The numbers are correct. Your interpretation of their significance is not. If you don't understand statistical power, and the chance of a Type I and II errors, that might explain why you don't understand why your interpretation is incorrect. The mortality results are not clinically important based on this study, and sorry, that's the way it is. And that's likely why it's never been published.
The numbers are correct. Your interpretation of their significance is not. If you don't understand statistical power, and the chance of a Type I and II errors, that might explain why you don't understand why your interpretation is incorrect. The mortality results are not clinically important based on this study, and sorry, that's the way it is. And that's likely why it's never been published.
In this context, obsessing over traditional "statistical significance" is just a cop-out to dismiss the obviously unfavorable mortality results. People in their right mind will not take a vaccine for which the net mortality impact in the clinical trials was "4 killed for every 3 saved" even at the height of the pandemic and at peak effectiveness (these are the exact same trials that showed >90% effectiveness against infection). People in their right mind will not give their INFORMED consent to take such a vaccine. A 16% increase in non-COVID mortality and a 45% increase in cardiovascular-related mortality absolutely do have PRACTICAL significance in this particular context; hiding behind "statistical significance" is not going to erase these terrible results. And finally, it IS published despite your claiming that it's not: https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(23)00810-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2589004223008106%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Yes, after major alterations. You will note that the conclusions have absolutely no mention of deaths due to vaccines, so the "obvious mortality results" is laughable. If it was "obvious", don't you think the authors would have mentioned it? The article does, however, include the following statement: "In a real-life situation in which the COVID-19 vaccines are administered to highly vulnerable populations with high COVID-19-related mortality, significant reductions in overall mortality are expected, also for mRNA vaccines." Their data show a decrease in Covid mortality with mRNA vaccines, and the difference in overall mortality is due to some theoretical protection against cardiovascular disease in adenovirus vaccines...which is fine. You want to prevent cardiovascular disease, then suggest all patients get adenovirus vaccines. And finally, as I already said: "The number of deaths in these RCTs was limited, and chance could therefore have played a role in these findings." I find it interesting that you are making claims that the authors didn't make, couldn't make on the basis of their own analysis, and therefore why do you think your "analysis" is of value?
The numbers are correct. Your interpretation of their significance is not. If you don't understand statistical power, and the chance of a Type I and II errors, that might explain why you don't understand why your interpretation is incorrect. The mortality results are not clinically important based on this study, and sorry, that's the way it is. And that's likely why it's never been published.
In this context, obsessing over traditional "statistical significance" is just a cop-out to dismiss the obviously unfavorable mortality results. People in their right mind will not take a vaccine for which the net mortality impact in the clinical trials was "4 killed for every 3 saved" even at the height of the pandemic and at peak effectiveness (these are the exact same trials that showed >90% effectiveness against infection). People in their right mind will not give their INFORMED consent to take such a vaccine. A 16% increase in non-COVID mortality and a 45% increase in cardiovascular-related mortality absolutely do have PRACTICAL significance in this particular context; hiding behind "statistical significance" is not going to erase these terrible results. And finally, it IS published despite your claiming that it's not: https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(23)00810-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2589004223008106%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Yes, after major alterations. You will note that the conclusions have absolutely no mention of deaths due to vaccines, so the "obvious mortality results" is laughable. If it was "obvious", don't you think the authors would have mentioned it? The article does, however, include the following statement: "In a real-life situation in which the COVID-19 vaccines are administered to highly vulnerable populations with high COVID-19-related mortality, significant reductions in overall mortality are expected, also for mRNA vaccines." Their data show a decrease in Covid mortality with mRNA vaccines, and the difference in overall mortality is due to some theoretical protection against cardiovascular disease in adenovirus vaccines...which is fine. You want to prevent cardiovascular disease, then suggest all patients get adenovirus vaccines. And finally, as I already said: "The number of deaths in these RCTs was limited, and chance could therefore have played a role in these findings." I find it interesting that you are making claims that the authors didn't make, couldn't make on the basis of their own analysis, and therefore why do you think your "analysis" is of value?