Sources:
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/media-resources/relative-vs-absolute-risk-reduction
https://rumble.com/vobcg5-relative-vs-absolute-risk-reduction.html




[…]
5.3.   A good example of the popular misconceptions concerning the gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ is the claim of 95% efficacy which was repeated and unchallenged in the mainstream media and by health authorities in Australia and elsewhere.

5.4.   Approval of the gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ were [sic] based on single clinical trials from each company. These single trials were the sole basis for both the safety and efficacy claims. For example, in the case of the Pfizer gene-based ‘vaccine’ it was widely stated and generally accepted at the time that the clinical efficacy of the vaccine was determined in a large clinical trial of about 44,000 subjects and the efficacy was 95%.  

5.5.   Without an understanding of the design, conduct and reporting of clinical trials, the ordinary person might interpret this statement in a number of different ways.  For example, this “95%” efficacy might be interpreted to mean that vaccination provides a 95% chance of being protected from being infected following exposure from a person infected with SARS-CoV-2; or it might be interpreted to mean that vaccination reduces the risk of the average healthy person falling seriously ill and needing hospitalisation following SARS-CoV-2 infection; or it might be interpreted as showing the risk of death due to severe COVID-19 illness is reduced by 95%.

5.6.   Indeed, none of these interpretations are [sic] correct.  

5.7.   The claimed 95% efficacy was based upon only 170 subjects who contracted COVID- 19 during the trial which had a median follow up of two months post-second dose. The claimed clinical efficacy was not based upon 44,000 subjects. Of the 44,000 subjects enrolled and divided roughly equally between receiving active prophylactic vaccination or placebo, only 170 subjects tested positive for COVID-19 AND developed even mild COVID-19 symptoms (similar to the common cold) which was the criterion set for “clinical efficacy”; with eight testing positive in the vaccinated group AND displaying a COVID-19 symptom as mild as a sore throat, fever or cough, while 162 tested positive in the placebo group AND displayed a COVID-19 symptom as mild as a sore throat, fever or cough. This is where the 95% COVID “vaccine” efficacy claim originated and, based on this pivotal data, it should not be inferred that the Pfizer COVID-19 “vaccine was shown to be 95% effective in preventing serious COVID-19 disease, symptoms, hospitalisation or death” 23 .  
 
5.8.   The Pfizer trial (mentioned above) reported 99.07% of unvaccinated individuals did not develop symptoms of COVID-19 while 99.95% the vaccinated group did not report COVID-19 symptoms thus producing an absolute risk reduction of symptoms of 0.88%.
This statistic is a realistic measure of protection from COVID-19 (which may only present as mild symptoms) in an uninfected population over the trial surveillance period.    

5.9.   A subsequent Pfizer COMIRNATY gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ trial which was pivotal in the approval of this ‘vaccine’ for children 5-11 relied on the clinical symptoms of only 19 children (3 developed symptoms in the Comirnaty vaccine group and 16 in the placebo group) upon which to base its claimed a relative clinical efficacy of 90.7%. 24   Once again, the claimed clinical efficacy only referred to the chance of preventing the mild symptoms, similar to the common cold, in children who tested positive for COVID-19. The absolute vaccine clinical efficacy to prevent even mild symptoms among the 4500 trial participants can then be calculated to be under 1%.
 
5.10.  A similar approach was adopted by other manufacturers such as Moderna claiming similar “efficacy” which has not been understood by either the media or the lay public.

[Footnotes]
23  Australian Government – Therapeutic Goods Administration (25 January 2021) Australian Public Assessment Report for BNT162b2 (mRNA), Comirnaty, Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd – PM-2020-05461-1-2 Final
https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/auspar-bnt162b2-mrna-210125.pdf
 
24  Australian Government – Therapeutic Goods Administration (7 December 2021) Australian Public Assessment Report for Tozinameran (mRNA Covid-19 vaccine), Comirnaty, Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd– PM-2021-05012-1-2 https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/auspar-tozinameran-mrna-covid-19-vaccine-211207.pdf



1-9-2022
The Altman report, paragraphs 8.40 to 8.42 (infertility plus the toxic effects of the lipid nano particles)
https://paulzanotelli.ch/blog/coronavirus/mrna-adverse-events/impact-on-human-reproduction/the-altman-report-paragraphs-8.40-to-8.42.html

30-8-2022
Dr Philip Altman’s report on the mRNA vaccines
https://paulzanotelli.ch/blog/coronavirus/mrna-adverse-events/the-altman-report_11-8-2022.html


Lausanne, the above was published on the eighth day of the ninth month of the year two thousand and twenty-two.