Sorry, but I will never rely on an impeached AG for my source of medical information. As for his claim about unblinding, once demonstrated to be effective, it is considered unethical to NOT allow those in the placebo group to get the vaccine, which requires unblinding, but not prior to demonstrating efficacy. (link #1). As for Paxton's claims about ARR vs RRR, that's a complicated topic requiring more space than this little box, but I agree both should be reported in medical research. But when talking about it with the public, it's important to emphasize the unusual circumstances in which the Covid vaccine was tested. The study was done in the midst of a raging pandemic, and it would have been unethical to instruct participants not to do the recommended mitigation strategies. Also, people who volunteer for such studies tend to demonstrate a healthy user bias and would be more likely to follow such mitigation strategies. The ARR is dependent on the initial absolute risk prior to vaccination. This absolute risk was most likely lower to begin with due to all the mitigation strategies, and this was confirmed in that there were fewer cases of infection in BOTH groups than predicted. Of course, Paxton is not a doctor and never mentioned any of this. But the studies were short and never even studied the endpoint of death, which is the one I care about. There's lots of data now to show the vaccine reduced the incidence of death from Covid among all ages, but especially in older ages. (link #2) So yup, I'll keep getting them and you keep getting your medical advice from an attorney politician. He can start his own Substack, Unsensible Medicine. Yikes, I'm getting snarky like Vinay! Sorry! :)
https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1733663016481181747?s=20
Sorry, but I will never rely on an impeached AG for my source of medical information. As for his claim about unblinding, once demonstrated to be effective, it is considered unethical to NOT allow those in the placebo group to get the vaccine, which requires unblinding, but not prior to demonstrating efficacy. (link #1). As for Paxton's claims about ARR vs RRR, that's a complicated topic requiring more space than this little box, but I agree both should be reported in medical research. But when talking about it with the public, it's important to emphasize the unusual circumstances in which the Covid vaccine was tested. The study was done in the midst of a raging pandemic, and it would have been unethical to instruct participants not to do the recommended mitigation strategies. Also, people who volunteer for such studies tend to demonstrate a healthy user bias and would be more likely to follow such mitigation strategies. The ARR is dependent on the initial absolute risk prior to vaccination. This absolute risk was most likely lower to begin with due to all the mitigation strategies, and this was confirmed in that there were fewer cases of infection in BOTH groups than predicted. Of course, Paxton is not a doctor and never mentioned any of this. But the studies were short and never even studied the endpoint of death, which is the one I care about. There's lots of data now to show the vaccine reduced the incidence of death from Covid among all ages, but especially in older ages. (link #2) So yup, I'll keep getting them and you keep getting your medical advice from an attorney politician. He can start his own Substack, Unsensible Medicine. Yikes, I'm getting snarky like Vinay! Sorry! :)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8264198/#:~:text=In early 2021, both Pfizer,vaccine (13, 14).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10247887/#:~:text=Results,for people aged 90+ years.