Pfizer vaccine clinical trial shows it does nothing to reduce overall risk of death

[theman93]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1420839456228118535

15 patients who received the vaccine died; 14 who received the placebo died.

Twitter is actively suppressing the information by labeling the tweet misleading and has removed the ability to like, share, reply to, or bookmark the tweet.

[And1AllDay]

twitter is a piece of sh1t owned and mainly operated by liberal cucks

[baudkarma]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1420839456228118535

15 patients who received the vaccine died; 14 who received the placebo died.

Twitter is actively suppressing the information by labeling the tweet misleading and has removed the ability to like, share, reply to, or bookmark the tweet.

DAMN those liberals at Twitter for labeling something "misleading" just because it is totally misleading. Luckily, if you really want the TRUTH, you can find the original article online pretty easily.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full-text

"During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open-label period, 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators. Causes of death were balanced between BNT162b2 and placebo groups (Table S4)."

In other words, those 29 deaths were due to causes other than Covid-19.

I'll drop off a couple of other quotes from the article. Feel free to read the whole thing and tell me if I'm taking them out of context.

"Among 42,094 evaluable ≥12-year-olds without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 77 COVID-19 cases with onset ≥7 days post-dose 2 were observed through the data cut-off (March 13, 2021) among vaccine recipients and 850 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 91.3% VE (95% CI [89.0-93.2]; Table 2). Among 44,486 evaluable participants, irrespective of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 81 COVID-19 cases were observed among vaccine and 873 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 91.1% VE (95% CI [88.8-93.0])."

"Of 31 cases of severe, FDA-defined COVID-19,12 with onset post-dose 1, 30 occurred in placebo recipients, corresponding to 96.7% VE (95% CI 80.3-99.9) against severe COVID-19 (Fig. 2, Table S6)."

[ArbitraryWater]

I dont understand why these plattforms get involved in the censoring at all.

if its bullshit just let people detect its bullshit by themselves

[n00bie]

I dont understand why these plattforms get involved in the censoring at all.

if its bullshit just let people detect its bullshit by themselves

Cuz there's a lot of dumbasses out there that believe every single quote on twitter as fact.

[ArbitraryWater]

Cuz there's a lot of dumbasses out there that believe every single quote on twitter as fact.

and?

who cares?

is twitter singlehandedly there to cover all false information? no they arent.

its clearly done selectively.

[highwhey]

you guys can bitch all you want, you agreed to it when you signed up for an account.

read that again, you agreed to it.

don't like it? don't use the platform, or hear me out on this, make your own. the right loves to tell liberals about how they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, why can't you do that and make your own platform? no excuses. :confusedshrug:

[baudkarma]

Cuz there's a lot of dumbasses out there that believe every single quote on twitter as fact.

Nah. They believe the quotes that reinforce their preconceived opinions. If it's something they don't want to believe, they wave their hand, say "Fake News!" and move on.

[Axe]

Without the boosters, i guess. :confusedshrug:

[coin24]

Don’t google and Facebook own 10% of one of the vaccine companies? The fact these platforms can push only pro jab propaganda then profit off it is ridiculous :lol

How anyone still uses Twitter and Boomerbook is beyond me

[Cleverness]

DAMN those liberals at Twitter for labeling something "misleading" just because it is totally misleading. Luckily, if you really want the TRUTH, you can find the original article online pretty easily.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full-text

"During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open-label period, 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators. Causes of death were balanced between BNT162b2 and placebo groups (Table S4)."

In other words, those 29 deaths were due to causes other than Covid-19.

I'll drop off a couple of other quotes from the article. Feel free to read the whole thing and tell me if I'm taking them out of context.

"Among 42,094 evaluable ≥12-year-olds without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 77 COVID-19 cases with onset ≥7 days post-dose 2 were observed through the data cut-off (March 13, 2021) among vaccine recipients and 850 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 91.3% VE (95% CI [89.0-93.2]; Table 2). Among 44,486 evaluable participants, irrespective of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 81 COVID-19 cases were observed among vaccine and 873 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 91.1% VE (95% CI [88.8-93.0])."

"Of 31 cases of severe, FDA-defined COVID-19,12 with onset post-dose 1, 30 occurred in placebo recipients, corresponding to 96.7% VE (95% CI 80.3-99.9) against severe COVID-19 (Fig. 2, Table S6)."

Did the vaccine clinical trial show it reduces overall risk of death?

[baudkarma]

Did the vaccine clinical trial show it reduces overall risk of death?

Yes it did. When the study states that 30 of the 31 cases of "severe, FDA-defined COVID-19" occured among the unvaccinated control group, I'd say that your chances of contracting a fatal case of Covid are much lower if you're vaxxed. Will you survive if you're unvaxxed and get Covid'd? Probably. Will you spend an uncomfortable amount of time in an ICU with tubes down your throat and racking up massive medical bills? Also probably.

[Cleverness]

Yes it did. When the study states that 30 of the 31 cases of "severe, FDA-defined COVID-19" occured among the unvaccinated control group, I'd say that your chances of contracting a fatal case of Covid are much lower if you're vaxxed. Will you survive if you're unvaxxed and get Covid'd? Probably. Will you spend an uncomfortable amount of time in an ICU with tubes down your throat and racking up massive medical bills? Also probably.

No, it didn't show overall risk of death; 15 patients who received the vaccine died; 14 who received the placebo died.

Even the authors didn't conclude that the study shows overall risk of death.

I'm not sure you even understand what overall risk of death means.

[iamgine]

and?

who cares?

is twitter singlehandedly there to cover all false information? no they arent.

its clearly done selectively.
It doesn't look good if your platform becomes a source of misinformation.

So you need to be seen as if you're fighting it.

It's a logical business move.

[FultzNationRISE]

It doesn't look good if your platform becomes a source of misinformation.

So you need to be seen as if you're fighting it.

It's a logical business move.


Meh, if someone asserts on Twitter the world is 5,000 years old because the Torah or Quran says so, even though this is scientifically inaccurate, do you think Twitter will remove the claim? If someone asserts men and women are biologically equal, even though this is false information, will Twitter remove the claim?

It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the information. They're concerned with controlling political narratives.

That said, I don't read twitter, so... whatever.

[LAL]

Meh, if someone asserts on Twitter the world is 5,000 years old because the Torah or Quran says so, even though this is scientifically inaccurate, do you think Twitter will remove the claim? If someone asserts men and women are biologically equal, even though this is false information, will Twitter remove the claim?

It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the information. They're concerned with controlling political narratives.

That said, I don't read twitter, so... whatever.

:pimp:

[baudkarma]

No, it didn't show overall risk of death; 15 patients who received the vaccine died; 14 who received the placebo died.

Even the authors didn't conclude that the study shows overall risk of death.

I'm not sure you even understand what overall risk of death means.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? Honestly, I sometimes feel like I'm talking to schoolchildren here. Maybe trolls, but I would expect trolls to be a little more clever.

29 of the people who participated in the study died. None of those deaths were attributed to Covid-19. which is significant when you realize that the study was specifically designed to measure how effective the vaccine is. 40,000+ people participated in the study. I think you could anticipate a few random deaths in a sample size that large. I guess that being vaccinated against Covid-19 won't help you much if you're hit by a train? Who could guess?


Still, I'd love to learn about what "overall risk of death" means. Can you make an informative post? Or maybe just link us to some relevant information.

I'll go back to my original position. The statistics used to make the claim that the Pfizer vaccine does nothing to reduce the risk of death are flawed, because Alex Berenson, the source of that information, didn't bother to actually read the damn research paper. He clicked a chart, saw something he liked, and Twittered it. I'm expecting he'll realize he made a mistake and post a retraction sometime soon... Ha! No, no he won't.

So, if you want to know the actual numbers from the paper:

The 29 deaths that occurred during the course study were deemed to be not Covid related. 40K+ participants, some are gonna die because life happens.

With roughly equal sample sizes, 81 people in the vaccinated group contracted Corona. 873 of the placebo group contracted Corona during the same time frame.

Of the 31 cases of Corona that were deemed "severe" according to FDA guidelines, 30 of those were in the unvaccinated/placebo pool. One one of the vaccinated test subjects got to severe status. Just guessing here, but I'm pretty sure that if you're 'Rona doesn't get to the "severe" status, you probably won't die.

A virus does not have to kill you for it to totally ruin your life. I'd rather not spend a couple of weeks in ICU with tubes up my nose and down my throat. I'd rather not have to deal with the massive bills that follow. So I got vaxxed a few months ago! And look at me! My life is back to normal, aside from my keyring sticking to me from time to time.

[RoseCity07]

Your evidence is some quack that got flagged on twitter lol. Dude has entire conspiracy theory account. You people are losing it.

[iamgine]

Meh, if someone asserts on Twitter the world is 5,000 years old because the Torah or Quran says so, even though this is scientifically inaccurate, do you think Twitter will remove the claim? If someone asserts men and women are biologically equal, even though this is false information, will Twitter remove the claim?

It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the information. They're concerned with controlling political narratives.

That said, I don't read twitter, so... whatever.
I hope as conservatives we don't make that kind of dumb analogy. Misinformation about vaccine is NOT the same as that.

I agree that the nature might be political. But that's kind of conservative's fault too for letting the left grow this big.

And it's also logical business decision despite maybe the motive isn't pure.

[ArbitraryWater]

you guys can bitch all you want, you agreed to it when you signed up for an account.

read that again, you agreed to it.

don't like it? don't use the platform, or hear me out on this, make your own. the right loves to tell liberals about how they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, why can't you do that and make your own platform? no excuses. :confusedshrug:

sure we agreed cause its a necessary means.

its still stupid though and a heavy dose of censorship.

its not as simple as to just create another platform that will never have that reach.

when twitter gained fame and reach, they didnt pull this bs. so they maybe would have never gotten so big being so restricting from the start.

[SATAN]

sure we agreed cause its a necessary means.

its still stupid though and a heavy dose of censorship.

its not as simple as to just create another platform that will never have that reach.

when twitter gained fame and reach, they didnt pull this bs. so they maybe would have never gotten so big being so restricting from the start.

Shut the **** up.

[SATAN]

Cleverness is a 4chan troll here to spread disinformation. He hates America.

[baudkarma]

No, it didn't show overall risk of death; 15 patients who received the vaccine died; 14 who received the placebo died.

Even the authors didn't conclude that the study shows overall risk of death.

I'm not sure you even understand what overall risk of death means.

Those deaths were not related to the vaccine or the placebo. When you have a sample size of 40K plus people, some of them are going to die for reasons outside of the scope of the study.

Still, I'd like to learn what "overall risk of death" means. Please enlighten me.

[Cleverness]

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? Honestly, I sometimes feel like I'm talking to schoolchildren here. Maybe trolls, but I would expect trolls to be a little more clever.

29 of the people who participated in the study died. None of those deaths were attributed to Covid-19. which is significant when you realize that the study was specifically designed to measure how effective the vaccine is. 40,000+ people participated in the study. I think you could anticipate a few random deaths in a sample size that large. I guess that being vaccinated against Covid-19 won't help you much if you're hit by a train? Who could guess?


Still, I'd love to learn about what "overall risk of death" means. Can you make an informative post? Or maybe just link us to some relevant information.

I'll go back to my original position. The statistics used to make the claim that the Pfizer vaccine does nothing to reduce the risk of death are flawed, because Alex Berenson, the source of that information, didn't bother to actually read the damn research paper. He clicked a chart, saw something he liked, and Twittered it. I'm expecting he'll realize he made a mistake and post a retraction sometime soon... Ha! No, no he won't.

So, if you want to know the actual numbers from the paper:

The 29 deaths that occurred during the course study were deemed to be not Covid related. 40K+ participants, some are gonna die because life happens.

With roughly equal sample sizes, 81 people in the vaccinated group contracted Corona. 873 of the placebo group contracted Corona during the same time frame.

Of the 31 cases of Corona that were deemed "severe" according to FDA guidelines, 30 of those were in the unvaccinated/placebo pool. One one of the vaccinated test subjects got to severe status. Just guessing here, but I'm pretty sure that if you're 'Rona doesn't get to the "severe" status, you probably won't die.

A virus does not have to kill you for it to totally ruin your life. I'd rather not spend a couple of weeks in ICU with tubes up my nose and down my throat. I'd rather not have to deal with the massive bills that follow. So I got vaxxed a few months ago! And look at me! My life is back to normal, aside from my keyring sticking to me from time to time.

Again, the study did not show that the vaccine reduces overall risk of death. The authors didn't conclude that the vaccine reduces overall risk of death. If it did, it would have a statistically significant difference in overall deaths between the two groups.

Now... I actually agree that the vaccine may reduce overall risk of death in most people, but this. trial. did. not. show. that. You should look up past instances where people assume if x does y, and more people who died had y, then x must reduce overall risk of death (eg many of the cholesterol drugs). Unfortunately there are a lot of drugs (d) that show promise by reducing z, and lowering z is assumed to lower risk of death, but actual clinical trails fail to show d reducing risk of death.

Instead of arguing that the clinical trial showed the vaccine reduces overall risk of death (IT DID NOT), you should argue why the study didn't show it... I'll give you one: it was under-powered to show overall risk of death and didn't select enough people at risk of dying from the disease (ie the baseline characteristics of the subjects should have been weighted more towards the sick/elderly).

Also, I remember you earlier making other bold claims in this thread:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?494617-I-ve-had-covid-for-3-days-now-and-it-s-kind-of-a-joke&p=14367070&viewfull=1#post14367070

You're still welcome to followup your claims.

[SATAN]

:facepalm

[BurningHammer]

It takes a lot of dedication to waste his life pretending to know a lot about a new virus on this place. :bowdown: