Alan Cassels

In this skill-testing question, tell me which of these statements is true:

1. The shingles vaccine is 90% effective in preventing shingles. 
2. The shingles vaccine prevents shingles in ONE in every 32 people vaccinated. The other 31 people see no benefit.

Answer: both are true.

Guess which statement dominates the marketing of Shingrix, the most popular shingles vaccine in America?

90% effective. 90% effective. 90% effective.

That’s the main marketing message coming from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discussing the efficacy of the vaccine. So common is this sort of statistical sleight of hand that the CDC doesn’t even seem to see any real problem in how those effects are presented to the public. Because they are so impactful, and are essentially marketing messages, and they need to be deconstructed.

We can look to professional health reporters working for the mainstream media to deconstruct these numbers and explain what they all mean, right?

Hmm. Not quite.

I was in for a surprise when I went to see what the New York Times had to say about this allegedly 90% effective vaccine. Remember, this is a news outlet giving us all the news that’s fit to print. 

Earlier this year the New York Times published a remarkable article describing associations between certain vaccines and aging, headlined: “Vaccines Are Helping Older People More Than We Knew.” It starts out boldly:

Let’s be clear. The primary reason to be vaccinated against shingles is that two shots provide 90 percent protection against a painful, blistering disease that a third of Americans will suffer in their lifetimes, one that can cause lingering nerve pain and other nasty long-term consequences.

Let’s “be clear” alright.

The New York Times reporters and editors are smart people, smart enough to make sure their narrative about the use of vaccines in older people flows in the “right” direction. It’s relatively straightforward to produce a plausible bit of vaccine cheerleading when you don’t have to actually critically examine the numbers someone hands you. Thus, the story follows a predictable direction honed to please the many drug and vaccine advertisers whose ads are keeping the Times afloat.

In this case, the copy follows a standard vaccine-reporting template we’ve come to expect: It overstates a vaccine’s benefits, downplays or ignores its harms, and hammers home the dreadfulness of the disease under the illusion of certainty and medical consensus. As I’ve discussed in an earlier Brownstone article, the net result of this kind of biased reporting is essentially to broadcast the “Ask your doctor” tagline to the unwashed masses from one of America’s biggest pulpits.

Walt Whitman the great American poet, could have been speaking of the NY Times when he wrote of sounding his “barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world.”

We’re talking herpes zoster here, commonly known as shingles, and caused by a reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus (VZV), the same virus that causes chickenpox.

It can be nasty, but not always. It typically involves tingling, burning, itching, or pain along a single nerve pathway, sometimes with a blistering rash which typically heals over in 2 to 4 weeks. There are quite useful and relatively cheap antiviral medications to help speed recovery if taken soon enough. More serious is when shingles develops into long-term nerve pain called postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Sometimes it gets into your eyes, which can be truly nasty. But thankfully it’s rare and most shingles cases clear up on their own within a month.

Going through a succinct independent analysis of the randomized trials of the major shingles vaccines provides a unique case study for determining how actual science can become so contorted by professional reporters at the New York Times.

So where does the “90% effective” come from?

Whenever you see a number this big you know that it is a relative number. Throw it out and start again I always say.

Relative risk reductions such as “90% effective” are promotional shorthand, a misleading description of what an individual drug or vaccine recipient can expect.

Here’s what people think of the words “90% efficacy:” if 100 people get vaccinated there will be 90 fewer cases compared to a group of 100 people who didn’t get vaccinated. That’s how most peoples’ brains will interpret the message being conveyed. And if you’re facing the chance of getting a painful blistering rash, you might say, why not?

If you go to buy something for $100 and it has a “90% off” sign on it, what will you pay? Ten dollars right? That’s not how it works when describing the effects of drugs or vaccines.

The 90% describes the proportional reduction in disease among vaccinated compared with unvaccinated people during a trial. Typically the big number hides the crucial fact that the baseline risk in this case is incredibly low.

In the two major trials of Shingrix, involving one group of 50+ patients and another of 70+ patients, shingles occurred in the placebo group at a rate of 3.4% over 3.5 years. In the Shingrix group the rate was 0.3%. This is among over 16,000 patients, so a big enough cohort to draw some conclusions.

So when you drop from 3.4% to 0.3% that’s a “90% drop” right?

Put it this way, if you had $3.40 in your pocket and a robber stole 90% of that, what would be left? That’s right, 30 cents.

When you tell your friends “Robbers stole 90% of my money!” they would conclude that you’re now in the poorhouse, because you likely lost thousands of dollars.

Not so, you’ve only lost $3.10. Barely pocket change.

In the case of the vaccine the difference between those vaccinated with Shingrix and those vaccinated with a placebo is 3.1% (subtract the two rates).

Stated more honestly, vaccinating 100 people over almost four years prevents roughly 3 cases of shingles; This means that you would have to vaccinate 32 people with Shingrix to prevent one case of shingles, over almost four years. This term, NNV or Number Needed to Vaccinate is key to better determining your odds of whether a vaccine might be worth it to you. Your chances of benefit are one in 32.

There is one huge caveat to these numbers: we assume that these data have been collected without any fraud, misrepresentation, or fabrication. As far as I can tell there has been no fraud, misrepresentation, or illegal activity reported regarding the clinical research done on the Shingrix vaccine, even though the company making and studying it has faced historic healthcare fraud settlements for other drugs in the past. Just saying.

So back to the “90% effective.”

I have a pretty strong reaction with these sorts of numbers games because without telling you what the baseline risk is, the “90% effective” essentially overstates the effects of the vaccine. We already saw this rodeo trick around the Covid vaccines, with the manufacturers and the CDC declaring them “95% effective” when the absolute likelihood of being injured by Covid was astronomically tiny. And therefore the absolute benefit of the mRNA vaccines was also very tiny.

Which brings us to the second problem of these sorts of data, exaggerating the baseline risk. On that, let me ask you:

What is the lifetime risk of death for the average American?

It’s 100%. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

That number becomes a lot smaller when you consider your annual risk of death. There might be drugs or vaccines or surgeries that might delay that inevitable conclusion, but nothing will ever reduce your lifetime risk of death to zero.

Your lifetime risk will always be, and forevermore 100%.

Let’s keep this fact in mind when we say that 1/3^rd of Americans will get shingles in their lifetime. This figure is misleading as it forgets to suggest the corollary: that 2/3rds (ie: 66%) of Americans will never, ever get shingles in their lifetime.

A case of the glass is half-full. “One-third lifetime risk” also exaggerates what your annual risk is. For the average American over 50 your risk in any given year of getting shingles is between 0.3 and 1%. It’s a bit more when you get older, but, in absolute terms, not much.

Another way to say this:

“Boomers and Gen Xers, listen up: In any given year, your chances of NOT getting shingles is more than 99%.”

Let that sink in for a second.

If you are the kind of person who thinks that going to Vegas to win big or buying lottery tickets are both good strategies to fund your retirement plan, I’d say you need to get better at understanding probabilities.

Don’t feel bad; most people don’t think in terms of probabilities, and strangely they don’t consider probabilities concerning their health. Clearly most people think: “My mom had shingles and it was really nasty. Therefore I don’t care if the vaccine gives me a one in 32 chance of “winning.” Fair enough. Roll the dice, hope you win.

As for the cost of these vaccines. They are not cheap, and never “free.”

Last time I checked, vaccines aren’t ever “free.” Someone pays for them. The money comes from the patients’ pockets, your employer health plan, or government’s coffers. The real question is, is it ultimately worth it?

Let’s recap:

Shingles and shingles vaccines, by the numbers: 

• 0.3 to 1%: Per-year chance the average American over 50 getting shingles. Basically, the likelihood you WON’T catch shingles every year is over 99%. This increases slightly as you get older, but not by much.

• 32: Number of people over 50 getting vaccinated with Shingrix to prevent ONE shingles case (over 3.5 years). This NNV or Number Needed to Vaccinate means the vaccine has no effect for 31 out of 32 people vaccinated. 

