Jan B. Hommel (neurologist Jan Bonte) has written a solid piece about the Pfizer report. The things we know about the vaccine have been met with appropriate jubilation. Unfortunately, we really don't know a lot. The article itself is not light reading, but a serious scientific piece. I have mentioned a few take-aways, hopefully that inspires you to read and judge for yourself.
https://www.janbhommel.com/post/het-pfizer-biontech-vaccin-tegen-het-sars-cov-2-virus
In the document, he identifies gaps in the report, which raises a number of questions for him.
My own questions are largely the same as those of Hommel:
- Why does everyone still have to be vaccinated if the vulnerable are (finally) well protected with annual injections?
- What is the effect of the vaccine on the number of hospital admissions and ICU admissions? The study only shows a reduction in minor infections.
- The same goes for the effect on mortality. In the placebo group, no one died of Covid-19. Why vaccinate against a disease whose effect on mortality is so low that no difference can be detected in a study, even if the study was partly designed to investigate the effect on mortality?
- What is the safety of the vaccine in the 'longer' term, longer than two(!) months? This includes rarer but potentially serious side effects such as autoimmune disorders.
A nice piece highlighted:
Pfizer argues that it would not be (ethically) responsible to assess the safety of the vaccine in the context of continuing the double-blind study.
This means that the placebo group will also be vaccinated. If this is done, the chance of definitively attributing any serious side effects to the vaccine is definitively lost.
This directly serves the interests of the vaccine manufacturer in the context of possible liability, even if this liability has been placed with the national authorities.
