Peer-reviewed study confirms efficacy is not 95% but: between 0% and 1.3%

submitted by zyxzevn from i.redd.it

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here is that fucking source.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/
The relative risk reduction is just P-hacking. They remove most of the data to get a high number,.
Similar peer-reviewed article:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext

I already discovered this problem in the first trials:
British Medical Journal. Peter Doshi: the efficacy is 19% not 90% (with different groups)