By Gary G. Kohls, MD

Truth-telling Statistics that Big Pharma, US Medical Schools, the CDC and the Mainstream Media Never Report to Us Physicians (or Our Patients)

http://vaccineimpact.com/2018/mercks-fosamax-fraud-demonstrates-how-big-pharma-and-cdc-spin-statistics-to-sell-ineffective-vaccines-and-drugs/

It has been over a decade since I came to the realization that the entire profession of medicine had been bamboozled by the endless propaganda coming from Big Pharma drug and vaccine makers like Merck & Company. The turning point for me came when Merck endlessly proclaimed that its so-called “fracture-preventive” drug Fosamax was “50% effective” in preventing fractures in osteopenic/osteoporotic women.

I had always been vaguely suspicious of pharmaceutical sales reps and the Big Pharma corporations that they worked for. It took me awhile, but I finally got around to check out where Merck’s reps got the 50% effectiveness figure that convinced so many of us physicians to order the expensive bone densitometry tests and then prescribe the equally expensive drug to the many post-menopausal women that had been so effectively propagandized to demand that Fosamax be prescribed for them.

I carefully read the clinical study statistics that were in the FDA-approved product insert for the drug. (It is helpful to note that all drug and vaccine makers are required by the FDA to publish relevant information concerning their drugs and vaccines and then include the printed information for both patients and physicians to be able to consult, ideally so that patients can be fully informed about adverse effects.

Of course, it is the rare, over-worked physician that has the time, energy or inclination to read the information in the insert. And it is likewise the rare patient that is able to even superficially understand the verbiage.

Lying buried among the large number of boring statistics were printed the numbers that revealed that the 50% efficacy rate for patients who took Fosamax (over a 4 year period (!) was actually a passing reference to the deceptive relative risk reduction (RRR) figure that drastically over-stated the benefits and effectiveness of the drug.

By doing a little math I understood that female patients who were propagandized to be afraid of fractures had to take Fosamax for 4 years – and only after 4 years would they have a miniscule 1-2% absolute risk reduction (AAR) in the incidence of fractures, which is a much more realistic figure than what Merck, being the sociopathic entity that it and all Big Pharma/Big Vaccine corporations are, chose to advertise.

It is a fact that being truthful in the drug or vaccine industry is an impediment to selling product because they would be admitting they were selling a lousy, fraudulent, relatively ineffective or dangerous drug or vaccine. Of course the radiology departments at clinics and hospitals benefitted from the deceptive Fosamax story as well.

The Fosamax/Bisphosphomate Fraud

Incidentally Merck – and many of the other Big Pharma corporations making me-too Fosamax drugs - are being sued by thousands of patients that have been damaged by the drug and, true to Merck’s sociopathic nature, the company continues to use delaying tactics in legally settle the 4,115 lawsuits against it from patients who suffered Fosamax-induced bone fractures, osteonecrosis and chronic infections of the jaw bones beneath the dental extraction site.

Thanks to Merck’s deceptive propaganda tactics concerning its “bisphosphonate” , so-called osteoporosis drug, we physicians ignorantly - but energetically - prescribed the drug for decades, thus inadvertently also deceiving our patients, some of whom suffered the tragic chronic illness called Fosamax-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw, an incurable disease that only came to light when thousands of dentists did otherwise standard dental extractions on Fosamax patients and then found that the extraction sites never healed, resulting in osteomyelitis (a painful chronic infection of a bone) and even fractures in other bones such as the thigh bone (femur).

As of 2018, 1200 of those osteonecrosis patients are still waiting for compensation after the connections were proven (in 2007) and lawsuits were filed. Sociopathic entities like Big Pharma’s drug- and vaccine-making corporations are in the habit of making cunning use of their lawyers, delaying court hearings, trying to settle out of court with low-ball dollar figures and then refusing to pay court-ordered settlements until the plaintiffs give up or die. For more on the Fosamax lawsuits, go to: (https://saveourbones.com/merck-to-settle-fosamax-lawsuits-bisphosphonates-deplete-antioxidants-good-news-on-water-fluoridation-and-more/).

So it has come as no shock to me to discover that every Big Pharma vaccine maker (including the scores of pharmaceutical corporations that are currently – and unethically - fast-tracking Covid-19 vaccines) has been using the same deceptive Relative Risk Reduction (instead of the more meaningful Actual Risk Reduction) statistics for their vaccines that Merck was using back when Fosamax was the darling money-maker for the drug and bone-imaging industries.

To better understand the Fosamax Fraud, go to 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/

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

In other words, the multinational Big Pharma/Big Vaccine corporations are still successfully bamboozling us doctors and our patients (not to mention the co-opted Mainstream Media, the HHS, the NIH, the CDC, the NIAID, the FDA, the AMA, the AAP, the APA, the AAFP, Wall Street and most politicians) with the old deceptive tactic of using Relative Risk Reduction and Relative Vaccine Effectiveness statistics rather than honestly telling us the more truthful Absolute Risk Reduction, Absolute Vaccine Efficacy and Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) statistics whenever they are rolling out their newest, unproven for long-term safety – and increasingly unaffordable – vaccines.

Therefore, I devote the remainder of this column reporting some excerpts from the published medical literature and end with some examples of studies from courageous researchers who have gone up against the drug and vaccine industry and actually reported those important statistics that we should be revealed whenever a drug or vaccine is being marketed.

One of the most important taboo figures is the NNV (the Number Needed to Vaccinate), which tells prospective vaccinees how many target patients will have to be inoculated in order for one of them to receive a benefit. As will be explained below, n order to arrive at the NNV figure, the AAR (absolute risk reduction) statistic will have to be calculated, which never happens in the mainstream medical journals that publish Big Pharma’s clinical vaccine studies. NNVs are also not printed in product inserts.

What is Relative Risk?

The relative risk of an adverse event happening compares the risk between two comparative groups, one of which received a drug versus one group that received an inactive placebo. Relative Risk is usually reported as a percentage (like Fosamax allegedly reducing the risk of bone fracture by 50%). Although Relative rRsk does provide some information about risk, it doesn’t say anything about the actual odds of something happening; on the other hand, Absolute Risk does.

Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)

The RRR is a statistic indicating how much a risk is reduced in an experimental group compared to a control/placebo group. It is always a gross over-exaggeration of the actual efficacy of an experimental treatment and is therefore favored by drug and vaccine corporations as well as clinics and physicians who want to promote a product. The AAR statistic is, in contrast, rarely calculated because it is too truthful.

What is Absolute Risk Reduction (AAR)?

Absolute risk reduction is the absolute difference in outcomes between a group receiving treatment and a control group. The percentage reveals much more meaningfully how much the risk of something happening decreases if a certain intervention happens.

What is the NNT?

One can see how using the RRR to describe the potential effect of a treatment would be enticing, particularly if someone wanted to exaggerate the potential benefit of a treatment. This is where the NNT becomes most valuable: as a tool to standardize communication. The NNT only uses the ARR calculation and therefore there is no deception or exaggeration of any impact. The concept of the NNT is highly intuitive, and once trained in its use, simple for most patients to understand and therefore make an informed decision prior to consenting to the drug or vaccine.

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

What is the NNV?

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

Assorted Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) Data

Statistics such as these can be expected to vary according to location, age, chronic illnesses, nutritional status, etc. 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.

NNV for Flu Vaccine to Prevent One Hospitalization (< 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 “ H. Kelly, et al https://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V15N37/art19661.pdf

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, vaccination with Fluvax or Fluvax Junior in 2010 may have caused two to three hospital admissions due to vaccine-induced febrile convulsions.
________________

NNV for Infant Flu Vaccine to Prevent One Hospitalization = 4,255

From the journal Pediatrics, 120 (3) (2007), pp. 467-472 “Childhood influenza: NNV (number needed to vaccinate) to prevent 1 hospitalization or outpatient visit” E.N. Lewis, et al

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 over 70 years = 231

“Live attenuated varicella-zoster vaccine: Is it worth it?” Skootsky S.

