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.
What's the joke?
I hope they implement that here in Canada. I don't want to have to pay for some smokers poor decisions in life.
Yea - she hadn't received the vaccine at the time¹, so...
¹ like - it's in the title of the article.
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
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:
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
... just sounds ridiculous.
vaccines are living rent-free in your head
Just get the vaccine, life goes on.
Just get the vaccine, dude.
I expect u/canusa65 to clear this up for us!
Statistician here: where do you see 140%? Please elaborate, OP
The article is about reporting metrics, ARR, NNV and RR - not about the survival of children.
Statistician here: which table do you see this in?
three x's means it's serious business 😤
Another one: Fully sober drivers made up nearly half of B.C.’s traffic deaths in October. Seems the pro-sober driving narrative is finally shifting, eh boys.
So yea, this article sounds about right. Most accidents happen in the home therefore the home is the most dangerous place to be. Right? Because that's what you're suggesting in posting this article.
These trials literally cost peoples' lives.
Dude, welcome to medical ethics 101. The ethics of clinic trials are well thought through. In fact this trial was halted early because the drug was so effective it was deemed unethical to continue restricting the placebo group.
was used in places like India on a wide scale and there was a concurrent sudden decline in cases and deaths.
Dude, welcome to causal inference 101.
Does Banned_on_ZH have a background, or any experience, in biochemistry? Does he/she know anything beyond a google search?
Why did you choose 70 as a cut-off? So strange.
Here's research that says viral loads falls significantly faster in vaxxed people.
viral loads decreased faster in vaccinated individuals.
Vaccination is associated with faster decline in viral RNA load and a robust serological response. Vaccination remains a key strategy for control of COVID-19 pandemic.
But I mean there is so many more studies that show the same direction: here, here, here
But you know what doesn't stop a pandemic - doing nothing. And by nothing I mean putting faith in ineffective treatments, attending anti-vaxx / lockdown rallies, etc. These actions are pro-pandemic.
Yea, this is about right. That plus vaxxed folks have smaller viral loads => smaller transmission probability.
- Your linked study is a study of the Delta variant vs previous variants, not vaccinated vs un-vaccinated.
Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.
Here's research that says viral loads falls significantly faster in vaxxed people.
viral loads decreased faster in vaccinated individuals.
Vaccination is associated with faster decline in viral RNA load and a robust serological response. Vaccination remains a key strategy for control of COVID-19 pandemic.
But I mean there is so many more studies that show the same direction: here, here, here
But you know what doesn't stop a pandemic - doing nothing. And by nothing I mean putting faith in ineffective treatments, attending anti-vaxx / lockdown rallies, etc. These actions are pro-pandemic.
Simple: it's not effective, and hence a distraction from finishing the pandemic.
other readily available remedies, vitamins, and supplements.
Also not effective. You know what is effective?
Attend event -> turns out it was a covid outbreak -> are now sick at home
What's the probability the sickness is covid? pretty fucking high.
But thousands of other virologists and scientists say otherwise - I'm guessing it's like a 90+:1 ratio, maybe more. What makes this doctor more important than the others?
This is a legit question: why this doctor? A priori, before Covid, would you have weighed this doctor's opinion so heavily (90+:1) vs others?
I'm sorry to hear about your mom's cancer diagnosis. There's no relationship between vaccines and causing cancer.
I think it's time I get a lawyer to help.
Agree, a lawyer will definitely have a printer.
huh? Every news report says something like
The man accused the nurse of having “vaccinated his wife without his consent”
his consent? gmafb
OP's name is OperationQ - that says is all...