I skimmed and looked into one of his more interesting data points:
For example, in the Pfizer trial, you were much more likely to die if you got the vaccine than if you got the placebo. They simply forgot to mention that in the abstract of the paper
Where is he concluding his point from? I can't find it. I see instead:
During the blinded, placebo-controlled period, 15 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 14 in the placebo group died; during the open-label period, 3 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 2 in the original placebo group who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered to be related to BNT162b2 by the investigators. Causes of death were balanced between BNT162b2 and placebo groups.
BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19.
Folks, let's just not accept what a Substack article tells us.
So our new best estimate of the number of “excess deaths” caused by the vaccine is 388,000
If you're going to jump in and say "well read his next article he linked": okay, let's do that.
Further, nine vaccine recipients had died from cardiovascular events such as heart attacks or strokes, compared to six placebo recipients who died of those causes. The imbalance was small but notable, considering that regulators worldwide had found that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines were linked to heart inflammation in young men.
9 vs 6 out of ~22 000 is not statistically significantly, (p-value > 0.05), so why bring this up? Because it fits a narrative.
At best, the results suggested that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine - now pushed on nearly a billion people worldwide at a cost of tens of billions of dollars and ruinous and worsening civil liberties restrictions - did nothing to reduce overall deaths.
I love this. 14 deaths in placebo, and 15 in vax group. Not significant! However, this is expected. If I randomly choose an American, there's a ~0.025% chance they died in the time period of the study: 79 604 died / 329.5M population. In a sample of 44k (the original studies population), I would expect that 44k * 0.025% ~= 10 ppl to die from Covid in that time period. This is a number too low to be reliably detected with a population of only 44k (it's noisy!). What do I mean by that? Let's say 15 die of natural causes in both groups, and an additional 10 died of Covid in the control group. So 15 vs 25. This is not significant! We would need larger sample sizes, or longer period of observation, to detect a difference in deaths.
I skimmed and looked into one of his more interesting data points:
He links to this paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345
Where is he concluding his point from? I can't find it. I see instead:
Folks, let's just not accept what a Substack article tells us.
... just sounds ridiculous.
If you're going to jump in and say "well read his next article he linked": okay, let's do that.
9 vs 6 out of ~22 000 is not statistically significantly, (p-value > 0.05), so why bring this up? Because it fits a narrative.
I love this. 14 deaths in placebo, and 15 in vax group. Not significant! However, this is expected. If I randomly choose an American, there's a ~0.025% chance they died in the time period of the study: 79 604 died / 329.5M population. In a sample of 44k (the original studies population), I would expect that 44k * 0.025% ~= 10 ppl to die from Covid in that time period. This is a number too low to be reliably detected with a population of only 44k (it's noisy!). What do I mean by that? Let's say 15 die of natural causes in both groups, and an additional 10 died of Covid in the control group. So 15 vs 25. This is not significant! We would need larger sample sizes, or longer period of observation, to detect a difference in deaths.