The Real Efficacy of Covid-19 Vaccines – a Medical Researcher Debunks the Claims

How this Article Began

Dear Reader,

I probably would not be writing this if the link had not been taken down. When I first opened it in my inbox, it was a Youtube video of someone explaining a scientific article published in NCBI in March, 2021. This was not your typical junky anti-Covid message. NCBI is the National Coalition Building Institute of Rochester, N.Y., Inc. This is a not-for-profit corporation, affiliated with NCBI International, whose mission is to eliminate racism and all forms of oppression and discrimination. The article was archived in PubMed Central, a source I have often used for my own medical research.  The title of the article, which can be found here, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/ was Outcome Reporting Bias in Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials. For someone like me, this was golden.

Immediately interested, I began following along but something interrupted me. When I returned to it a day or two later, I was dismayed to find that the video of a PubMed article had been taken down. This article was not your run of the mill conspiracy theory video, but a legitimate scientific paper that was being explained to a lay person.  Fortunately, I had recorded the title of the publication and was able to search for it online. I then proceeded to do my own analysis of the Covid vaccine research data to unearth what could have been so controversial about this article as to cause it to be taken down from Youtube.

The article itself is a very dry read on Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) vs. Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) of the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, but the conclusions are anything but dry. The concepts, however, are difficult to grasp, even for doctors since most of them have no research training. One needs to have knowledge and experience in clinical research and willingness to spend the time to conduct and explain a statistical analysis. Since I have invested the time, I am about to explain ARR and RRR because any consent to any intervention must be properly informed. In other words, informed consent means that one must be told and must understand everything about a treatment or procedure before consenting to it. This is the law in most countries where it would also apply to Covid-19 vaccination.

Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) and Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)

Why are ARR and RRR very important? Very simply, let’s assume you have 100 people in a Treatment group and another 100 people in a Control or placebo group. Then, let’s say that 2 people get Disease X in the Control group while one person gets Disease X in the Treatment group. The Relative Risk Reduction or RRR in this example is 50% because one diseased person is 50% or half of 2 diseased people. However, the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) is only 1% because in the treatment group, only one fewer people out of 100 participants got Disease X. You can also work it out using these formulas:

  1. In the Treatment group, 1/100 got Disease X = 1% which is the EER (Experimental Event Rate)
  2. In the Control or placebo group, 2/100 got Disease X = 2% which is the CER (Control Event Rate)
  3. ARR (Absolute Risk Reduction) = CER – EER = 2% – 1% = 1%   

In a subtraction the % signs carry through the equation and are kept.

  1. RRR (Relative Risk Reduction) = ARR divided by CER = 1% divided by 2% = ½ 

In a division, the % signs cancel each other out and are not kept, but ½ is the same as 50%.

Let’s say the Treatment in this example had side effects, as most treatments do. If a patient were offered this Treatment and was told that the “efficacy” (how well the treatment works) was only 1% (the ARR) which is the true efficacy, this patient would be much less likely to accept the Treatment and its side effects than if he or she were told the efficacy was 50%. Fifty percent sounds a lot more promising than 1% but it reflects only the comparison between the diseased people of each group. The ARR or 1% efficacy is much more accurate as it reflects how many more people out of 100 will be protected from Disease X as a result of the Treatment. To just say that the Treatment is 50% effective in this scenario by ignoring the ARR is to introduce outcome reporting bias.

Applying ARR and RRR to Pfizer’s mRNA Covid-19  Vaccine Data

Now let’s apply these formulas to Pfizer’s data  as presented in their product monograph, the whole of which can be found here https://www.pfizer.ca/sites/default/files/202105/Pfizer-BioNTech_COVID-19_Vaccine_PM_EN_252524_19-May-2021.pdf) Section 14 discusses the methodology and analysis of their data, but note that this is a product monograph, a synopsis, and not the full scientific paper, which is more difficult to find. I have copied section 14 below, highlighting key areas in yellow and added my own comments in red.

Section 14.1 Trial Design and Study Demographics

The safety and efficacy of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine were evaluated in a Phase 2/3 randomized, placebo-controlled, multicentre study in participants 12 years of age and older. Based on data accrued through November 14, 2020, a total of 43,651 (21,823 in the Pfizer- BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine group and 21,828 in the placebo group) (this is the initial number of participants at the onset of the study) Participants were randomized equally to receive 2 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine or placebo separated by 21 days (19-23 days, per protocol). Randomization was stratified by age: 12 through 15 years of age, 16 through 55 years of age, or 56 years of age and older, with a minimum of 40% of participants in the ≥ 56-year stratum. 

