Lies, Damned Lies, and Vaccine Statistics

Hyper-vigilant vaccination advocates are pushing dangerous misinformation about vaccine efficacy

Excerpts from article:

In the last few weeks I have seen evidence of articles more widely shared to correct some of the early misconceptions The Lancet correspondence was concerned about. However a more insidious form of misunderstanding and misinformation lingers, and is pervasive.

Tom is no ordinary doctor. He is the former Director of the Center for Disease Control under President Barack Obama. He is also propagating dangerous misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines. It will cause people to misunderstand the real world results which can cause more people to die, and exacerbate the pandemic.

Dr. Tom is wrong. About as wrong you can get. The real world data has shown that the death rate among the vaccinated, if infected with COVID, can be 3 to 5.7 times higher1 than the death rate of the unvaccinated.

The former Director of the CDC is making what I call an Acceptable Catastrophic Error. This is the kind of error one is allowed to make when they are perceived to have the correct opinion.  Arguments and statistics used towards the goal of getting every single person vaccinated for COVID are given far less scrutiny and are accepted as true more readily, than any arguments or statistics that might be perceived as counterproductive towards that goal.

When the former Director of the CDC, or anyone else for that matter, says someone who is infected with COVID is 100 times less likely to die if they have been vaccinated, it does not matter how far off that number is. It will be readily forgiven no matter how inaccurate. It is the goal of universal vaccination, not truth, that appears to be most important.

There are a lot of acceptable catastrophic errors.

(See link for article)


**UPDATE, Sept. 8, 2021**

One of Bill Gates’ favorite books is, “How to Lie With Statistics.”

A guide to playing number games, which is exactly what is occurring in the world of COVID madness.


Very astutely written article.  This man thoroughly goes through the math and proves much of what we are being told is fatally flawed and dangerously misused.

Important quote:

When “former Director of the CDC” Dr. Tom and others use the non-infection efficacy numbers to discuss the vaccines, they are, intentionally or not, misleading the public. It is something that should end immediately.

With the exception of infection rates, the efficacy numbers convey no useful information to citizens about their risks once they have been vaccinated. Instead, it may cause the vaccinated to place themselves and others at greater risk if they operate on this misinformation.

When you are finally counting things and dividing things counted which matter, such as how many infected people went on to die in each group, no remnant of the 90% numbers remain. In the graph above6, there is no information available to suggest the death rate per infection is any different in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group. You can see why by revisiting the number infected and the number who died in each group

When looking at infection/case fatality rate in 45-64 year olds, the number actually lean towards a higher death rate among the “vaccinated.”

The author then goes on to warn that if you blame death after “vaccination” on the vaccine, you would be committing “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy, which simply means just because B happened after A does not mean B was caused by A.  Pro-mass-vaccination advocates quickly point out this reasoning flaw to those blaming vaccines; however, the same error is committed daily by the pro-mass-vaccination crowd without any pressure to check their reasoning.

The author also states that data has not supported any observations that the “vaccine” gave people with break-through infections less severe cases.  This false idea has been repeated often.

The author states that not only is the death rate among the vaccinated and infected higher but it’s also higher for death and hospitalization than the unvaccinated and infected.  Israeli data shows these results ‘plain as day.’

For more:

In a July 1, 2021, commentary in The Lancet Microbe,3 Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele and Michel Vaillant also argue for the use of absolute risk reduction when discussing vaccine efficacy with the public. They too went through the calculations, coming up with the following:

  • Pfizer/BioNTech — Relative risk reduction: 95%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.84%
  • Moderna — Relative risk reduction: 94%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%
  • Gamaleya (Sputnic V) — Relative risk reduction: 91%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.93%
  • Johnson & Johnson — Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%
  • AstraZeneca/Oxford — Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.3%
These injections are abysmal at protecting you AND they do not provide immunity.  Dr. Bhakdi also refuses the narrative that they reduce severity of symptoms as was pointed out in the article.

Bhakdi states:

“They showed absolutely zero [benefit in the clinical trials], he says. “This is the ridiculousness. People don’t understand that they’re being fooled and have been fooled all along.