The top line of Table S3 lists the total numbers of severe cases (1 and 9). The lower lines break down the timing and add up to the top line. All cases are after Dose 1, but only some are after Dose 2 or between the doses. https://norstadt.substack.com/p/severe-adverse-events-vs-severe-covid
Excellent report!!! Next - dumb it down. IMO, this is quite challenging for a non-technical person to follow. A crisp, clean 1 pager with the key takeaways is needed for widespread distribution to the average citizen. Canadian Covid Care Alliance’s excellent summary report on the Pfizer trial is a perfect example. Talking points, we need simple, repeatable talking points, that people can wrap their heads around. For example, According to Pfizer’s own data - Pfizer did not have enough qualifying patients in their trial to be granted EUA approval - so they violated protocols to manipulate the data in order to be granted the EUA. Even that could be more concise….but you get the point.
Again, Thank You for your tremendous efforts to expose the truth, aka, real science.
Hi Barry - The main point of the article is that the EUA was granted based only 170 trial participants, several of whom had disqualifying protocol deviations. If the ones with the protocol deviations had been removed, as they should have been, Pfizer would not have had enough participants in its evaluable population for an EUA to have been granted. The EUA was granted under false pretenses. To my knowledge, this is the first time this has been exposed.
"To my knowledge, this is the first time this has been exposed."
If so, then it is disappointing that "our" experts did not ventilate it. I've noticed that most of them have their day jobs. They either don't have the time or something else to actually do deep independent analysis of the actual data and reports.
I am not complaining since they are providing a valuable service pro bono. I wish there were some committees to co-ordinate proper research and analysis,
That point might have only been exposed now; however, other aspects of the "trial" were discussed from the start. If there was a proper court of law and there were competent and brave lawyers who were willing to act pro bono, the EUA would not have granted,
With an abundance of real data, lived experiences and anecdotes, people still VOLUNTARILY lined up, or did not act collectively, the EUA is moot.
We need to remember that the crime was, is, perpetrated by govts. Only govts and more powerful govts can oppose each other in absence of a proper court of law. As we have seen, there is no such thing as a proper court of law.
I agree! If you have time and are interested, please consider watching this documentary which some of my colleagues were involved in making. And, please spread the word. It’s such an important film for the world to see. I’ll be posting more about it on this Substack soon. https://www.oraclefilms.com/safeandeffective
From 44,000 to 170? Nothing suspicious there.
And now, 170 people down to 8 mice.
Next? “just trust us”.
After “trust us”, it will be “take it or else”. Already happened to some degree but I suspect it could get much worse.
A tremendous amount of work. Thank you.
If I'm reading this right, table S5 mentioned in the original study says that of the 170 cases, only 20 were severe.
Table S3 says that there were 240 severe and 21 life threatening adverse events in the vaccine group.
Did they cause 261 serious & life threatening injuries to try and prevent 20 cases of severe covid?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389/suppl_file/nejmoa2035389_appendix.pdf
The top line of Table S3 lists the total numbers of severe cases (1 and 9). The lower lines break down the timing and add up to the top line. All cases are after Dose 1, but only some are after Dose 2 or between the doses. https://norstadt.substack.com/p/severe-adverse-events-vs-severe-covid
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345/suppl_file/nejmoa2110345_appendix.pdf
Excellent work!
Thank you for the in depth analysis!
Excellent report!!! Next - dumb it down. IMO, this is quite challenging for a non-technical person to follow. A crisp, clean 1 pager with the key takeaways is needed for widespread distribution to the average citizen. Canadian Covid Care Alliance’s excellent summary report on the Pfizer trial is a perfect example. Talking points, we need simple, repeatable talking points, that people can wrap their heads around. For example, According to Pfizer’s own data - Pfizer did not have enough qualifying patients in their trial to be granted EUA approval - so they violated protocols to manipulate the data in order to be granted the EUA. Even that could be more concise….but you get the point.
Again, Thank You for your tremendous efforts to expose the truth, aka, real science.
Thank you! The authors produced two video "explainers" - one short and one longer - that help put it in layperson terms. They can be found here. https://dailyclout.io/how-pfizers-eua-was-granted-based-on-less-than-0-4-of-clinical-trial-participants/
This article is way too late now! We have an abundance of real data.
Hi Barry - The main point of the article is that the EUA was granted based only 170 trial participants, several of whom had disqualifying protocol deviations. If the ones with the protocol deviations had been removed, as they should have been, Pfizer would not have had enough participants in its evaluable population for an EUA to have been granted. The EUA was granted under false pretenses. To my knowledge, this is the first time this has been exposed.
"To my knowledge, this is the first time this has been exposed."
If so, then it is disappointing that "our" experts did not ventilate it. I've noticed that most of them have their day jobs. They either don't have the time or something else to actually do deep independent analysis of the actual data and reports.
I am not complaining since they are providing a valuable service pro bono. I wish there were some committees to co-ordinate proper research and analysis,
That point might have only been exposed now; however, other aspects of the "trial" were discussed from the start. If there was a proper court of law and there were competent and brave lawyers who were willing to act pro bono, the EUA would not have granted,
With an abundance of real data, lived experiences and anecdotes, people still VOLUNTARILY lined up, or did not act collectively, the EUA is moot.
We need to remember that the crime was, is, perpetrated by govts. Only govts and more powerful govts can oppose each other in absence of a proper court of law. As we have seen, there is no such thing as a proper court of law.
The jab has been injected!
I agree! If you have time and are interested, please consider watching this documentary which some of my colleagues were involved in making. And, please spread the word. It’s such an important film for the world to see. I’ll be posting more about it on this Substack soon. https://www.oraclefilms.com/safeandeffective
Thanks.
I saw that film on the bird earlier and I have virated it - even to over 100 Aussie pollies, "experts" and hacks.