Absolute Risk of Serious Adverse Reaction from Covid Jab = 1 in 800.

Please share this information with everyone- the misleading media will not get this news out to the masses. The link for the study discussed will also be included.
Many of my long term readers will be aware of some of this information including the absolute fallacy of the jab’s effectiveness only accessible by myself at my former big tech censored site.

Excerpts included below link

European Scientist


This editorial attempts to address some key facts to help others think more critically about what the totality of evidence reveals, what pertinent questions remain unanswered, and how we can constructively move forward. Although the principles under discussion are relevant to all covid 19 vaccines and other pharmacotherapies the emphasis here is more specifically on the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA product because in western countries that is what has been most widely utilised and continues to be recommended as a booster for the majority of the adult population.

“Science” of the Covid-19 Vaccine

First, what was reported in the mainstream news as being 95% effective against infection was in fact relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction (misleading media, as always)

That specific NEJM paper which underpinned the emergency use authorisation of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine actually revealed an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.84%. In other words, for every 119 individuals vaccinated one person would be protected from being infected. (3) (4)

Furthermore, as newer and thankfully, less lethal, mutated strains became dominant, any protection against infection at the very least became less effective and likely completely ineffective, even if there is some significant (as yet to be fully determined in absolute individual terms) protection against serious illness and death.

It’s been stated here time and time again the claim of protection from serious illness and death is questionable. Often repeated but rarely supported with anything but the most spurious of claims

Media’s influence on perceptions of benefit

The director of the CDC Rochelle Walensky recently admitted in an interview that her initial optimism for the vaccine came from a CNN news report. (5) Prior to the overturning of the NHS staff vaccine mandate one very senior health policy leader told me that most of his colleagues in NHS leadership roles were also getting most of their information on the vaccine from the BBC, not through their own critical appraisal of the evidence.

Unfortunately, most media health stories do not meet criteria for accuracy. ( You can say that again and again and again) Specifically, in relation to drugs and devices the majority of such reports are rated unsatisfactory in 5 of 10 review criteria: costs, benefits (exaggerated reporting of benefits by use of relative, not absolute risk terms), harms, quality of the evidence and comparison of the new approach with alternatives. (6) It’s instructive to note that in 2009 a World Health Organisation bulletin stated that “It is an ethical imperative that doctors understand the difference between relative and absolute risks to protect patients from unnecessary anxiety and manipulation”. (7) This recommendation was reinforced by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges in 2015. (8)

The author’s own enthusiasm of the efficacy of the mRNA jab was reinforced in March 2021 (more than two months from receiving the second dose) when he tweeted to 70,000 followers that both himself and his father tested positive for antibodies. But how many doctors are aware that antibodies are an unreliable surrogate for clinical effectiveness?

Emergence of new evidence and unanswered questions

A recent pre-print publication (not yet peer reviewed) co-authored by some of the most eminent and trusted medical scientists in the world in relation to data transparency, including Stanford’s Robert Kaplan and associate editor of the BMJ, Peter Doshi, leaves us asking more troubling questions than providing answers. Accessing data from the FDA and Health Canada websites, and combining results from journal articles that published the Pfizer and Moderna trials , the authors concluded that the absolute risk of a serious adverse event from the mRNA vaccines (a rate of 1 in 800), exceeded the risk reduction in covid-19 hospitalisation (10).

The world’s most cited medical scientist, Professor John Ioannidis, points out that evidence from observational studies in reference to the effectiveness of the covid vaccines may be “spurious”, with bias being generated by pre-existing immunity, vaccination misclassification, exposure differences, testing, disease risk factor confounding, hospital admission decision, treatment use differences, and death attribution. (11)

A crisis of trust

An analysis published earlier this year in BMJ Global Health strongly suggests that vaccine mandates and lack of transparency in public health authorities effectively communicating the reasons behind such policies have had detrimental effects on public trust and vaccine confidence.

The paper also highlights that the latest data (published in Lancet Infectious diseases) reveals that once infected there is no significant difference in transmission rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated which makes any scientific case for mandates illegitimate (the mandates were purely political and servile to big pharma) (14). Given this evidence it cannot be ruled out that a person denied the chance to pursue their profession (such as Novak Djokovic’s US government denial of entry into the country so he can play in the US open) because they are not allowed access to a country or area due to a requirement to have a minimum level of Covid vaccination could sue the relevant immigration authority for unjustified restraint of trade.

Transparency and responsible sharing is key.

In July 2022, an investigation by The BMJ exposed significant financial conflicts of interest of drug approval regulators involving several countries and regions across the world including the USA, Australia, Europe, Japan, Canada and the UK. (17) At a recent lecture the author delivered at a medical event, senior NHS doctors expressed surprise and concern that the UK’s medical regulator, the MHRA, received most (86%) of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry. According to sociologist Donald Light regulators are “not rigorous, they’re not independent, they are selective, and they withhold data. Doctors and patients must appreciate how deeply and extensively drug regulators can’t be trusted so long as they are captured by industry funding” (17) The inextricable financial links between some Covid19 vaccinations advisory committee members and vaccine manufacturers were previously exposed by the BMJ in 2020. (18)

Rather than encourage transparent debate about the true benefits and potential harms of the covid-19 vaccine as new evidence emerges, those that encourage more critical thinking and adding to the database of relevant knowledge are smeared. As investigative science journalist Paul Thacker has revealed social media “fact checkers” have labelled many (including one of the world’s most respected medical journals) as “spreading misinformation”. (19) This does a huge disservice to doctors, patients and the public who deserve and want full transparency.

Historically, one of the ways corporations exert their power, create division and fuel a false narrative in favour of their products is through “opposition fragmentation.” (20) Those public health advocates who, for example, were amongst the first to publish research and/or questioned the narrative that smoking was safe were labelled as peddlers of junk science. This was all fuelled by the PR machinery of Big Tobacco that were able to resist regulation for 50 years since the first links between smoking and lung cancer were published in reputed medical journals by adopting a playbook of planting doubt that cigarettes were harmful, confusing the public, buying the loyalty of bent scientists and even downright denial. (21) The medical community and social media companies should encourage open discussion of sceptical viewpoints, rather than falsely labelling “anti-vax” and/or de-platforming those with no conflicts of interest that ask legitimate questions about the true rate of covid vaccine harm.

Now we are inundated with the never ending spin of Big Pharma’s PR machine. How or why big pharma has earned unquestioning trust is a mystery given the many harmful events, medications, drugs and treatments touted. Thalidomide. OxyContin/Opiods Vaccine contamination .. Think the Cutter incident & SV-40, VIOXX etc., etc.,

Immediate access to the raw data is now imperative

Global vaccine mandates for covid-19 must stop until we have the full data on efficacy of all available vaccines

Link to the study mentioned below Additionally, there are many additional references included with the European Scientist article

Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials

22 Pages Posted: 23 Jun 2022

Joseph Fraiman

Louisiana State University – Lallie Kemp Regional Medical Center

Juan Erviti

Navarre Health Service

Mark Jones

Bond University – Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare

Sander Greenland

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) – Jonathan and Karin Fielding School of Public Health

Patrick Whelan

University of California at Los Angeles

Robert M. Kaplan

Stanford University

Peter Doshi

University of Maryland – School of Pharmacy

If you care, share.

One reply on “Absolute Risk of Serious Adverse Reaction from Covid Jab = 1 in 800.”

Do we all remember when Justin Trudeau told us adverse reactions were one in a million? He was way, way, way off.
And people have died and or been seriously harmed!

Leave a Reply