/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14814055
>A 0.1% chance of there being some minor side effect.
That's the best you can come up with?

>>14814085
The cure is worse than the disease

>>14814094
Not according to your own source.

>>14814116
That's wrong

>>14814116
His own source showed the experimental group had a higher rate of adverse events than the placebo group over the course of the trial. Adverse events would have included COVID and complications of COVID. That's not a good risk to reward ratio. They also said this:

>The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.

>>14814094
>The cure is worse than the disease
Usually is.

>>14814055
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2791253
>1.37 excess events per 100k covid infected young men
>1.55 after first pfizer shot and 5.55 after second pfizer shot
>1.75 after first moderna shot and 18.39 after second moderna shot
nice vaccines for a disease with a median age of death in the high 70s to low 80s

>>14814195
"Trust the science!" "Trust the government!"

Its soo easy to lie with science. Reading all the shit papers being published was eye opening in grad school.

>>14814197
>"Trust the cynical mistrust"
FTFY

>>14814055
> Half of the paper is about how limited and inexact they likely are.
Thanks, it'll really help the discussions.
>>14814094
>The cure is worse than the disease
It's been proven wrong many times, Covid is worse even for young healthy people.
At how many 'two weeks' are we now ?

>>14814055
I thought it was settled?

>>14814619
>>14814613
>>14814441
>>14814297
>>14814197
>>14814195
>>14814175
>>14814162
>>14814119
>>14814116
>>14814094
>>14814085
>>14814055
what's up, chud?
you looking at non-peer reviewed articles that's not part of any meta study again?

>>14814055
Oh look, another study that cannot reject the null hypothesis.

Here's a protip: if your results cover an interval that covers "nothing happened" then the study did not find anything significant. Ask yourself, if my IQ is -5 to 15 points higher than yours, am I more intelligent than you?

>>14814195
Oh no, le one in 100,000 effect.
>nice vaccines for a disease with a median age of death in the high 70s to low 80s
Nice way to obfuscate the fact that 1/4 of the deaths are younger than 65.

>>14814677
>am I more intelligent than you
that depends on the skewness of the distribution between -5 to 15 points.

>>14814195
>only looked at the first 28 days after a covid infection
It has been proven that covid 19 causes an increased risk of myocarditis for 6 months after the infection, at a rate of 450 per 100000 and that unvaccinated test subjects were 6 times more likely to suffer from myocarditis after an infection than the vaccinated

>>14814677
>Ask yourself, if my IQ is -5 to 15 points higher than yours, am I more intelligent than you?
But it didn't give a negative risk for Pfizer compared to placebo, it only gave negative risk for Moderna:
>The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in vaccinated participants in comparison to placebo recipients: 67.5 per 10,000 versus 49.5 per 10,000; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated participants (95 % compatibility1 interval 1.2 to 34.9);
Your analogy for Pfizer should be "if my IQ is 1.2 to 34.9 points higher than yours, am I more intelligent than you?"

>>14814441
>"Trust the cynical mistrust"
Yes.

>>14814055
>Within weeks of the emergency authorization, however, the sponsors began a process of unblinding all participants who elected to be unblinded. In addition, those who received placebo were offered the vaccine. These self-selection processes may have introduced nonrandom differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated participants, thus rendering the post-authorization data less reliable. Therefore, to preserve randomization, we used the interim datasets that were the basis for emergency authorization in December 2020, approximately 4 months after trials commenced.
So this red flag study only recorded adverse events within 4 months of the initial phase III experiment's shots. How in the absolute fuck did Pfizer and Moderna "miss" these adverse events when they were supposed to be actively tracking people in the trial??
The serious adverse events were 18 per 10,000 at 4 months for Pfizer. So if it extrapolates linearly then that is 54 per year.... or 1 serious adverse event in every 185 people worse case scenario.
Your jaw should be on the floor at this point. This is what they call "safe.

>>14814162
>Adverse events would have included COVID and complications of COVID.
You didn't read the paper.

>We excluded SAEs that were known efficacy outcomes (i.e. COVID-19), consistent with the approach Pfizer (but not Moderna) used in recording SAE data. The Pfizer study trial protocol states that COVID-19 illnesses and their sequelae consistent with the clinical endpoint definition were not to be reported as adverse events, “even though the event may meet the definition of an SAE.”

>>14814943
>How in the absolute fuck did Pfizer and Moderna "miss" these adverse events when they were supposed to be actively tracking people in the trial??
You seem to be confused, they didn't miss these events, they recorded them. The study in the OP uses the same data, it just uses statistical tricks, like counting multiple symptoms in the same person as different events, while only counting hospitalizations for COVID as one event regardless of symptoms. When you take away this trick, the placebo groups did much worse due to contracting COVID at much higher rates.

>The serious adverse events were 18 per 10,000 at 4 months for Pfizer. So if it extrapolates linearly then that is 54 per year
Why would you extrapolate linearly? Adverse events tend to occur close to vaccination and drop off the farther away from vaccination you go. The opposite is true for COVID risk since the risk of exposure increases over time. They only looked at the part of the study before most participants were exposed, they stopped when the number of COVID cases went past 150 in tens of thousands of participants. So the paper is complete bunk. It's conclusion is backwards. The trials were blinded precisely because COVID was proposing such a large risk to the placebo group.

>>14814085
>>A 0.1% chance of there being some minor side effect.
>That's the best you can come up with?
0.1% of the world population is about 8 million people

>>14815394
About the same number of deaths from COVID. Now compare to all COVID adverse events.

>>14815448
Are you saying either 8 million die from COVID or 8 million die from COVID vaccines?

>>14815467
Side effects =/= dying. ESL?

>>14815307
>they didn't miss these events, they recorded them
Notice how I put "miss" in quotes? Seems like you didn't notice that.
>statistical tricks like counting multiple symptoms in the same person as different events
??? You have it exactly backwards. Counting 1 sick person as 1 adverse event no matter how many simultaneous ailments they have practically constitutes lying. Why on earth would you think it's supposed to be done that way?
>while only counting hospitalizations for COVID as one event regardless of symptoms
COVID hospitalizations were not counted as events, you should try reading the study.
They even excluded "COVID-19 illnesses and their sequelae" in the events table.
In other words, if someone was in the hospital with COVID they didn't count any of their events.
>When you take away this trick, the placebo groups did much worse due to contracting COVID at much higher rates
There is no trick
Even if there somehow was a trick it makes no sense to include events created from variables outside the study controls (randomly catching COVID). The goal was to see if the shots caused any harm, not identify if harm prevented by shots circumstantially overpowers harm possibly caused by the shots.
>Adverse events tend to occur close to vaccination and drop off the farther away from vaccination you go
For real vaccines, sure. For the immunomodulator drugs in this study we call "vaccines" we don't know if this is the case, that's why we need these studies and need them to track much longer than 4 months
>They only looked at the part of the study before most participants were exposed, they stopped when the number of COVID cases went past 150 in tens of thousands
No they stopped when self-selection biases entered the dataset
>So the paper is complete bunk
You mean Pfizer's efficacy papers? I genuinely don't know what you're referring to.
>The trials were blinded precisely because COVID was proposing such a large risk to the placebo group
You mean unblinded?

>>14815874
>Notice how I put "miss" in quotes?
Doesn't matter what you put in quotes, no adverse events were ignored.

>Counting 1 sick person as 1 adverse event no matter how many simultaneous ailments they have practically constitutes lying.
So you're saying the authors of the paper lied when they counted one COVID hospitalization as one event regardless of how many ailments they had? OK. The point is you have to compare apples to apples.

>COVID hospitalizations were not counted as events, you should try reading the study.
Wrong.
>To illustrate this need in the present context, we conducted a simple harm-benefit comparison using the trial data comparing excess risk of serious AESI against reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization.

>They even excluded "COVID-19 illnesses and their sequelae" in the events table.
They excluded it from adverse events associated with the vaccine, you idiot. What do you think they compared the rate of those events to?

>There is no trick
It is a trick, clear as day. The only way they could conclude the vaccines are more dangerous than not getting vaccinated is by counting adverse events from the vaccine as multiple events but adverse events from COVID infection as one event. Are you going to justify this or just deny it over and over?

>it makes no sense to include events created from variables outside the study controls (randomly catching COVID).
I don't think you understood the paper at all. How do you think the groups contracted COVID? By design? Why did the authors make the comparison between adverse events and COVID hospitalization if COVID hospitalization is random? You're arguing against them.

>For real vaccines, sure.
Thanks for agreeing with me.

>No they stopped when self-selection biases entered the dataset
What self-selection biases?

>You mean Pfizer's efficacy papers?
No, the paper in the OP.

>You mean unblinded?
Yes.

>>14814055
China made Covid19 to kill the weak. The vaccines were made to hurt the survivors.

>>14815188
Okay, I got burned on that one. That approach doesn't make much sense. Pfizer did track covid-like illness, and it was stupidly highly for both groups. For whatever reason, only a very small portion of those people were actually tested for covid.

>>14816607
>a report at goodlysciencing.org
I'm sure their peer review process is very rigorous.

>>14816717
It makes sense if you're trying to torture the data and make a biased comparison. But that wasn't enough to get the conclusion they wanted, so they used the rate of COVID hospitalization instead of COVID adverse events. What a shitshow.

>>14814682
How many % of all death have comorbidities. How many % died of instead of with.

>>14814055
It is nontrivial to claim that laws of physics are time invariant.

>>14814682
Only 0,2 % below age 45 though. That tells you a bit more don't you think.

>>14814055
>The science has changed
We have always been at war with Eastasia, chud.

>>14816914
How many % of all population have comorbidities. How many % died with instead of of.

>>14816957
0.2% of all infected below 45 die? I didn't know it was this much. Yes, 2 in 1000 is a lot. The last concert I've been to had 50,000 viewers. That's 100 dead people in that group (ignoring the few boomers, so actually more, but let's assume they were all <45) from "the common cold". If a single one would have died, that would have been on the national news, so 0.2% is really a lot.

