PS: Mr Stone

When one takes a left at the rabbit hole
no one cares if it's 14 or 13

Pneumonia vaccines are doomed to fail and cause far more harm than theoretical good, but it is unlikely they will be stopped, just ‘improved’, like the annual flu jab.

Pneumonia Vaccine Shown to Actually Increase Bacterial Infections It Is Supposed to Prevent

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/22/amp/pneumonia-vaccine-shown-to-actually-increase-bacterial-infections.aspx

I was sitting a hospital waiting room a few weeks back, and overheard a doctor telling an elderly lady that she had pneumonia.

To which she quickly, and rather tersely responded " What do you mean I have pneumonia, I had my shot for pneumonia this past fall??!!"

I didn't actually hear the doctor respond to her question... surprise surprise. But the sad thought which occurred to me at the time, is that this lady's generation was so thoroughly brainwashed by the polio vaccine scam, that she'll probable be back for another polio vaccine this coming fall.

@ John

"I don’t think it matters about the wording - and you cannot deduce anything about the motives of the authors from it. They produced a study which was published despite highly inconvenient findings."

Perhaps I was a little too sarcastic in my comment .. what I meant to say was that I have heard that exact same "conclusion" .. "it must be closely monitored in FUTURE STUDIES" .. on just about every vaccine studied .. for the last 14 years.

Maybe I expect too much from the scientific community .... such as .. a truly DEFINITIVE CONCLUSION that determined the risks associated with PCV13 far outweigh any potential benefits .. therefore .. to protect the health of the general public .. should immediately be taken off the market.

I think the standard should be ... DO NO HARM .. by allowing a vaccine's production and administration to continue injuring innocent victims as FURTHER STUDIES ARE MONITORED.

But .. that's probably just silly old me again.

Master Frederick: I suggest you read published work carefully before posting. Your Pfizer-sponsored trial found Pfizer-manufactured Prevnar 13 to be "not [effective] in preventing community-acquired pneumonia from any cause." Hardly a ringing endorsement, except in the sub-group of hermits. Although published in a prestigious journal, this strikes me as akin to a tobacco company sponsoring research into its products.

Fred

Very nice but compare disclosures (have you ever heard the expression "He who pays the piper calls the tune?):

Vila-Corcoles

Funding
This work is supported, in part, by a grant from the “Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria” (FIS) of the “Instituto de Salud Carlos III” (call 2015) for the “Acción Estratégica en Salud 2013-2016 del Programa Estatal de Investigación Orientado a los Retos de la Sociedad”, framing in the “Plan Estatal de Investigación Científica y Técnica y de Innovación 2013-2016”; code file PI15/01230, cofinanced by the European Union through the “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional” (FEDER). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or write up of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials
These data have been obtained from the Catalonian Health Institute Information System for the Development of Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP). The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Bonten

Supported by Pfizer.

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

Drs. Bonten and van Werkhoven and Ms. McDonough report receiving consulting fees from Pfizer; Dr. Webber, Dr. Patterson, Ms. Gault, Mr. Patton, Ms. Moradoghli-Haftvani, Ms. Smith, Ms. Mellelieu, Dr. Pride, Dr. Crowther, Dr. Schmoele-Thoma, Dr. Scott, Dr. Jansen, Dr. Emini, and Dr. Gruber, being employees of and owning stock in Pfizer; Dr. Sanders, receiving grant support through her institution and fees for serving on independent data and safety monitoring committees from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline; and Dr. Grobbee, receiving speaking and consulting fees, honoraria, and research funding from and serving as an investigator for Pfizer, and receiving grant support from Roche Pharmaceuticals and Novartis. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Bob

I don’t think it matters about the wording - and you cannot deduce anything about the motives of the authors from it. They produced a study which was published despite highly inconvenient findings.