"Over a decade ago I finally found absolute proof that the entire profession of medicine had been bamboozled by cunning statistical trickery in order to convince physicians to prescribe their drugs." —Dr. Gary G. Kohls, MD

Merck’s Fosamax Fraud and Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Covid-19 “Vaccines” Statistical Trickery: What Big Pharma Doesn’t Want Doctors (or Their Patients) to Understand

The Actual/Absolute Risk Reduction (AAR), the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) and the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) are Important, Truth-telling Statistics that Physicians are (Intentionally?) not Taught in Med School.

Watch the short video explaining the important differences between the deceptive Relative Risk Reduction statistic {that is consistently used by Big Pharma, Big Medicine, and Big Media to overstate the benefits of all drugs and vaccines] and the Absolute Risk Reduction statistic that tells the truth about the ineffectiveness of most drugs and vaccines @ https://rumble.com/vobcg5-relative-vs-absolute-risk-reduction.html

Gary G. Kohls, MD

Duty to Warn. March 7, 2021 (slightly modified February 1, 2022)

Over a decade ago I finally found absolute proof that the entire profession of medicine had been bamboozled by cunning statistical trickery in order to convince physicians to prescribe their drugs. The turning point for me came when Merck & Company kept proclaiming in its propaganda campaign that its so-called “fracture-preventive” drug Fosamax was “50% effective” in preventing fractures in postmenopausal women who were osteopenic or osteoporotic.

I had always been suspicious of the veracity of the pharmaceutical corporation’s sales reps, so I decided in 2007 to check out where Merck got the convincing-sounding "50% effectiveness" figure that got so many of us physicians to first order the expensive bone densitometry tests and then prescribe the expensive, still-experimental drug to the many post-menopausal women were demanding–thanks to direct-to-consumer advertising—be prescribed for them.

I carefully read the Fosamax pre-clinical study information that was in the FDA-approved product insert and was appalled. (It is helpful to note that all drug and vaccine makers are required by the FDA to publish their pre-clinical trial information about their products and then include a copy of that information so that both patients and physicians will be able to be fully informed about adverse effects before administering the prescription.)

Of course, it is the rare, over-worked physician that has the time, energy, or inclination to read the drug or vaccine information in the product inserts. And it is the even more rare patient that is given the opportunity to able the insert information.

Lying buried in the confusing amount of information (that Merck probably hoped was never comprehended) was the information that revealed that the so-called “50% efficacy rate” only applied to patients who took Fosamax continuously for a 4-year study period. There was a passing reference to the deceptive Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) figure that I later discovered is ALWAYS used by drug and vaccine companies to deceptively over-state the “effectiveness” of their products.

By doing a little math I understood that the post-menopausal patient-victims of the prescribing physicians (who were both conditioned by Merck’s unrelenting propaganda to be irrationally fearful of the rare fractures) had to take Fosamax for at least 4 years before they would actually experience a minuscule 1% Actual/Absolute Risk Reduction (AAR) in the incidence of fractures, which is a much more realistic figure than what Merck, being the amoral, sociopathic entity that all Big Pharma/Big Vaccine corporations are, chose to advertise to us gullible physicians.

It is a fact that being truthful in the drug or vaccine industry is an impediment to selling products because they would be admitting they were selling a lousy, fraudulent, relatively ineffective, or dangerous drug or vaccine. And it also is a fact that the radiologists and radiology departments at clinics and hospitals benefitted financially from the deceptive Fosamax campaigns.

The Fosamax/Bisphosphonate Fraud

Incidentally, Merck and some of the other Big Pharma corporations who eventually started marketing “me-too drugs” are now being sued by thousands of patients that have been damaged by the drug. True to the amoral natures of all multinational pharmaceutical corporations, corporations continue to use delaying tactics in settling the over 4,000 lawsuits against them from patients who suffered drug-induced femoral fractures as well as drug-induced osteonecrosis and chronic osteomyelitis following dental extractions.

