Definite signs of massive fraud. Trial does not appear to have been either randomized or blinded. And looks like they committed fraud with PCR testing in more than one way. Plus other things...
Aside from the methodological issue about the antibodies suggeting 54% efficacy (as an upper bound), the other issue I have is that severe covid rate is not best outcome IMO. You can't prevent covid. You can only delay it. Hence, the better questions would be "what is the proportion of covid cases in either group that turn out to be severe". The NEJM paper has enough data in plain sight to calculate roughly 50% efficacy by that measure. So (0.5)*(0.5) => 25% efficacy more like it, before accounting for any fraud.
The same exact thing happened with Moderna more recently. A court had to order the FDA to release the data. But I have not seen anyone do similar analyses for Moderna. I suspect all the real sleuths are just fatigued and have lives to get back to. Since the two trials look virtually idenitical in the NEJM papers, I am content to assume the trial was also fraudulent until proven otherwise.
Steve Kirsch analyzing where is health data and comparing to another such analysis that Moderna vaccines caused 50% higher mortality then Pfizer. I think the viral vector vaccines I'm not sure which ones, caused five times higher mortality than Pfizer. I wonder why they're ignoring that--maybe because they were not as wildly distributed.
I'm just starting to read the copied report but in one of the first paragraphs there are a lot of typos and extraneous comments that disguise the meaning; here's the original and my correction:
Since vaccine recipients often, do not make viral antibodies, despite having contracted COVID-19, and even greater number of vaccine recipients who became infected during the trial, we’re not counted, and the actual efficacy was far less than 50% – yet the FDA is still issued and EUA.
Since vaccine recipients often do not make viral antibodies despite having contracted COVID-19, an even greater number of vaccine recipients who became infected during the trial were not counted, and the actual efficacy was far less than 50% – yet the FDA is still issued and EUA.
I would like to point out also in the introduction the sentence "...Well, below I have transcribed the document word for word with regards to its summary..." it should be "with regard to", not "with regards to".
The following thee groups have done analysis of Pfizer's raw data and their arguments I find are more to the point:
https://researchrebel.substack.com/p/comirnaty-or-comirnaughty
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/anomalous-patterns-of-mortality-and?
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202309.0131/v1
Definite signs of massive fraud. Trial does not appear to have been either randomized or blinded. And looks like they committed fraud with PCR testing in more than one way. Plus other things...
Aside from the methodological issue about the antibodies suggeting 54% efficacy (as an upper bound), the other issue I have is that severe covid rate is not best outcome IMO. You can't prevent covid. You can only delay it. Hence, the better questions would be "what is the proportion of covid cases in either group that turn out to be severe". The NEJM paper has enough data in plain sight to calculate roughly 50% efficacy by that measure. So (0.5)*(0.5) => 25% efficacy more like it, before accounting for any fraud.
The same exact thing happened with Moderna more recently. A court had to order the FDA to release the data. But I have not seen anyone do similar analyses for Moderna. I suspect all the real sleuths are just fatigued and have lives to get back to. Since the two trials look virtually idenitical in the NEJM papers, I am content to assume the trial was also fraudulent until proven otherwise.
Key takeaway, "fraud."
Steve Kirsch analyzing where is health data and comparing to another such analysis that Moderna vaccines caused 50% higher mortality then Pfizer. I think the viral vector vaccines I'm not sure which ones, caused five times higher mortality than Pfizer. I wonder why they're ignoring that--maybe because they were not as wildly distributed.
I'm just starting to read the copied report but in one of the first paragraphs there are a lot of typos and extraneous comments that disguise the meaning; here's the original and my correction:
Since vaccine recipients often, do not make viral antibodies, despite having contracted COVID-19, and even greater number of vaccine recipients who became infected during the trial, we’re not counted, and the actual efficacy was far less than 50% – yet the FDA is still issued and EUA.
Since vaccine recipients often do not make viral antibodies despite having contracted COVID-19, an even greater number of vaccine recipients who became infected during the trial were not counted, and the actual efficacy was far less than 50% – yet the FDA is still issued and EUA.
I would like to point out also in the introduction the sentence "...Well, below I have transcribed the document word for word with regards to its summary..." it should be "with regard to", not "with regards to".
Sincerely,
The Grammar Police