9/n If you extrapolate this efficacy out linearly, and assume that the RELATIVE risk of death after vaccination remains similar over time, at 52 weeks you'd get an NNTV of 1/((0.00006/6)*52) = 1 per 1,960
-
-
20/n Anyway, this study is flawed in so many basic ways that it's pretty irretrievable. It should be retracted as soon as possible to avoid further damage
Show this thread -
21/n Another note, H/T to
@ScottinVictoria - the reviewer comments are pretty astonishing to read. Not even a mention of why NNTV is worthless in this context, and no argument about the manifestly wrong use of adverse event reports https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/review_report …Show this thread -
22/n Also worth pointing out that two members of the editorial board of the journal have resigned so far because of this terrible studyhttps://twitter.com/ProfKatieEwer/status/1409125241142513670?s=20 …
Show this thread -
23/n also as a couple of people have pointed out, this tweet is incorrect. I mixed up the ARR of disease prevention with death, in actuality the ARR would approach the death rate in the population x 0.84 - in most places this would be about 1 per 100/200https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1409293104063029252?s=19 …
Show this thread -
24/n Oh, and because it always comes up in these discussions, I've never been paid a cent by any pharmaceutical company, all of my funding is through the Australian state and federal governments, the only additional income I get is from writing locked posts on Medium
Show this thread -
25/n There is now an expression of concern published by the journal about the paperhttps://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/705 …
Show this thread -
26/n An interesting point about this paper is that it's actually a perfect example of how peer-review can fail. The people who reviewed the article assumed that the stats and methodology were reasonable, and based on that assumption recommended that it be published
Show this thread -
27/n This is a prime example of what
@jamesheathers and I wrote about recently - the study got through peer review, may be retracted, but the damage has already very much been donehttps://www.statnews.com/2021/06/08/scientific-publishing-new-weapon-for-the-next-crisis-the-rapid-correction/ …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.