Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Peter Doshi exposes pseudoscientifc corona vaccine trials

  1. #1

    Peter Doshi exposes pseudoscientifc corona vaccine trials

    Peter Doshi, associate editor of the "reputable" BMJ, demands that Pfizer and Moderna release raw data from their vaccine trials (instead of the manipulate propaganda we're spoonfed with).
    There are no plans to disclose any of this information before mid-2022...

    Doshi has some strong arguments against the report on the emergency-approved Pfizer vaccine. Only 170 PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases were reported, (only) 8 in the vaccine group and 162 in the placebo group.
    These 170 "confirmed" COVID-19 cases are a small percentage of the 3410 “suspected" COVID-19 cases...
    All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”
    .
    We have no information on these "suspected" cases. It doesn't make sense that the "suspected" case were so much higher in the placebo than in the vaccine group - 222 (even more than the 170 "confirmed" cases). This suggests that the "scientists" manipulated the data, knowing very well which of the trial subjects got the vaccine and who the placebo.
    There is evidence that the false-positive rate of the PCR test is 90%; 90% of 222 is 200 (that's more than the total amount of "confirmed" COVID-19 cases).
    This is especially troubling as there is evidence that suggests the vaccine trial wasn't a proper double-blind placebo controlled trial (so the trial "scientists" knew who got the vaccine and who the placebo). The primary endpoint in the trials is relatively subjective, so the unblinding is an important concern.

    That's beside another subgroup of 371 test subjects that were excluded from the analysis for an unknown reason (371 is more than twice as high as the 170 "confirmed" cases).
    Another reason we need more data is to analyse an unexplained detail found in a table of FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine: 371 individuals excluded from the efficacy analysis for “important protocol deviations on or prior to 7 days after Dose 2.” What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo.
    Even the 251 more trial subjects that were excluded from the vaccine group than from the placebo group is higher than the 170 "confirmed" COVID-19 cases:
    https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04...-the-raw-data/
    (https://archive.is/7XiGJ)
    Last edited by Firestarter; 01-19-2021 at 02:33 PM.
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    That's beside another subgroup of 371 test subjects that were excluded from the analysis for an unknown reason (371 is more than twice as high as the 170 "confirmed" cases).

    Even the 251 more trial subjects that were excluded from the vaccine group than from the placebo group is higher than the 170 "confirmed" COVID-19 cases:
    https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04...-the-raw-data/
    (https://archive.is/7XiGJ)
    Another good find.

    The problem with the exclusions in the absence of release of all of the trial data, for me, is not that we don't know the reasons why they were excluded. Lacking the trial data, it is not known whether the trial was sufficiently powered to account for the total number of losses to date, regardless of whether we know the reasons why they were lost. We don't even know what the total losses will be by the end of the trial. It is possible that in one or both trial arms, that the losses will be very high. If too great, the trial could be terminated due to futility and the companies will have to start over. How would futility affect the EUA?

    XNN
    "They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us every thing from youth to religion the same time they sell us our wars. I want to know who the men in the shadows are. I want to hear somebody asking them why. They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are but theyre never the ones to fight or to die." - Jackson Browne Lives In The Balance

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by XNavyNuke View Post
    The problem with the exclusions in the absence of release of all of the trial data, for me, is not that we don't know the reasons why they were excluded.
    The question that I've asked myself - what's the solution?
    These vaccines cause such severe adverse effects (to prevent infection with a virus that for most people is benign) that this gives the "scientists" that control the unblinded trials the possibility to manipulate the outcome...

    In this way big pharma can rig trials for their products BECAUSE they cause adverse reactions. I guess that most people would prefer medicine without adverse effects.

    I can already predict that big pharma will propose to use toxic shots for controls (instead of placebo). The WHO already demands that vaccine won't be compared to placebo when a vaccine for a specific disease has already been approved (including emergency-approved?).



    Quote Originally Posted by XNavyNuke View Post
    It is possible that in one or both trial arms, that the losses will be very high. If too great, the trial could be terminated due to futility and the companies will have to start over. How would futility affect the EUA?
    They've already excluded half of the trial participants (+21,000) for the remainder of the trial, after only 2 months, because it would be "unethical" to collect data on them, because the mission of getting the vaccine already emergency-approved has already been accomplished.
    https://archive.is/TrqPL
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    Even the 251 more trial subjects that were excluded from the vaccine group than from the placebo group is higher than the 170 "confirmed" COVID-19 cases:
    https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04...-the-raw-data/
    The amazing 95% efficacy was based on only 170 PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases - 8 in the vaccine group and 162 in the placebo group.

    They removed 696 cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination - 409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo. So much more than the 170 "confirmed" COVID-19 cases.

    If we add these 696 "removed" to the 170 COVID-19 cases we get.
    417 in the vaccine group.
    449 in the placebo group.

    This means that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine has a (negligible) efficacy of 7%.
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  6. #5
    Thank you for the link.

  7. #6
    I guess that most people agree that severe adverse effects of vaccines should be reason to NOT approve them, but that not many people understand how easy adverse effects can be used to rig a medical trial to get a vaccine approved...

    The trick is to create a healthy user bias, by excluding the unhealthy trial participants from the vaccine group, while leaving the unhealthy trial subjects in the placebo control group.
    When the vaccine group is healthier than the control group to start with, the vaccine will always look good.

    There is evidence that the (Pfizer) COVID vaccine suppresses the immune system for about 7 days.
    Now most unhealthy trial participants in the vaccine group will suffer severe adverse effects because of this.

    So now they only had to exclude the trial participants that got "COVID" within 7 days of the shot.
    This would exclude the unhealthy trial participants from the vaccine group, but leave them in the control group, and make the 95% efficacy a reality...

    Of course the scam continues with elderly people dropping "like flies" in nursing homes, within a week of being vaccinated, being reported as the result of "COVID outbreaks".
    Pfizer-vaccine-immune-deficiency-cover-up
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-10-2020, 04:08 PM
  2. Why there isn't a Corona Virus Vaccine
    By Swordsmyth in forum Coronavirus SARS-CoV2
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-16-2020, 06:38 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-31-2020, 06:50 PM
  4. Inappropriate placebos in vaccine trials
    By Firestarter in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-16-2019, 10:32 AM
  5. Is the Unsuspecting Public Still Being Used in Secret Vaccine Trials?
    By Created4 in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-04-2017, 07:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •