How Dr. Fauci Deliberately Distorts the Truth: “The data needs to be further analyzed”


Posted originally on TrialSite News by Dr-Ron-BrownDecember 31, 20214 Comments

How Dr. Fauci Deliberately Distorts the Truth: “The data needs to be further analyzed”

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion Editorial

December 31, 2021

The public has been a constant target of Dr. Fauci’s distortion of the truth. Whether misleading U.S. Congress with claims that the coronavirus is ten times more deadly than influenza, Public Health Lessons Learned From Biases in Coronavirus Mortality Overestimation – PubMed (nih.gov), denying that his organization, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was involved in funding gain of function research, or promoting the ridiculously misleading 95% efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials – PubMed (nih.gov), Dr. Fauci consistently manages to pull the wool over the public’s eyes. Fauci’s distortions often do not appear to be unintentional. Evidence in this editorial will demonstrate one of Dr. Fauci’s methods which he uses to deliberately distort the truth when reporting clinical research findings.

Fauci and AZT Relative Risk Reduction 

Click on the link below first then read the rest of this post

“Fauci’s First Fraud”

The video excerpts from “Fauci’s First Fraud” show a 2020 interview with Dr. Fauci, seated next to Dr. Deborah Birx of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Fauci is reminiscing about HIV research during the clinical trials of AZT (Retrovir) in the 1980s.

Video – 23:57

Fauci suggests that the researchers at the time had all the clinical trial data necessary to achieve their objective and approve AZT.

Fauci: “Whenever you have clear-cut evidence that a drug works, you have an ethical obligation to immediately let the people who are in the placebo group know so that they can have access…and all of the other trials that are taking place now have a new standard of care. So we would have normally waited several days until the data gets further—dot the i’s and cross the t’s. But the data are not going to change. Some of the numbers may change a little, but the conclusion will not change.” 

Video – 25:14

Fauci: “The mortality rate trended towards being better in the sense of less deaths in the Remdesivir group,…” [Fauci probably meant the Retrovir group,] 

“…8%, versus 11% in the placebo group.”

[These data probably refer to the adverse effects of anorexia, which were 8% in the Retrovir group and 11% in the placebo group. The Retrovir absolute risk reduction was 3%, calculated by subtracting the 8% event rate in the Retrovir group from the 11% event rate in the placebo group]. 

“It has not yet reached statistical significance,…” 

[Fauci appears to imply that the absolute risk reduction of 3% is too small to be a clinically significant outcome].

“…but the data needs to be further analyzed.”

[Fauci implies that the relative risk reduction needs to be calculated by dividing the absolute risk reduction of 3% by the placebo event rate of 11%. The relative risk reduction of the Retrovir group is just over 27%. However, this is the relative risk reduction of anorexia, not mortality, because Fauci appeared to misuse anorexia data in his example].

Dr. Fauci might respond to this editorial by claiming he did nothing wrong by further analyzing the data, because this is the usual method used, but that doesn’t make the distortion of the clinical results any less deceptive. 

Only absolute numbers should be used in clinical trials that measure a causative and controlled experimental effect. Relative numbers should only be used in observational studies that measure relative and uncontrolled associations, not absolute causes. Converting the absolute risk reduction to the relative risk reduction usually makes the risk reduction in the trial appear much larger than it actually is.

Dr-Ron-BrownRonald B. Brown, PhD has authored over a dozen peer-reviewed articles in the U.S. National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health; as well as a chapter on breakthrough knowledge synthesis in Contemporary Natural Philosophy and Philosophies. In addition to his epidemiologic and public health research on infectious disease and vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, his current areas of research include prevention of cancer, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and other chronic diseases.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.