Interesting thanks, but can we really comment on misunderstandings relating to comparisons between vaccines while ignoring the elephant in the room:

Relative v Absolute risk reduction?

The vaccines are being pushed on the former while apparently nobody dare speak of the latter.
Pre-2020, it would have been unarguable that consenting to a medical treatment should always be on the basis that the individual gives fully informed consent.

Fully informed involves describing risks v benefits.

I am not commenting in this thread on risks, only on benefits.
Effects on infection rates and transmissibility have not been demonstrated in these trials - only symptom reduction.

Hence any societal benefit via herd immunity is purely speculative, and ethically unjustifiable as the basis of coercion (which is unjustifiable anyway).
Hence it is the individual which matters, and for them, the benefit side of the ledger is not the relative risk reduction between the 2 groups in the trial.

It is the absolute risk reduction - what is the risk reduction that person is receiving?

From what risk TO what risk?
The relative risk reduction is not relevant as it doesn't take account of background risk, ie in the absence of the procedure / treatment / vaccine, what is my risk anyway?
We could eliminate - that's right, we could achieve a 100% risk reduction - in death from appendicitis by removing everybody's appendix as infants.

Is this sensible?

No, because the risk of dying from appendicitis is incredibly low it's best just to treat it as it arises.
A non-medical example:

The risk from air travel has been declining quite rapidly in recent decades.

(Since the pandemic it has been zero but that's another story....)

sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/…
Image
Imagine it was proposed that this could be reduced down even further, say to 1 in 80m.

1 in 7.9m to 1 in 80m is a 90% reduction is risk.

Great, let's do it!

OK - it means 4 hour check-ins, no hold baggage, and trebling ticket prices.

You never told me that!
Most people would say:

"the risk - at 1 in 7.9m - is so low anyway, it's something I can live with. We need / want to be able to travel at reasonable convenience and price.

Those measures just aren't worth it."
If someone said "but why wouldn't you want to make flying as safe as you could" you'd think them slightly deranged.

You'd explain that once a risk is so low, there are diminishing returns from trying to make it even lower.

After all, everything has risks, some unknown.
So, what are the absolute risk reductions for Covid19 vaccines from the trial data?

My sources are:

Pfizer:
Moderna:
AZ: fda.gov/media/144245/d…
fda.gov/media/144434/d…
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
Pfizer vaccine:

Risk of Covid of any severity reduced from 0.74% to 0.04%
Risk of severe Covid reduced from 0.018% to 0.004
Risk of hospitalisation reduced from 0.004 to zero

>99.99% on placebo weren't hospitalised for Covid
Moderna:

Risk of Covid of any severity reduced from 0.64% to 0.04%
Risk of severe Covid reduced from 0.08% to 0.007%
Risk of hospitalisation reduced from 0.02% to zero

99.98% on placebo were not hospitalised for Covid
AstraZeneca:

Risk of Covid of any severity reduced from 2.2% to 1%
Risk of severe Covid (WHO score ≥6) reduced from 0.02% to zero
Risk of hospitalisation reduced from 0.16% to 0.02%

99.84% on placebo were not hospitalised for Covid
It should be stressed that not all the differences between active and placebo groups above reached "statistical significance".

But that's outside the scope of this thread.

I'm just reporting the raw data.
Final point: these were deliberately conducted in countries with high prevalance to accelerate the trials.

Which is more significant:

- the reductions achieved between the groups

or

- how hard - under controlled conditions - it was to find any confirmed Covid, esp severe?
Another way of lookimng at this is to determine the number needed to treat (MMT) to prevent a single case.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr Jonathan Engler MB ChB DipPharmMed LLB

Dr Jonathan Engler MB ChB DipPharmMed LLB Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jengleruk

Feb 10
My views on "spikeopathy" as illustrated by a Whatsapp conversation I had with @ClareCraigPath, co-chair of @hartgroup_org - who is happy that I post this exchange verbatim (other than the odd spelling howlers!)

We have different views on "spikeopathy" but we both thought you mind find a modicum of interest in this exchange.

Clare brought the tweet below to my attention with this message:

"I know you [Jonathan] aren't a great believer in spike pathology but this evidence of vaccine injury is pretty compelling."
My response was:

"Of course continued production of foreign protein throughout the body is harmful!

But would it matter which weird protein is actually being made?

(And the S1 could be just one of many being made per the frameshift thing - but that’s the one being tested for, ie S1 could just be a marker for a whole lot of proteins.)

When have I ever said that I don’t believe that?

No, what I object to is people extrapolating from a case like this to “spikeopathy” is also a “thing” with “covid” infection when:

- the protein is different in several important ways which likely affect function

- ⁠it doesn’t get made in large / equivalent amounts throughout the body after infection for extended periods"
Follow-up question from Clare:

"So do you think spikeopathy is a thing after injection?"
Read 6 tweets
Oct 20, 2023
On its live Parliamentary stream today, the BBC saw fit to broadcast a banner containing comments directly contradicting some aspects of @ABridgen's speech today.

It is highly inappropriate for @BBC to display any commentary on speeches being made on this stream.

The stream is meant to be a faithful broadcast of goings on in the House, not a news site or forum for debate (other than by those in the House).

Has the BBC ever displayed commentary before which contradicts speeches being given by MPs?
Image
The wording though - "often essential" - is quite interesting in its equivocation.
Here are all the other banners in this and the next tweet (I think I got them all).


Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Aug 5, 2023
It is quite extraordinary that it has taken this paper to raise concerns in the broader medical community.

In @hartgroup_org we have been writing about myocarditis regularly for several years now.

Here's our first article about it from 2 years ago:



1/ hartgroup.org/myocarditis-si…

Image
A year ago, we published an article warning that what is being reported as myocarditis may be the tip of the iceberg, since:

- active surveillance systems found substantially more cases than passive systems.

- The incidence of subclinical cases may dwarf the clinical cases.

2/ Image
Since then, further worrying data has emerged, esp re subclinical cases - only found by measuring troponin levels systematically.

This is logistically simple so it is criminal that it wasn't done as soon as the signal of potential harm emerged.

3/

hartgroup.org/yet-more-worry…
Read 14 tweets
Jun 12, 2023
I never knew this about Wallace.

However, from studying the history of science, I did work out that he had been unfairly written out of the history of the elucidation of the theory of evolution.

It always seemed most odd to me, especially since Darwin was certainly open to him… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Hmmm...this sounds vaguely familiar..... Image
And this sounds rather familiar too:

"there is nothing whatever to show that the increased vaccinations had any effect on the disease, which ran its course and then died out like other epidemics."
Read 9 tweets
Mar 3, 2023
Things that make you think....what's going on?

Haiti and the Dominican Replublic share the Island of Hispaniola.

The 2 countries are very different. DR is more developed than Haiti - eg having a life expectancy of around a decade longer.

content.time.com/time/world/art…
It has been noticed already that it is quite surprising that poorer (and low-vaccination) Haiti had minimal covid burden compared to DR, despite sharing the same climate:
What else is different though?

From the WHO 'flu monitoring site:

app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjo…
Read 6 tweets
Feb 15, 2023
I note all this consternation about the “cover-up” over the origin of “the virus”.

1.

open.substack.com/pub/igorchudov…
Forgive me for thinking this all seems a bit “confected”.

It serves to put the spotlight on where did “it” come from.

But is that really the most important question?

2.
Bearing in mind the perception of lethality was based especially on early data in UK, Italy and NY, the real question to be asked surely is:

WTAF happened to kill so many people there?

Why was official UK policy based on a cut and paste job from end-of-life NICE documents?

3.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(