Wow. I'm trying to do a sanity check on this study, and I'm not convinced they found anything but noise?
They looked at 25 "averse events", and only half of them (12 of the 25) had higher prevalence with the vaccine than in the control group, which is what "no difference" looks like. The normal way you protect against this is by adjusting for the fact that you're doing multiple tests (one for each of the 25 adverse events), but "As is standard practice for studies of safety outcomes, no adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.". Am I missing something?
Or to put it differently, if the vaccine puts you at risk for intracranial hemorrhages, does it also protect you against acute kidney injury (irrespective of Covid)? The difference is just as big in the other direction.
I'm not sure any of the studies that measured it for any of the 3 main vaccines are distinguishable from noise. All the numbers that I managed to find weren't.
I'm starting to think that we should redesign all the older vaccines to be more like those ones.
They looked at 25 "averse events", and only half of them (12 of the 25) had higher prevalence with the vaccine than in the control group, which is what "no difference" looks like. The normal way you protect against this is by adjusting for the fact that you're doing multiple tests (one for each of the 25 adverse events), but "As is standard practice for studies of safety outcomes, no adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.". Am I missing something?
Or to put it differently, if the vaccine puts you at risk for intracranial hemorrhages, does it also protect you against acute kidney injury (irrespective of Covid)? The difference is just as big in the other direction.