/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16149806
>this chart substitued "any severe adverse event" for what is actually in the original paper "any severe event". As I said before, adverse event and any events aren't the same thing

Are you sure you can understand english? the column heading is 'adverse event' therefore the 'severe' under 'adverse event' is a severe adverse event like the chart says... kinda embarrassing you cant grasp this basic english.
>adverse event and any events aren't the same thing

Ok now im convinced youre doing pilpul, 'any event' is UNDER the HEADING 'adverse events', 'any event' is thus an adverse event without the cause mentioned. This is a poor attempt at muddying the waters.

>for the second part about the death count, I tried to figure it out but it doesn't go into details, but as it shows in your own chart, there is no number for placebo, not even 0.

it says 14 deaths right there. Why are you
shamelessly lying? people can read you know...

>Because it's nowhere mentionned how many people kept without a vaccine shot after the study period.
Why would a clinical trial measure what happens some arbitrary duration after the clinical trial had been concluded? it has all the stats for 6 whole months, the unblinding was done delibarately to muddy up the water so after this 6 months (which we have all the incriminating stats for that youre ignoring) there wouldnt be a reliable control group to compare it to, this proves the reality im arguing for even more.

>If 90% of the people eventually got the shot, which isn't far fetched since it became mandatory for a large part of the world, it means you're practically left with only people who have received the vaccine. No wonder some of them continue to die
Are you implying muh participants were lying? thats the crux of your argument?
>>16150083
>Now about canadian covid care alliance :

Thats not the same guy, yet another lie. plus ivermectin has now been conveniently admitted to be useful against covid. KILL YOURSELF, evil liar.