From the UCLA Dept. of Med. 2007 Feb 20. http://www.med.ucla.edu/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=294〉

175 adults over 60 years of age would have to be vaccinated to prevent 1 episode of Herpes Zoster (shingles) 231 adults 70 years of age or older would have to be vaccinated to prevent 1 episode of Herpes Zoster.

NNV for Pneumococcal vaccine in Older Adults = 5,206

From the journal BMC Infectious Diseases2008:53 “The impact and effectiveness of (23 valent) pneumococcal vaccination in Scotland for those aged 65 and over during winter 2003/2004” John D Mooney, et al

The average NNV for adults age 65 was 5206 (range: 4388 - 7122) per invasive pneumococcal infectious disease case prevented. The calculated RVE (relative vaccine effectiveness) in this study was 61.7%, (!), thus exposing the lack of utility of the highly deceptive VE statistic.
________________

NNV for Tuberculosis Vaccine (Ireland) = 646 Reported in the journal Eur Respir J, 10 (3) (1997), pp. 619-623 “Neonatal BCG vaccination in Ireland: evidence of its efficacy in the prevention of childhood tuberculosis” P. Kelly, et al -

646 children had to be vaccinated with Ireland’s neonatal Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine to prevent one case of tuberculosis in 1986 (the NNV dropped to 551 in 1991)

_________________

NNV for Gardasil in Sexually Inactive 12 Year-old Girls= 9,080

CMAJ. 2007 Aug 28; 177(5): 464–468. Estimating the Number Needed to Vaccinate to Prevent Diseases and Death Related to Human Papillomavirus Infection Marc Brisson, PhD, et al

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 girlswould have to be vaccinated with Gardasil in order to prevent one case of cervical cancer – ONLY IF the efficacy rate is 95%,iflifelong protection from the vaccine is obtainedand if 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.

NNV for Group B Meningococcal Vaccine = 33,000

BMC Infect Dis, 12 (1) (2012), p. 202 “Epidemiology of serogroup B invasive meningococcal disease in Ontario, Canada, 2000 to 2010” V Dang, et al

Over 33,000 infants would need to be vaccinated in order 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 Cochrane Review Feb 1, 2018 “Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults” Demicheli V, et al

71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza (in 2017)


The following NNTs are for low risk patients who took statins for 5 years (and whose only risk was elevated cholesterol but no documented coronary artery disease) compared to patients of similar low risk that did not take statins:
________________________

The NNT to prevent one heart attack: - 104
The NNT to prevent one stroke: 154
The NNH (number needed to harm) for developing rhabdomyonecrosis of the heart = 10

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jan 19;(1):CD004816
Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease Taylor F,,et al http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-prior-heart-disease-2/

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 that 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-named rhabdomyonecrosis, which is the death necrosis of muscle tissue that involves both cardiac and peripheral muscles). 10% is highly likely to be an underestimate by physicians who generally don’t make the diagnosis. Therefore 10 is an artificially low estimate.

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 is a retired American family physician who practiced holistic (non-drug) mental health care during the last decade of his professional career. His patients came to see him asking for help in getting off the psychotropic drugs to which they were addicted and which they knew had sickened them and disabled their brains and bodies. He was successful in helping significant numbers of his patients get off or cut down on their cocktails of drugs using a time-consuming program that was based on psychoeducational psychotherapy, brain nutrient therapy and a program of gradual, closely monitored drug withdrawal.

He warns against the abrupt discontinuation of any psychiatric drug – legal or illicit - because of the common, often serious withdrawal symptoms that can occur in patients who have been taking such drugs. It is important to be treated by an aware, informed physician who is familiar with treating drug withdrawal syndromes and brain nutritional needs.

-###-

Dr Kohls lives in Duluth, MN, USA and writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. Hiscolumns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, prosperity, democracy, civility and the health and longevity of the planet and the populace.

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