So, it came as no shock to me to discover that every vaccine maker uses the same deceptive Relative Risk Reduction statistic (instead of the more meaningful Actual Risk Reduction) for their vaccines that Merck was using back when Fosamax was the darling money-maker for the drug and bone-imaging industries. And that includes the scores of pharmaceutical corporations that are currently – and unethically - fast-tracking the experimental Covid-19 vaccines.

To better understand the Fosamax/Bisphosphonate Fraud, read my 2017 Duty to Warn column on the subject at: http://vaccineimpact.com/2017/retired-medical-doctor-exposes-deceptive-statistics-used-to-justify-billion-dollar-flu-vaccine-and-drug-market/

Fosamax (and All the Other So-called Osteoporosis-prevention Drugs) Prospered Because of Statistical Trickery—Until Merck Started Getting Sued

Fosamax had indeed been shown in some osteopenic patients to increase bone density, but the assumption that increased bone density equals increased bone “strength” was fallacious and it is likely that every patient that took the drug long-term suffered adverse effects. GlaxoSmithKline, who marketed Boniva, has also been inundated with lawsuits that are NEVER covered by the corporate-controlled mainstream media.

The infamous propaganda statement that “Fosamax reduces hip fractures by 50%” was based on the misleading “relative” statistics that came from the original 4-year clinical trials. What was intentionally not mentioned in Merck’s direct-to-consumer propaganda campaign was that the Actual Risk Reduction benefit for Fosamax was only 1% (not 50%), a minuscule figure that would have made anybody in their right mind  “Fosamax-hesitant”.

The Fosamax hip fracture study was conducted on a group of post-menopausal women who were regarded as being at risk for future fractures. In the Fosamax-treated patients, an average of 1 out of every 100 patients suffered hip fractures after 4 years—an incidence of 1%—whereas an average of 2 out of every 100 placeboes (non-drugged) patients suffered hip fractures, an incidence of 2%. Of course, none of the placebo group suffered the Fosamax-caused osteonecrosis of the jaw!

To come up with the misleading RRR calculation of 50%, Merck’s statisticians divided 1% by 2% and came up with the intentionally deceptive 50% reduction—relatively speaking. This statistical trickery is exactly how vaccine corporations like Pfizer and Moderna are claiming 90% efficacy—an intentionally-deceptive “relative” risk reduction figure.

It is a sobering reality to have to state that every public health bureaucrat or academic—scientist, pseudo-scientist or pharma shill—that is employed at the NIH, the CDC, the NIAID, and FDA doesn’t seem to have any awareness of the boondoggle they are perpetrating on the gullible politicians, the mainstream media, the public and us physicians.

But, in order to deceive us, physicians, into being willing to prescribe potentially dangerous drugs like Fosamax, the actual risk reduction figure of 1% (2% minus 1% = 1%) had to be kept well-hidden.

Merck’s Fosamax deception also meant that 98% of non-drug treated patients AND 99% of Fosamax-treated patients did not get hip fractures, meaning that the Fosamax group received close to zero benefit from taking the toxic and costly drug.

Covid-19 vaccine statistical trickery

The same reality is happening with the dozens of fast-tracked, experimental Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer.  Here are some statistics that prove their actual worthlessness:

  • “There were 44,000 people in the two arms of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine trial. Here are the raw statistics of the placebo vs. the vaccine group: (Note that the primary endpoints in each group were cough, fever, headache, muscle pain, and/or chills PLUS a positive PCR test, which results in false positives in up to 97% of PCR-positive patients!)
  • “The Pfizer placebo group: 162/22,000 (= 0.736%) were diagnosed with Covid.
  • “The Pfizer vaccine group: 8/22,000 (= 0.036%) were diagnosed with Covid
  • “In calculating the ARR, one subtracts 0.036% from 0.736%, which represents a minuscule actual risk reduction difference of only 0.7%, which is far below the heavily advertised, deceptive RRR of 95%, which was calculated by dividing 8 by 162 = 0.049 = 4.9%, which is subtracted from 100% to arrive at the unscientific 95% RRR figure.

