https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2213082
One of the defining characteristics of antivaxxery, besides outright lies, is not being able to discern the difference between sources of medical information. They don’t know the difference between real science and junk science.
Antivaxxers say really dumb things like, the vaccines were only studied in mice before they were released. Then cite a source on the level of the National Enquirer as proof.
It’s not surprising really that a non physician would not know what sources of medical information are quality sources and what are junk.
The New England Journal of Medicine is at the top of the list of elite, quality medical journals.
In medical school we are taught one very strict rule. All doctors MUST read the NEJM every week.
If you don't, you will quickly desend to the level of a bottom dweller doctor, like all the doctors of disinformation.
Attached is a wonderful example of a great article from this week’s NEJM. Have you read it yet? If not, you are out of date and out of touch.
The other important thing to do, other than read this article carefully word by word, is to read the references carefully, one by one.
The references are just as important as the article itself. Study this article and the references carefully.
You will see just how ridiculous and absurd it is when someone claims that the vaccines were only studied in mice before release.
I am proactive by nature. This is going to trigger antivaxxers. But here is what it looks like to me.
All of the antivaxx doctors are unqualified. They were unheard of and unknown people before going on FOX NEWS.
Those of us in medicine, especially academic medicine have never heard of any of these people.
They came out of nowhere. None are fellowship trained and board certified infectious diseases doctors with faculty appointments. These are not the speakers at the top medical conferences. Some even lack postgraduate medical education.
An analogy. Imagine if you tuned in to watch the annual baseball All Star game and instead of real baseball players at the top of their field, you were fed a bunch of weekend softball players, little leaguers and people with no baseball experience at all while the TV commentators were hailing them as true all stars. You would be wondering what universe you were in.
Thst’s exactly what it’s like for physicians when we see the doctors of disinformation on TV. Who are these people?
Its surreal really. We never heard of any of them. So I dissected their resumes and fact checked them. What did I find? Fake resumes. False claims. Lack of appropriate training. Embellished resumes.
These same fake experts then mislead the public with articles from fake and junk medical journals.
If you want quality information, you have to be able to discern the difference between real experts and frauds, between real medical journals and junk publications.
This NEJM is quality research. Study it carefully including the references. Then the next time you are tempted to say something stupid like, they only tested the vaccine on mice, maybe you will think twice and realize, you were duped by fake experts with fake resumes.
Who is behind this fraud? Just look at the politicians. They are manipulating you.
Turn off the TV. Read the NEJM instead.
Dr. Patmas,
You are fighting a straw man here. The claim is that the bivalent vaccine targeted at the BA.5 variant was only tested on mice. Your NEJM study covers the vaccine tuned for the BA.1 variant. It's a different RNA sequence, and thus a different product.
The study you cited has other shortcomings as well. Did you notice the disclaimer at the bottom of your article: supported by Pfizer and BioNtech? Could there be a conflict of interest? The NEJM editor-in-chief warned about this problem back in 1990, and it's only gotten worse since then, as reported here:
https://www.statnews.com/2022/05/19/nejm-other-journals-make-conflicts-of-interest-more-transparent-or-dont-publish/
Other problems leap right off the pages of this study. There's no control group that didn't get any extra booster whatsoever, just comparisons of six different mRNA jabs. They didn't even try to assess efficacy in terms of preventing cases, hospitalization and death: they only looked at "immune response" as a proxy.
I feel your pain: when you were in medical school, the NEJM was a great journal. It's different now. Frankly, I would rather read the National Enquirer; at least the falsehoods there are more transparent.
All is not lost, however. Look at this article by Dr. Paul Offit, describing the fiasco of these bivalent "vaccines". In some ways, it reads like it could've been written by an "anti-vaxxer", although I'd call it a "limited hangout".
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780
Two salient quotes:
"Why did the strategy for significantly increasing BA.4 and BA.5 neutralizing antibodies using a bivalent vaccine fail? The most likely explanation is imprinting."
And:
"I believe we should stop trying to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later."
Well since you have your panties in such a twist over the authority of the NEJM (classic appeal to authority logical fallacy) maybe you should read this paper published in the NEJM by this crazed anti-vaxxer named Dr. Paul Offit. He has the exact opposite point of view which I will quote: “I believe we should stop trying to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later,” (Dr. Paul A. Offit, an FDA vaccine panel adviser and professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia). https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780%EF%BF%BC
And speaking of "junk science," the study you posted is likely tainted by an obvious conflict of interest, but you wouldn't be able to see that being a rabid "pro-vaxxer" where if it's called a vaccine, it has to be safe and effective: "(Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626. opens in new tab.)"