• 333: Number of people over 50 who need to get vaccinated with Shingrix to prevent ONE case of Postherpetic Neuralgia (332 won’t avoid a case of PHN—because they were extremely unlikely to get it in the first place)

• 11 to 25: Number of people over 50 who get the vaccine who end up with ONE case of systemic reaction (effects include fatigue, weakness, headache, shivering, and stomach problems). This is called NNH or Numbers Needed to Harm. In other words, between one in 11 and one in 25 people vaccinated will experience these side effects and possibly be out of action for several days. There is a small increased chance of getting Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a rare neurological disorder where your immune system mistakenly attacks your peripheral nervous system.

• $400: The average cost someone in the US would pay, without insurance, for the two-dose series of Shingrix administered two to six months apart. Obviously, Medicare, Medicaid, and private employer health insurance plans would pay less.

• $12,800: Total cost of the shingles vaccine to prevent ONE case of shingles in people over 50 (over 3.5 years). 32 times $400.
• $132,800: Total cost of the shingles vaccine to prevent ONE case of PHN in people over 50 (over 3 years). 332 times $400.
• 125.5 million: Number of American citizens over 50 (about 36% of the US population)
• $1.6 trillion: The cost of vaccinating every American over 50 with the shingles vaccine (paying the uninsured rate).

I hope you follow my math.

Giving a “free” shingles vaccine to every American over 50 might cost consumers, Medicare Part D, US private employer plans, and Medicaid $1.5 trillion if everyone got it.

Remember, this is a disease that 99% of the population will never get in any given year, where bothersome vaccine side effects are much more likely than any of shingles’ rare complications.

We will never have affordable healthcare when this volume of money gets thrown at small problems. 

Via https://brownstone.org/articles/statistical-bamboozlement-with-shingles-vaccines/

An exclusive excerpt from Princes and Thieves: Jared Kushner and Mohamed bin Zayed’s Secret Plot to Remake the Middle East examines how bank accounts linked the president’s son-in-law—and former senior adviser—to Israel, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.
By Matthew Cole
October 22, 2026

[…]

Via https://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2026/10/24/kushner-caught/

by Antonio Graceffo Oct. 23, 2026 

Amish schools are very small and self-funded, but the New York state government is demanding they pay heavy fines for not complying with vaccine regulations that conflict with their religious beliefs. Photo courtesy of Amish America.

New York has fined three Amish schools a total of $118,000 for enrolling unvaccinated children. According to the Second Circuit opinion, the commissioner of health fined Dygert Road School $52,000; Twin Mountain School, also known as Pleasant View, $46,000; and Shady Lane School $20,000. The schools serve Amish settlements in Clymer, Heuvelton, and near Canajoharie. New York has approximately 25,000 Amish residents, the fifth-largest Amish population of any state.

Under New York Public Health Law § 2164, children attending public, private, or parochial schools for more than 14 days must be vaccinated against specified diseases unless they qualify for a medical exemption. Each violation carries a fine of up to $2,000, and the Department of Health counts each day an unvaccinated student attends school as a separate violation.

For Dygert Road and Twin Mountain, the department assessed $2,000 per unvaccinated student, counting one day of noncompliance for each. Shady Lane provided no student records, so the department calculated its fine based on one student attending for 10 days. The commissioner described the totals as “principled and conservative under the circumstances.”

“That’s $2,000 per student per day,” said Aaron Siri, managing partner of Siri & Glimstad, which represents the Amish families. “The state of New York has now told them… you want to stay in this state, you need to abandon your religious beliefs.”

New York allowed religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements from 1966 until June 13, 2019, when the legislature repealed the exemption following the 2018–2019 measles outbreak. The repeal passed 84–61 in the Assembly and 36–26 in the Senate. The medical exemption remained in place.

The Department of Health audited the three schools in November and December 2021. In March 2022, it charged them with allowing students to attend beyond the 14-day grace period without certificates of immunization or valid medical exemptions.

