A 470,000+ person study found sunscreen users faced dramatically higher risk of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma — even after accounting for major skin cancer risk factors.
I have had over two dozen skin cancers (basal cell and squamus only) cut off by doctors and more frozen off for over 30 years. I used to wear sunscreen every day. I put it on when getting out of the shower. I wore a hat whenever I went outside. I joked with my dermatologist that my name should be on his exam room. I saw him every 4 months and always had something to cut off.
Then I got the idea the sun was good. I quit wearing any sun screen whatsoever, no hat or sun glasses. I took daily walks in the sun for about 45 minutes. I haven’t had anything to remove for almost 3 years. I know the scaly, near-scab of pre-cancerous tissue. It’s not happening any more. My experience is entirely in line with this finding.
and possibly the combination of seed oils (LA) as the catalyst with sun as the activator (or something like that?!). But no doubt seed oils are unhelpful with or without sun
Your experience is supported by studies. The harmless skin cancers seem to be sun related. Melanoma generally isn’t. Link to episode of Jimmy Dore discussing it.
While I have wrote and spoke about Aluminum and Fluoride's singular and synergistic brain damaging affects for 30 years. No one seems to want to know how to protect themselves. It seems our species survival instinct has been programmed right out of it.
Layer 5 — Aluminum–Fluoride Synergy
Chronic administration of an aluminum-fluoride complex at 0.5 ppm to rats for 52 weeks produced greater alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity than an equivalent fluoride concentration supplied as sodium fluoride alone, while both exposed groups showed greater damage than controls. Aluminum concentrations in brain tissue were elevated in both treatment groups. Histological examination showed neuronal abnormalities, cerebrovascular damage, and involvement of β-amyloid pathways. Under the conditions tested, the damage hierarchy was AlF₃ > NaF > control (Varner et al. 1998 [#115]).
The Varner study directly demonstrates that aluminum and fluoride can interact to produce greater neurological damage than fluoride alone. The study did not test every source or route of aluminum exposure, but that limitation does not rebut interaction involving aluminum derived from municipal water treatment, food, cookware, antacids, pharmaceuticals, or vaccine adjuvants. Those pathways contribute to total aluminum exposure, while fluoride is also systemically distributed. Concurrent exposure therefore creates a biologically plausible opportunity for interaction beyond the specific exposure conditions tested by Varner.
Aluminum sulfate and polyaluminum chloride are standard coagulants used in municipal water treatment across North America. In fluoridated systems, aluminum compounds and fluoride share a documented common delivery pathway within treated municipal water systems. The amount and chemical form of aluminum remaining in finished water vary with treatment conditions, pH, fluoride concentration, residual aluminum, and aqueous speciation, but the opportunity for aluminum–fluoride interaction is inherent wherever both are present in the same treated-water system (Crittenden et al. 2012 [#116]).
Additional aluminum exposure occurs through processed food, cookware, antacids, pharmaceuticals, and other consumer products. These sources add to the total aluminum burden received by the body. No regulatory assessment has been identified that quantifies the combined fluoride and aluminum neurotoxic burden across these concurrent exposure pathways in North American populations.
Aluminum exposure through the childhood vaccine schedule represents a further unmodeled pathway. As of October 2024, at least 27 FDA-licensed vaccines listed in the Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety excipient table contained aluminum adjuvants, including aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, and potassium aluminum sulfate, across vaccine categories including DTaP, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, HPV, Hib, pneumococcal, meningococcal, and combination products. Cumulative aluminum exposure across the routine childhood immunization schedule has been estimated at approximately 6,425 µg depending on products administered and schedule followed (Institute for Vaccine Safety, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, updated October 14, 2024 [#114]).
Unlike ingested aluminum, vaccine-adjuvant aluminum is delivered parenterally, bypassing gastrointestinal absorption barriers and entering systemic tissues through a different exposure route. The Varner study did not test vaccine-derived aluminum, but the interaction between parenterally delivered aluminum and systemic fluoride has never been investigated in human cohort research. The failure to measure or model a demonstrated co-toxicant is a structural gap in the existing fluoride–IQ literature, not evidence of absence of effect.
No fluoride neurotoxicity study has controlled for or modeled concurrent vaccine-schedule aluminum burden together with aluminum from water, food, pharmaceuticals, cookware, and antacids. This represents an unmodeled co-exposure variable in existing fluoride–IQ studies. Because Varner demonstrated greater neurological damage from combined aluminum–fluoride exposure than from fluoride alone, omission of aluminum burden reasonably suggests that documented fluoride-associated IQ losses may be conservative estimates. The direction of that inference is biologically supported, although the degree of underestimation has not been directly quantified in human cohort data.
The discipline of Dermatology, the battle against the sun and the creation of the sunscreen industry all emerged simultaneously in the early 1960s when the College of Dermatology hired two NYC advertising and PR firms to help the medical discipline gain greater respect among the American public and allow for hight fees. The entire thing has been a charade for the last 65 years. Go read the history of the event: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/dermatologys-disastrous-war-against
This story is merely another piece of evidence proving that US "medical industry" has grown into an insidious, deceitful and nefarious hoax perpetrated on the people of America. They can stitch an open wound and they can set a broken bone, but beyond that they are largely a criminal enterprise.
I’m going to say something that admittedly sounds bogus...over two years ago I eliminated 100% of processed foods and seed oils from my diet...since then I have not had one sunburn in spite of not using sunscreen.
AND the age spots on my arms disappeared.
I’m fair skinned, blue eyed and blond. The problem isn’t the sun.
Interesting…I am 66 and have very little gray hair. I am still not sure why.
I had what most would call a “very healthy” diet before the changes I mentioned so perhaps that helped? It’s not genetic, everyone in my family started graying in their 40’s.
The age spots faded fast, 3-6 months? I don’t remember. The sunburn thing was something I realized after maybe a year…I hadn’t burned a single time…and I’ve spent my life accidentally burning because I hate sunscreen.
We did strict carnivore for 90 days starting two years ago in January. In spite of previously eating well, I ate prepared yogurts and cereal…frozen French fries now and then, not a terrible diet. The changes that began within two weeks of carnivore were mind boggling. I had amazing energy, no more minor joint pain, I just all around felt so much better. I felt GOOD, not “good for my age”.
We no longer do carnivore but we do all whole foods. As much organic as possible. Five or six farm eggs a day. A LOT of red meat and little chicken or pork. ZERO processed foods. Almost never eat out. NO starchy carbs. Basically that’s it.
I literally feel 20 years younger and was recently told I looked like I’ve aged backward…I’ll NEVER go back.
Thank you for the details - I love it! It’s inspiring me to keep at it! When I did keto religiously, I felt AMAZING, so much energy and focus. I just have to get over the initial withdrawals of eliminating carbs and processed foods.
Took me about 18 months to notice after I removed the seed oils. I’m “Scottish blue” in colour so go pink in the sun but it doesn’t feel hot to the touch and goes light golden brown within a day or so.
To learn that there is gambling going on inside the casino!
Also, tell me again how an industry that makes beaucoup bucks off you you being sick is going to give you a free shot that will make you super healthy?
“ This paradoxical finding was the increasing risk of skin cancers with increased sunscreen use, which we posit can be explained by greater exposure to UV light and/or a lack of reapplication of sunscreen throughout the day, or due to increased use of sun protection following skin cancer diagnosis. Collectively, however, these findings demonstrate the importance of adequate and frequent sunscreen use and minimization of exposure to UV light, particularly in individuals with fair skin.”
I’m half Italian and according to a dermatologist I visited for an exam, Italians don’t get skin cancer. I was told to put my shirt back on and I left. I guess it’s from centuries of acclimation.
I was a kid in the 60s and spent every summer day playing out in the sun. Never put sunscreen on then or later as an adult.
Ironic that you’re believing this “article” which is just AI.
What the study actually says: “ This paradoxical finding was the increasing risk of skin cancers with increased sunscreen use, which we posit can be explained by greater exposure to UV light and/or a lack of reapplication of sunscreen throughout the day, or due to increased use of sun protection following skin cancer diagnosis. Collectively, however, these findings demonstrate the importance of adequate and frequent sunscreen use and minimization of exposure to UV light, particularly in individuals with fair skin.”
When I found out cheap seed oils were seriously harmful I set about getting them out of our house and diet - about 4-5 years ago. Turns out once out of your system your skin can tolerate reasonable sun exposure without burning. Plus the macular degeneration stopped progressing. One more example of doctors, our government, etc, not telling us what we need to know. I had read sunscreen was poisonous so that is not new information to me (I don't use it at all) but I'm glad Nick is writing about it so more people will be informed...
PS Jimmy Dore does a wonderful podcast on dermatology and sunshine that explains how dermatologists conflated all types of skin cancer to make people fearful they were all deadly, then told everyone to stay out of the sun and use sunscreen so they became vitamin D deficient and therefore more likely to get the deadly form of skin cancer which is melanoma, Disgusting, I believed it all and became vitamin D deficient which effected my thyroid which caused me to lose my eyebrows. I could go on with all the deception doctors have practiced that have caused harm. Good doctors who tell the truth are few and far between it turns out as evidenced by the covid era.
I wish the study had statistically accounted for location. Probably the least cancer suffered from sun exposure is in people who live in hot climates and don't use sunscreen. And people who live in cold climates who rarely see the sun, what's their rate of cancer, particularly skin cancer.
Did you actually read the study? Because this “article” clearly didn’t.
“ This paradoxical finding was the increasing risk of skin cancers with increased sunscreen use, which we posit can be explained by greater exposure to UV light and/or a lack of reapplication of sunscreen throughout the day, or due to increased use of sun protection following skin cancer diagnosis. Collectively, however, these findings demonstrate the importance of adequate and frequent sunscreen use and minimization of exposure to UV light, particularly in individuals with fair skin.”
I am a maths graduate who's spent my whole career in the technical side of my industry yet I reread your opening statements to confirm that your quoted RR numbers indeed corresponded with the percentages and therefore stood for Relative Risk.
I would argue that headlining the bigger percentage figure irritates more pedants than just me, is more easily misquoted by the less pedantic and detracts from both the impact and credibility of the message.
I urge leading with: "Risk of skin cancer is nearly 3 times higher amongst sunscreen users than those who don't use any."
Maximum clarity for any audience while being factually unassailable, and nuances can be covered in subsequent paragraphs.
Coverage of study defects and potential, unaddressed confounders also essential for credibility.
Keep up the good work and stay dangerous, Charles.
I concur that the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR), not the Relative Risk Reduction, is the important statistic to report. Even the FDA’s guidelines for communicating evidence-based risks and benefits to the public states: “Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.” (page 60).
The Covid vaccine manufacturers conveniently reported the higher RRR, not the significantly lower ARR when reporting their clinical trial results when applying for an EUA. The FDA, despite their own reporting guidelines’ instructing the provision of the ARR, did not ask the Covid vax manufacturers to report it. Yet it is a simple math calculation and anyone could figure out the ARR looking at the clinical trial results. I’m sure the fact that almost half of FDA revenue comes from new drugs had nothing to do with it…
A study published in The Lancet also confirmed ALL the Covid19 vaccines' ARR was <2%:
I have had over two dozen skin cancers (basal cell and squamus only) cut off by doctors and more frozen off for over 30 years. I used to wear sunscreen every day. I put it on when getting out of the shower. I wore a hat whenever I went outside. I joked with my dermatologist that my name should be on his exam room. I saw him every 4 months and always had something to cut off.
Then I got the idea the sun was good. I quit wearing any sun screen whatsoever, no hat or sun glasses. I took daily walks in the sun for about 45 minutes. I haven’t had anything to remove for almost 3 years. I know the scaly, near-scab of pre-cancerous tissue. It’s not happening any more. My experience is entirely in line with this finding.
and possibly the combination of seed oils (LA) as the catalyst with sun as the activator (or something like that?!). But no doubt seed oils are unhelpful with or without sun
Could be. I also got divorced and stopped cooking with peanut and canola oil. Don’t even own them any more. Attribution is a challenge.
Your experience is supported by studies. The harmless skin cancers seem to be sun related. Melanoma generally isn’t. Link to episode of Jimmy Dore discussing it.
https://youtu.be/R4T2rLxii2k
"You.... HERETIC !!!"
👍🏼
What I was doing sure wasn’t working.
I wrote about the risk of sunscreens back in 2007. Please see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891584907004911?via%3Dihub
Aluminium is a powerful pro-oxidant and a major ingredient and sometimes contaminant of most sunscreens.
إذا ما حل؟
While I have wrote and spoke about Aluminum and Fluoride's singular and synergistic brain damaging affects for 30 years. No one seems to want to know how to protect themselves. It seems our species survival instinct has been programmed right out of it.