The study excluded participants who were immunocompromised and those who had previous clinical or microbiological diagnosis of COVID-19 disease. (Despite this, many health authorities are currently vaccinating many immunocompromised patients as well those who had previous Covid-19 disease) Participants with pre-existing stable disease, defined as disease not requiring significant change in therapy or hospitalization for worsening disease during the 6 weeks before enrolment, were included as were participants with known stable infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) or hepatitis B virus (HBV). 

The primary endpoint was defined as any symptomatic COVID-19 case confirmed by Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR). (The study did not measure how many lives this vaccine saved. It measured how many cases of Covid-19 infection this vaccine prevented) The population for the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint included participants who did not have evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 through 7 days after the second dose (first primary efficacy endpoint), as well as participants with and without evidence of prior infections with SARS-CoV-2 through 7 days  after the second dose (second primary efficacy endpoint). Participants are planned to be followed for up to 24 months, (The vaccine was approved for use prior to the end of the 24 month trial with no long term data available. Trial data is still being collected along with real world data) for assessments of safety and efficacy against COVID-19 disease. 

Table 8 presents the specific demographic characteristics in the studied population. 

Table 8: Demographic Characteristics – Subjects Without Evidence of Infection Prior to 7 Days After Dose 2 – Evaluable Efficacy (7 Days) Population (Data Accrued Through November 14, 2020) 

  Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (Na=18,242)
n (%) 
Placebo (Na=18,379) n (%)  Total (Na=36,621) n (%) 
Sex Male 
Female 
9318 (51.1)
8924 (48.9) 
9225 (50.2)
9154 (49.8) 
18,543 (50.6)
18,078 (49.4) 
Age at Vaccination (years) Mean (SD)
Median
Min, max 
50.6 (15.70)
52.0 (12, 89) 
50.4 (15.81)
52.0 (12, 91) 
50.5 (15.76)
52.0 (12, 91) 
Age group
12-15 years
16-55 years 
>55 years 
³65 years 

46 (0.3) 
10,428 (57.2) 
7768 (42.6) 
3980 (21.8) 

42 (0.2)
10,507 (57.2) 
7830 (42.6) 
4038 (22.0) 

88 (0.2)
20,935 (57.2) 
15,598 (42.6) 
8018 (21.9) 
Race
White 
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska native
Asian
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Multiracial
Not reported 
15,110 (82.8)
1617 (8.9)
118 (0.6)
815 (4.5)
48 (0.3)
448 (2.5)
86 (0.5) 
15,301 (83.3)
1617 (8.8)
106 (0.6)
810 (4.4)
29 (0.2)
402 (2.2)
114 (0.6) 
30,411 (83.0)
3234 (8.8)
224 (0.6)
1625 (4.4)
77 (0.2)
850 (2.3)
200 (0.5) 
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Not Hispanic or Latino Not reported 
4886 (26.8)
13,253 (72.7)
103 (0.6) 
4857 (26.4)
13,412 (73.0)
110 (0.6) 
9743 (26.6)
26,665 (72.8)
213 (0.6) 
Country
Argentina
Brazil
Germany
South Africa USA 
2561 (14.0)
1232 (6.8)
121 (0.7)
287 (1.6)
14,041 (77.0) 
2539 (13.8)
1223 (6.7)
126 (0.7)
279 (1.5)
14,212 (77.3) 
5100 (13.9)
2455 (6.7)
247 (0.7)
566 (1.5)
28,253 (77.1) 
  Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (Na=18,242)
n (%) 
Placebo (Na=18,379) n (%)  Total (Na=36,621) n (%) 
Comorbidities1 
Yes 
No 

8432 (46.2)
9810 (53.8) 

8450 (46.0)
9929 (54.0) 

16,882 (46.1)
19,739 (53.9) 

a 1 

N = Number of subjects in the specified group, or the total sample. This value is the denominator for the percentage calculations. 

Number of subjects who have 1 or more comorbidities that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 disease: e.g. asthma, BMI ≥30 kg/m2, chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension. 

14.2 Study Results 

Efficacy in Participants 16 Years of Age and Older (Based on Cut-off Date of November 14, 2020) 

The analysis of the first primary efficacy endpoint (population without evidence of infection prior to 7 days after dose 2) included 36,523 participants 16 years of age and older (18,198 in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine group and 18,325 in the placebo group). (These are the numbers in the control and vaccine groups towards the end of the study. Reduced numbers towards the end of a study is a typical occurrence. The numbers are still sufficient for analysis.) At the time of the final primary efficacy analysis, participants had been followed for symptomatic COVID-19 disease for a median of 2 months, corresponding to 2,214 person-years for the Pfizer- BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and 2,222 person-years in the placebo group. 

