitive streptococcal pharyngitis with penicillin is 1, and the NNT for any treatment that only cures half of the patients is 2.”
A Cochrane Review from 2011 states: “104 patients would have to take a statin drug for 5 years to prevent one heart attack.” (NNT = 104)
“To spare one person a heart attack, 100 people had to take Lipitor for more than three years, and for every 10 patients taking a statin drug for 5 years, one of them will develop statin-induced myonecrosis.” (NNT = 100for Lipitor to prevent one heart attack after taking the drug continuously for > 3 years. (Number Needed to Harm [NNH] = 10, for patients who take a statin for 5 years.)- from: http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-prior-heart-disease/)
“There are only 30 to 40 cervical cancer cases per year per one million women between the ages of 9 and 26. Therefore,you would have to vaccinate (with Gardasil) one million girls to prevent cervical cancer in 4 to 5 girls; and since only 1/3 of women who develop cervical cancer actually die from the disease, you would have to vaccinateone million girls to prevent 1 to 2 deaths per year - at the “bargain-basement price” of $360 million per year.”– Dr Joseph Mercola
“I predict that Merck’s Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profits for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and dangerous, and it costs a fortune!” -- Dr Bernard Dalbergue(former Merck employee)
For more on understanding how Big Pharma and Big Medicine use deception in reporting statistics, go to:https://freepress.org/article/nnv-number-needed-vaccinate-and-nnt-number-needed-treat
_____________________________________________________________________________
Misuse of Medical Statistics by Researchers that also have Financial Conflicts of Interest
In 2009 GlaxoSmithKline’s package insert for its influenza vaccine Flulaval read (in fine print):“not adequately demonstrated to decrease influenza”.
In more recent Flulaval package inserts, that sentence has been removed. The statement now reads: “Vaccination with FLULAVAL QUADRIVALENT may not protect all susceptible individuals.”
On June 22, 2017 a New England Journal of Medicine article was published. It can be accessed at https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1608862#t=abstract. The article was about a new influenza vaccine (Flublok) that was developed and manufactured by a privately-held vaccine corporation called Protein Sciences. The new vaccine was compared only with standard flu vaccines and not to an unvaccinated group.
The article claimed that the new influenza vaccine had a 40% improvement in “vaccine effectiveness” compared to standard flu vaccines. However, hidden in the deceptive abstract - and deliberately NOT pointed out - were these figures:
96 of the 4303 study participants (2.2 %) who received the new vaccine still got the flu while 138 of 4301 (3.2%) study participants who received the old vaccine still got the flu, which revealed a miniscule Absolute Risk Reduction of 1% (3.2% - 2.2% = 1%).
But what was reported in the article was a Relative Risk Reduction of 40%, which was calculated by dividing 2.2% by 3.2% (60%). According to the formula for calculating RRR, subtracting the 60% from 100% resulted in a RRR of 40%, which sounded much better for a vaccine whose ARR was 1%. This manipulation appeared to be an attempt to over-state the benefits of the new vaccine.
Significantly, all the authors of the article – listed immediately below – also had serious financial conflicts of interest with the for-profit vaccine industry. Indeed, the three major authors were major shareholders and employees of Protein Sciences.
Here are the financial conflicts of interest of the article’s authors:“Drs. Dunkle, Izikson, and Cox report being employed by and holding stock in Protein Sciences; Dr. Patriarca, receiving consulting fees from Altimmune, FluGen, Georgia Institute of Technology, Medicago, VaxInnate, Vaxart, Vivaldi Biosciences, Moderna Therapeutics, Novavax, Seqirus, and Visterra; and Dr. Goldenthal, receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
It is interesting to note that Protein Sciences was in the process of being acquired by the multinational Big Vaccine giant Sanofi for $750 million as the NEJM article was being published.
Merck’s Fosamax Fraud: A Classic Example of Big Pharma’s Deceptive Use of the Relative Risk Reduction statistic
Big Pharma and Big Vaccine corporations, sociopathic entities that they are, always use RRR figures when they want to make a new drug or vaccine sound far more effective than it actually is. One of the most blatant examples of this common subterfuge is Merck’s Fosamax Fraud that I was alerted to many years ago and then finally got around to writing about years later. My latest version of the story is at: http://vaccineimpact.com/2018/mercks-fosamax-fraud-demonstrates-how-big-pharma-and-cdc-spin-statistics-to-sell-ineffective-vaccines-and-drugs/
In that article I revealed how the Relative Risk Reductionstatistic allowed Merck to fool everybody – especially us physicians and our female patients - by falsely claiming that their block-buster “osteoporosis prevention” drug Fosamax was “50% effective” in reducing bone fractures.
That deceptive 50% figure led everybody to believe that half of female patients taking the drug for the rest of their lives would be somehow protected from experiencing bone fractures.
However, for observant physicians who actually studied the raw data in the FDA applications for marketing approval or the medical journal articles about Fosamax, it was clear that patients who took the drug for at least 4 years could only achieve a miniscule 1-2% of Absolute Risk Reductionin fracture incidence.
If the more accurate 1-2% AAR figure had been used in the marketing campaigns – rather than the 50% RRR figure – Fosamax would have failed as the useless – and dangerous - product that it was, right along with the closely related bone densitometry industry.
In reality the 1-2% AAR is actually represents a negative number when the high costs of the drug and the drug’s unadvertised and very serious risks are considered - such as the incurable, disastrous, iatrogenic, Fosamax-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw.
Just another example of cunning propaganda from a corrupted pharmaceutical corporation.
_________________________________________________________________________
More on the Deception of the Vaccine Efficacy Relative Risk Reduction Statistic
In 2018, while the CDC was heavily promoting the mercury-containing flu vaccine for everybody (including pregnant women and babies!!), some flu vaccines were found to be ineffective for many of those patients that received them. This is shown in the Table below.
Note that the table of Vaccine Efficacy numbers indicate that there was quite small relative risk benefit and minimal absolute risk benefit from flu vaccination programs in 2018. Indeed, some studied treatment groups came close to having negative benefits (meaning that some of the vaccinated groups were sicker than the unvaccinated were), especially when one considers the fact there are inevitable long-term and delayed adverse effects from any vaccine, especially vaccines that contain mercury or aluminum.
CDC Vaccine Efficacy chart for Various Age Ranges (ranging from the relatively immuno-incompetence of most infants and the immuno-senescence of most elderly patients)
VE = 49% for 6 months – 8 years of age
VE = 6% for 9 - 17 years of age
VE = 25% for 18 – 49 years of age
VE = 12% for 50 – 64 years of age
VE = 12% for >65 years of age
Pertinent Quotes About Seasonal Flu Vaccines
(More quotes about “vaccine efficacy” are posted at: http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2)
“The CDC falsely claims that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US, but actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing the medical industry’sgigantic psy-op. The whole campaign to scare people into getting annual flu shots has about the same effect as advising people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows.” -- Jon Rappaport, investigative journalist
“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001 - 61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”– Dr Peter Doshi,from in his 2005 BMJ report, titled, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412)
“A study by the world-renowned clinical immunologist Dr H. Hugh Fudenberg found that adults vaccinated yearly for five years in a row with the flu vaccine had a 10-fold increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. He attributed this to the mercury in the vaccine. Interestingly, both mercury and aluminum have been shown to activate microglia and increase excitotoxicity in the brain.” -- Russell Blaylock, MD
“We already know that the aluminum content of brain tissue in late-onset or sporadic Alzheimer’s disease is significantly higher than what is found in age-matched controls. So, individuals who develop Alzheimer’s disease in their late sixties and older also accumulate more aluminum in their brain tissue than individuals of the same age without the disease.
Even higher levels of aluminum have been found in the brains of individuals, diagnosed with an early-onset form of sporadic Alzheimer’s disease, who have experienced an unusually high exposure to aluminum through the environment (e.g. Camelford) or through their workplace. This means that Alzheimer’s disease has a much earlier age of onset, for example, fifties or early sixties, in individuals who have been exposed to unusually high levels of aluminum in their everyday lives.”– Christopher Exley, PhD
“In the field of chemical toxicology it is universally recognized that combinations of toxins may bring exponential increases of toxicity; ie, a combination of two chemicals may bring a 10-fold increase in toxicity, three chemicals 100-fold increases. This same principle almost certainly applies to the immunosuppressive effects of viral vaccines when administered in combination, as with the MMR vaccine, among which the measles vaccine is (known to be)exceptionally immunosuppressive.” – Harold Buttram,MD
“The most lucrative areas of medicine are the most corrupted by financial (and academic) conflicts of interest. So-called ‘authoritative’ sources of medical information are thoroughly corrupted not only by pharmaceutical industry manipulation but also by government officials and financially conflicted academic gatekeepers of medical science, ’expert’ panels, medical journal editors and the largely corrupted vaccine information base.”– Vera Sharav, MD
“For a long time no one considered the effect of repeated vaccinations on the brain. This was based on a mistaken conclusion that the brain was protected from immune activation by its special protective gateway called the blood-brain barrier. More recent studies have shown thatimmune cells can enter the brain directly, and more importantly, the brain’s own special immune system can be activated by vaccination.”– Russell Blaylock, MD
Here are more important quotes that might help people to understand the propaganda power that is regularly exercised by Big Pharma and Big Medicine:
The Semmelweis Reflex: “The reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.”-- https://www.revolvy.com/topic/Semmelweis%20reflex&item_type=topic
"It is difficult to get a man to understandsomething, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair
“If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been “taken”. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”-- Carl Sagan