Pfizer vaccine, questionable efficacy at the expense of safety


N. England Journal of Medicine has published the first results of the phase 2/3 trial

… the operational phase before the research is completed and we have consistent data on the effectiveness but above all on the safety of the vaccine

… the publication does not state how many swabs were done, nor to whom

… may have again distinguished the two groups in the interpretation of symptoms and the use of diagnostic tests

… was also raised in a commentary published in the British Medical Journal

… we do not know whether and to what extent the vaccinated have really been ‘freed’ from the virus, nor whether the vaccine stops contagions

… for an unvaccinated person, the risk of catching Covid-19 (of any severity) was 162 out of 18,325

… This is not due to the ineffectiveness of the vaccine, but to the low probability of getting sick

… “Systemic reactogenicity was more common and severe after the second dose than after the first dose”

… to attribute adverse events occurring after vaccination to the treatment itself or to other conditions already present in the subject

… “Although the study was designed to follow participants for safety and efficacy for 2 years after the second dose”

… In practice, the possibility that the consequences of the vaccine on the large population are more serious than those from Covid-19 will remain open forever

… Putting efficacy (debatable, as we have seen) before safety is unethical and unscientific

… Criticism and opposition, if justified, are healthy in science and medicine. They help to test hypotheses better and to uncover possible errors. This is in everyone’s interest



                      New England Journal of Medicine


                      British Medical Journal