Apologies for misremembering the sample size. The Danish study was back in the 90s so its been awhile since I read through it. In terms of showing relative risk rather than absolute risk, wouldnt they logically have to show relative risk? That would compare the trial group to the control group. Trying to show absolute risk back in the 90s would presume they even know what the absolute risk was as a baseline for a relative new diagnosis. I completely understand where you're coming from with "why not absolute?" given how shady big pharma tends to be. At least in this case it seems to make sense to show relative. I definitely hear you on the 'rona shennanigans. There were so many financial incentives for doctors to lie their asses off and shill the clotshot that almost all the studies would fail a basic conflict of interest check.