The mRNA Coronavirus Vaccines: Promoted Using Misleading Risk Reduction Statistics?

According to the pharma industry, governments, and the mainstream media, the mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19 are proven to be safe and effective. Over the past couple of years, anyone daring to suggest otherwise is dismissed as being anti-science, with bans from social media enforced to prevent information from dissenters reaching a wider audience. Increasingly, however, studies are beginning to challenge this narrative. As a paper published in the Industrial Psychiatry Journal outlined in 2021, not only do mRNA vaccines have dangers, but reports on their supposed efficacy have seemingly been subject to statistical bias.

The Industrial Psychiatry Journal paper points out that mRNA vaccines can cause a host of multi-systemic side effects. It states that the most serious of these are anaphylaxis (severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions), antibody-dependent enhancement (a phenomenon in which the antibodies generated by vaccination cause the immune system to overreact), and death. Other reported adverse effects include severe liver damage, very low platelet counts (thrombocytopenia), inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis), and blood clots (thrombosis).

Worryingly, therefore, the way in which the efficacy of mRNA vaccines has been reported may have deliberately misled many people into choosing to receive them.

Relative risk reduction versus absolute risk reduction

The efficacy of the mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19 has been reported in the mainstream media using what are known as relative risk reduction statistics. As we shall see, however, this misleadingly makes their efficacy seem impressively high. If the vaccines’ far less impressive absolute risk reduction statistics had been used instead, there seems little doubt that the numbers of people consenting to be vaccinated would have been significantly lower.

To understand this, let’s take a moment to look at the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction. Imagine a disease where the general population has a 15 percent risk of dying from it. If a new treatment reduces that risk to 10 percent, then the absolute risk reduction resulting from the treatment would be 5 percent.

To make things sound more impressive, however, we could instead choose to describe the efficacy of the treatment in terms of its relative risk reduction. Using this approach, the treatment could be said to have reduced the risk of death by one third (i.e. from 15 percent to 10 percent). As such, we could claim the treatment has an efficacy of 33.3 percent – clearly a far more impressive-sounding result than the 5 percent described using its relative risk reduction.

Significantly, therefore, in its reporting on mRNA vaccines, the mainstream media has almost exclusively used the more impressive-sounding relative risk reduction numbers. As a result, we are told that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is 95 percent effective in preventing infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, while the Moderna vaccine is said to be 94.5 percent effective. What we are not being told is that the absolute risk reduction for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is a mere 0.7 percent, and that for the Moderna vaccine it is just 1.1 percent.

Misleading people despite the availability of alternatives

To be clear, relative risk reduction statistics and absolute risk reduction statistics both have a place in medical science reporting. But for vaccines based on new technology given accelerated approval via so-called ‘Emergency Use Authorization,’ it is difficult to argue that using relative risk reduction statistics hasn’t resulted in people being misled. This is especially concerning given that in some cases mRNA vaccines have been administered mandatorily.

The fact is that alternative approaches to inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection are available. Unlike mRNA vaccine technology – for which the long-term health risks remain unknown – they are based on the use of effective, safe combinations of micronutrients and plant extracts. Towards achieving global control of the pandemic, it is time for governments and public health policy makers to start using them.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Paul Anthony Taylor

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU'”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings.

Prior to joining the Foundation, Paul's background was in the music industry, where he worked as a keyboard player and programmer with artists including Paul McCartney, Bryan Ferry, Bill Withers, the Verve, Texas, and Primal Scream.

He first became interested in natural health after falling ill with a chronic fatigue syndrome-related disorder in 1991 and subsequently making a full recovery through the use of natural health therapies. After meeting Dr. Rath and Dr. Niedzwiecki at an anti-Codex rally in Berlin in 2002, Paul was inspired to make a life-changing decision to leave the music industry to work for the Foundation and help defend the right of patients worldwide to have free access to natural health approaches.

You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor

Der Executive Director der Dr. Rath Health Foundation ist einer der Koautoren des explosiven Buchs „Die Nazi-Wurzeln der Brüsseler EU“. Paul ist auch unser Experte zum Thema „Codex Alimentarius-Kommission“ und hat Augenzeugenerfahrung als offizieller beobachtender Teilnehmer bei diesen Treffen.

Bevor er seine Arbeit bei der Stiftung antrat war Paul in der Musikindustrie aktiv. Er arbeitete als Keyboard-Spieler und Programmierer mit Künstlern wie Paul McCartney, Bryan Ferry, Bill Withers, the Verve, Texas und Primal Scream.

Sein Interesse an natürlicher Gesundheit wuchs, als er 1991 an Störungen erkrankte, die aus einem chronischen Erschöpfungssyndrom resultierten. Durch natürliche Gesundheitstherapien wurde er schließlich vollständig geheilt. Ein Treffen 2002 mit Dr. Rath und Dr. Niedzwiecki bei einer Anti-Codex-Demonstration in Berlin inspirierte ihn zu einer lebensverändernden Entscheidung und er verließ die Musikindustrie um für die Stiftung zu arbeiten und das Recht der Patienten zu verteidigen, weltweit freien Zugang zu natürlichen Gesundheitsverfahren zu haben.

Auf Twitter ist Paul unter @paulanthtaylor zu finden.

Latest posts by Paul Anthony Taylor (see all)

• Higher Intakes of Omega-3 Fatty Acids Associated With Lower Risk of Death - April 26, 2024
• Police Arrest 22 Suspects During Probe Into Major Fraud Linked to European Union COVID-19 Recovery Fund - April 19, 2024
• Plummeting Deaths From Heart Disease in United States Reflect Rise in Use of Dietary Supplements - April 12, 2024
• Growing Evidence of the Protective Effect of Vitamin D Against Breast Cancer - April 5, 2024
• Doctors Report Mysterious Worldwide Cancer ‘Epidemic’ - March 29, 2024