Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Surprising Findings

Published by

Clarissa

on

Data collected from 18 states between March and August suggest the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine reduces the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19 by 91% in the first four months after receiving the second dose. Beyond 120 days, however, that vaccine efficacy drops to 77%. . . The surprising findings came as a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel recommended against offering booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine to all Americans ages 16 and older.

Very surprising findings. Utterly shocking. To the cognitively challenged, that is. Everybody else has known this since June by observing the numbers coming out of countries that vaccinated earlier and harder.

But hey, at least these morons acknowledged the drop after 4 months. Now let’s wait for them to acknowledge the drop to under 40% at 6 months.

5 responses to “Surprising Findings”

  1. Just George Avatar
    Just George

    I don’t like this part:

    “After excluding 1,786 patients from the VE analysis (936 for having an immunocompromising condition,¶¶ 566 who received ≥1 vaccine dose but were not fully vaccinated, and 284 who did not meet other eligibility criteria), 3,689 patients were included (1,682 case-patients and 2,007 control-patients). Overall, 2,362 (64.0%) patients were unvaccinated; 476 (12.9%) were fully vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine; 738 (20.0%) were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; and 113 (3.1%) were fully vaccinated with the Janssen vaccine.”

    So there were 5475 possible subjects, and 936 were precluded for having an “immunocompromising condition”.

    The number of people with a so-called “immunocompromising condition” who were precluded amounts to 17%.

    Since when did 17% of the human population have an “immunocompromising condition”, let alone one bad enough to warrant precluding them from a study in which drugs intended for the entire population were being assessed.

    Apologies but that paragraph alone makes me suspect that the likelihood of scientific fraud is significant.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Good question. I didn’t think about this part but you are right, it’s weird.

      Like

      Reply
    2. MT Avatar
      MT

      The study was conducted on people who were hospitalized. They’re saying that upfront:

      “To assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) of these three products in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization, CDC and collaborators conducted a case-control analysis among 3,689 adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals across 18 states during March 11–August 15, 2021.”

      You’d expect people who are hospitalized to be sicker than the general population, including more of them having compromised immune systems.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Just George Avatar
        Just George

        @MT: the study was done in the Influenza and Other Viruses in the Acutely Ill (IVY) Network, which is a network of hospitals used, among other things, by the CDC to study vaccines.

        On their site, they talk about study design and confounding factors when studying flu vaccines, where they mention chronic illness. Specifically, they say:

        “For example, chronic medical conditions can confound the association between flu vaccination and hospitalization with flu in observational studies. Chronic medical conditions increase the risk of flu-related hospitalization and vaccination often is more common among people with chronic medical conditions. Therefore, the presence of a chronic medical condition in a study participant is a potential confounding factor that should be considered in analysis.”

        You can read more here:

        https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectivenessqa.htm

        I can accept, as you said, that you would probably find more immunocompromised people in a hospital setting and have to exclude some. Sure. But the potential subjects are the regular people that regular flu vaccines are tested on, by people who study vaccines all the time. It isn’t like the study is being done in a hospital giving everybody chemotherapy and blowing up their immune system.

        The way I see it, a bunch of probably biased CDC people with a lot of experience doing vaccine studies in a network of familiar hospitals probably isn’t going to yank 17% of the potential subject base (936 people) because they have “immunocompromising conditions”, plus another 286 people for nonspecific “did not meet eligibility criteria”, since that would imply that a quarter of hospitalised patients should never get a vaccine.

        To my sense, people like that are going to pull patients out that they think wont give them the result they want in their study. Otherwise we would have to accept the idea that the one quarter of people in these hospitals who were somehow too sick to test a vaccine on should still get a vaccine, which doesn’t make sense.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Just George Avatar
          Just George

          *Respectfully, and everything 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts