Studies like the 2021 examination were frequently used by experts, politicians and administrators to justify booster mandates, since they seemed to indicate that additional doses were inarguably more protective and even more effective at "Saving lives." Except as with so much of COVID research, the ends justified the inaccurate means.
Essentially, the study from "Arbel et al." claimed that among those who'd received a Pfizer booster dose, there was a 90 percent lower rate of mortality due to COVID. Using observational methods, Arbel et al.1 calculated an adjusted 90% lower mortality due to Covid-19 among participants who received a first BNT162b2 vaccine booster than among those who did not receive a booster.
Reported 441 deaths not related to Covid-19 in the booster group and 963 deaths not related to Covid-19 in the nonbooster group.
Essentially, these results implied that the initial claims of 90 % efficacy from the two-dose vaccination series could be reestablished by getting a booster dose.
The mortality not related to Covid-19 was calculated as×0.16=1.09 per 100,000 persons per day in the booster group as compared with×2.
The adjusted 90% lower mortality due to Covid-19 reported among the participants who received a booster cannot, with certainty, be attributed to boosting.
The results claimed by the initial authors, the results relied upon by the FDA to justify their booster campaign, were likely based on biased methodology that stacked the deck in favor of vaccine efficacy.
https://brownstone.org/articles/fda-relied-on-wildly-incorrect-booster-estimates/
No comments:
Post a Comment