Wow! Thanks for a careful examination the Pfizer trials. You reveal irregularities that were ignored. Pfizer followed the money not the science. Thanks for honest, investigative writing.
That was a very well thought through presentation. I have a couple of points of information I'd like to add to the discussion. First is a distinction between SAE's and Symptom Reduction. The primary efficacy endpoints used in the trial measured symptoms. I was very surprised to learn that symptom reduction was used to measure the efficacy of these vaccines and I bet it is a surprise to most people reading this now. There was no measurement of severe adverse events. unless there is a data set Dr. Setty found after the initial release of the data. This is a show stopper because reducing one or two symptoms is not equivalent to a serious adverse event. Please comment on this, Dr. Setty as you may have found data that was not available in the initial trial results made available the night they were released . It was at the beginning of February, 2021.
I did a similar video analysis the night the trial results became available. It was taken down quickly by YouTube. I re-posted it and it slipped through. Everyone said I was wrong for about 4 or 5 months. Then a group from Oxford U did an analysis and got the same Absolute Risk Reduction's and Number Needed to Treat as I did from the Pfizer and the Moderna data to the hundredths digit. I was vindicated! Here is the video. I include it because I put the exact Primary Efficacy Endpoints used in the trials which, as I explained above, is the critical issue here. Here is the video (please take a look): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG7n1ZbDTww&t=848s
The second point is that Dr. Setty very astutely raised the question as to what was in the placebo injection. If it was saline or any other completely inert liquid, no harm done as far as the number of people in the placebo group is concerned who got SAE's (Dr. Setty) or or a symptom reduction (the PEE, me). Well, this was not the case. The trial designers injected a different vaccine formulation as the "placebo" in many of the trials, a MENNINGITIS/SEPTICEMIA VACCINE. When they do something like this, all bets are off. We cannot use the number of SAE's (or symptoms) in the placebo group in any traditional comparitive way. This should have invalidated the trials! Here is the reference: https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-vaccine-why-its-important-to-know-whats-in-the-placebo-146365
This was very dishonest on the part of the trial designers. They were trying to increase the complications in the placebo group and they invalidated the trials. I discovered this after I made the video explaining the "95 % efficacious" claim. Dr. Setty, please comment and thank you for another excellent post.
Kudos.👍🏻👍🏻 Even I—not a numbers gal— got this. I’m going to give this to my husband who is a numbers guy and see what he says. He thinks I’m basically a nut case. Unvaxxed and staying that way. Hubby did stop at one JNJ. No boosters. Thank you!
Excellent! I recommended your comments at Your Local Epidemiologist this past week to several people. I’m not a paid subscriber, so I couldn’t reply to you there. This is superb information, meticulously put together. I’m looking forward to learning more from you!
Wow this is exactly the type of sobering analysis the unhinged debate need.
And I just saw your take on the UK non covid mortality data on youtube - excellent!
I used to follow the UK data in 2021 bc whatever happened there seemed to arrive to us in Scandinavia shortly after, and this non covid mortality has bothered me for a year now. There was a study on the non covid mortality in UK during vaccine rollout, stratified by age and vaccine status, that seemed to indicate that the unvaccinated had a higher non covid death rate in the weeks after the vaccinated of the same age cohort received their vaccinations... That study is not retracted so I assume the results are still valid. I cannot understand why this is still not the medical fraud super scandal of the century...? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination
Thank you for your time in investigating and reporting these events. Informative and explained in a way that most laypeople can understand. I'll be sharing this info. I'll be checking back when I can. Thanks
I have just read the paper by Michels et al. (2023) (https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.85) and they have not talked about this 'deviation thing' except in just one case where the participant took the Moderna vaccine. I have reviewed Thomas et al. (2021) (https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345) and its Figure 1 with supposedly the flow of all the participants. The last pair of bifurcations don't add up:
— There are 1258 participants not accounted for in the treatment arm who neither have discontinued the trial (167, including 11 who "Had protocol deviation") nor entered the follow-up (20334): 21759-20334-167 = 1258.
— There are 583 participants not accounted for in the placebo arm who neither have discontinued the trial (273, including 24 who "Had protocol deviation") nor entered the follow-up (20794): 21650-20794-273 = 583.
Are these numbers just the same you have pointed out (311 and 60) after growing up for some months?
This was in an AZ trial, not mRNA. Is there reason to believe that something similar was done in mRNA trials? Maybe to enable deaths from vaccine reactions to try to show that the Covid vaccine was not more dangerous than the (dangerous) placebo?
I just read the article on YLE about the meeting the other day and also read the comments. A woman called Sarah put up two repeated comments asking what the biological mechanism was for reactions like stroke or myocarditis. At the end she said it would benefit society if more research were done on this. Then there were two good comments by Baydog. As I was reading, these all disappeared. After a few minutes, the one by Sarah came back, but without the last sentence. At that time, the two by Baydog were still down. The comments were decorously expressed. It may be good to know that that site censors opposing viewpoints.
I first noticed comments by you last week, on the two most recent posts on sudden deaths and organizations promoting what she calls disinformation. Last night I looked at the comments again, and your long comments on both were not there. One on the Covid vaccine’s not being sterilizing was still there. I just looked again, and many of your excellent comments were there again.
Several of your comments at YLE seemvto have been taken down at least temporarily. I screenshotted several of them: I hope it was all of them. They were very interesting and intelligent; it would be a shame if they were taken down for good.
This document is without a doubt, the most coherent, concise and convincing single dose red pill I’ve ever had the pleasure to read.
Thank you for the excellent work. I look forward to all of your content, present and future.
Wow! Thanks for a careful examination the Pfizer trials. You reveal irregularities that were ignored. Pfizer followed the money not the science. Thanks for honest, investigative writing.
That was a very well thought through presentation. I have a couple of points of information I'd like to add to the discussion. First is a distinction between SAE's and Symptom Reduction. The primary efficacy endpoints used in the trial measured symptoms. I was very surprised to learn that symptom reduction was used to measure the efficacy of these vaccines and I bet it is a surprise to most people reading this now. There was no measurement of severe adverse events. unless there is a data set Dr. Setty found after the initial release of the data. This is a show stopper because reducing one or two symptoms is not equivalent to a serious adverse event. Please comment on this, Dr. Setty as you may have found data that was not available in the initial trial results made available the night they were released . It was at the beginning of February, 2021.
I did a similar video analysis the night the trial results became available. It was taken down quickly by YouTube. I re-posted it and it slipped through. Everyone said I was wrong for about 4 or 5 months. Then a group from Oxford U did an analysis and got the same Absolute Risk Reduction's and Number Needed to Treat as I did from the Pfizer and the Moderna data to the hundredths digit. I was vindicated! Here is the video. I include it because I put the exact Primary Efficacy Endpoints used in the trials which, as I explained above, is the critical issue here. Here is the video (please take a look): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG7n1ZbDTww&t=848s
The second point is that Dr. Setty very astutely raised the question as to what was in the placebo injection. If it was saline or any other completely inert liquid, no harm done as far as the number of people in the placebo group is concerned who got SAE's (Dr. Setty) or or a symptom reduction (the PEE, me). Well, this was not the case. The trial designers injected a different vaccine formulation as the "placebo" in many of the trials, a MENNINGITIS/SEPTICEMIA VACCINE. When they do something like this, all bets are off. We cannot use the number of SAE's (or symptoms) in the placebo group in any traditional comparitive way. This should have invalidated the trials! Here is the reference: https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-vaccine-why-its-important-to-know-whats-in-the-placebo-146365
This was very dishonest on the part of the trial designers. They were trying to increase the complications in the placebo group and they invalidated the trials. I discovered this after I made the video explaining the "95 % efficacious" claim. Dr. Setty, please comment and thank you for another excellent post.
Kudos.👍🏻👍🏻 Even I—not a numbers gal— got this. I’m going to give this to my husband who is a numbers guy and see what he says. He thinks I’m basically a nut case. Unvaxxed and staying that way. Hubby did stop at one JNJ. No boosters. Thank you!
Excellent! I recommended your comments at Your Local Epidemiologist this past week to several people. I’m not a paid subscriber, so I couldn’t reply to you there. This is superb information, meticulously put together. I’m looking forward to learning more from you!
Wow this is exactly the type of sobering analysis the unhinged debate need.
And I just saw your take on the UK non covid mortality data on youtube - excellent!
I used to follow the UK data in 2021 bc whatever happened there seemed to arrive to us in Scandinavia shortly after, and this non covid mortality has bothered me for a year now. There was a study on the non covid mortality in UK during vaccine rollout, stratified by age and vaccine status, that seemed to indicate that the unvaccinated had a higher non covid death rate in the weeks after the vaccinated of the same age cohort received their vaccinations... That study is not retracted so I assume the results are still valid. I cannot understand why this is still not the medical fraud super scandal of the century...? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination
Thank you for your time in investigating and reporting these events. Informative and explained in a way that most laypeople can understand. I'll be sharing this info. I'll be checking back when I can. Thanks
I have just read the paper by Michels et al. (2023) (https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.85) and they have not talked about this 'deviation thing' except in just one case where the participant took the Moderna vaccine. I have reviewed Thomas et al. (2021) (https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345) and its Figure 1 with supposedly the flow of all the participants. The last pair of bifurcations don't add up:
— There are 1258 participants not accounted for in the treatment arm who neither have discontinued the trial (167, including 11 who "Had protocol deviation") nor entered the follow-up (20334): 21759-20334-167 = 1258.
— There are 583 participants not accounted for in the placebo arm who neither have discontinued the trial (273, including 24 who "Had protocol deviation") nor entered the follow-up (20794): 21650-20794-273 = 583.
Are these numbers just the same you have pointed out (311 and 60) after growing up for some months?
Excellent article. I will share it widely.
When you said that it may not be correct that volunteers in the placebo group in the vaccine trials received saline solution, I remembered that the Brazilian Joao Pedro Feitosa in the AZ trials died. It was said that he was in the placebo group, but also that he received a meningitis vaccine as a “placebo,” because it was already “known” to be safe. In reality, the meningitis vaccines have never veen safe and have caused many deaths. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/coronavirus-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-trial-death/2020/10/21/3f5bedac-13c0-11eb-ad6f-36c93e6e94fb_story.html?outputType=amp
This was in an AZ trial, not mRNA. Is there reason to believe that something similar was done in mRNA trials? Maybe to enable deaths from vaccine reactions to try to show that the Covid vaccine was not more dangerous than the (dangerous) placebo?
I just read the article on YLE about the meeting the other day and also read the comments. A woman called Sarah put up two repeated comments asking what the biological mechanism was for reactions like stroke or myocarditis. At the end she said it would benefit society if more research were done on this. Then there were two good comments by Baydog. As I was reading, these all disappeared. After a few minutes, the one by Sarah came back, but without the last sentence. At that time, the two by Baydog were still down. The comments were decorously expressed. It may be good to know that that site censors opposing viewpoints.
I first noticed comments by you last week, on the two most recent posts on sudden deaths and organizations promoting what she calls disinformation. Last night I looked at the comments again, and your long comments on both were not there. One on the Covid vaccine’s not being sterilizing was still there. I just looked again, and many of your excellent comments were there again.
Several of your comments at YLE seemvto have been taken down at least temporarily. I screenshotted several of them: I hope it was all of them. They were very interesting and intelligent; it would be a shame if they were taken down for good.