Layer 5 — Aluminum–Fluoride Synergy
Chronic administration of an aluminum-fluoride complex at 0.5 ppm to rats for 52 weeks produced greater alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity than an equivalent fluoride concentration supplied as sodium fluoride alone, while both exposed groups showed greater damage than controls. Aluminum concentrations in brain tissue were elevated in both treatment groups. Histological examination showed neuronal abnormalities, cerebrovascular damage, and involvement of β-amyloid pathways. Under the conditions tested, the damage hierarchy was AlF₃ > NaF > control (Varner et al. 1998 [#115]).
The Varner study directly demonstrates that aluminum and fluoride can interact to produce greater neurological damage than fluoride alone. The study did not test every source or route of aluminum exposure, but that limitation does not rebut interaction involving aluminum derived from municipal water treatment, food, cookware, antacids, pharmaceuticals, or vaccine adjuvants. Those pathways contribute to total aluminum exposure, while fluoride is also systemically distributed. Concurrent exposure therefore creates a biologically plausible opportunity for interaction beyond the specific exposure conditions tested by Varner.
Aluminum sulfate and polyaluminum chloride are standard coagulants used in municipal water treatment across North America. In fluoridated systems, aluminum compounds and fluoride share a documented common delivery pathway within treated municipal water systems. The amount and chemical form of aluminum remaining in finished water vary with treatment conditions, pH, fluoride concentration, residual aluminum, and aqueous speciation, but the opportunity for aluminum–fluoride interaction is inherent wherever both are present in the same treated-water system (Crittenden et al. 2012 [#116]).
Additional aluminum exposure occurs through processed food, cookware, antacids, pharmaceuticals, and other consumer products. These sources add to the total aluminum burden received by the body. No regulatory assessment has been identified that quantifies the combined fluoride and aluminum neurotoxic burden across these concurrent exposure pathways in North American populations.
Aluminum exposure through the childhood vaccine schedule represents a further unmodeled pathway. As of October 2024, at least 27 FDA-licensed vaccines listed in the Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety excipient table contained aluminum adjuvants, including aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, and potassium aluminum sulfate, across vaccine categories including DTaP, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, HPV, Hib, pneumococcal, meningococcal, and combination products. Cumulative aluminum exposure across the routine childhood immunization schedule has been estimated at approximately 6,425 µg depending on products administered and schedule followed (Institute for Vaccine Safety, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, updated October 14, 2024 [#114]).
Unlike ingested aluminum, vaccine-adjuvant aluminum is delivered parenterally, bypassing gastrointestinal absorption barriers and entering systemic tissues through a different exposure route. The Varner study did not test vaccine-derived aluminum, but the interaction between parenterally delivered aluminum and systemic fluoride has never been investigated in human cohort research. The failure to measure or model a demonstrated co-toxicant is a structural gap in the existing fluoride–IQ literature, not evidence of absence of effect.
No fluoride neurotoxicity study has controlled for or modeled concurrent vaccine-schedule aluminum burden together with aluminum from water, food, pharmaceuticals, cookware, and antacids. This represents an unmodeled co-exposure variable in existing fluoride–IQ studies. Because Varner demonstrated greater neurological damage from combined aluminum–fluoride exposure than from fluoride alone, omission of aluminum burden reasonably suggests that documented fluoride-associated IQ losses may be conservative estimates. The direction of that inference is biologically supported, although the degree of underestimation has not been directly quantified in human cohort data.
From a paper I am currently working on.
You know about aluminum though right? not good
Zinc is better for the nose and face.. :)
The discipline of Dermatology, the battle against the sun and the creation of the sunscreen industry all emerged simultaneously in the early 1960s when the College of Dermatology hired two NYC advertising and PR firms to help the medical discipline gain greater respect among the American public and allow for hight fees. The entire thing has been a charade for the last 65 years. Go read the history of the event: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/dermatologys-disastrous-war-against
This story is merely another piece of evidence proving that US "medical industry" has grown into an insidious, deceitful and nefarious hoax perpetrated on the people of America. They can stitch an open wound and they can set a broken bone, but beyond that they are largely a criminal enterprise.
They went from being pimple-poppers to cancer experts. 🤣
exactly
I’m going to say something that admittedly sounds bogus...over two years ago I eliminated 100% of processed foods and seed oils from my diet...since then I have not had one sunburn in spite of not using sunscreen.
AND the age spots on my arms disappeared.
I’m fair skinned, blue eyed and blond. The problem isn’t the sun.
Mercola speaks to removing seed oils for reduced inflammation generally, and reduced burns specifically so not bogus at all!
That was my experience too, when I got rid of the seed oils. And most processed foods contain them.
Wow! that is amazing good for you!!
Interesting…I am 66 and have very little gray hair. I am still not sure why.
I had what most would call a “very healthy” diet before the changes I mentioned so perhaps that helped? It’s not genetic, everyone in my family started graying in their 40’s.
I find it curious.
Wait, what? I recently stopped using seed oils and eliminated almost all processed foods. How long did it take? 😊
The age spots faded fast, 3-6 months? I don’t remember. The sunburn thing was something I realized after maybe a year…I hadn’t burned a single time…and I’ve spent my life accidentally burning because I hate sunscreen.
We did strict carnivore for 90 days starting two years ago in January. In spite of previously eating well, I ate prepared yogurts and cereal…frozen French fries now and then, not a terrible diet. The changes that began within two weeks of carnivore were mind boggling. I had amazing energy, no more minor joint pain, I just all around felt so much better. I felt GOOD, not “good for my age”.
We no longer do carnivore but we do all whole foods. As much organic as possible. Five or six farm eggs a day. A LOT of red meat and little chicken or pork. ZERO processed foods. Almost never eat out. NO starchy carbs. Basically that’s it.
I literally feel 20 years younger and was recently told I looked like I’ve aged backward…I’ll NEVER go back.
Stick with it! You won’t be sorry.
Thank you for the details - I love it! It’s inspiring me to keep at it! When I did keto religiously, I felt AMAZING, so much energy and focus. I just have to get over the initial withdrawals of eliminating carbs and processed foods.
Took me about 18 months to notice after I removed the seed oils. I’m “Scottish blue” in colour so go pink in the sun but it doesn’t feel hot to the touch and goes light golden brown within a day or so.
Shocked!
I am shocked, i tell you!
To learn that there is gambling going on inside the casino!
Also, tell me again how an industry that makes beaucoup bucks off you you being sick is going to give you a free shot that will make you super healthy?
🎯🎯🎯
Well this was a misinterpretation of the study so…
Go read it yourself
Is not new news.
Hiding the fact that the chemicals in sunscreens have never been tested for carcinogenic properties
https://www.amazon.com/Sunlight-Solution-Reclaiming-Reversing-Epidemic/dp/163144090X You’ll love this
Thank you! Evidence is clear. If medicine endorsed boosting the blood value to 50 ng’s they shrink their very profitable business model! So they lie!
I seem to recall they had been tested about 15 years ago or more, but immediate collective amnesia set in, “nothing to see here”…
I think they abandoned one chemical! Keep the rest!
Never used sunscreen.
If you wear glasses, and prolonged exposure, try a little zinc oxide on your nose.
Thats all I do. No cancer. 65 years of boating and beach loving. My dad wore sunscreen and had lots of skin cancer.
So once again the “conspiracy theorists” are right. I’ve been telling people for 20+ years not to use sunscreen because it was bad for you.
Nope. Relying on confirmation bias an AI.
What the study actually says:
“ This paradoxical finding was the increasing risk of skin cancers with increased sunscreen use, which we posit can be explained by greater exposure to UV light and/or a lack of reapplication of sunscreen throughout the day, or due to increased use of sun protection following skin cancer diagnosis. Collectively, however, these findings demonstrate the importance of adequate and frequent sunscreen use and minimization of exposure to UV light, particularly in individuals with fair skin.”
Go look for yourself
I’m half Italian and according to a dermatologist I visited for an exam, Italians don’t get skin cancer. I was told to put my shirt back on and I left. I guess it’s from centuries of acclimation.
I was a kid in the 60s and spent every summer day playing out in the sun. Never put sunscreen on then or later as an adult.
The sunscreen is the poison. Stop using it immediately!!!
It causes cancer and kills the coral ....get rid of it wear a shirt!!!
More lies people refuse to believe ...no sunscreen does not protect you its poison......
Ironic that you’re believing this “article” which is just AI.
What the study actually says: “ This paradoxical finding was the increasing risk of skin cancers with increased sunscreen use, which we posit can be explained by greater exposure to UV light and/or a lack of reapplication of sunscreen throughout the day, or due to increased use of sun protection following skin cancer diagnosis. Collectively, however, these findings demonstrate the importance of adequate and frequent sunscreen use and minimization of exposure to UV light, particularly in individuals with fair skin.”
Skin cancer incidences went up when they started using fluorescent lights even in places like Norway.
When I found out cheap seed oils were seriously harmful I set about getting them out of our house and diet - about 4-5 years ago. Turns out once out of your system your skin can tolerate reasonable sun exposure without burning. Plus the macular degeneration stopped progressing. One more example of doctors, our government, etc, not telling us what we need to know. I had read sunscreen was poisonous so that is not new information to me (I don't use it at all) but I'm glad Nick is writing about it so more people will be informed...
PS Jimmy Dore does a wonderful podcast on dermatology and sunshine that explains how dermatologists conflated all types of skin cancer to make people fearful they were all deadly, then told everyone to stay out of the sun and use sunscreen so they became vitamin D deficient and therefore more likely to get the deadly form of skin cancer which is melanoma, Disgusting, I believed it all and became vitamin D deficient which effected my thyroid which caused me to lose my eyebrows. I could go on with all the deception doctors have practiced that have caused harm. Good doctors who tell the truth are few and far between it turns out as evidenced by the covid era.
Coconut oil is SPF4 and it’s incredibly healthy for you and your skin.
Look at today’s The Circadian Classroom substack. Zaid is amazing researcher. https://zaidkdahhaj.substack.com/p/questions-dermatology-cannot-answer?r=r6ahu&utm_medium=ios
He is!
I wish the study had statistically accounted for location. Probably the least cancer suffered from sun exposure is in people who live in hot climates and don't use sunscreen. And people who live in cold climates who rarely see the sun, what's their rate of cancer, particularly skin cancer.
Did you actually read the study? Because this “article” clearly didn’t.
“ This paradoxical finding was the increasing risk of skin cancers with increased sunscreen use, which we posit can be explained by greater exposure to UV light and/or a lack of reapplication of sunscreen throughout the day, or due to increased use of sun protection following skin cancer diagnosis. Collectively, however, these findings demonstrate the importance of adequate and frequent sunscreen use and minimization of exposure to UV light, particularly in individuals with fair skin.”
denise, it's interesting that my MIL who died of skin cancer rarely went out in the sun. It points to skin cancer caused by lack of sun.
Dear Mr Hulscher,
I am a maths graduate who's spent my whole career in the technical side of my industry yet I reread your opening statements to confirm that your quoted RR numbers indeed corresponded with the percentages and therefore stood for Relative Risk.
I would argue that headlining the bigger percentage figure irritates more pedants than just me, is more easily misquoted by the less pedantic and detracts from both the impact and credibility of the message.
I urge leading with: "Risk of skin cancer is nearly 3 times higher amongst sunscreen users than those who don't use any."
Maximum clarity for any audience while being factually unassailable, and nuances can be covered in subsequent paragraphs.
Coverage of study defects and potential, unaddressed confounders also essential for credibility.
Keep up the good work and stay dangerous, Charles.
I concur that the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR), not the Relative Risk Reduction, is the important statistic to report. Even the FDA’s guidelines for communicating evidence-based risks and benefits to the public states: “Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.” (page 60).
https://www.fda.gov/media/81597/download?fbclid=IwAR3jCWpYyktx6bcZmNvymEGG7mqIzEdvObCuvWk8ViENvJn8xJB1od1ll6M
The Covid vaccine manufacturers conveniently reported the higher RRR, not the significantly lower ARR when reporting their clinical trial results when applying for an EUA. The FDA, despite their own reporting guidelines’ instructing the provision of the ARR, did not ask the Covid vax manufacturers to report it. Yet it is a simple math calculation and anyone could figure out the ARR looking at the clinical trial results. I’m sure the fact that almost half of FDA revenue comes from new drugs had nothing to do with it…
A study published in The Lancet also confirmed ALL the Covid19 vaccines' ARR was <2%:
Pfizer .9%
Moderna 1.4%
J&J 1.8%
AstraZeneca-Oxford 1.9%
Gamaleya (Sputnik V) 1%.
"Covid-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness - the elephant (not) in the room" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of the BMJ, reported the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine absolute risks were less than 1%, but were not disclosed. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/
“Absolute risk vs relative risk: Each may be accurate. But one may be terribly misleading.” https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/absolute-vs-relative-risk/
Both of these are incorrect. Read the actual study.