Vaccine studies results: No evidence of reduced mortality or reduced hospitalization. No evidence regarding safety or side effects. The 95% "effective" is intentional misinformation. Feel safer?

Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 5 months ago to Business
67 comments | Share | Flag

"Pfizer recently announced that its covid vaccine was more than 90 percent “effective” at preventing covid-19. Shortly after this announcement, Moderna announced that its covid vaccine was 94.5 percent “effective” at preventing covid-19. Unlike the flu vaccine, which is one shot, both covid vaccines require two shots given three to four weeks apart. Hidden toward the end of both announcements, were the definitions of “effective.”

Both trials have a treatment group that received the vaccine and a control group that did not. All the trial subjects were covid negative prior to the start of the trial. The analysis for both trials was performed when a target number of “cases” were reached. “Cases” were defined by positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. There was no information about the cycle number for the PCR tests. There was no information about whether the “cases” had symptoms or not. There was no information about hospitalizations or deaths. The Pfizer study had 43,538 participants and was analyzed after 164 cases. So, roughly 150 out 21,750 participants (less than 0.7 percent) became PCR positive in the control group and about one-tenth that number in the vaccine group became PCR positive. The Moderna trial had 30,000 participants. There were 95 “cases” in the 15,000 control participants (about 0.6 percent) and 5 “cases” in the 15,000 vaccine participants (about one-twentieth of 0.6 percent). The “efficacy” figures quoted in these announcements are odds ratios.

There is no evidence, yet, that the vaccine prevented any hospitalizations or any deaths. The Moderna announcement claimed that eleven cases in the control group were “severe” disease, but “severe” was not defined. If there were any hospitalizations or deaths in either group, the public has not been told. When the risks of an event are small, odds ratios can be misleading about absolute risk. A more meaningful measure of efficacy would be the number to vaccinate to prevent one hospitalization or one death. Those numbers are not available. An estimate of the number to treat from the Moderna trial to prevent a single “case” would be fifteen thousand vaccinations to prevent ninety “cases” or 167 vaccinations per “case” prevented which does not sound nearly as good as 94.5 percent effective. The publicists working for pharmaceutical companies are very smart people. If there were a reduction in mortality from these vaccines, that information would be in the first paragraph of the announcement.

There is no information about how long any protective benefit from the vaccine would persist. Antibody response following covid-19 appears to be short lived. Based on what we know, the covid vaccine may require two shots every three to six months to be protective. The more shots required, the greater the risk of side effects from sensitization to the vaccine.

There is no information about safety. None. Government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) appear to have two completely different standards for attributing deaths to covid-19 and attributing side effects to covid vaccines. If these vaccines are approved, as they likely will be, the first group to be vaccinated will be the beta testers. I am employed by a university-based medical center that is a referral center for the West Texas region. My colleagues include resident physicians and faculty physicians who work with covid patients on a daily basis. I have asked a number of my colleagues whether they will be first in line for the new vaccine. I have yet to hear any of my colleagues respond affirmatively. The reasons for hesitancy are that the uncertainties about safety exceed what they perceive to be a small benefit. In other words, my colleagues would prefer to take their chances with covid rather than beta test the vaccine. Many of my colleagues want to see the safety data after a year of use before getting vaccinated; these colleagues are concerned about possible autoimmune side effects that may not appear for months after vaccination.

These announcements by Pfizer and Moderna are encouraging. I certainly hope that these vaccines protect people from the harm of covid-19. I certainly hope that these vaccines are safe. If both of these conditions are true, nobody will need to be coerced into taking the vaccine. However, you should pay even more attention about what is left out of an announcement than about what is stated. The pharmaceutical companies are more than happy for patients to misunderstand what is meant by efficacy. Caveat emptor (buyer beware)!

Author:
Gilbert Berdine, MD

Gilbert Berdine is an associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center and an affiliate of the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University."


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by $ brightwriter 4 years, 5 months ago
    Women’s-rights activists go for mammograms, which do not reduce the incidence of breast cancer, and not iodine supplements, which do. It’s all about rituals, not true problem solving. Same principle.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 4 years, 5 months ago
    I may not be a medial expert, but I do have a PhD in nuclear engineering, so I'm not ignorant about science. With just a little internet research, I've learned that the "common cold" is actually caused by classes of virus, half of which are called "rhinoviruses" and another 15% are called "coronaviruses." Covid19 is just another coronavirus, with symptoms similar to the common cold (but whereas most colds give you sneezing, runny nose, caugh, etc., covid19 seems to attack the lungs more - hence the need for ventilators in severe cases). I'm 61 years old now, and for most of my life, I've heard that there "is no cure for the common cold" (much less a vaccine). Since the "deadly" covid19 virus seems to have a vaccine now (due to our much-more-advanced medical science in the 21st century), does that mean we will also have a vaccine for the common cold? Or is the common cold so mild (even though it too has a non-zero mortality rate - about 0.1%) that the money spent on R&D is not worth it? Considering that the mortality rate of covid19 in the general population is only 0.2-0.3% it seems to me that the same argument would hold. Do we do "lockdowns" for the common cold? Of COURSE NOT! We do NOT shut down civilization for a freaking cold!!! It is interesting that the mortality rate for covid19 (which we now know is a function of age) varies as much as it does, but for people less than 30, the mortality rate is less than the common cold (but for people over 70 it increases rapidly to over 5%). The most rational approach for dealing with this virus has been proposed by Dr. JAY BHATTACHARYA and others in the October 2020 issue of Imprimis (publication of Hillsdale College). The bottom line is to protect the most vulnerable (people over 70) and open up the economy and GET ON WITH LIFE! Their declaration can be viewed at: https://gbdeclaration.org/
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 4 years, 5 months ago
    also...this will be the first vaccine to alter your DNA...the potential for a disaster in the future...once altered, you cannot go back...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by STEVEDUNN46 4 years, 5 months ago
    it is all irrelevant, just like masks and social distacncng, it is a FEEL GOOD solution. we can all get back to work and feel better. the news will stop the fear mongering,especially if biden wins, and government restrictions will be lifted.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 4 years, 5 months ago
    My top question is:
    How much benefit is there for the people most at risk from COVID and how much additional risk is added for those people from the vaccine itself?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 4 years, 5 months ago
    It is amusing -maybe not the right word- to compare this rush job and claimed 90% effectiveness with the harsh criticism given to the papers and trials dealing with the use of HCQ in curing the CCP19 virus in early stage patients.
    Well yes, there was mainly anecdotal evidence, but a lot of it, then consider- what if it does not work? What are the alternatives? What is the downside?
    65 years of experience ignored.

    With these vaccines, it is legit to ask if they are safe given how much we trust their proponents. Re the 90 percent effectiveness, all the usual cautions apply, compared with what, age cohort, side effects, how many people tested, for how long?

    Well I am a believer in vaccination, but there are conditions, there are long standing rules. But for this one and some others, the rules are brushed aside and name calling is ramped up.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 4 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hang in there babe! Some of us have experienced violent influenza four times and we don't take any flu vaccines. Pneumonia vaccine, yes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 4 years, 5 months ago
    I think we all know that no vaccine will prevent you from getting anything but supposedly it might cause you to have a lighter illness. So, I am not going to jump into this without a lot of study.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 4 years, 5 months ago
    I've made some good money on this whole joke. Not sure how that sits with Objectivism...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 4 years, 5 months ago
    From what I read, all the vaccine companies agreed to only mitigate cold symptoms...now that sounds benign enough but still there are side effects with the monkey piss and human baby parts they use in these things.

    Stick with the vitamin/supplements/ therapeutics...they work and won't kill you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ kddr22 4 years, 5 months ago
    As a pediatrician and normally vaccine advocate I have no intention of taking this vaccine esp the RNA vaccines from pfizer and moderna . Will consider the J J one once I see the data. Merck is making a traditional vaccine from protein derivatives but will not be available till summer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 4 years, 5 months ago
    I will repeat myself again. Under Biden the states will mandate this for school children. Biden three nights ago, "We have to get the schools open!" Yeah...I'm on to you Joe. This was right after he met with the governors who, trust me, are on the pharma payroll.

    Get ready, my friends. This is going to be a wild ride!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 4 years, 5 months ago
    I read the criteria that these vaccines are being held to and it's a damned joke. I'll let everybody body else get it for at least a year. Already messed up somebody's spine and almost killed three participants in Seattle. Good luck with that, America.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnRandALL 4 years, 5 months ago
    I am a physician, and there is no way I am going to get the COVID vaccine at this point, even if it means I have to quit my job.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ BobCat 4 years, 5 months ago
    You asked, “Feel Safer”? I feel just as safe ‘cause I never had any intention of subjecting myself to their ‘experiment’. Thanks for the link, I know of others who need to read it.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo