It isn't "my article", I think Dr Kory is kinda of a kook. I was just replying to one of his ivermectin followers. If you believe Kory's hype on IVM, you should listen to his whole message and take the vaccine as well.
As for the Lancet, you don't understand what the numbers mean, particularly ARR.
Let’s say a study enrolled 20,000 patients into the control group and 20,000 in the vaccine group. In that study, 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 people in the vaccine group got sick. Even though the vaccine efficacy would be a whopping 100%, the ARR would show that vaccines reduce the absolute risk by just 1% (200/20,000= 1%). For the ARR to increase to 20% in our example study with a vaccine with 100% efficacy, 4,000 of the 20,000 people in the control group would have to get sick (4,000/20,000= 20%).”
Here is what the author of the Lancet piece said about people distorting his study:
When asked about the claim, Olliaro, professor of poverty related infectious diseases at the Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health of Oxford University ( here ) told Reuters via email it was “extremely disappointing to see how information can be twisted.” He also said, “Bottom line: these vaccines are good public health interventions,” and added that in the commentary, “We do not say vaccines do not work.”
Sorry to say you are the victim of propaganda meant to damage
I have Wayne07 written down a few months back as a Bad actor on freerepublic.
What that means to me is that you ignore or manipulate data to make an argument. Meaning you did this to me in the past.
This is far worse then a troll.
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making. In this example, the ARR is 8 per cent (20 per cent - 12 per cent = 8 per cent). This means that, if 100 children were treated, 8 would be prevented from developing bad outcomes.
Relative risk reduction (RRR) tells you by how much the treatment reduced the risk of bad outcomes relative to the control group who did not have the treatment.
more on the differences:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63647/ From the report from the lancet
" With the use of only RRRs, and omitting ARRs, reporting bias is introduced, which affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy"