IFEHC Weighs In
In this section, IFEHC examines the evidence and makes its own conclusions. We also provide guidelines from respected sources such as the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Please note that this section should NOT be construed as medical advice.
COVID19
CRITIQUE OF COVID VACCINE TRIALS
Background: Dr. Boren is Board Certified by the American Board of Preventive Medicine (ABPM) in Occupational & Environmental Medicine (OEM). Dr. Boren has training from the CDC's NIOSH in evidence-based medicine. Note that neither CDC-NIOSH nor the ABPM endorses this article.
The following is a brief critique of the original studies (in the New England Journal of Medicine) of the three U.S. CoVid vaccines. The studies for Pfizer's BNT162b2 (Polack et al 2020) and Moderna's mRNA-1273 (Baden et al 2021) had a single primary endpoint (i.e., relative risk reduction) and came to identical findings of 94%. The study of Janssen's Ad26.COV2.S (Sadoff et al 2021) defined multiple endpoints that were, in my opinion, indirect. All three studies were written and sponsored by their respective pharmaceutical (a standard practice that surprises many when I inform them). When I word-searched, I could not find the words "allergy" or "anaphylaxis" in any of those three studies. Of note, I have not been able to find evidence that mRNA vaccines (mechanism of Pfizer and Moderna) have been used before in humans. In conclusion; two of those three studies provide substantive evidence that Pfizer's and Moderna's vaccines are effective. However, none of those three studies provide enough evidence to conclude that the vaccines are safe in the long run.