The Deceptive Math Behind Vaccine Marketing
How Propaganda and Misleading Statistics Fueled Compliance
There are several authors in Canary in a Covid World: How Propaganda and Censorship Changed Our (My) World — including Professor Norman Fenton, Dr. Jessica Rose, Ed Dowd, and Professor Denis Rancourt — who provide detailed data analysis on vaccine injuries and deaths.
At the heart of the misinformation that misled the world is a deceptively simple marketing tactic employed by Big Pharma to drive compliance. Dr. Aseem Malhotra in chapter 13 (Vol 1) also explains this tactic used and wonders how many people would have gone ahead with the vaccine if they had known it offered less than 1% absolute protection rather than 95% protection they were lead to believe.
Here is a quick review:
Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) vs. Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)
ARR and RRR are two ways of reporting the effectiveness of medical interventions, such as vaccines. While both measure risk reduction, they tell very different stories about the actual benefit of the intervention.
Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)
Definition: ARR measures the actual difference in risk between two groups — those receiving the intervention and those not receiving it.
Formula:
ARR=Risk in control group−Risk in treatment group
Example:
If 10% of a control group (no treatment) experiences a disease, and only 5% of the treatment group does, the ARR is:
10% − 5% = 5%
In this case, for every 100 people treated, 5 are helped.
Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)
Definition: RRR compares the reduction in risk between the treatment and control groups as a proportion of the control group's risk.
Formula:
RRR = ARR / Risk in control group ×100
Example:
Using the same data as above:
RRR= 5% / 10% ×100= 50%
Here, "the treatment reduces the risk by 50%" sounds much larger than the ARR.
COVID-19 Vaccine Trials: 95% RRR vs. 0.84% ARR
The COVID-19 vaccine trials famously reported a 95% RRR, which became a headline-grabbing statistic and a cornerstone of public health campaigns. However, the ARR — the actual difference in risk between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups — was only 0.84%.
Here’s the breakdown:
Trial Data:
In the vaccine group, about 0.04% of participants developed COVID-19.
In the placebo group, about 0.88% of participants developed COVID-19.
The difference (ARR): 0.88% − 0.04% = 0.84%
Relative Risk Reduction:
The proportional reduction: 0.84% / 0.88% × 100 = 95%
How This Misled the Public
Overstated Benefit:
A 95% RRR sounds dramatic and suggests that the vaccine prevents almost all cases of COVID-19. However, the ARR of 0.84% reveals that fewer than 1 in 100 people actually benefitted from the vaccine in absolute terms.Marketing Manipulation:
Public health officials and pharmaceutical companies focused on the RRR because it was more compelling. This led many people to believe the vaccines offered nearly total protection, which was not the case for the average individual.Lack of Context:
The baseline risk of COVID-19 for most healthy individuals was already low. Reporting only the RRR obscured this context, making the intervention seem more impactful than it was in practical terms.Public Trust Erosion:
When people later learned about the small ARR, it fueled skepticism about the transparency of vaccine campaigns and eroded trust in public health messaging.
Why Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) is Better
Transparency: ARR provides a clear and realistic measure of benefit, helping people make informed decisions based on actual outcomes.
Avoids Exaggeration: Unlike RRR, ARR does not inflate perceived benefits, especially in low-risk scenarios.
Informed Consent: Providing both RRR and ARR ensures individuals understand the full picture, respecting their right to make educated health choices.
Conclusion
The COVID-19 vaccine trials’ reliance on the 95% RRR without emphasizing the 0.84% ARR misled many into believing the vaccines offered extraordinary protection. While vaccines have their place in reducing disease burden, the focus on RRR over ARR served marketing purposes rather than fostering informed decision-making. For an honest and transparent understanding of medical interventions, Absolute Risk Reduction should always be communicated alongside RRR.
