a man holding his chest with his hands — Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash

Vaccine has published a retrospective cohort study of just over four million Americans aged 16 to 25, comparing recorded COVID infection with a recorded Pfizer dose.

The Toraih et al. paper claims “SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with higher 6-month risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and all-cause mortality than BNT162b2 vaccination.” Vaccination, we are told, looks markedly safer: 85 per cent less myocarditis, 79 per cent less pericarditis, 72 per cent less mortality than documented infection.

The authors (one of them, Stephen J. Thomas, was a senior investigator on the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine phase 3 trial) interpret this as support for “a favourable benefit–risk profile,” while notably stating that the mortality contrast should be read “as descriptive rather than causal.”

However, if you take a closer look at the method the authors used to arrive at their conclusion, many red flags begin to emerge. Take for instance the labelled groups (where the authors divide everyone into four neat piles) and their unusual sizes.

The Flaws in the 4-Million-Person Study That…

Comments on this post are for subscribers