An important reality to note is that pharmaceutical and psychiatric industries use the RRR deception routinely, whether they are marketing vaccines, drugs and medical devices.

An easy-to-understand video to explain the differences between the ARR and the RRR (2 minutes) is available at:
https://rumble.com/vobcg5-relative-vs-absolute-risk-reduction.html

Fool Me Once, Shame on You; Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me

In other words, the multinational Big Pharma/Big Vaccine corporations are still bamboozling us doctors, the public, and the terminally-co-opted institutions such as the AMA, AAP, APA, AAFP, and the average politician that takes corporate campaign “donations” that then make them beholden to the “donors”.

I devote the remainder of this article reporting examples of studies from courageous researchers who actually published some very important statistics that should be revealed whenever a drug or vaccine is being propagandized.

One of the most important taboo figures is the NNV (the Number Needed to Vaccinate), which tells prospective vaccinees how many people will have to be vaccinated in order for one of them to receive a benefit. As will be explained below, in order to arrive at the NNV figure, the more legitimate Absolute Risk Reduction statistic must be calculated – and revealed - which never happens in the mainstream medical journals that publish Big Pharma’s clinical vaccine studies. NNVs are almost never mentioned in medical journal articles or in vaccine product inserts.

Vaccine Efficacy (VE)

The chances of an adverse event occurring (because of the inevitable toxic effects of both vaccines and drugs) can only be done by comparing two experimental groups simultaneously, one of which received an experimental vaccine (or drug) and one comparator group that received an inactive placebo. In the case of vaccines, the Relative Risk is usually reported by the drug corporations (and their media shills) as a “vaccine-efficacy? (VE) statistic (using the same mathematical trickery as was used by Merck when it alleged that there was a reduction of bone fractures by “50%”). Although Relative Risk does provide some information about risk, it doesn’t say anything about the actual odds of something happening, which is what Absolute Risk Reductions do.

Number Needed to Treat (NNT)

One can see how using the RRR to exaggerate the benefits of a drug or vaccine has become standard operating procedure for for-profit corporations - and also for most clinics and hospitals who are in cahoots with Big Pharma. This is where the ARR-derived NNT becomes most valuable to patients when they are trying to make the often-rushed decision as to whether or not to consent to a prescribed, potentially dangerous, costly, or experimental drug or vaccine. Knowing the NNT for any prescription drug makes total sense to patients who are often forced to make hasty decisions when accepting or rejecting a vaccination for their infants and children.

Admittedly, the use of fully informed consent and the NNT statistic makes delivering healthcare more difficult (and time-consuming) for healthcare providers.

The main value of the NNT is its straightforward communication of the true, unbiased science that can help both physicians and patients understand the likelihood that a patient will be helped, harmed, or unaffected by treatment. (for more information: https://www.thennt.com/thennt-explained/)

Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV)

The NNV is similar to the NNT, in that it says, in one phrase, how many patients will need to be vaccinated for just one patient to benefit from the vaccine. The larger the number, the worse the efficacy of the vaccine. A few examples are listed below.

Examples of Numbers Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) Statistics such as these can be expected to vary according to location, age, chronic illnesses, prescription drug use, and nutritional status. Googling Number Needed to Vaccinate is useful, although none of the CDC references should be trusted, because the close financial and collegial relationships between the CDC and Big Pharma create huge conflicts of interest.

The Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) for Moderna’s Vaccine is Calculated to be Between 176 to 1370

Moderna’s experimental mRNA vaccine has a grossly-exaggerated (and widely-propagandized) RRR/VE of 95%, whereas it has a minuscule, much more-truthful ARR of 0.8.%. Moderna’s Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) is between 176 to 1370 (either of which would naturally elicit vaccine hesitancy impulses.

“Moderna’s phase III trial has shown that, so far, the vaccine is 94.5% effective. (Mahase, BMJ 2020;371:m4471, November 17). As with the Pfizer vaccine news release, few numbers are provided, but we can approximate the Absolute Risk Reduction for a vaccinated individual and the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV): There were 90 cases of Covid-19 illness in a placebo group of 15,000 (= 0.006) and 5 cases in a vaccine group of 15,000 (= 0.00033). This yields an Absolute Risk Reduction of 0.00567 and a NNV = 176 (1/0.00567).

There were 11 severe illnesses, all in the placebo group, for an ARR of 0.00073 and a NNTV = 1370.

“So, to prevent one severe illness, 1370 individuals must be vaccinated. The other 1369 individuals will not be saved from a severe illness but are subject to (as yet unknown) adverse vaccine effects, whatever they may be and whenever we learn about them.” -- Allen Cunningham, MD


NNV for Flu Vaccine to Prevent One Hospitalization (for children < 4 years of age) = 1852

“Quantifying Benefits and Risks of Vaccinating Australian Children Aged Six Months to Four Years with Trivalent Inactivated Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in 2010 “

The authors state that 1852 children (in a 2009 study) would have to be vaccinated to avoid one hospitalization due to any strain of circulating influenza.

The authors also estimated that, for every hospital admission due to influenza prevented, vaccinating with Fluvax or Fluvax Junior in 2010 may have actually caused two to three hospital admissions due to vaccine-induced febrile convulsions or epilepsy.


  • NNV for Infant Flu Vaccine to Prevent One Hospitalization = >4,255
  • “Childhood influenza: NNV to Prevent One Hospitalization or Outpatient Visit”
  • From the journal Pediatrics, 120 (3) (2007), pp. 467-472. Between 4255 to 6897 children ages 24–59 months of age would have to be vaccinated for influenza to prevent one hospitalization.
  • NNV for Shingles/Herpes Zoster vaccination for adults >70 years of age = 231
  • “Live Attenuated Varicella-Zoster Vaccine: Is It Worth It?” From the UCLA Dept. of Med. 2007 Feb 20.
  • 231 adults 70 years of age or older would have to be vaccinated to prevent 1 episode of Shingles).
  • 175 adults over 60 years of age would have to be vaccinated to prevent 1 episode of Shingles.
  • NNV for Pneumococcal Vaccine in Older Adults = 5,206
  • “The Impact and Effectiveness of (23 Valent) Pneumococcal Vaccination in Scotland for Those Aged 65 and Over During Winter 2003/2004”. From the journal BMC Infectious Diseases2008:53
  • The average NNV for adults >age 65 was 5206 (range: 4388 - 7122) per invasive pneumococcal infectious disease case prevented.
  • The calculated Relative Vaccine Effectiveness (RVE) in this study was 61.7%, (!), thus exposing the lack of utility of the deceptive VE statistic.

  • NNV for Tuberculosis Vaccine (Ireland) = 646
  • “Neonatal BCG vaccination in Ireland: evidence of its efficacy in the prevention of childhood tuberculosis”. Reported in the journal Eur Respir J, 10 (3) (1997), pp. 619-623
  • 646 children had to be vaccinated with Ireland’s neonatal Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine to prevent one case of tuberculosis in 1986.

