[grey_whiskers]

CONCLUSIONS A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728. opens in new tab.)

This reads like either an undergraduate lab project or an advertisement for Pfizer.

I'm going to have to reconsider my respect for NEJM as a real journal.

95%? Where have I heard that before?

Dingbat Theme Song

Can someone dig up the discussion that showed Pfizer screwed up the calculations of relative risk vs. absolute risk reduction?

[ransomnote]

• Relative risk reduction: Misinformative measure in clinical trials and COVID-19 vaccine efficacy
  11/5/2023, 11:13:14 AM · by ransomnote

  nih.gov ^ | December 1, 2022 | Ronald B. Brown

Excerpt of Abstract

"Treatment and vaccine efficacy in clinical trials are often reported in the media and medical journals as the relative risk reduction. The present article explains why the relative risk reduction is a misinformative measure that promotes disinformation when reporting efficacy in clinical research studies such as randomized controlled trials for COVID-19 vaccines."