Logical paradoxes and epidemiologic inconsistencies in vaccine-related vitiligo risk assessment

I wish to highlight critical methodologic inconsistencies in the study by Kim et al that was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.1 The analysis by my colleagues and me, which was published in the article by Roccetti,2 demonstrates that the reported hazard ratio (HR) of 2.714 for vitiligo is a statis- tical artifact. The study presents 2 statistically irreconcilable scenarios, depending on the temporal interpretation of the reported incidence.