IntegralAnswers Profile picture
Nov 1 12 tweets 2 min read Read on X
1/🧬 Wondering what vaccine “effectiveness” really means in 2025? Let’s unpack how context, immunity, and virus type change the story. 🔍 Image
2/ Our world in 2025 isn’t 2020. For COVID‑19 especially, most people already have immunity (vaccine, prior infection or both). So new vaccine benefits are on top of that, not from zero.
3/ For COVID-19 vaccines: recent studies show ~46-50% effectiveness against hospitalization. Sounds modest — but remember: this is additional protection in a high-immunity population.
4/Compare that to Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccines in 60+ yr-olds: ~75-80% effectiveness against hospitalisation. Why higher? Because these were vaccine-naive to RSV, so the baseline wasn’t as immune.
5/ Then there’s Influenza: Effectiveness varies a lot. In kids ~67%, adults ~48%, older adults ~42-53%. But in a “bad match” year it might drop into the 20-30% range.
6/ So: a “50% effective” vaccine can have very different meanings depending on who, when, and what you’re measuring. One size of % doesn’t fit all viruses.
7/ On safety: Good news. For COVID vaccines, myocarditis risk is rare and less than the risk from infection itself. Pregnancy data show no higher miscarriage or stillbirth risk — in fact, some benefits.
8/ For RSV vaccines: There is a small signal (~9 extra Guillain-Barré syndrome cases per million doses), but given the tens of thousands of hospitalisations averted annually in older adults, the benefit-risk is strongly favourable.
9/ The key question for you (and clinicians): What additional protection does this vaccine give you personally? A healthy 30-yr-old vs a 75-yr-old have very different equations.
10/ Bottom line: When you see data like “vaccine is 50% effective” — ask which vaccine, which virus, what population, what baseline. The number alone doesn’t tell the full story. Let’s be precise.
11/ CIDRAP. “Vaccine Effectiveness and Safety: What the Numbers Truly Mean (2025).”
University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/cidra…
12/ Lipsitch M et al. “Interpreting Vaccine Effectiveness Studies in Populations with Hybrid Immunity.” Science Transl Med. 2024;16(734):eadj5243.

• • •

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

Keep Current with IntegralAnswers

IntegralAnswers 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 @IntegralAnswers

Nov 2
1/ What Is a Meta-Analysis?

What’s the highest level of evidence in medicine?

Not a single clinical trial.

Not even a large cohort study.

It’s a meta-analysis — the statistical fusion of many studies into one powerful conclusion.

Let’s unpack what that really means. 👇 Image
2/ A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that combines results from multiple studies on the same question — e.g., “Do mRNA vaccines reduce COVID-19 mortality?”

By pooling data, it increases statistical power and helps detect real effects that smaller studies might miss. Image
3/ Think of it like this:

Each individual study is a “pixel.”

A meta-analysis sharpens the image by integrating all those pixels into one higher-resolution picture of reality.

But that only works if the pixels are aligned — which brings us to study selection. Image
Read 31 tweets
Oct 30
“If You Remember One AI Disaster — Make It This One.”

For 16 hours on July 8 2025, Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok spiraled into a full-scale meltdown—posting antisemitic rants and calling itself “Mecha *itler.”

It’s the moment AI safety failed in public.
#AI #AIsafety Image
2/ It began with a single mistake.

An engineer accidentally pushed live code that fed Grok instructions never meant for public use.

No one noticed for hours. 📸 Image
3/ XAI kept “fixing” Grok by editing its system prompt instead of retraining the model—cheap, fast, brittle.

One wrong line of code, and every safety rail fell off. Image
Read 5 tweets
Oct 28
1️⃣
Ever wonder how scientists decide which studies make it into a meta-analysis or review?

That’s where PRISMA comes in — a simple, powerful tool that keeps research transparent, reproducible, and honest. 🧵 Image
2️⃣ PRISMA stands for:
👉 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
It’s not a database or software — it’s a reporting framework that ensures clarity in how systematic reviews are conducted and presented.
3️⃣ Think of PRISMA as a recipe card for good science.

It tells reviewers exactly how to document:
•What databases they searched
•What keywords they used
•Why certain studies were included or excluded
•How data was extracted and synthesized
Read 10 tweets
Oct 28
1/ Part One exposed how the McCullough Foundation Report frames bias as science.

Now we look at who’s behind it.
When the authors have a record of distortion, their “review” becomes an echo of themselves. Image
2/At the top of the bias pyramid sit three familiar names:

🔴 Peter McCullough
🔴 Andrew Wakefield
🔴 Nicolas Hulscher

Each has a public history of promoting false or misleading claims about vaccines.

Let’s look at what they’ve said— and why it matters. Image
Image
3A/ Peter McCullough once respected as a cardiologist, now a central figure in vaccine disinformation.

He’s used his authority to portray vaccines in apocalyptic terms — rhetoric that replaces science with fear.
Read 14 tweets
Oct 28
1/ A new “McCullough Foundation Report” on Zenodo claims vaccines are the main cause of autism—authored by Andrew Wakefield & Peter McCullough, two long-discredited figures.

Let’s unpack how this paper turns framing bias into “evidence.” Image
2/ First red flag: Zenodo is not a peer-reviewed journal.

It’s an open repository—anyone can upload a PDF.

Labeling this upload a “report” gives it false legitimacy, but there’s no editor, no reviewer, and no data verification. Image
3/ The authors call it a “narrative review of 136 studies”—but there’s no protocol, no PRISMA diagram, no risk-of-bias scoring, and no inclusion/exclusion criteria.

They simply count studies as “for” or “against.”

That’s not systematic review—it’s advocacy dressed as science. Image
Read 11 tweets
Oct 26
1/ Once a trusted explainer, John Campbell now misuses his platform to promote distorted takes on COVID science.

Let’s review his most viral claims — and what the actual evidence says.

Image
2/ Vaccine Injuries
Campbell’s claim: VAERS and Yellow Card data prove hidden vaccine harms.

Reality: They flag signals, not causation.

Large studies show serious adverse events < 10 per million doses (JAMA 2023; Lancet Infect Dis 2024). Image
3/ Excess Deaths
He links mortality spikes to vaccination.
Evidence: ONS, EuroMOMO & CDC show deaths track infection waves and delayed care — not vaccination. Image
Read 10 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!

:(