There were 8 confirmed COVID-19 cases identified in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and 162 in placebo groups, respectively, for the first primary efficacy analysis. In this analysis, compared to placebo, efficacy of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in participants with first COVID-19 occurrence from 7 days after Dose 2 (participants without evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2) was 95.0% (95% credible interval of 90.3% to 97.6%). In participants 65 years of age and older without evidence of prior infections with SARS-CoV-2, efficacy of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine was 94.7% (two-sided 95% confidence interval of 66.7% to 99.9%). In the second primary efficacy analysis (participants 16 years of age and older with or without evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2), compared to placebo, efficacy of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in participants with first COVID-19 occurrence from 7 days after Dose 2 was 94.6% (95% credible interval of 89.9% to 97.3%). (Pfizer uses the term “efficacy was 95%” but makes no distinction between RRR (relative risk reduction) and ARR (Absolute Risk Reduction). In addition, there is no statistical analysis provided to explain how the investigators arrived at a 95% “efficacy” rate. This is the source of Pfizer’s outcome reporting bias.

*Case definition: (at least 1 of) fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhoea or vomiting. 

Analysis of Pfizer’s Data

  1. In the vaccine group, 8/18,198 got Covid-19 infection (not death) = 0.044%
    This is the EER (Experimental Event Rate)
  1. In the Control (placebo) group, 162/18,325 got covid-19 infection (not death ) = 0.884% 
    This is the CER (Control Event Rate)
  1. ARR (Absolute Risk Reduction) = CER – EER = 0.884% – 0.044% = 0.84% = 0.84/100 = 0.0084
  2. RRR (Relative Risk Reduction) = ARR divided by CER or 0.84% divided by 0.884% = 0.95 

As this formula involves division, the percentage signs cancel out. 0.95 is the same as 95% which is what the Pfizer study reports for “efficacy.” An “efficacy” of 95% gives the impression that one is 95% less likely to catch Covid-19 if one is vaccinated with Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine. However,

  1. the ARR or Absolute Risk Reduction, which is 0.0084 or 0.84%,  is actually less than 1%

As shown under the ARR and RRR heading above, the ARR (of any study) is far more accurate than the RRR, but clearly, 95% sounds much more compelling than <1%. Referring to the “efficacy” of the Pfizer vaccine as 95% is not technically incorrect, but it is very misleading as this value does not properly inform the vaccine recipient. Such misrepresentation is at the very least unethical and at most illegal in many countries which require informed consent. Unfortunately, it is easy for outcome reporting bias to escape detection since the average individual, including the average doctor, does not understand ARR and RRR and will automatically assume that “95% efficacy” means 95% less likely to get Covid-19 in the real world.

Another way of understanding the ARR is by calculating the number needed to treat, or the NNT. The NNT in this case would be the number of people who would need to be vaccinated to prevent ONE case of Covid-19 infection (not death, since the study did not measure death) Here is the calculation:

  • NNT = 1/ARR = 1 divided by 0.84% = 1/0.0084 = 119 people. 

Note how 1/119 is also less than 1%

If we extrapolate an NNT of 119 to a population of 330 million, assuming the entire population of the USA were vaccinated with the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, 2.77 million Covid-19 infections (not deaths) would be prevented.

Analysis of Covid-19 Death Prevention

Covid-19 Survival RatesTo date, there have been 33,217,718 Covid-19 recorded cases in the US and 593,282 recorded Covid-19 deaths. These statistics can be found here https://covidusa.net/ and their validity assumes that Covid cases have not been underestimated and Covid deaths have not been overestimated. If 2.77 million Covid-19 cases had been prevented by fully vaccinating every US citizen, the US would still have experienced  approximately 30,447,780 Covid infections and by extrapolation 543,810 Covid deaths, a reduction of 49,472 deaths or 1.78% fewer Covid-19 deaths.

“CDC data also show that Americans, regardless of age group, are far more likely to die of something other than COVID-19. Even among those in the most heavily impacted age group (85+), only 13.3 percent of all deaths since February 2020 were due to COVID-19.

A similar analysis of Moderna’s raw data which can be found in their product monograph here https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf, shows a Relative Risk Reduction of 94%, an Absolute Risk Reduction of 1.2%, and a NNT of 83. In other words, Moderna’s Covid-19 case prevention is only marginally better than Pfizer’s.

From experience, we already know that self-isolation (staying home) when symptomatically ill, appropriate distancing and appropriate masking are more effective than less than 1%, the protection afforded by a Covid-19 vaccine. Otherwise, countries would not have been able to control this pandemic to any extent prior to the introduction of any vaccine.

Compared to providing Covid-19 protection, these mRNA vaccines are much more effective in enriching their already wealthy pharmaceutical producers, or those who have heavily invested in them. For the public good, it would have made more sense, saved more money, more time and possibly more lives to have put research efforts into other potential Covid-19 treatments, such as Ivermectin, Melatonin, Vitamin D, even the highly controversial Hydroxychloroquin, or anything else that has shown any indication of being helpful either as a prevention or a cure.  Unfortunately, these are all inexpensive drugs with no hope of any appreciable returns for the pharmaceutical industry which relies on new innovations to garner profits, even if those innovations are of minimum benefit with the potential to cause great harm.

Here, I am not referring to harm from side effects, but harm from misplaced trust in a product that provides more side effects than it does protection. Justification for any treatment is found only when the benefits outweigh the risks. A quick look at the side effect rates in the tables of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s product monographs shows that although not life threatening in the studies, mild, moderate and severe side effects occurred with greater frequency than the <1% protection afforded by the Covid-19 Pfizer vaccine or the 1.2% protection afforded by the Moderna vaccine.

Implications Going Forward

Having executed this exercise, it no longer puzzles me that governments and public health departments continue to recommend social distancing, mask wearing, business closures and all the usual restrictions even for those who have had both doses of a Covid-19 vaccine. The public has also been told that there is no evidence that vaccination guarantees the prevention of Covid-19 spread or prevention. We now understand why this is true. At least the public is not being lied to all the time.

Historically, pandemics eventually run out of steam, killing off the vulnerable, not affecting those who are resistant and rendering natural immunity to the rest. Could some drug companies possibly be trying to profit as much as possible while this pandemic is still with us, and when it’s all over, take the credit for ending it? After all, we are being told that the only long-term solution to this pandemic is – immunization – but… is that true even with a <1% or 1.2% effective vaccine? Absolutely not.

Does this mean we will be required to re-immunize everyone indefinitely to prevent this pandemic from resurfacing? With vaccines that have such low efficacy, that is precisely what we may be required to do. In fact, it has already begun. Having barely finished giving our citizens their second dose, new recommendations are already emerging for booster doses of Covid-19 vaccines for the upcoming fall season. The public is already being forewarned that booster shots may be needed for a long time yet to come. Indeed, reaching herd immunity with any vaccine that has such a low efficacy would take a very, very long time. The natural infectivity of Covid-19 will achieve herd immunity much sooner and when the end of this pandemic finally comes – the vaccine will take a bow.

The low efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines also explains why Covid-19 antibody test results include a caveat that antibody testing is meaningful only after having a Covid-19 infection and not a Covid-19 immunization. It makes sense that a <1%  or 1.2% protection rate would result in a negligible antibody production rate, so why bother wasting public health dollars conducting a pointless antibody test?

And what does all this mean about the much talked about vaccine passports? Well, imagine a plane filled with (recall that Pfizer’s NNT = 119) 119 X 2 = 238 passengers, all of whom never had Covid-19 infection but all of whom got a Covid-19 vaccine. According to Pfizer’s data, only two of those travelers would actually be protected from Covid-19 if they got Pfizer’s vaccine. According to Moderna’s data, one in 83 or 2.5 people would be protected if they got Moderna’s vaccine. This low vaccine efficacy not only renders vaccine passports completely pointless but is a strong indicator that relying on them for public safety poses a great threat. A much better and safer approach for travelers would be a negative Covid-19 test, whose accuracy, although not perfect, is far better than 1% or less.

Conclusions:

Vaccination with a poor vaccine is not the panacea that will end the pandemic and bring us all back to normal. I could go on forever about the socioeconomic, ethical and legal implications of a highly ineffective vaccine that is being touted as a world savior by playing on public ignorance, fear and fatigue.  The bottom line is: If people are properly informed that their ineffective protection from a Covid vaccine is actually 1% or less, and not 95% as advertised, vaccine uptake would drop dramatically, and in this particular instance, it should. Then, we can free ourselves, our energies, time and resources, to pursue better public health recommendations that utilize good scientific research to focuses on other more meaningful breakthroughs, including but not limited to any other much better vaccine in the fight against this, and any future pandemic.

As a medical researcher, a purist who searches for factual truths, I find this type of large-scale public exploitation and manipulation by the pharmaceutical industry for personal gain, utterly deplorable. What is even more alarming is how the vast majority of my well-intentioned but misguided medical colleagues have fallen hook, line and sinker for the vaccine rhetoric and are now falling over each other to immunize one another and thousands of equally poorly informed individuals with a vaccine that has an ARR of 1% or less. Words cannot express my dismay for our centers of medical research, licensing bodies and other medical bodies, have abandoned evidence-based medicine in favor of “trust” in a misguided rhetoric, even threatening disciplinary action against any physician who refuses a Covid-19 vaccine.

As I watch my once very reliable, logical and evidence-based scientific world disintegrate, sinking into ignorance and mass madness, my only hope is that the divine intervention of our Creator will restore us back to some semblance of normal, because vaccines such as these certainly will not.

Robert Williams, MD, PhD – Medical Researcher and Member of the Orthodox Church in America

Oh hi there 👋
It’s nice to meet you.

Sign up to receive awesome content in your inbox, every month.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.