Thread by @han_francis

#COVID19 #VaccinesWork It is actually possible to be empathetic to the vaccine injured while refraining from misleading the public - Again, Aseem Malhotra has fallen short of this standard when he spoke in @GibraltarGov . Here's how he recycled more of his distortions.

He still thinks that the abstract provided by Gundry at the @AHAScience / @American_Heart is adequate to prove that mRNA is causing widespread undetected coronary inflammation... no that is not accurate. sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-puls-test-… . That test is not validated for this purpose.

He still believes that mRNA vaccines cause widespread accelerated coronary atherosclerosis... an experiment is necessary to show this. The most frequently cited piece of evidence is the untimely death of @KailashChandOBE ; while it was tragic it is insufficient evidence.

He still believes that the original Pfizer phase 3 trial for the first COVID mRNA vaccine, nejm.org/doi/full/10.10… , is rubbish because it was not statistically powered to detect prevention of death. This intentionally omits...

That the core calculation in this study was to look at effectiveness over placebo, and there are now shelves of studies testing COVID vaccine effectiveness against preventing severe COVID hospitalization and death.

He cites the study by Joseph Fraiman and Peter Doshi as incontrovertible evidence of harm... sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-fa… if you re-analyze statistics to intentionally highlight max vaccine injury you will get exactly that, rather than a rational discussion of vacine injury.

The @WHO list of possible COVID immunization adverse events is not an international cabal of people trying to hide adverse events... it is a sign of people trying to think of every plausible side effect and monitoring for them.

He cites a survey done by an economist in Michigan as evidence of people hiding vaccine side effects... Protip if you use nonsensical statistics you will get nonsensical results.

https://twitter.com/han_francis/status/1618291641303044097

He cites the COVID vaccine NNT as evidence of their poor efficacy... this is a distortion of the difference between the absolute and relative risk reduction. If you already dislike vaccines, you'll portray the lower amount of benefit on purpose (that's the ARR).

ARR is changed by the amount of time at risk and the amount of risk in the population... if we always waited for a nice large ARR, our future vaccine candidates would essentially never be approved in time to be useful. RRR is not affected by those things.

The large NNT was picked on purpose to try and portray the least possible benefit.

Lastly, he willfully misinterprets an biodistribution study done on lipid nanoparticles but was hoping that nobody saw that. Here is a more systematic way to think about that study: sciencebasedmedicine.org/covid-19-vacci…

Citizens of @GibraltarGov deserve the most accurate information available on COVID and COVID immunizations. Aseem falls short of that.