4 ms·

> For example in the Pfizer trials there were more deaths overall in the vaccinated arm than the unvaccinated arm i.e. RCT evidence = no mortality benefit. > G

> For example in the Pfizer trials there were more deaths overall in the vaccinated arm than the unvaccinated arm i.e. RCT evidence = no mortality benefit. > Governments are highly reluctant to split these deaths out by vaccine status, but the increase seems mostly attributed to heart and blood clotting related deaths. [citation needed]

stoneglyph 4y ago
There were approximately 40k people in the vaccinated and the placebo groups. One group had 17 deaths, and the other one had 21. If you are not aware of this information, how can you consider yourself informed on the topic?
- importantbrian 4y ago
  There is a pretty good reason that the Pfizer RCT doesn't show excess mortality benefit. It wasn't designed to study that. The recruited population is mostly healthy as individuals with multiple risk factors were excluded. For example the proportion of the study group over 65 and the proportion with at least 1 comorbidity is much smaller than the population as a whole. The studied group was very unlikely to experience mortality in the first place so a much larger study would be needed to show any evidence of an effect on mortality. The difference between 17 and 21 is not statistically significant. In the absence of a large enough RCT we're left with observational studies and there are a ton of these now. The observational data shows a large mortality benefit in the vaccinated population and I'm not aware of a single observational study that shows the opposite, but I suppose there could be one out there that I have missed. The preponderance of the evidence is pretty strongly in favor of the vaccinated population experiencing lower mortality than the unvaccinated population.
  - stoneglyph 4y ago
    Can you lead us to this preponderance of evidence that is out there?
    - importantbrian 4y ago
      Sure. I'm not going to do a full lit review for you. You can search PubMed and do that on your own if you like. But here are a few good ones. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8556631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8556631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513403/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513403/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162901/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35901091/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35901091/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891173/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891173/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891151/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891151/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35855494/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35855494/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35821984/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35821984/ https://www.covid-datascience.com/ https://www.covid-datascience.com/ also has some helpful discussions of this stuff if you don't want to have to dig through a bunch of studies.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  17 vs 21 in a study of 40K is not statistically significant.
  - stoneglyph 4y ago
    And yet, this is the "science" that was used to push the vaccines on the entire population. It just so happens that the group with the larger number of deaths was the vaccinated group, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. A question: why was this not discussed?
    - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
      > And yet, this is the "science" that was used to push the vaccines on the entire population. Yes. It's sound science. What problem do you have? > It just so happens that the group with the larger number of deaths was the vaccinated group, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. A question: why was this not discussed? It wasn't discussed because 17 vs 21 in a sample size of 40K is not a statistically significant difference. I don't know how to make that more clear without going into a lesson in high school-level statistics.
      - stoneglyph 4y ago
        [dead]
      - manwe150 4y ago
        So, really, it was discussed, as indicated since you and they heard of the discussion. It is indeed quite simple to discuss even, since the conversation should end with learning that this is covered in high-school stats class. What is more ironic to me is that this is the total deaths number, without any regards to cause. And in a large population of 40k healthy individuals, is is expected for a few to unexpectedly die over 6 months. This is ironic, since skeptics also often seem to claim that 10-50% excess all-causes death in the population was just random noise.
        4y ago
origin_path 4y ago
OK. Deaths in the RCTs: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489 [edit: fixed typo in link] "To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines ... For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the two mRNA vaccines compared with placebo was 1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71)" Excess deaths in the UK. Useful because (a) it's all in English and (b) the UK authorities do split out deaths by vaccine status unlike most places: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/silent-crisis-soaring-excess-deaths-gripping-britain-tip-iceberg/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/silent-crisis-so... "For 14 of the past 15 weeks, England and Wales have averaged around 1,000 extra deaths each week, none of which are due to Covid. If the current trajectory continues, the number of non-Covid excess deaths will soon outstrip deaths from the virus this year – and be even more deadly than the omicron wave. The Government has admitted that the majority of the excess deaths appear to be from circulatory issues and diabetes – long-term, chronic conditions that can be fatal without adequate care." Increases by cause of death: https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/image-5.png https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/image-5.... Dashboard that lets you explore the data directly from the source: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYmUwNmFhMjYtNGZhYS00NDk2LWFlMTAtOTg0OGNhNmFiNGM0IiwidCI6ImVlNGUxNDk5LTRhMzUtNGIyZS1hZDQ3LTVmM2NmOWRlODY2NiIsImMiOjh9 https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYmUwNmFhMjYtNGZhYS00N... UK data at first appears to show that the unvaccinated die at a higher rate. However, this is only because they're using incorrect population figures. Although it may seem absurd the government population figures in the UK are officially labelled "experimental" because they are universally acknowledged to be far too low. In some age groups the official population is lower than the number of people who came forward for immunization, so these figures cannot be used and indeed the UK HSA didn't use the official population stats when computing their own effectiveness rates, but rather estimates from NIMS (National Immunization Service). If the same methodology is used then you can calculate chart 4 on this page from officially released data: https://bartram.substack.com/p/deaths-by-vaccination-status-for https://bartram.substack.com/p/deaths-by-vaccination-status-... "The ONS data is interesting because it also includes data on non-Covid deaths by vaccination status ... Using this alternative estimate of the population of England [from NIMS] now suggests that the vaccines substantially increase the risk of death for reasons other than Covid." Unfortunately and worryingly, even the NIMS estimates are likely to be seriously off. According to NIMS about 9% of the British population refused vaccination but a few months ago the BBC commissioned a professional survey from a polling firm, to ask people questions about their vaccine status and if they didn't take it, why not. They were surprised to discover that 25% of people said they were unvaccinated. > To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines

stoneglyph 4y ago

There were approximately 40k people in the vaccinated and the placebo groups. One group had 17 deaths, and the other one had 21. If you are not aware of this information, how can you consider yourself informed on the topic?