>>14816163
>Doesn't matter what you put in quotes, no adverse events were ignored.
So 5 adverse events in 1 person counts as 1 adverse event but nothing is ignored? HAHA!
>So you're saying the authors of the paper lied
No, I said if they did what you imply they should have done it's practically lying.
>Wrong.
They were not counted as events in the study exactly as I said, look at table 3. See it listed anywhere under events? Nope? Ouch.
The main conclusions do not rely on your cherry picked quote. This is not a harm-benefit study as I already said. Its a harm study where they admit they additionally perform a simple (non rigorous) comparison of results to benefits to create an impetus for formal harm-benefit studies. This comparison is to hospitalizations. Putting results in context of hospitalizations means the results did not utilize hospitalizations huh?
>you idiot
shill starting with the ad homs
>What do you think they compared the rate of those events to
The placebo group events NOT associated with COVID of course, dummy. You ignorantly think they compared events to hospitalizations to achieve results bc youre a retard. Ideally anyone who caught C should have been removed from the study. They need access to patient level data for that. Pfizer/Moderna of course refuse to release it.
>only way they could conclude the vaccines are more dangerous than not getting vaccinated is by counting adverse events from the vaccine as multiple events
For the Xth time this is NOT a harm-benefit study, shill
Again, though this is irrelevant in our context since we're discussing a harm study, you have it exactly backwards. The only way Pfizer/Modern could reach the conclusion of positive efficacy is if they *practically lie* and compare hospitalizations instead of events.
>I don't think you understood the paper at all
you still think it's a harm-benefit study, it's not
>What self-selection biases?
read the paper

>>14816163
>Why did the authors make the comparison between adverse events and COVID hospitalization if COVID hospitalization is random?
The answer is clear from what I just said but to spell it out because I feel like it's probably needed with you: They did this to create a non rigorous impetus for rigorous and formal harm-benefit studies. They close the paper with:
>Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, as we approach 2 years after release of COVID-19 vaccines, participant level data remain inaccessible
So if they had the trial data they could eliminate this random hospitalization variable, obviously. They know the hospitalization comparison they made is not rigorous, that's the entire point. They, like any rational person should, don't want to blindly accept what these scandal-ridden criminal big phrama companies are spoon feeding them.

You don't need to respond to this post.

>>14817120
>So 5 adverse events in 1 person counts as 1 adverse event but nothing is ignored?
What are you talking about? Who said they count as 1 event?

>No, I said if they did what you imply they should have done it's practically lying.
Please explain how comparing events to events or hospitalizations to hospitalizations is lying?

>They were not counted as events in the study exactly as I said, look at table 3
No, they were not counted as adverse events from the vaccine, which is what table 3 shows. Those were compared to COVID hospitalizations as if they are equivalent events. Where did I say they were counted as events from the vaccine?

>The main conclusions do not rely on your cherry picked quote. This is not a harm-benefit study as I already said.
Then why did they do a harm-benefit analysis? If you admit that the harm- benefit analysis is trash then we can move on to why the rest of the paper is trash (cherrypicking symptoms, p- hacking).

>This is not a harm-benefit study as I already said. Its a harm study where they admit they additionally perform a simple (non rigorous) comparison of results to benefits
It's not just "non-rigorous," it's fraudulent. They could have easily compared apples to apples but they chose not to because that didn't give the answer they wanted.

>This comparison is to hospitalizations.
Why?

>Putting results in context of hospitalizations means the results did not utilize hospitalizations huh?
Why aren't the adverse events from the vaccine "put in the context of hospitalizations?"

>The placebo group events NOT associated with COVID of course, dummy.
No, adverse events associated with the vaccine were determined by comparing all adverse events in the vaccine group to the placebo group. They compared it to hospitalizations from COVID. You didn't understand the study at all.

>You ignorantly think they compared events to hospitalizations to achieve results bc youre a retard.
Because they did. lmao

>>14817120
>For the Xth time this is NOT a harm-benefit study
Then why did they do a harm-benefit analysis? You can't lie and then claim your lie was not your main point when being called out for lying.

>The only way Pfizer/Modern could reach the conclusion of positive efficacy is if they *practically lie* and compare hospitalizations instead of events.
Where did either of them compare hospitalizations? And how is it lying to compare like to like? You're incredibly confused. And I guess you're not going to justify their methodology, you're just going to avoid it. OK, I accept your concession.

>read the paper
I did. The methodology for both studies said they would unblind after 151/164 cases of COVID were detected. That's not self-selection bias entering the dataset.

>>14817132
>The answer is clear from what I just said but to spell it out because I feel like it's probably needed with you: They did this to create a non rigorous impetus for rigorous and formal harm-benefit studies.
That doesn't answer my question. Why compare apples to oranges? They could have compared apples to apples just as easily. We already know they identified adverse events from COVID because they removed them. You have no justification. It's fraud.

>So if they had the trial data they could eliminate this random hospitalization variable, obviously.
They already eliminated it from the adverse events from vaccination. You're not making any sense.

>They know the hospitalization comparison they made is not rigorous, that's the entire point.
They also know it's fraudulent, that's the entire point. You're never going to explain why they compared two things that aren't comparable.

>>14817407
>What are you talking about? Who said they count as 1 event?
Establishing efficacy via hospital visits inherently ignores individual events per hospital visit
>explain how comparing events to events or hospitalizations to hospitalizations is lying?
Not even close to what I referred to. Very desperate of you.
>Those were compared to COVID hospitalizations as if they are equivalent events
Why do you lie? It merely listed the two to create an impetus for further study. Nowhere does it claim the COVID shots are more dangerous bc events>hospitalization like you mindlessly lied about earlier. It even says SAEs are inherently hard to compare even among themselves and not all hospital visits are equivalent (a week of intubation vs a 2 day fever etc)
>Then why did they do a harm-benefit analysis?
They didn't. They compared 2 numbers to create an impetus. You really should read a whole post before responding line by line like an idiot.
>It's not just "non-rigorous," it's fraudulent
Listing two numbers is fraudulent? HA!
>They could have easily compared apples to apples but they chose not to because that didn't give the answer they wanted.
Another lie. They can't do this bc patient data was not released as they directly said.
>No, adverse events associated with the vaccine were determined by comparing all adverse events in the vaccine group to the placebo group
It's confirmed you didn't read the study. They excluded any SAE listed as "COVID related X" etc (18 SAEs in total so likely hundreds of SAE instances) so they absolutely did not compare all SAEs
>Why aren't the adverse events from the vaccine "put in the context of hospitalizations?"
BC it's not a harm-benefit study
>You didn't understand the study at all.
You still think it's a harm-benefit study
>Because they did. lmao
Nope. After finding the results, they then briefly compared the results to hospitalizations (2 numbers) to create an impetus to release more data. Read the study.

>>14817461
>why did they do a harm-benefit analysis
They didn't, they listed two numbers. Their analysis was on the excess SAEs excluding those directly mentioned as being related to COVID.
>Where did either of them compare hospitalizations?
In phase III report to FDA. Obviously that is the only efficacy number used by pfizer/moderna otherwise this study would be pointless due to already being done huh?
Since you're too stupid to follow this, it's the 2nd number of the two numbers OP study compared.
>I did. The methodology for both studies said they would unblind after 151/164 cases of COVID were detected
I meant read the OP study dipshit.
>That's not self-selection bias entering the dataset
Wow. The participants began to self select to take the real shot once the bogus criteria of 151/164 cases were reached. You get self selection bias when you do that. At least try to grasp the scientific method as well as a 12 year old?
It's amazing how people like you can be so stupid to think it's okay that DURING an experimental drug trial the Pharma corporations can decide it's safer to take their own experimental drugs right in the middle of the trial vs not take them...and then so blissfully ignore that is tainting the data so studies like OP study cannot be conducted properly.

>>14817461
>>The answer is clear from what I just said but to spell it out because I feel like it's probably needed with you: They did this to create a non rigorous impetus for rigorous and formal harm-benefit studies.
>That doesn't answer my question. Why compare apples to oranges? They could have compared apples to apples just as easily. We already know they identified adverse events from COVID because they removed them. You have no justification. It's fraud.
>>So if they had the trial data they could eliminate this random hospitalization variable, obviously.
>They already eliminated it from the adverse events from vaccination. You're not making any sense.
>>They know the hospitalization comparison they made is not rigorous, that's the entire point.
>They also know it's fraudulent, that's the entire point. You're never going to explain why they compared two things that aren't comparable.
Didn't read. I said it wasn't necessary to respond to that post.

>>14814055
I fucking love this kind of hairstyle in women, what is it called?
I'm about to fucking coom and haven't even touched my dick.

Still not getting the science juice

>>14814677
>Ask yourself, if my IQ is -5 to 15 points higher than yours, am I more intelligent than you?
no cause i fucked your mom

>>14818212
>It's amazing how people like you can be so stupid to think it's okay that DURING an experimental drug trial the Pharma corporations can decide it's safer to take their own experimental drugs right in the middle of the trial vs not take them...and then so blissfully ignore that is tainting the data so studies like OP study cannot be conducted properly.
On this note Pfizer dropped the EUA application for the entire country of India after they requested to perform their own safety study. Just stop and think about that.. A for-profit company would rather avoid selling 10s of millions of doses of their "life saving product" to one of the biggest markets in the world because they didn't want an independent study on the safety of their product.

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-india-pfizer/pfizer-drops-india-vaccine-application-after-regulator-seeks-local-trial-idUSKBN2A50GE

I lost my sense of taste yesterday, when can I have it back?

>>14820292
>I lost my sense of taste yesterday, when can I have it back?
When your usual flu is over. If you book it to an nonexistent virus from two years ago you must be either an idiot or an media consumer (which results in the same).

>>14818198
>Establishing efficacy via hospital visits inherently ignores individual events per hospital visit
Where did they do this? The only one who did this are the authors of the paper in the OP. So you agree that their analysis is incorrect?

>Not even close to what I referred to.
You were referring to what I implied. That's what I implied.

>It merely listed the two to create an impetus for further study.
No it compared the two and claimed this was a harm-benefit analysis. Why do you lie?

>It even says SAEs are inherently hard to compare even among themselves
Somehow it wasn't too hard to compare when COVID SAEs were removed but too hard to compare them otherwise, which would lead to the conclusion that the placebo group was worse off than the vaccine group. What a coincidence.

>They didn't.
Right they only claimed they did. Thanks for agreeing with me that they lied.
>To illustrate this need in the present context, we conducted a simple harm-benefit comparison using the trial data comparing excess risk of serious AESI against reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization.

>They compared 2 numbers to create an impetus.
Yes, they compared two numbers that aren't comparable in order to trick people into thinking the vaccines are more harmful than placebo.

>Listing two numbers is fraudulent?
Comparing two numbers that aren't comparable, when they could have have done a real comparison, is fraudulent yes. Also, p-hacking by cherrypicking certain events and not others, and splitting the data up because the total doesn't give significant results is fraudulent.

>They can't do this bc patient data was not released as they directly said.
Why would they need patient data to compare the rate of events they already identified and removed from the data? You got conned.

>>14820282
So they had a study, but India asked them to do a second study, but this time in India? And India already bought shit tons of the worst vaccines, pajeetvax, AstraZeneca and Gopnik V. The potential sales are pretty small. Completely understandable decision.

>>14818198
>They excluded any SAE listed as "COVID related X" etc (18 SAEs in total so likely hundreds of SAE instances) so they absolutely did not compare all SAEs
This doesn't contradict what I said. I said several times they didn't count COVID related events.

>BC it's not a harm-benefit study
Then why did they claim to do a harm-benefit analysis? You can't have it both ways. Either they can't do a harm-benefit analysis so their claim to have done one is fraud, or they can, and their faulty comparison is fraud.

>After finding the results, they then briefly compared the results to hospitalizations (2 numbers) to create an impetus to release more data.
This doesn't contradict what I said. They made a faulty comparison.

>>14814055
What does this facial expression convey, and why does it give me an erection?

>>14820585
you presume that others are interested in hearing about your boring bodily functions because you have an easily diagnosable personality disorder

>>14820591
>you have an easily diagnosable personality disorder
What is it?

>>14820564
>The potential sales are pretty small. Completely understandable decision.
How did you reach this conclusion? Phase III trials have an average cost of $20 million and expedited ones may be far less. India has over 1.3 billion people. If half that number get a shot, let's say just 1% get it from pfizer (their upper caste system members obviously would want a vaccine not considered "the worst" so they would pay a premium easily), that's 6.5 million units sold. Assuming an average profit of $10 each, that is of course $65 million representing a 3x ROI using incredibly low ball figures.
It's absolutely not understandable a for-profit company would make that decision. Why would you say that?

>>14814055
post moar jill

>>14820628

>>14820628

>>14820562
>Where did they do this?
Phase III report
>The only one who did this are the authors of the paper
They did not establish harm-benefit efficacy because it's not harm-benefit study
>You were referring to what I implied. That's what I implied.
No, if Im understanding your word salad correctly
>Somehow it wasn't too hard to compare when COVID SAEs were removed but too hard to compare them otherwise
Actually it was "too hard". They acknowledged many problems with this comparison due to the data that's being hidden, which is why their SAE vs SAE analysis was still not a true "apples to apples" despite their best efforts .
>the placebo group was worse off than the vaccine group
Yes, more SAEs occurred in the Pfizer test group. This is fact and discovering this fact was the goal of this harm study.
>Comparing two numbers that aren't comparable
They acknowledged the limitations, they're not hiding a single thing
>in order to trick people into thinking the vaccines are more harmful than placebo
The shot caused more harm than the placebo. You keep pretending this fact doesn't matter bc you want to include "harm prevented" and turn the study into a harm-benefit study. You are the only one here trying to create a trick.
>when they could have have done a real comparison
They did as close of a real SAE vs SAE analysis as they could in addition to the simple SAEs vs Hosital visit comparison
>is fraudulent
No, you are just delusional
>Also, p-hacking by cherrypicking certain events and not others .. is fraudulent
A harm study does not focus on events "prevented" by the drug in question. You are saying all harm studies are fraudulent haha
and cherry picking isn't how P hacking works retard
>and splitting the data up because the total doesn't give significant results is fraudulent.
Tell the peer reviewers to resign then since you know so much more than them and can find "fraud" with merely a 12 year olds understanding of scientific method and statistics

>Why would they need patient data to compare the rate of events they already identified
If you read the study they explain this. One such example is the same person getting covid diagnosis but say a month later they get a coagulation disorder. They can't toss out that participant's invalid data point because they can't ascertain that person was infected. If you are under the impression the shots "work" then this means far more false positives will be in the placebo group.
>>14820565
>This doesn't contradict what I said.
It does
>I said several times they didn't count COVID related events
Which directly contradicts your false statement "determined by comparing all adverse events in the vaccine group." When they don't compare some they're not comparing ***ALL*** huh? Shocking that you can be both wrong and contradicting yourself at the same time, I know. But here we are.
>Then why did they claim to do a harm-benefit analysis?
They did not. Quote the sentence you think says they did this, I know exactly which one it is and I will explain why you're an idiot for interpreting it that way.
>This doesn't contradict what I said. They made a faulty comparison.
It does because you bait and switch what constitutes the study's results. The results of the study are the SAE vs SAE analysis, you pretend/lie the results are the SAE vs hospitalization comparison because your agenda needs that to be the case bc you feel that comparison is faulty thus results are faulty. It's completely irrelevant if you think that comparison is faulty because SAE vs Hospitalization comparison is not the "results" of the study, it's just a simple comparison to create an impetus like I have been saying and anyone with a brain can see and they verbatim said.

