The COVID jabs that were initially rolled out almost immediately after the 2020 election have been billed as ‘safe and effective’ by the mockingbirds in Big Media in a relentless propaganda campaign aimed at the American people.

They’ve told you to trust the experts, the science, and the data. They just didn’t show you some of the data that completely destroys their narrative of shots being necessary or even ‘safe and effective.’

Tired of the ads? Go Ad-Free and Get EXCLUSIVE Content From Stew Peters and the RVM Team, Become a PREMIUM USER

WATCH:

Sign the petition: Ban Federal Vaccine Mandates! >

Narrator: You have the right to know the potential benefit of any intervention. For example, Pfizer reported that its vaccine shows a 95% efficacy. That sounds like it protects you 95% of the time, right? But that’s not actually what that number means. That 95% refers to the relative risk reduction, but it doesn’t tell you how much your overall risk is reduced by vaccination. For that, we need absolute risk reduction. In the Pfizer trial, eight out of 18,198 people who are given the vaccine developed COVID-19 in the unvaccinated placebo group, 162 people got it, which means that even without the vaccine, the risk of contracting COVID-19 was extremely low at 0.88%, which the vaccine then reduced to 0.04%. So the net benefit or the absolute risk reduction that you’re being offered with a Pfizer vaccine is 0.84%. That 95% number? That refers to the relative difference between 0.88 and 0.04%. That’s what they call 95% relative risk reduction and relative risk reduction is well known to be a misleading number, which is why the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead, which begs the question how many people would have chosen to take the COVID-19 vaccines have they understood that they offered less than 1% benefit?

How are you feeling about the Kung Flu?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from Red Voice Media, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

***Follow Us On TELEGRAM***

Less than a 1% benefit but at what risk of an adverse reaction?

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary. Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.