importantbrian 4y ago
There is a pretty good reason that the Pfizer RCT doesn't show excess mortality benefit. It wasn't designed to study that. The recruited population is mostly healthy as individuals with multiple risk factors were excluded. For example the proportion of the study group over 65 and the proportion with at least 1 comorbidity is much smaller than the population as a whole. The studied group was very unlikely to experience mortality in the first place so a much larger study would be needed to show any evidence of an effect on mortality. The difference between 17 and 21 is not statistically significant. In the absence of a large enough RCT we're left with observational studies and there are a ton of these now. The observational data shows a large mortality benefit in the vaccinated population and I'm not aware of a single observational study that shows the opposite, but I suppose there could be one out there that I have missed. The preponderance of the evidence is pretty strongly in favor of the vaccinated population experiencing lower mortality than the unvaccinated population.
- stoneglyph 4y ago
  Can you lead us to this preponderance of evidence that is out there?
  - importantbrian 4y ago
    Sure. I'm not going to do a full lit review for you. You can search PubMed and do that on your own if you like. But here are a few good ones. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8556631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8556631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8553028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513403/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513403/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162901/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35901091/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35901091/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891173/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891173/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891151/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891151/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35855494/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35855494/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35821984/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35821984/ https://www.covid-datascience.com/ https://www.covid-datascience.com/ also has some helpful discussions of this stuff if you don't want to have to dig through a bunch of studies.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
17 vs 21 in a study of 40K is not statistically significant.
- stoneglyph 4y ago
  And yet, this is the "science" that was used to push the vaccines on the entire population. It just so happens that the group with the larger number of deaths was the vaccinated group, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. A question: why was this not discussed?
  - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    > And yet, this is the "science" that was used to push the vaccines on the entire population. Yes. It's sound science. What problem do you have? > It just so happens that the group with the larger number of deaths was the vaccinated group, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. A question: why was this not discussed? It wasn't discussed because 17 vs 21 in a sample size of 40K is not a statistically significant difference. I don't know how to make that more clear without going into a lesson in high school-level statistics.
    - stoneglyph 4y ago
      [dead]
    - manwe150 4y ago
      So, really, it was discussed, as indicated since you and they heard of the discussion. It is indeed quite simple to discuss even, since the conversation should end with learning that this is covered in high-school stats class. What is more ironic to me is that this is the total deaths number, without any regards to cause. And in a large population of 40k healthy individuals, is is expected for a few to unexpectedly die over 6 months. This is ironic, since skeptics also often seem to claim that 10-50% excess all-causes death in the population was just random noise.
      - 4y ago

origin_path 4y ago

OK. Deaths in the RCTs: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489 [edit: fixed typo in link] "To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines ... For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the two mRNA vaccines compared with placebo was 1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71)" Excess deaths in the UK. Useful because (a) it's all in English and (b) the UK authorities do split out deaths by vaccine status unlike most places: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/silent-crisis-soaring-excess-deaths-gripping-britain-tip-iceberg/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/silent-crisis-so... "For 14 of the past 15 weeks, England and Wales have averaged around 1,000 extra deaths each week, none of which are due to Covid. If the current trajectory continues, the number of non-Covid excess deaths will soon outstrip deaths from the virus this year – and be even more deadly than the omicron wave. The Government has admitted that the majority of the excess deaths appear to be from circulatory issues and diabetes – long-term, chronic conditions that can be fatal without adequate care." Increases by cause of death: https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/image-5.png https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/image-5.... Dashboard that lets you explore the data directly from the source: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYmUwNmFhMjYtNGZhYS00NDk2LWFlMTAtOTg0OGNhNmFiNGM0IiwidCI6ImVlNGUxNDk5LTRhMzUtNGIyZS1hZDQ3LTVmM2NmOWRlODY2NiIsImMiOjh9 https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYmUwNmFhMjYtNGZhYS00N... UK data at first appears to show that the unvaccinated die at a higher rate. However, this is only because they're using incorrect population figures. Although it may seem absurd the government population figures in the UK are officially labelled "experimental" because they are universally acknowledged to be far too low. In some age groups the official population is lower than the number of people who came forward for immunization, so these figures cannot be used and indeed the UK HSA didn't use the official population stats when computing their own effectiveness rates, but rather estimates from NIMS (National Immunization Service). If the same methodology is used then you can calculate chart 4 on this page from officially released data: https://bartram.substack.com/p/deaths-by-vaccination-status-for https://bartram.substack.com/p/deaths-by-vaccination-status-... "The ONS data is interesting because it also includes data on non-Covid deaths by vaccination status ... Using this alternative estimate of the population of England [from NIMS] now suggests that the vaccines substantially increase the risk of death for reasons other than Covid." Unfortunately and worryingly, even the NIMS estimates are likely to be seriously off. According to NIMS about 9% of the British population refused vaccination but a few months ago the BBC commissioned a professional survey from a polling firm, to ask people questions about their vaccine status and if they didn't take it, why not. They were surprised to discover that 25% of people said they were unvaccinated. > To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines