Language has always been used in a fashion as an instrument of control. The near magical nature of church Latin for centuries supported a mystified, near magical dimension of control over the masses. Spells, invocations, and other forms of mystical language can be very powerful weapons with which to wild power and influence. At least until it is demystified…whereupon things often can look rather common and non-intimidating. Legalese can do this. Some of the gibberish being published in the social sciences borders on unintelligible and mandates admission to a psychiatric hospital.   Take medical statistics…

…especially the kind using the modern language of medical studies that are very obtuse to those not familiar with them.  The manipulation of the statistic, “hazard ratio”, is a great example.  Reduce the risk of major morbidity and mortality by “95%” and one has an amazingly effective intervention.  If the intervention is a vaccine, everyone would want it.  Now take a second look at the real risk reduction:

“In the United States, all eyes are on Pfizer and Moderna. The topline efficacy results from their experimental covid-19 vaccine trials are astounding at first glance. Pfizer says it recorded 170 covid-19 cases (in 44,000 volunteers), with a remarkable split: 162 in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group. Meanwhile Moderna says 95 of 30,000 volunteers in its ongoing trial got covid-19: 90 on placebo versus 5 receiving the vaccine, leading both companies to claim around 95% efficacy.

Let’s put this in perspective. First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%. Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly not the vaccine’s ability to save lives, nor the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown. Third, these results reflect a time point relatively soon after vaccination, and we know nothing about vaccine performance at 3, 6, or 12 months, so cannot compare these efficacy numbers against other vaccines like influenza vaccines (which are judged over a season). Fourth, children, adolescents, and immunocompromised individuals were largely excluded from the trials, so we still lack any data on these important populations….

There may be much more complexity to the “95% effective” announcement than meets the eye—or perhaps not. Only full transparency and rigorous scrutiny of the data will allow for informed decision making. The data must be made public.”

So, to be clear, the benefit of the vaccine is not “95% effective” in reality but rather it reduces a near negligible risk to a negligible one.  Add in the protective effect of vitamin D and other micronutrients plus ivermectin, and one would really need to stretch the truth to promote an unvetted, experimental drug to an otherwise healthy population.  Giving it to children whose risks are indeed negligible would be downright immoral.

Leave a Reply

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