It was known early in the pandemic that the risk of death was very low for all but the old with co-comorbidities. Protect the vulnerable should have been the public health strategy.
Thank you, Dr McCollough, for your clear and concise explaining relative and absolute risk. I read that the relative risk for statins is 30% but the absolute risk is only 1%. If that is so, why are physicians still ordering?
No doubt they have little time for such critical thinking about the effectiveness and safety of the drugs and shots which are pushed on them by drug companies and health authorities, who have little to no medical training, and in turn are prescribing to their trusting, oblivious patients. I think most physicians trained in the past 20-30 years are forced into a one size fits all medical treatment protocol, and any innate individual critical thinking is lost. Doctors should know about the absolute risk of a product they are prescribing, it takes only a few minutes, even for a lay person to search the studies and find out. I have seen that first hand in discussion with a cardiologist when I asked him to tell me the absolute risk of the statin drugs he wanted me to take. He searched it in minutes and came up with 3% on one drug and zero on the other. Of course that did not consider all of the potential adverse effects. The bottom line however is any drug that has a negative risk factor with numerous adverse effects including deaths, such as all mRNA shots, should be banned.
The marketing of statins set the stage for the marketing of the Covid jabs. These toxic drugs produce at best 1-3% ARR (for composite endpoints) but are sold using their 33-50% RRR. Amplifying minuscule or non-existent benefits, while downplaying harms, is one of the core Pharma MOs, and is used across the board.
Richard: That appears to be thr truth. So the solution? My two part answer is: 1) get more citizens to be Critical Thinkers, which includes fixing our K-12 education system, which is teaching the OPPOSITE of Critical Thinking in Science [NGSS], and 2) change regulations and laws so that the FDA actually works for what is in the best interest of the public.
Yes. The message of truth is very clear. The shots are bioweapon poisons and the drug companies knew that. Planned that? Tragically, most people these days seem not to understand even basic math such as percentages and risk. If doctors say it is okay, they obey.
Philip: I believe that most physicians are too busy to look at studies. However, if the FDA prominently noted ARR and NTT, then patients would bring that to their attention. There wouldn't be anyway for a doctor to dismiss their patients' concerns by just quoting "95% efficacy." All I know is that it wold be MUCH better than what is done currently.
Physicians are NEVER too busy to play golf, drink booze, and why are they suddenly too busy to learn their trade? Once on the job as staff physicians, they mainly want to pad their incomes with the smallest amount of extra study. When I needed to find another specialist, I saw several physicians all of whom practiced algorithmic medicine. These physicians oozed laziness, arrogance, and a "take it or leave it attitude".
Michael: My wife is quite sick so between us we have seen dozens of physicians. By-and-large we have not experienced physicians as you've described. Maybe you should investigate others?
The question is "does said physician keep up with the advance of medical science or is the physician trapped in an algorithmic world where he/she follows diktat often written by Big Pharma"? I'd wager that few physicians read an entire research paper, they just read a summary and then they follow said diktat which becomes "the standard of care". Who establishes standard of care? Journals under the sway of Big Pharma have enormous clout. Are you sure your physicians are reading entire papers or are they skimping? Are they compelled by insurance companies to follow said diktat? Science is one thing but adherence to societal/professional mandates is quite another. Are you the best possible evaluator of a physician's command of his/her field of activity? Are you a studied individual that knows terminologies or do you depend on the physician to impact on your perhaps scanty knowledge and understanding?
Michael: As a physicist I am competent to read and understand medical studies. Based on my wife's longterm ailments, I have studied that subject area quite thoroughly. No MD has the time to read 95% of the studies published. However, when presented with a particular problem, conscientious ones will then do that. Further, with our physicians, I have given them copies/links to studies I have found interesting. In every case they were receptive to my research. Like every field, there are good and bad doctors. Our experience is that most are good.
I wouldn't say in some cases, I would say that the PCR test was so useless a tool that case numbers shouldn't even be referred to at all. Mass testing with PCR is pure medical fraud, its that bad. As much a level as fraud as the relative effectiveness numbers.
Relative risk is a highly misleading statistic, which is why the drug companies use it. Absolute risk is the true metric in combination with the risk of adverse effects, which when used in the case of the Cov shots makes the absolute risk negative. They would have never been accepted if people had been told the truth.
I appreciate the article, and agree absolute risk reduction and NNT should always be provided whenever relative risk reduction is cited. I'm bothered by a couple things though. My understanding is the jab makes you MORE likely to contract COVID. Most readers are bound to have read about the Cleveland Clinic study which showed negative efficacy, and there are plenty of others. So, if you are MORE likely to get COVID with a particular treatment, it follows there is no NNT, unless you want to go into negative numbers, IE -100 means treat 100 to increase CoVID incidence by one.
So, it appears a bit more complicated than presented. Is the NNT measured during the treatments most efficacious period, ignoring periods of lesser or negative efficacy? Even more pertinent is the question - What is the source of the underlying numbers used to calculate RRD, ARD, and NNT? Studies conducted by the drug company? Forgive me for thinking such numbers are worthless, so RRD, ARD, and NNT based on those numbers are equally meaningless.
SteelJ: RRR and ARR (and NNT) are all determined based on scientific studies — not subsequent reports (e.g. VAERS or ICAN). The studies in this case are linked above. Once can certainly question — and should — such studies, but that is not the subject of this commentary.
I informed my superiors of this early on. They scoffed, threatened me about doing research on this topic on work time. And of. Course later tried to force me into jab or get out. I resisted. You give people too much credit. They were caught up in fear and “religious fervor” over the jabs. No scientific evidence nor truth could be “inoculate” that.
Carlio: Yes, citizens were seriously misled. Part of the deception was that the "cure" (the experimental bio-chemical injection) was extremely effective (95%±). If citizens were told that it was actually 1%±, I don't think that it is giving people too much credit for the public to respond negatively to a 1% "solution" — with multiple unknowns and downsides...
Docs wanted to do surgery on my 88-yr-old mother to clear out the plaque on her carotid artery. They told her it would reduce her chances of having a stroke by 50%. Hmmm. So I asked what they said was her current risk: 12% chance. And with the surgery? 6%. Hence 50% relative risk reduction, yet only 6% absolute.
Also, Dr Richard M. Fleming spoke of this early on (2021) in his live presentation viewable on the Highwire. He went through Pfizer, Moderna, and Jansen’s data and calculated all the absolute risks. https://thehighwire.com/videos/live-from-event-2021-in-dallas-tx/
I am just saying that it supports their twisted mentality that “no one is safe until we are all safe.” Which means they would have to jab everyone with an ineffective gene therapy to be safe.
Carlio: And I am saying that if citizens were specifically told that 100 peoploe needed to get an experimental bio-chemical injection to help just one person. MANY more people would not have gone along with this fiasco.
Broad promotion of the (weapon) Covid 19 (Sars 2) "vaccine" using only 'relative efficacy' was a classic case of criminal, and intentional false advertising, and should be prosecuted as such. More importantly, as asserted by former Pharma compliance executive Sasha Latypova, is the issue of all the continuing queries as to the "science" of Covid...while the obvious criminal intent to harm is not being addressed...A very serious crime has been committed...why are we focused on "science? Perhaps the criminal aspect of these forced genetic "therapies" to cause intentional harm should be catapulted to the forefront for public opinion to be registered fully and transparently. There is sufficient evidence to prosecute...why is it not happening?
I wrote to my reps saying a vote against him shows me you are not for the people's health whuch will effect both my vote and who I work to help put in office in the future
The fact remains the Covid injections were not vaccines, they were entirely different were not tried and should never have been used.
Left to natural immunity the results would have been minimal relative to influenza, but the pandemic and its lockdowns was made to be a complete disaster.
It was known early in the pandemic that the risk of death was very low for all but the old with co-comorbidities. Protect the vulnerable should have been the public health strategy.
Thank you, Dr McCollough, for your clear and concise explaining relative and absolute risk. I read that the relative risk for statins is 30% but the absolute risk is only 1%. If that is so, why are physicians still ordering?
Victor: Dr McCullough referred his readers to me, physicist John Droz
No doubt they have little time for such critical thinking about the effectiveness and safety of the drugs and shots which are pushed on them by drug companies and health authorities, who have little to no medical training, and in turn are prescribing to their trusting, oblivious patients. I think most physicians trained in the past 20-30 years are forced into a one size fits all medical treatment protocol, and any innate individual critical thinking is lost. Doctors should know about the absolute risk of a product they are prescribing, it takes only a few minutes, even for a lay person to search the studies and find out. I have seen that first hand in discussion with a cardiologist when I asked him to tell me the absolute risk of the statin drugs he wanted me to take. He searched it in minutes and came up with 3% on one drug and zero on the other. Of course that did not consider all of the potential adverse effects. The bottom line however is any drug that has a negative risk factor with numerous adverse effects including deaths, such as all mRNA shots, should be banned.