After an administrative hearing, the commissioner of health upheld the charges and imposed the fines. The hearing judge had recommended against financial penalties, citing inadequate notice, but the department rejected that recommendation.

The schools do not require proof of vaccination because the parents’ religious beliefs prohibit it. According to the complaint, the families regard abortion as murder and believe vaccine development is linked to aborted fetuses. They argue that educating their children together is part of their religious formation and that the fines threaten to close their schools. In filings quoted by Amish America, parents described the schools as church-run, one-room parochial schools that accept no state aid.

“The Amish want to be able to practice their religion in peace in New York,” Siri said. “They want to continue engaging in the manner that they have lived for almost 200 years in New York. These are small one-room classrooms. Amish buildings on Amish land with Amish teachers. All paid for by the Amish.”

“Even over $100,000 is far too much to ask the Amish to pay,” Siri said. “The state of New York knows that. They are intent on having the Amish abandon their beliefs or leave New York.”

Lawyers for the families say the Amish cannot pay the fines without selling land and will move to Pennsylvania if they lose their case. Pennsylvania still allows religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements.

The families sued the state on June 2, 2023, arguing that the law violates their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the parental rights recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder. That 1972 Supreme Court decision allowed Amish parents to end their children’s formal schooling after eighth grade. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in March 2025.

In December 2025, the Supreme Court vacated that ruling and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor. In that 2025 decision, the Court held that parents could opt their children out of school instruction that conflicted with their religious beliefs.

On June 30, 2026, the Second Circuit again ruled against the Amish, holding that the vaccination requirement does not regulate what children are taught and therefore does not impose the type of burden at issue in Yoder or Mahmoud. Alabama and 19 other states filed a brief supporting the Amish.

On September 28, 2026, First Liberty Institute, Siri & Glimstad, Lehotsky Keller Cohn, and attorney Chris Wiest filed a new petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court docketed the case as No. 26-438 on October 2. New York’s response is due November 2.

The petition asks whether the law violates the Free Exercise Clause as applied to the Amish and whether the Court should reconsider Employment Division v. Smith, the 1990 decision allowing neutral, generally applicable laws to burden religious practice.

The Department of Health told Fox News Digital it could not comment on pending litigation. It said the state’s school immunization requirements are based in science and protect the health of all New Yorkers.

It may appear that New York is telling the Amish they can practice their religion as long as they pay a crippling fine, but even that is not the arrangement. Paying the $118,000 would not permit unvaccinated children to keep attending school. The Department of Health counts each day each unvaccinated student attends as a separate violation.

The current fines cover only the 2021 audit, calculated at one day per student for Dygert Road and Twin Mountain and one student for 10 days for Shady Lane, according to the Second Circuit opinion. Under Public Health Law § 12, each violation carries a penalty of up to $2,000, rising to $5,000 for a repeat violation within 12 months. As long as the schools remain open and the children remain unvaccinated, the fines will continue to accumulate.

Just as with COVID, one could argue that the fact that a policy is based on science does not mean it is morally right or even logically sound when the cost-benefit ratio is considered. Locking all children in separate dungeons would reduce disease transmission to 0%, for example, but it would not be worth the suffering it would cause. From a moral and religious standpoint, it seems immoral to force people to violate their religious beliefs.

Also, since the Amish have always avoided vaccination and have never had a problem with massive deaths from communicable diseases, vaccines must not be a matter of life and death for them. Furthermore, if the state is worried about contagion, the Amish stay primarily within their own communities. Just as with COVID masks and vaccines, if people outside the community are vaccinated and believe vaccines protect them from disease, they should not care whether someone else is vaccinated, particularly someone they do not come into contact with.

Ironically, New York is shielding illegal aliens, a large community with a high rate of dependence on public benefits, whose members are, by definition, criminals through one or more of the following: illegal presence, illegal entry, illegal employment, or other criminal activity. The Amish are a small, self-sufficient community of U.S. citizens who generally do not accept state money, run their own schools, and want to be left alone.

[…]

Via https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/10/new-york-fines-amish-schools-after-ending-religious/