yeap that report was proven wrong. Got a link or quote, please?
Was this the '95% relative risk' report?
yes. Though they're wrong on all accounts.
vaccines are 95 percent effective” comes from They misleadingly calculate the “effective” number by calculating the reduction in infections from the vaccinated versus the placebo which was 0.74 (placebo)-0.04 (vax)=0.7 and then they divide that result by the total placebo cases to get the 95% effective rate: 0.7/0.74=0.95.
This report shows relative risk was in error.
https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm It came from this Pfizer report. This report has a lot of interesting things in it that is simply nuts.
From page 15 it says the doses they used for BNT162b2 the product that was shipped the dose that tested for was 30μg. The standard dose for the shot is 100μg (from second link from WHO)
BNT162b1(BNT162 RNA-LNP vaccine utilizing modRNA and encoding the RBD): 10μg, 20μg,30μg, 100 μg
BNT162b2(BNT162 RNA-LNP vaccine utilizing modRNA and encoding the P2 S): 10μg, 20μg,30μg
(testing for shedding (Exposure During Pregnancy) page 67)
https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2020/11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020_Pfizer_BioNTech.pdf The Lancet report showing Zero antibodies produced is the SAME study updated:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3965504/posts?page=172#172