Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

478

Medical Journal The Lancet blows lid off of "vaccine" lie. Pfizer's efficacy rate? 0.84%. As in less than 1%.

https://archive.is/psCfE

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext

ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.

Medical Journal The Lancet blows lid off of "vaccine" lie. Pfizer's efficacy rate? 0.84%. As in less than 1%. https://archive.is/psCfE https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.

(post is archived)

[–] • 0 pt

"There are many lessons to learn from the way studies are conducted and results are presented. With the use of only RRRs, and omitting ARRs, reporting bias is introduced, which affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. When communicating about vaccine efficacy, especially for public health decisions such as choosing the type of vaccines to purchase and deploy, having a full picture of what the data actually show is important, and ensuring comparisons are based on the combined evidence that puts vaccine trial results in context and not just looking at one summary measure, is also important. Such decisions should be properly informed by detailed understanding of study results, requiring access to full datasets and independent scrutiny and analyses."