GBD propaganda arm, the Brownstone institute, has published an article claiming 1) the mRNA vax might be the 'wrong' vax for the population, 2) COVID vax dont reduce overall mortality and therefore governments shouldn't mandate COVID vax. Let's look at these claims. 🧵
First, let us look at the primary source of data for these claims, a preprint attempting to assess some signal of non-specific effects of the two major classes of COVID vaccines through a meta-analysis of industry-led vaccine RCTs.…
F1 purports to show that while mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality in these RCTs, adenovirus vaccines may have, and in particular this effect can be most heavily attributed to a reduction in CV mortality. Before diving into these, let's just review interpreting CIs Image
it is a common mistake to assume that bc CIs overlap = not significantly different, in fact CI overlap is simply inconclusive. The critical parameter is if the CI distribution of differences between the comparison distributions crosses 0 or not. Crosses 0 = not significant.
This common interpretive mistake is due to something called error propagation. Here's a good blog post on it from an NYU data science Phd student.…
What does that mean for our figure? Maybe there's a trend to lower mortality in adeno but with the underlying data in this analysis no conclusion can be drawn about overall mortality without additional analysis.
Indeed, if you look at the table with the mortality information for all of the adeno trials, the CIs for the relative risk of dying from any cause in the trial group vs placebo are huge...except for J&J. Image
In other words, the trend towards putatively decreased overall mortality in the meta-analysis from Adeno vaccines is likely almost entirely due to the J&J trial data. Also, if we look at f/u, pts in the Pfizer and Moderna trials were followed 2-2.5x as long as in J&J. Image
But CV mortality seems like a clear winner in the adeno group in spite of overall mortality figures! You might say. But if we look at the trial demographics in adeno vs mRNA most of the adeno trials have a much lower mean age and we know CV mortality scales with age. Moreover,
the differences in f/u time is still an issue. If you follow people for longer more people will die of more causes, by chance. If you look at one group followed over a longer period, vs another in a shorter period, you can't interpret mortality differences b/w those groups
This is complicated by the international nature of these trials. CV mortality is also dependent on the healthcare access an individual is able to get, which varies greatly between the countries in the study.
The authors of the preprint themselves acknowledge all of these limitations in their paper. They are not trying to be misleading. Rather, it's the GBD gang misapplying and misinterpreting their findings to serve their own ends, as they do time and time again with research.
You cannot conclude from this paper that mRNA vaccines *enhance* CV risk (you can't even conclude that adeno vaccines have any effect in either direction), but this is the way it is being misinterpreted online, the GBD authors know it, and they don't care to acknowledge it.
Returning to COVID, there's overwhelming evidence that vaccination reduces morbidity and mortality from COVID infection. Rehashing this massive body of evidence in this already long thread is not necessary. Everyone should be vaccinated against COVID-19.
It would be nice if everyone did go out and get vaccinated, boosted, but we've all already learned the painful lesson that without mandates this is probably an impossible task. Furthermore, a true universal COVID vaccine mandate has never and still does not exist.
Lastly, long covid remains an ignored topic from the GBD/infect everyone now (and again, and again ad infinitum) crowd. In other words, morbidity and not just mortality are important factors in determining whether or not an intervention is necessary.
This thread really focuses on the preprint, but there's additional reasons the Brownstone article is completely insane that are so dumb they would be exhausting to write about. Is it reasonable to hold vaccines to a standard of reducing overall mortality?
Reduction in overall mortality from a vaccine preventing an infectious disease depends on many other factors, including the prevalence of infections in the population at the time, and the particular subvariant in this case that is driving infections at a given time.
It depends on NPI use. Exposure risk of trial participants. The GBD folks implicitly assume these things to be meaningless, which is also too dumb to fathom in text.

• • •

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

Keep Current with 🎃santiago 🐈‍⬛ sanchez 🍂

🎃santiago 🐈‍⬛ sanchez 🍂 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!


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 @santiagokique

Dec 22, 2022
The NYT article on VIP treatment at NYU ERs is good. Although this kind of thing happens at every major medical center, the article says a few quiet things loudly and in medicine we need to get much better at saying the quiet injustices of routine clinical operations out loud
On quiet things: I’m certain Langone never asked for special treatment, but he didn’t need to, he already bought it for 100M dollars. Image
The medical director on VIP care vs the reality. You don’t need a program or any special protocol if you can get the message across. If there’s a special hotline for trustees to use , what is it meant to be used for if not special treatment? Calling to catchup with house staff? ImageImage
Read 5 tweets
Dec 7, 2022
a few wks ago this very censored man called for university leadership to lose their jobs seconds after bragging he personally advised DeSantis re: covid. This week he was at a gala dinner in Miami hosted by Br*wnstone that had a 1,000$/person pricetag.
a heretic, persona non grata
never seen someone this excommunicated in my entire life
Read 5 tweets
Oct 21, 2022
A viral origins preprint has gone viral again, this time claiming that the restriction enzyme map of the SARS-CoV-2 genome is suggestive of a lab / synthetic origin instead of zoonotic origin, which remains the dominant theory in the literature. I don't think it shows that. 🧵
I have a feeling others will go into more detail on this but I'm going to highlight some big, obvious problems with the argument first, as presented. I'll link to the preprint at the end and others can decide for themselves.
Fig 1. Schematic of how to assemble viral DNA through restriction digest and ligation. Decades old method and the first big problem. Given that they propose restriction enzyme (RE) recognition sites (RS) are maintained in the final product, REs in question must cut *within* RS Image
Read 19 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!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!