The COVID-19 vaccination rate ranges from 1-in-10 for children and pregnant women to 1-in-6 for adults, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates, suggesting the heyday has long passed for jabs known immediately by President Biden’s CDC to not completely stopping infection or transmission and yet portrayed as bulletproof the next two years.

The medical establishment and mainstream media continue hyping the protective abilities of the jabs based on research they may have misread or misrepresented, however.

Last season’s immunizations worked wonders for veterans’ heart health, according to Department of Veterans Affairs research published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine.

Among more than a million vets who received a flu vaccine, those who also received a COVID vaccine – about a third – saw a 37.7% lower risk of “COVID-19–associated MACE,” or major adverse cardiac events, according to the first result in the study, used in JAMA IM’s social media. The abstract also touts a 23.7% “risk difference for all-cause MACE.”

What the study buries: COVID-associated MACE was only 1% of all MACE, drastically limiting the benefit, and COVID vaccine effectiveness against MACE as a whole was only 6.2% and slightly better against hospitalization (6.6%) and death (7.1%).

It would take 10,000 vaccinations to eliminate two COVID-associated MACE cases, the authors acknowledge, repeatedly calling that benefit “modest” and also describing the “absolute benefit” of COVID vaccination as “modest for the general cohort.”

Both general and medical news publications ran with the “nearly 40 percent” COVID-related reduction, as The Washington Post phrased it, and ignored or buried the caveats in the study, including the lack of statistical significance in that finding for ages 75 and under.

Critics were quick to point out the treatment and control groups didn’t appear to be well-matched, implying the former was healthier overall, and that the Post botched the core findings, overstating what the researchers said they found by more than sixfold.

Epidemiologist Vinay Prasad, who returned to the University of California San Francisco this spring after a contentious year as the Trump administration’s top vaccine regulator, dug into the supplemental tables and found data that “invalidates the entire paper.”

As an observational study rather than a randomized controlled trial, the researchers needed to create “two comparable groups whose only difference was COVID-19 vaccine receipt,” but the supplemental data show they failed, Prasad wrote in his newsletter Tuesday.

“All cause mortality curves separate by day 10. That is simply impossibly fast,” he said. “The MACE separates by week 5, and the all cause death separates by week 2. The only explanation is that the no vaccine group is fundamentally different from the outset of the study.”

The Sensible Medicine newsletter, to which Prasad contributes, reiterated that the outcome could represent only the “healthy vaccinee effect,” the well-documented phenomenon of healthier people being more likely to seek vaccination. “JAMA IM editor & peer review fail.”

The journal even published a Prasad opinion three years ago on interventions that “work too fast,” illustrating selection bias, as did the New England Journal of Medicine when Prasad and his more recently departed FDA colleague Tracy Beth Hoeg challenged a COVID booster study as possibly tainted by healthy vaccinee bias.

The Post prominently bungled the “nearly 40 percent” reduction in the subheadline for its report, incorrectly claiming the study found it applied to “events like heart attack and stroke,” not just COVID-associated MACE. (The body of the article specifies this finding as MACE “linked to covid-19,” suggesting an editor’s mistake.)

Former Surgeon General Jerome Adams, who served in President Trump’s first term, shared the Post’s social media post about the study, which put the false claim in the image but the correct phrasing in the text itself.

“Given the clear evidence linking COVID vaccination to better CV outcomes, discouraging or limiting access to vaccination seems difficult to reconcile with a goal of making America healthier,” Adams wrote, without correcting the claim in the image. Among those sharing his post: the actress Morgan Fairchild.

Adams “can’t read a study properly,” omitting that the research is “too confounded to be relied up[on],” wrote Vaccine Safety Research Foundation founder Steve Kirsch, once a prominent Democratic Party funder.

The Washington Post, which owner Jeff Bezos reportedly told President Trump was his worst investment ever, fixed its error without telling readers it goofed after former New York Times drug industry reporter Alex Berenson flagged the error in his newsletter and noted that COVID-associated MACE was roughly 1% of all-cause MACE in the study – about 5 in 350 cases per 10,000.

“Five years after the first catastrophic failure of the mRNA jabs, legacy media outlets are still using falsehoods to push the shots on a population that neither wants nor needs them,” he wrote.

Other media accurately characterized the COVID-associated MACE reduction without specifying how small that population was among all-cause MACE, while either burying the 6.2% vaccine effectiveness finding late in the story, as The Hill did, or omitting it entirely, as industry publication STAT News did.

Corresponding author Ziyad Al-Aly didn’t answer when asked to respond to claims that the study didn’t adequately match treatment and control groups, only made clear in the supplementary data, and buried the small proportion of COVID-associated MACE among the MACE results when touting the 37.7% lower risk.

More here

Tagged: Partner BACK TO HOMEPAGE