This is part 2 of exposing the vaccine efficacy lie that is being perpetuated by Big Pharma companies. In my previous post, I showed how Pfizer’s claim 95% vaccine efficacy is a lie and explained how their actual absolute risk reduction is approximately 0.84%. This time, I’ll explain how Moderna also manipulates data to convince you that their vaccine is safe using the same methodology. Link is below:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
In Moderna’s research summary titled “Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine “ on Dec. 30th 2020, you will find a a table indicating the number of cases of symptomatic and severe COVID cases in both the vaccinated and placebo group.
In this table, you will see that the vaccinated and control group consisted of 14,550 participants and 14,598 participants, respectively.
Out of all the participants in this part of the study only 11 people in the vaccinated group and 185 people in the control group were considered to have symptomatic COVID-19 cases. Here’s how you get absolute risk reduction from their data:
185/14,598 cases in the control group comes out to be 1.267%. 11/14,550 cases in the vaccinated group equals 0.0756%.
Absolute risk reduction is the difference between the percentage of cases in both the control and the vaccinated group. That number being 1.267%-0.0756%=1.191%
This is the scientifically, biologically and mathematically meaningful efficacy rate. In other words, Moderna’s vaccine actually has a little greater than a 1% chance of efficacy of protecting you against COVID-19.
So how are we told their vaccine is 94% effective?
You take the 11 cases in the vaccinated group and the 185 cases in the control group and add them together. Now you have a total of 196 cases with 185 being from the control group. Relative risk reduction is the number of cases from the control over the total number of cases in both groups.
So 185/196≈94.4%.
Relative risk reduction is scientifically meaningless because it doesn’t take into account the entire sample size in both the control and vaccinated groups. And besides, no one would take a vaccine with a 1% efficacy rate so they lie to us saying something mathematically accurate (185/196 is indeed approx. 94%) but medically meaningless.
So, the 14,598 people subgroup are just people living their Life? no vaccine, no masks? Just everyday people, and the Chance to catch covid is 1.267%?
And the chance to die, if you are < 50yo is 0.05%?
So it would be 0.0063%?
You are correct. If the 0.05% chance of death for 50yo or younger is true, then according to Moderna’s data, people younger than 50 have a 0.0063% chance of dying to COVID-19.
https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
Page 7 and it is < 70yo! Median 0.05%!
PS which means < 50 y/o people have a much(!) lower risk, than 0.0063.
Your analysis fails to consider that about 8% in the US have covid and allegedly only 0.5% would have it if they had been vaccinated. That's 7.5% effective by your math. By the end of the year it could be 25%. But really the data should be reported as percentage of deaths, long term health problems and short term health problems for both covid and the vaccine.
My analysis of Moderna’s and the previous Pfizer vaccine efficacy data are correct insofar that I calculated absolute risk reduction from THIER data which projects around 1% vaccine efficacy. I agree that the data should be be reported better, but my contention is honesty of their conclusions. These companies report relative risk reduction because it suits them to get approved. True efficacy is measured in absolute risk reduction thus their study blatantly lies. Whether or not their data matches what actually happens outside their trials, is a question of scientific epistemology and how they conducted their experiment in the first place. The claim that only 0.5% out of the 8% would have only had COVID if they were all vaccinated needs to be validated. Otherwise, it is only an alleged claim. Explaining data in a reasonable way is not science. That is because science does not fully trust reason; it trusts predictions.