>>14820628
she was 1000 times hotter than this in eragon

>>14820626
yeah the cope is getting pretty thick in here

>>14818212
>They didn't
They claimed they did.
>To illustrate this need in the present context, we conducted a simple harm-benefit comparison using the trial data comparing excess risk of serious AESI against reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization.

>In phase III report to FDA.
Where?

>Obviously that is the only efficacy number used by pfizer/moderna
LOL, so you just made that up. I think we're done here.

>I meant read the OP study dipshit.
You said they stopped when self-selection biases entered the dataset. What biases?

>The participants began to self select to take the real shot once the bogus criteria of 151/164 cases were reached.
So they didn't stop when self-selection bias entered the dataset. It's the other way around. Thanks.

>It's amazing how people like you can be so stupid to think it's okay that DURING an experimental drug trial the Pharma corporations can decide it's safer to take their own experimental drugs right in the middle of the trial
It would be unethical to not allow participants to receive the vaccine after seeing how safe it is and how the placebo group is being hospitalized at far higher rates.

>and then so blissfully ignore that is tainting the data so studies like OP study cannot be conducted properly
No one ignored it, and observational studies are more appropriate for harm-benefit analysis. If OP's study cannot be conducted properly then they should not have published it.

>>14818215
>Didn't read.
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding the study is fraudulent

>>14821033
>They claimed they did.
A comparison is not an analysis. I already said they compared the 2 numbers. Learn English
>Where?
In phase III report
>LOL, so you just made that up. I think we're done here.
Provide another efficacy number then
>What biases
Self selection. Individuals with caviler outlooks toward their health will postpone taking taking drugs that are supposed to help them, for instance. This will bias the placebo group to people cavalier about their health.
Many other reasons
>So they didn't stop when self-selection bias entered the dataset. It's the other way around. Thanks.
Are you actually this retarded? The OP study said they stopped using data after this 4 month period. You must be huffing paint
>It would be unethical to not allow participants to receive the vaccine after seeing how safe it is
HAHA! The safety study isnt even complete. They didnt "see how safe it was" you ignorant sheep.
>and how the placebo group is being hospitalized at far higher rates.
So you admit they were creating an efficacy analysis based on hospitalizations. Why did you ask where they did this if you blatantly admit this is what they were doing???
>No one ignored it
You are literally ignoring it right now
>and observational studies are more appropriate for harm-benefit analysis
As opposed to non observational studies? What does this even mean in your head?
>If OP's study cannot be conducted properly then they should not have published it
Then Pfizer cannot publish safety conclusions either. Phase III trials will last ~3 years, OP study only could use data from the first 4 months because after that it's tainted, which you are blissfully ignoring. A proper study should include untainted data from the entire duration of the trials. Do you disagree? Since Pfizer intentionally made this impossible by tainting the data, no proper study can be created, including the reports by Pfizer saying their shot is safe.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728

>>14821043
>Not an argument
Brilliant deduction. No argument was needed there because the argument was given elsewhere. You're just too dumb to read.
>Thanks for conceding
The most desperately pathetic retort on /sci/. It is universally a sign of a retard who lost

>>14814055
The jab is safe. Stop questioning the FDA!

>>14820735
>Phase III report
Where? You're just making shit up.

>They did not establish harm-benefit efficacy because it's not harm-benefit study
Then why did they claim to do a harm- benefit analysis?

>No
Yes. Where did I imply anything different?

>Actually it was "too hard".
Then how did they do it? You can't have it both ways. Either they didn't do a harm-benefit analysis and lied, or they did it with a fraudulent comparison.

>They acknowledged many problems with this comparison due to the data that's being hidden, which is why their SAE vs SAE analysis was still not a true "apples to apples" despite their best efforts .
Please explain how they could remove COVID SAEs from the data but not be able to compare them to vaccine SAEs. You can't. It's fraud.

>Yes, more SAEs occurred in the Pfizer test group.
The placebo group was worse off than the vaccine group.

>They acknowledged the limitations
No, they didn't acknowledge that they could have compared apples to apples but chose not to. They didn't acknowledge that the RCTs were unblinded precisely because COVID presented a bigger threat than the vaccines. They didn't acknowledge the cherrypicked SAEs and p-hacking.

>The shot caused more harm than the placebo
lmao, any medicine will "cause more harm" than placebo. Without taking into account the reduced risk of COVID, you're saying nothing.

>turn the study into a harm-benefit study
How can I turn it into something the authors already claimed it to be?

>They did as close of a real SAE vs SAE analysis
No they didn't, they removed COVID SAEs.

>No, you are just delusional
I'm still waiting for you to exlain how comparing two things that aren't comparable isn't fraudulent.

>A harm study does not focus on events "prevented" by the drug in question
Then this isn't simply a harm study, since the authors compared harm to hospitalization from COVID.

>>14820735
>You are saying all harm studies are fraudulent haha
No, just the ones that cherrypick and p-hack to get the result they want, and make fraudulent comparisons between numbers that aren't comparable.

>Tell the peer reviewers to resign then
I will, let me know who they are.

>>14814055
Data collected from pharmacies show that the more a person gets vaccinated, the weaker their immune system becomes.

>>14820737
>If you read the study they explain this.
Where?

>They can't toss out that participant's invalid data point because they can't ascertain that person was infected.
But they did. You can't have it both ways.

