/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16150025
>>16149865
alright so here's the mistake, on the third line, the person who made 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. You can argue that they're not properly reporting some events as adverse events and maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, the fact is that this chart changed what the paper is saying and that I personally have no way to check how they reported these events.
So we're left with a 10% increase in serious adverse events, and 300% increase in any adverse events. I'm not surprised personally, actually I'm surprised it's not more than that for the serious adverse events, everyone knows that it can induce myocarditis among other things, and I don't expect a placebo injection to be so close to those of a vaccine injection.

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. Because it's nowhere mentionned how many people kept without a vaccine shot after the study period. 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. You're not comparing similar groups anymore.

I don't know why you also keep repeating there's more people in the control group but it's false.
>The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two 30-μg intramuscular injections, 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 (0.3 ml volume per dose) or saline placebo.