3 ms·

https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/pfizers-clinical-trial-had-more-deaths https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/pfizers-clinical-trial-had-... One would expect more d

https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/pfizers-clinical-trial-had-more-deaths https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/pfizers-clinical-trial-had-... One would expect more deaths in the placebo group from all the people who died of covid. Which makes the data even more striking.

appplication 3y ago
Well I poked around, I’m not sure exactly what you’re seeing. One would expect more covid deaths in the placebo, and that is the case. Most of the deaths in both groups are indeed unrelated to Covid at all. You can see exact cause of death for all participants here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true#page12 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/202... I suspect the number your focusing on is the 4 cardiac arrest deaths. At a glance it seems 4x higher than the one reported placebo death. But the number is 4 vs 1 for over 20k people. Why not instead focus on placebo group having 2 vs 0 myocardial infarction? The reason why not is that dying is noisy business, and things like cardiac arrest have a pretty high baseline, and this is such a small sample the variance is likely noise. Perhaps you could present a proper statistical analysis to convince otherwise? Something similar to the methodology for determining Covid vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing Covid deaths. After all, the data is all there. I didn’t see anything resembling such an analysis in your linked source. Just the confused ramblings of someone nontechnical, clearly out of their depth in reading a fairly basic research paper.
- excessdeaths423 3y ago
  [flagged]
- SnowProblem 3y ago
  The issue isn't the possible noise in non-covid deaths. It's this rather bold statement: "None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators" How would they know? What investigators and what criteria? If there was a 20% increase in seemingly-unrelated deaths, would it be detected? These are the questions that Pfizer should have explained but instead we just got this one pithy sentence. Also remember, this is industry with a history of fraud and criminality. GSK was fined billions for covering up heart deaths in a diabetes treatment only a few years earlier and Pfizer is up on the list too. Our FDA needed to be our advocates and a lot of people feel let down seeing this rubber-stamped.

appplication 3y ago

Well I poked around, I’m not sure exactly what you’re seeing. One would expect more covid deaths in the placebo, and that is the case. Most of the deaths in both groups are indeed unrelated to Covid at all. You can see exact cause of death for all participants here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true#page12 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/202... I suspect the number your focusing on is the 4 cardiac arrest deaths. At a glance it seems 4x higher than the one reported placebo death. But the number is 4 vs 1 for over 20k people. Why not instead focus on placebo group having 2 vs 0 myocardial infarction? The reason why not is that dying is noisy business, and things like cardiac arrest have a pretty high baseline, and this is such a small sample the variance is likely noise. Perhaps you could present a proper statistical analysis to convince otherwise? Something similar to the methodology for determining Covid vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing Covid deaths. After all, the data is all there. I didn’t see anything resembling such an analysis in your linked source. Just the confused ramblings of someone nontechnical, clearly out of their depth in reading a fairly basic research paper.

excessdeaths423 3y ago
[flagged]
SnowProblem 3y ago
The issue isn't the possible noise in non-covid deaths. It's this rather bold statement: "None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators" How would they know? What investigators and what criteria? If there was a 20% increase in seemingly-unrelated deaths, would it be detected? These are the questions that Pfizer should have explained but instead we just got this one pithy sentence. Also remember, this is industry with a history of fraud and criminality. GSK was fined billions for covering up heart deaths in a diabetes treatment only a few years earlier and Pfizer is up on the list too. Our FDA needed to be our advocates and a lot of people feel let down seeing this rubber-stamped.