>It does
No. You claimed the excess risk was compared to the placebo group events not associated with COVID. Excess risk was determined from those events, not compared to them. Excess risk was compared to hospitalization risk.

>Which directly contradicts your false statement "determined by comparing all adverse events in the vaccine group."
All adverse events in the vaccine group means all the adverse events they counted.

>When they don't compare some they're not comparing ***ALL*** huh?
I was not dissenting to your description of the events that were counted, I was dissenting to what you claimed they were compared to. Learn how to read.

>They did not. Quote the sentence you think says they did this
I already did.
>To illustrate this need in the present context, we conducted a simple harm-benefit comparison using the trial data comparing excess risk of serious AESI against reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization.

>The results of the study are the SAE vs SAE analysis
You can't pretend they didn't make the comparison when they did. Explain why they made a fraudulent comparison.

>you pretend/lie the results are the SAE vs hospitalization comparison
How can I be lying when they made that comparison? You know the comparison is wrong. So why did they do it?

>It's completely irrelevant if you think that comparison is faulty
It's completely relevant to the authors making fraudulent comparisons.

>it's just a simple comparison
It's simply wrong. Once you admit that, we can move on to the p-hacking in the SAE results.

>>14821724
>Where
Phase III report
>why did they claim to do a harm- benefit analysis
Lie all you want, they didn't claim this
>how did they do it?
I explained it in that very sentence you cut off retard
>they didnt do a harm-benefit analysis
Correct
>or they did it with a fraudulent comparison
Call the journal and tell them you have discovered fraud HAHA!
>Please explain how they could remove COVID SAEs from the data but not be able to compare them to vaccine SAEs. You can't.
I easily can and have: bc it's not a harm-benefit study, retard
>The placebo group was worse off than the vaccine group
According to who? This was a harm study, not a study to decide which group is "worse off" you retard
>No, they didn't acknowledge that they could have compared apples to apples but chose not to.
They did acknowledge that you idiotic liar. COVID harm vs shot harm is not apples to apples btw. COVID cases fluctuate wildly during the year. With only a 4 month window the conclusions would be garbage
>They didn't acknowledge that the RCTs were unblinded precisely because COVID presented a bigger threat than the vaccines
We don't know if they presented a bigger threat because the safety trial was not completed, liar
>and p-hacking
You don't know what this phrase means
>lmao, any medicine will "cause more harm" than placebo
Another ridiculous lie.
>Without taking into account the reduced risk of COVID, you're saying nothing.
So every harm study "says nothing" then? you are such a retard
>How can I turn it into something the authors already claimed it to be?
Why repeat this lie?
>No they didn't, they removed COVID SAEs.
Yeah it's a harm study
>I'm still waiting for you to exlain how comparing two things that aren't comparable isn't fraudulent.
BC saying 1 number is larger than another is not fraud
>Then this isn't simply a harm study, since the authors compared harm to hospitalization from COVID.
Making a simple comparison does not constitute a "focus" of a study you silly liar

>>14821295
>A comparison is not an analysis.
A comparison would be an analysis, if they were comparing comparable numbers.

>In phase III report
So you can't tell me where in the report. Why did you lie?

>Provide another efficacy number then
Thanks for admitting you lied.

>Self selection. Individuals with caviler outlooks toward their health will postpone taking taking drugs that are supposed to help them, for instance.
That's not what stopped the study.

>The OP study said they stopped using data after this 4 month period.
Because they unblinded when 151/164 COVID cases were recorded.

>The safety study isnt even complete.
And?

>So you admit they were creating an efficacy analysis based on hospitalizations.
No, I admit the placebo group is being hospitalized at higher rates.

>You are literally ignoring it right now
How?

>As opposed to non observational studies?
As opposed to RCTs. Your don't know basic terminology?

>Then Pfizer cannot publish safety conclusions either
Pfizer did not make any of the mistakes they made.

>A proper study should include untainted data from the entire duration of the trials.
I disagree, withholding treatment after it's determined to be necessary is improper.

>>14821311
>No argument was needed there because the argument was given elsewhere.
Where?

>>14814613
>Covid is worse even for young healthy people.

You're just repeating a lie. Moreover, the vaccines don't stop you from catching covid, nor do they protect you long-term. The risk incurred in the treatment is far greater for a healthy young person, especially given that they are going to catch it multiple times in their (hopefully) remaining decades of life.

>>14821733
>No, just the ones that cherrypick and p-hack to get the result they want, and make fraudulent comparisons between numbers that aren't comparable.
Your retarded quip is not an argument dumbass.
Your statement logically necessitates all harm studies are "fraudulent" because not including SAEs from the disease in question constitutes "cherry picking" yet all harm studies exclude them by design, otherwise they are harm-benefit studies.
>and make fraudulent comparisons between numbers that aren't comparable
I'm convinced you don't even know what the word "fraudulent" means at this point.
I can compare the number of fingers I have to the number of IQ points you have. That comparison is 10 fingers vs 85 IQ points. That is not a "fraudulent" comparison even though the two entities are wildly different themselves. In the exact same way it's not fraudulent to compare the numerical results of the SAEs vs SAEs analysis to hospitalizations. It may or may not be invalid to make certain conclusions off that comparison of numbers of course, but the OP study make no such conclusions from that comparison. Only 3 out of 10 paragraphs in the conclusion section mention hospitals. The study could skip the mention of hospitals altogether and it would make no effective difference (except you'd still invent reasons it's wrong ROFL)
almost your entire desperate agenda of "dismissing the study no matter what" is built around this trivial falsehood. I don't know why I didn't point it out sooner...
>I will, let me know who they are.
If you have graduated high school you should be able to find the reviewers of a journal. It's clear you haven't

Don't respond to this post I won't read it, I was just being very verbose clearing up some of your idiocy that again I have already addressed before and I don't want you to split this into 3 simultaneous posts of your mental vomit, 2 is enough.