The marketing of statins set the stage for the marketing of the Covid jabs. These toxic drugs produce at best 1-3% ARR (for composite endpoints) but are sold using their 33-50% RRR. Amplifying minuscule or non-existent benefits, while downplaying harms, is one of the core Pharma MOs, and is used across the board.
Richard: That appears to be thr truth. So the solution? My two part answer is: 1) get more citizens to be Critical Thinkers, which includes fixing our K-12 education system, which is teaching the OPPOSITE of Critical Thinking in Science [NGSS], and 2) change regulations and laws so that the FDA actually works for what is in the best interest of the public.
PDUFA in 1992 institutionalized industry funding of FDA with obvious conflicts of interest. This must be ended, along with the revolving door.
Richard: Yes, those are two of several serious liabilities with the current FDA.
Yes. The message of truth is very clear. The shots are bioweapon poisons and the drug companies knew that. Planned that? Tragically, most people these days seem not to understand even basic math such as percentages and risk. If doctors say it is okay, they obey.
Philip: I believe that most physicians are too busy to look at studies. However, if the FDA prominently noted ARR and NTT, then patients would bring that to their attention. There wouldn't be anyway for a doctor to dismiss their patients' concerns by just quoting "95% efficacy." All I know is that it wold be MUCH better than what is done currently.
Physicians are NEVER too busy to play golf, drink booze, and why are they suddenly too busy to learn their trade? Once on the job as staff physicians, they mainly want to pad their incomes with the smallest amount of extra study. When I needed to find another specialist, I saw several physicians all of whom practiced algorithmic medicine. These physicians oozed laziness, arrogance, and a "take it or leave it attitude".
Michael: My wife is quite sick so between us we have seen dozens of physicians. By-and-large we have not experienced physicians as you've described. Maybe you should investigate others?
The question is "does said physician keep up with the advance of medical science or is the physician trapped in an algorithmic world where he/she follows diktat often written by Big Pharma"? I'd wager that few physicians read an entire research paper, they just read a summary and then they follow said diktat which becomes "the standard of care". Who establishes standard of care? Journals under the sway of Big Pharma have enormous clout. Are you sure your physicians are reading entire papers or are they skimping? Are they compelled by insurance companies to follow said diktat? Science is one thing but adherence to societal/professional mandates is quite another. Are you the best possible evaluator of a physician's command of his/her field of activity? Are you a studied individual that knows terminologies or do you depend on the physician to impact on your perhaps scanty knowledge and understanding?
Michael: As a physicist I am competent to read and understand medical studies. Based on my wife's longterm ailments, I have studied that subject area quite thoroughly. No MD has the time to read 95% of the studies published. However, when presented with a particular problem, conscientious ones will then do that. Further, with our physicians, I have given them copies/links to studies I have found interesting. In every case they were receptive to my research. Like every field, there are good and bad doctors. Our experience is that most are good.
"how many people need to be treated (injected) to prevent ONE case of COVID-19?"
Problem is a "case" no longer means an actual case, merely a positive result from a USELESS test.
Derek: In some cases that may be true. My commentary here is about Absolute vs Relative Risk, which is independent of the COVID example given.
I wouldn't say in some cases, I would say that the PCR test was so useless a tool that case numbers shouldn't even be referred to at all. Mass testing with PCR is pure medical fraud, its that bad. As much a level as fraud as the relative effectiveness numbers.
Relative risk is a highly misleading statistic, which is why the drug companies use it. Absolute risk is the true metric in combination with the risk of adverse effects, which when used in the case of the Cov shots makes the absolute risk negative. They would have never been accepted if people had been told the truth.
Philip: TY. That is the gist of my Commentary here.
By far this is the most simple explanation
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/featured/relative-vs-absolute-risk-reduction-2/
3-4 minutes long
IVERMECTIN/Hydroxy work Who knew? When did they know? Who suppressed it?
Accountability Now, Now, Now
Shawn663
Shawn: Yes, that short good video was cited in my commentary, above. It's in the PS.
Thank you, I must have missed it
I appreciate the article, and agree absolute risk reduction and NNT should always be provided whenever relative risk reduction is cited. I'm bothered by a couple things though. My understanding is the jab makes you MORE likely to contract COVID. Most readers are bound to have read about the Cleveland Clinic study which showed negative efficacy, and there are plenty of others. So, if you are MORE likely to get COVID with a particular treatment, it follows there is no NNT, unless you want to go into negative numbers, IE -100 means treat 100 to increase CoVID incidence by one.
So, it appears a bit more complicated than presented. Is the NNT measured during the treatments most efficacious period, ignoring periods of lesser or negative efficacy? Even more pertinent is the question - What is the source of the underlying numbers used to calculate RRD, ARD, and NNT? Studies conducted by the drug company? Forgive me for thinking such numbers are worthless, so RRD, ARD, and NNT based on those numbers are equally meaningless.
SteelJ: RRR and ARR (and NNT) are all determined based on scientific studies — not subsequent reports (e.g. VAERS or ICAN). The studies in this case are linked above. Once can certainly question — and should — such studies, but that is not the subject of this commentary.
I informed my superiors of this early on. They scoffed, threatened me about doing research on this topic on work time. And of. Course later tried to force me into jab or get out. I resisted. You give people too much credit. They were caught up in fear and “religious fervor” over the jabs. No scientific evidence nor truth could be “inoculate” that.
Carlio: Yes, citizens were seriously misled. Part of the deception was that the "cure" (the experimental bio-chemical injection) was extremely effective (95%±). If citizens were told that it was actually 1%±, I don't think that it is giving people too much credit for the public to respond negatively to a 1% "solution" — with multiple unknowns and downsides...
https://substack.com/@markcrispinmiller1
mass celebrities with cancer
but don't worry, the Canadian government has your back!
They have graciously budgeted 75 million dollars to pay for the funerals of anyone who dies from the vax!
https://torontosun.com/news/national/burial-costs-covered-for-canadians-killed-by-approved-vaccines
Let me simplify.
Docs wanted to do surgery on my 88-yr-old mother to clear out the plaque on her carotid artery. They told her it would reduce her chances of having a stroke by 50%. Hmmm. So I asked what they said was her current risk: 12% chance. And with the surgery? 6%. Hence 50% relative risk reduction, yet only 6% absolute.
Did I get my calcs right?
Yes.
disclaimer: I am not a doctor 🤣
I have seen here and other places that olive oil and lemon juice is an amazing artery cleanser
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Q9o3APTsQ&t=143s
I have been using for months now but I do not have an artery analyzer so I have no idea what the progress is.
I can tell you that bowel moments are great! 🤣
J. From what you say, it sounds right to me...
Also, Dr Richard M. Fleming spoke of this early on (2021) in his live presentation viewable on the Highwire. He went through Pfizer, Moderna, and Jansen’s data and calculated all the absolute risks. https://thehighwire.com/videos/live-from-event-2021-in-dallas-tx/
Also see Brown, R.B. Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA, Vaccine Clinical Trials. Medicina 2021,57,199. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57030199
Carlio: Yes. The study you referenced is one of the two I cited in my Commentary, above.
I am just saying that it supports their twisted mentality that “no one is safe until we are all safe.” Which means they would have to jab everyone with an ineffective gene therapy to be safe.
Carlio: And I am saying that if citizens were specifically told that 100 peoploe needed to get an experimental bio-chemical injection to help just one person. MANY more people would not have gone along with this fiasco.
Broad promotion of the (weapon) Covid 19 (Sars 2) "vaccine" using only 'relative efficacy' was a classic case of criminal, and intentional false advertising, and should be prosecuted as such. More importantly, as asserted by former Pharma compliance executive Sasha Latypova, is the issue of all the continuing queries as to the "science" of Covid...while the obvious criminal intent to harm is not being addressed...A very serious crime has been committed...why are we focused on "science? Perhaps the criminal aspect of these forced genetic "therapies" to cause intentional harm should be catapulted to the forefront for public opinion to be registered fully and transparently. There is sufficient evidence to prosecute...why is it not happening?
Because our Gov, Congress, 2x POTUS’ etc are implicated.
David: Stay tuned to see what happens if RFKjr gets to be in charge of DHHS...
I wrote to my reps saying a vote against him shows me you are not for the people's health whuch will effect both my vote and who I work to help put in office in the future
Janice: Good for you!
Yes John...I can hardly wait to see what transpires...I suspect it may get messy....
The fact remains the Covid injections were not vaccines, they were entirely different were not tried and should never have been used.
Left to natural immunity the results would have been minimal relative to influenza, but the pandemic and its lockdowns was made to be a complete disaster.
Peter: I hope that you are noting that I always call them "injections" — more explicitly "experimental bio-chemical injections."