Skip to content

Absolute Risk Reduction for Available COVID “Vaccines” is not 95% – It’s Closer to 1%

The COVID-Cult dogma is rich in exaggeration and weighted down by deception. Nothing they have claimed is clinically or statistically accurate, and COVID-Galielo’s are quickly put before the inquisition to be examined by its Holy Officers.


Galileo was found guilty of “vehement suspicion of heresy” and forced to repent his sins before God and the masters of his time by reading remarks prepared for him by The Church.


"*" indicates required fields

Are you voting in the midterm elections?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

These days, the blasphemers are nurses, doctors, clinicians, oncologists, epidemiologists, numerous professionals in scientific disciplines, all of whom have found themselves put before the inquisition – much like the climate scientists who dare to question that political endeavor.


This Church preaches a globalist Public Health agenda. A COVID Dogma that continues to suffer the science of many whose interests are not politics or policy but actual science and public health.


These blasphemers continue to ignore the Cult’s Pharisees, releasing mountains of research and analysis that contradict the preferred “revealed truths.”



One of the most egregious of which is that the Cult’s mRNA cure is 95% effective.


This fraud references relative risk reduction instead of absolute risk reduction to confuse the debate. What’s the difference?

It’s actually pretty rare (especially in my world of oncology) to see Absolute Risk Reduction reported in a study. You’ll find that you have to calculate it for yourself. But if it’s so important, why do you have to manually calculate it for most studies? Why isn’t it reported with the findings?

Absolute Risk is less sexy than Relative Risk. It doesn’t make for good press headlines. …

Simply put, Absolute Risk Reduction is the only way to identify the true context of something reported in a clinical trial. It’s usually a much smaller number than Relative Risk Reduction (RRR), but it helps you assess the real-world impact of a study finding.

Even if we ignore the health risks from side effects, the mRNA injections cannot achieve the stated goal. Flatten the curve.


Instead of returning us to normal, they are the new normal. One that proliferates deceptions to protect the perception that public health is the driving interest. It is not, and the Absolute Risk Reduction, if widely known, would end the program and inspire more rebellion.


What is the actual number?

Dr. Joseph Mercola’s analysis states: While the COVID injections have been characterized as being somewhere around 95% effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, this claim is the product of statistical obfuscation.

In short, they’ve conflated relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is actually right around 1% for all currently available COVID shots.1

In “Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials”2 Ron Brown, Ph.D. calculates the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s injections, based on their own clinical trial data, so that they can be compared to the relative risk reduction reported by these companies. Here’s a summary of his findings:

  • Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 — Relative risk reduction: 95.1%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.7%
  • Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 — Relative risk reduction: 94.1%. Absolute risk reduction 1.1%


Sure, some folks would still line up, and others would line up their children because the propaganda campaign has been fierce and relentless. But the Absolute risk reduction number explains things that the 95% lie cannot.


Global Warming continues to be low on most people’s priority lists because they can see it not happening as described or predicted. The same needs to hold for the COVID cult.


None of this is as they have claimed or predicted.


Galileo, by the way, continued his work under house arrest, and so should you, no matter what that looks like in the 21st century.


Article by Steve MacDonald. Originally posted at Granite Grok.

9 thoughts on “Absolute Risk Reduction for Available COVID “Vaccines” is not 95% – It’s Closer to 1%”

  1. Don’t forget that in every analysis of a sample, there is something called “sample error” – that is a + or – margin around the result. In this case the (standard deviation) sample error should be around the absolute risk reduction. I am guessing that the ARR should be expressed thusly “1.0% plus or minus 2.0%”. In any event, publicly available information on the clinical trials shows no statistically measurable difference between the injected group and the placebo group and that is even with unblinding the placebo group, dropping off people in the injected group and injecting the placebo group before the clinical trials for efficacy were complete.

    1. also, one standard deviation ONLY covers 2/3 of outcomes.
      it would be better to use VaR (Value at Risk) or rather LaR (Lives at Risk) at a given level of probability – e.g. how many people are likely to die with a one in 20 chance – or maybe a coin toss or one in 100 chance.
      “there is a one in 20 chance that 0.01% of the injected population will die without taking the injections”
      then do the same for chances of death from the injections themselves. of course, to do this, the data must be accurate. VAERS might only report between 1% and 5% of deaths and injuries.

  2. The vaccines reduce risk for some people, but we have to examine what we are doing overall to combat the pandemic and why. We are in the bottom third of the world in deaths per capita. Many third world countries are having much better results. That is completely unacceptable. If the CDC was interested in the health of Americans instead of the health of drug companies profits, they would be trying to figure out how countries like India and Indonesia have virtually eradicated covid and replicate demonstrated success here. Hint: It’s the early treatment protocols.

    1. You are lying, frankly. The “vaccines” are NOT VACCINES. They don’t “reduce the risk”, they INCREASE THE RISK. The “disease” they purport to “treat” DOES NOT EXIST.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *