3 ms·
> That's also only talking about one particular side effect, more interesting would be a comparison of all-cause mortality, because that's more likely what you
by Izkata 4mo ago
> That's also only talking about one particular side effect, more interesting would be a comparison of all-cause mortality, because that's more likely what you are interested in: Does the vaccine increase or decrease my chance of dying soon?
This is from memory but I think there were 16 deaths in the vaccine group and 14 or 15 in the control group in Pfizer's short-term safety trial of around 40k participants. None of the deaths were obviously vaccine related and it was statistically insignificant so the results were dismissed due to not being obviously bad.
They also lost track of a huge number of participants (like 200-400?), and never figured out why. It's entirely possible they died and the safety profile world be completely different if they were included.
- bulbar 4mo ago> so the results were dismissed due to not being obviously bad. Not sure if 'dismissed' is the correct phrasing. The results were statistically analyzed as it's always done with empirical studies. > They also lost track of a huge number of participants (like 200-400?), and never figured out why. It's entirely possible they died and the safety profile world be completely different if they were included. Sounds like that were the drop outs which is normal for empirical studies. <1% drop out sounds quite small (don't know for this type of study in particular, though). I wouldn't be surprised if the very question you are asking has been subject to research in the last decades as every medication goes through a very similar process. In general, that phrasing sounds to me that somebody tries to frame something that's super normal (drop outs) to something questionable and mystical. I don't mean you, but the source you used back then.