This is part 3 of exposing the vaccine efficacy lie that is being perpetuated by Big Pharma companies. In my previous two posts, I showed how Pfizer’s and Moderna claimed ~95% vaccine efficacy is a lie and explained how their actual absolute risk reduction is approximately 1.00%. This time, I’ll explain how J&J also manipulates data to convince you that their vaccine is safe using the same methodology. Link is below:

https://www.fda.gov/media/146338/download

On page 25 of the attached FDA briefing document on the J&J COVID-19 Vaccine on Feb. 4th 2021, you will find a a table titled “Table 10. Vaccine Efficacy Against Centrally Confirmed Moderate to Severe/Critical COVID-19 With Onset at Least 14 and at Least 28 Days After Vaccination, Per-Protocol Set, Study 3001”

In this table, you will see a vaccinated and control group that consisted of 19,514 participants and 19,554 participants, respectively.

Out of all the participants in this part of the study only 116 people in the vaccinated group and 348 people in the control group were considered to have symptomatic COVID-19 cases onset at least 14 days. Here’s how you get absolute risk reduction from their data:

348/19,554 cases in the control group comes out to be 1.779%. This is the percentage people in the control who caught symptomatic Covid-19.

116/19,514 cases in the vaccinated group equals 0.0594%. Similarly, this is the percentage of people in the vaccinated group who caught symptomatic Covid-19.

Absolute risk reduction is the difference between the percentage of cases in both the control and the vaccinated group. In other words, this is the reduction of your chances of catching Covid-19 from becoming vaccinated. That risk reduction number being 1.779%-0.0594%=1.7196

This is the scientifically, biologically and mathematically meaningful efficacy rate. In other words, J&J’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 66% effective?

You take the 116 cases in the vaccinated group and the 348 cases in the control group and subtract them. Now the difference between the control and vaccinated group comes out to be 348-116=232 cases. J&J’s relative risk reduction is the difference of cases from the control and vaccinated group over the total number of cases in only the control group.

So 232/348=66.6%. Take into confidence interval and you’ll end up with 66.9% like their paper claims.

Where’d the total number of participants of ~19,000 in each group go within their methodologies? Answer: They are being ignored to mislead people. Any statistician worth their salts will never ignore sample size like how the big pharma companies are ignoring them.

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 (232/348 is indeed approx. 66%) but medically meaningless. Read their papers critically because their methodologies are missing. Here we are then left to figure out how they are calculating efficacy on our own when they should give us methodologies in the first place.