>>14814613
>Covid is worse even for young healthy people
The Chinavirus isn't a risk for healthy young people in the first place. The clotshot is a risk for everyone who takes it. Employ better reasoning, NPC.

>At how many 'two weeks' are we now ?
You mean "two weeks to stop the spread"? you probably believed them before you were locked in your home for a year, didn't you faggot? HAHAHHA

>>14820593
Being a coomer, unfortunately it's terminal and there is no cure for you.

>>14822064
>isn't a risk for healthy young people in the first place.
What does that mean? How do you define "a risk" without any outcome? There's no risk to lose your dick. There's an extremely small risk to die from it, at least d see once omicron.

>>14821773
>Where?
Ctrl+f "access" almost every time they mention access theyre explaing why they need patient data
>But they did.
what?? They threw out data points for people bc they had COVID without knowing they had COVID? FFS you are confused.
>You can't have it both ways.
If youre going to give this little mental effort just stop replying.
It couldnt be more obvious you are lost and have no idea what you are saying
>No. You claimed the excess risk was
I never used the phrase "excess risk" in this thread even once you desperately confused liar.
>All adverse events in the vaccine group means all the adverse events they counted.
You've sunk to a new low. In no way whatsoever does the 1st mean the 2nd. You obviously made a trivial mistake in explaining something and instead of owning up to it you lie and pretend words mean different things. Pathetic.
>I was dissenting to what you claimed they were compared to
No you were lying about what I compared them to. Never said "excess risk" once.
>Learn how to read.
LOL learn to use correct words instead of pretending they mean different things. Also learn to stop lying
>I already did.
Comparison != analysis. Yet another lie
>You can't pretend they didn't make the comparison when they did
?? I said multiple times they compared their findings to hospitalizations, youre lying again.
>Explain why they made a fraudulent comparison
Explain why u keep lying that they made a fraudulent comparison
>How can I be lying when they made that comparison?
It's not a fraudulent comparison, that is your lie. That comparison has nothing to do with their findings either, which youre pretending.
>You know the comparison is wrong
Its not wrong. As I showed in my recent post one can compare the number of IQ points to the number of fingers despite them being vastly different things.
Making false conclusions from their comparison is wrong, which they didn't do. Your entire "argument" is based on a lie.

>>14822397
Are you being fucking stupid on purpose? Omicron is by far the least pathogenic strain.

>>14822064
>The Chinavirus isn't a risk for healthy young people in the first place. The clotshot is a risk for everyone who takes it. Employ better reasoning, NPC.

thread/

>>14814055
vaxchuds?

>>14826652
Terrible dike haircut on her.

>>14826661
kek

>>14826652
Is that the blue sports bra chick in Resident Evil 2?

>>14826668
sienna guillory yes

>>14826687
noice! Her and that redhaired chick that was that dudes sister in the LA based movie were the hotness! They both stole the show from the lead woman in those movies.

>>14814085
>To illustrate this need in the present context, we conducted a simple harm-benefit comparison using the trial data comparing excess risk of serious AESI against reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization. We found excess risk of serious AESIs to exceed the reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations in both Pfizer and Moderna trials.

no refunds.

Doing gods work OP shills working overtime

>>14814613
>Covid is worse
If the serial genetic material injections acted as a proper vaccine, you might have a point (still wouldn't take it, though). The cost putting all effort into Pfizer's moneymaking product doesn't come close to being worth the cost of looking for a proper treatment, letting covid burn through the population, becoming endemic, preparing medical facilities, isolating the obese, comorbid and aged and finding a proper treatment.

>>14814055
Suddenly I got the urge to fap to Jill Valentine porn. Thanks OP.>>14814085

>>14814175
Stalin would have been antivax.

>>14828780
As others have pointed out this is not a valid comparison thus no conclusions can be made from it. Like if a politician in a poor city said there's greater number of "guns on the street" than the number of "library books in the school libraries". It's apples and oranges so one can't make any valid conclusions. It's merely supposed to create an impetus for a formal harm-benefit analysis that Pfizer and Moderna are clearly trying to avoid and proactively unblinded the study to obscure/taint the data that might show harms outweigh benefits.
Maybe 5% of the study focused on hospitalizations. Mentioning them could be completely removed from the study and their results would not change.

>The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes.

i really fucking hate people so goddamn much, rewind 1-1.5 year and you were a denialist chud if you even raised the worry with anyone, plus would have gotten cancelled

>>14829161
>rewind 1-1.5 year and you were a denialist chud if you even raised the worry with anyone, plus would have gotten cancelled
rightly so, omicron != delta

>>14829367
schizoid gibberish