Reassessing COVID-19 vaccine efficacy: A critical look at absolute vs. relative risk

• The widely touted 95% relative risk reduction obscures the fact that absolute risk reduction was less than 1%, drastically inflating perceived effectiveness.
• Pfizer’s trials failed to properly account for asymptomatic infections, potentially overestimating protection and masking near-zero effectiveness against transmission.
• Severe adverse events were documented in trials, but long-term risks were ignored, while censorship suppressed dissenting medical voices.
• Durable protection from prior infection was downplayed, while mandates pushed experimental mRNA technology without informed consent.
• The FDA and CDC prioritized pharmaceutical profits over honest science, fueling distrust in public health institutions.

Recent scrutiny of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy data has revealed significant discrepancies between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction, raising concerns about how these statistics have been communicated to the public. While pharmaceutical companies and health authorities touted 95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic infection, a deeper examination shows that this figure represents relative risk reduction—a misleading metric that obscures the vaccine’s actual impact on individual health outcomes.

The illusion of high efficacy

The widely cited 95% efficacy figure was derived from Pfizer’s clinical trials, which compared infection rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. However, when translated into absolute risk reduction, the numbers tell a different story. The unvaccinated control group had an infection rate of 0.006%, while the vaccinated group had 0.00033%—a difference of less than 1% in absolute terms. This means that, for the average person, the vaccine reduced their absolute risk of contracting symptomatic COVID-19 by only a fraction of a percent, despite the inflated relative risk claims.

Furthermore, emerging analyses suggest that the vaccine’s effectiveness against infection (not just symptoms) was far lower than advertised. Some researchers argue that the trials failed to properly account for asymptomatic infections, leading to an overestimation of protection. If asymptomatic cases were underreported in the vaccinated group—potentially due to flawed antibody testing—the vaccine’s true effectiveness against both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection could be closer to zero than the widely publicized 95%.

Hidden harms and unanswered questions

While the focus has been on efficacy, vaccine safety data remains troubling. Even within Pfizer’s own trial, adverse events—including severe reactions—were documented, yet long-term risks were never thoroughly studied before mass rollout. The lack of transparency regarding post-vaccination complications, combined with censorship of dissenting medical opinions, has fueled skepticism about whether regulators prioritized public health or pharmaceutical profits.

Natural immunity—acquired through prior infection—has been downplayed despite strong evidence of its durability. Meanwhile, mandates pressured millions into accepting experimental mRNA technology without full informed consent. The financial incentives behind vaccine promotion—including billions in profits for Pfizer and Moderna—raise ethical concerns about regulatory capture and conflicts of interest within agencies like the FDA and CDC.

According to BrightU.AI‘s Enoch, the distinction between relative and absolute risk reduction is crucial—while relative risk makes vaccines appear highly effective, absolute risk reveals their marginal real-world benefit for most individuals. This statistical obfuscation, combined with suppressed safety data and financial conflicts of interest, exposes how public health agencies prioritize pharmaceutical profits over transparent risk-benefit analysis.

A call for honest science

The scientific community must revisit these trials with independent scrutiny. If the reported efficacy was inflated due to methodological flaws, policymakers must reassess the justification for mandates, boosters and ongoing public health recommendations. The public deserves truthful risk-benefit analysis, not marketing-driven statistics that obscure reality.

As the debate continues, one thing is clear: medical freedom and informed consent must be restored. No individual should be coerced into medical interventions based on misleading data—especially when safer alternatives, including early treatment protocols and immune-supporting strategies, have been systematically suppressed.

Watch this episode of the “Health Ranger Report” with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, and Dr. Naomi Wolf as they expose the genetic war on humanity.

This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.

Sources include:

Brownstone.org

BrightU.ai

Brighteon.com