4 ms·

> At best, that’s really noisy data. This is the reality of measuring rare events among moderately large groups of people. It’s also possible that any number o

> At best, that’s really noisy data. This is the reality of measuring rare events among moderately large groups of people. It’s also possible that any number of unexpected cofounders could have occurred for a small group of people receiving the placebo doses in one segment, such as a small number of placebo doses having an unexpected issue. Impossible to say, which is why large numbers of people are necessary in trials exploring relatively rare events like this. Regardless, there doesn’t appear to be cause for concern among any of their observed serious events during the study period.

hprotagonist 4y ago
indeed.
nerdponx 4y ago
Is it possible that the data was tampered with? We are in the midst of a scientific fraud crisis and there are powerful interests heavily invested in making sure this result comes out negative or inconclusive. For those about to downvote me: my general (but unscientific) opinion is that it doesn't make sense for the covid vaccine to be riskier than covid itself. But as a society we have shown that even "technical" people like researchers and scientists are willing to fudge, ignore, or misinterpret data for various political or personal purposes, not to mention that doing so in domains outside of public health is common practice in academia. So I believe it's only prudent and rational to be extremely skeptical of anything that looks "off".
- origin_path 4y ago
  Not only possible but proven. There are cases where people who suffered extremely severe adverse effects right after vaccination, were recorded by the trial operators as having minor ailments or even having had COVID despite negative tests, e.g. as in this case: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/05/23/concerns-of-fraud-in-pfizer-vaccine-trial-as-participants-hospitalisation-with-heart-inflammation-is-swept-under-carpet/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/05/23/concerns-of-fraud-in-pfi... Another similar problem in which a trial participant appears to have died a day or two after taking the shot, but it was ruled unrelated (by Pfizer!): https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/pfizer-study-subject-c4591001-1162 https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/pfizer-study-subject-c4591...
  - LorenPechtel 4y ago
    So? He had a multitude of health issues. People with a multitude of health issues sometimes die. And that report is obviously garbage--it refers to the "police report" of why he died. Nope, the police don't determine why someone died--they're only reporting what a medical examiner said. Why should Pfizer question it? Your link is clearly to a dishonest site.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      The examiner wouldn't have known he was taking an experimental medical substance just a day or two before death, so obviously that assessment of cause of death would be incomplete. This is covered in the article and is basic common sense. It is dishonest of Pfizer to take the cause of death as assessed by someone who was lacking critical facts especially given the extremely strong temporal correlation.
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  They're not making an honest comparison to Covid here.

hprotagonist 4y ago

indeed.

nerdponx 4y ago

Is it possible that the data was tampered with? We are in the midst of a scientific fraud crisis and there are powerful interests heavily invested in making sure this result comes out negative or inconclusive. For those about to downvote me: my general (but unscientific) opinion is that it doesn't make sense for the covid vaccine to be riskier than covid itself. But as a society we have shown that even "technical" people like researchers and scientists are willing to fudge, ignore, or misinterpret data for various political or personal purposes, not to mention that doing so in domains outside of public health is common practice in academia. So I believe it's only prudent and rational to be extremely skeptical of anything that looks "off".

origin_path 4y ago
Not only possible but proven. There are cases where people who suffered extremely severe adverse effects right after vaccination, were recorded by the trial operators as having minor ailments or even having had COVID despite negative tests, e.g. as in this case: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/05/23/concerns-of-fraud-in-pfizer-vaccine-trial-as-participants-hospitalisation-with-heart-inflammation-is-swept-under-carpet/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/05/23/concerns-of-fraud-in-pfi... Another similar problem in which a trial participant appears to have died a day or two after taking the shot, but it was ruled unrelated (by Pfizer!): https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/pfizer-study-subject-c4591001-1162 https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/pfizer-study-subject-c4591...
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  So? He had a multitude of health issues. People with a multitude of health issues sometimes die. And that report is obviously garbage--it refers to the "police report" of why he died. Nope, the police don't determine why someone died--they're only reporting what a medical examiner said. Why should Pfizer question it? Your link is clearly to a dishonest site.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    The examiner wouldn't have known he was taking an experimental medical substance just a day or two before death, so obviously that assessment of cause of death would be incomplete. This is covered in the article and is basic common sense. It is dishonest of Pfizer to take the cause of death as assessed by someone who was lacking critical facts especially given the extremely strong temporal correlation.
LorenPechtel 4y ago
They're not making an honest comparison to Covid here.