  • NNV for Gardasil in Sexually Inactive 12-Year-old Girls = 9,080
  • Estimating the Number Needed to Vaccinate to Prevent Diseases and Death Related to Human Papillomavirus Infection. CMAJ. 2007 Aug 28; 177(5): 464–468.
  • 324 sexually-inactive 12 year-old girls would have to be vaccinated with Gardasil in order to prevent one case of cervical cancer if lifelong protection is obtained from the vaccine, there is an efficacy rate of 95% and no waning of immunity occurs (all three assumptions are absurd)
  • 9,080 sexually inactive 12 year-old girls would have to be vaccinated with Gardasil in order to prevent one case of cervical cancer - if the efficacy rate is 95%, if lifelong protection from the vaccine is obtained and the immunologic protection wanes at only 3% per year (all three assumptions are still likely unobtainable). Therefore, an NNV of 9,080 is likely to be an extremely over-optimistic estimate.
  • 9,080 sexually inactive 12-year-old girls would have to be vaccinated with Gardasil in order to prevent one case of cervical cancer – and that would only be true if the efficacy rate is 95%, if lifelong protection from the vaccine is obtained and if the immunologic protection wanes at only 3% per year (all three assumptions are likely unobtainable)
    Therefore, an NNV of 9,080 is likely to be an extremely over-optimistic estimate.
  • NNV for Group B Meningococcal Vaccine = >33,000
  • “Epidemiology of serogroup B invasive meningococcal disease in Ontario, Canada, 2000 to 2010”. BMC Infect Dis, 12 (1) (2012), p. 202
  • Over 33,000 infants would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of serogroup B invasive meningococcal disease–and that assumes that there is permanent efficacy–an unlikely possibility.
  • NNV to Prevent one Healthy Adult from Experiencing Influenza = 71
  • “Vaccines to Prevent Influenza in Healthy Adults”. Cochrane Review Feb 1, 2018
  • 71 healthy adults needed to be vaccinated with the flu vaccine in order to prevent one of them from experiencing influenza (in 2017)

The following NNTs (Number Needed to Treat) are for low-risk patients who took statins for 5 years (and whose only risk was an elevated lipid profile but with no documented coronary artery disease) compared to patients that did not take statins for 5 years

“Statins for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease”

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jan 19;(1): CD004816

http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-prior-heart-disease-2/

  • The NNT to prevent one heart attack after 5 years of constant statin use: - 104
  • The NNT to prevent one stroke: 154
  • The NNH (Number Needed to Harm) for developing rhabdomyonecrosis (death of heart muscle tissue) and congestive heart failure = 10

Summary

  • 104 patients would have had to take statins for 5 years for one case of heart attack to have been prevented
  • 154 patients would have had to take statins for 5 years for one case of stroke to have been prevented
  • There was no difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups. In other words, there was no improvement in mortality statistics by taking statins.

However, for patients taking statins for 5 years 2 % of them (1 out of every 50) developed diabetes (significantly more than the no statin group).

For patients taking statins for 5 years, 10% of them (1 out of every 10) developed significant statin-induced rhabdomyolysis (more accurately-termed “rhabdomyonecrosis”), which means the death/necrosis of muscle tissue involving either heart muscle and/or peripheral muscle).

A Number Needed to Harm (NNH) figure of 10% is highly likely to be an underestimate because physicians who prescribe drugs and vaccines typically don’t make the diagnosis of iatrogenic illnesses (disorders caused by physicians, drugs, vaccines, or surgical procedures).

For a list of the studies that back up the statin figures, go to: http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-prior-heart-disease-2/

Dr Gary G. Kohls lives in the USA and writes articles that deal with the dangers of fascism, corporatism, totalitarianism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, and Big Pharma’s over-drugging and over-vaccinating agendas. In addition, his columns deal with all movements that threaten democracy, war, civility, health, freedom, the future of the children and the sustainability and livability of the planet.

Dr Kohls is a past member of Mind Freedom International, the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, and the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. He is a signatory to and/or an advocate of the principles of the Great Barrington Declaration, the World Doctors Alliance and America's Front Line Doctors.

Dr Kohls practiced holistic medicine and preventive psychiatry for the last decades of his medical career, largely helping the wounded, over-medicated survivors of psychiatry that had often been misdiagnosed and over-medicated with cocktails of neurotoxic, addictive drugs that had never been tested for safety when used in combination.

His Duty to Warn columns have been re-published around the world for the last decade. The column frequently also deals with Big Vaccine’s over-vaccinating and Big Medicine’s over-screening, over-diagnosing and over-treating agendas.

Many of Dr Kohls’ columns have been archived at a number of websites, including:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls;
http://freepress.org/geographic-scope/national;
https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/gary-g-kohls/?ptype=article;
https://www.transcend.org/tms/author/?a=Gary G. Kohls, MD; and
http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2;