Sudden Deaths More Than Double In Germany

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

Which part of the phase3 trial was successfully completed.

Look up on the 'prevention" part. Do they prevent transmission and infection? No.
Do they prevent disease? No.
Have they been tested? No

They reduce risk of infection.
They reduce risk of disease.
They have been tested.

More false claims from you.

so if you get the shot, and you get covid, you will be less sick, than if you didn't get the shot, and got covid, is that what you are saying here?

On average less likely to catch it.

On average less likely to be seriously ill if you do.

Based on your opinion?

Based on research which has been covered over and over again on this site.

Uk data can be found here.

www.gov.uk...

This is a government website that is peddling a narrative. We need solid proof and not politics or science blended with politics.

Which links to multiple studies.

As opposed to your anonymous unsupported claims on a conspiracy site.

It leads to nothing more than some studies that support the narrative and the disinformation campaign.

As I said earlier, no point in providing you with sources as you won't accept anything that contradicts your view.

You don't have much to provide anyway.
A little earlier you gave me an opinion piece in the BMJ who was authored by an Arts Graduate who knows nothing about infectious diseases. I am sure he also thinks the vaccines are safe and effective.

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

Which part was successfully completed from the phase3 clinical trials?

I have provudrd several sources which also link to other sources.

You don't want accept them as they disagree with you narrative.

Still no link to support your claim?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Down the bottom you will see sources.

Still no links for your claim? Why is that I wonder?

You gave me a BMJ opinion piece by a freelance journalist who has a Bachelor in Arts and talks about SARS-CoV-2
Do you think that everyone here is a layman when it comes to science & medicine?

Do you know what the medium and long term effects are? How can you defend them that claim you made that these products are safe and effective?

Still more sources than you have provided.

Funny that.

This isn't a link you can rely on but a opinion piece by an Arts graduate.

Your links say nothing by the way.
I have provided several links over several threads do this is another false claim and an attempt to deflect from the conversation.

Do you know that medium and long term effects?

Link for your claim about transmission testing being required.

I have asked repeatedly snd you still haven't provided one. Probably because you made it up.

Pfizer didn't test for transmission. They have admitted it. So there isn't any link for it. You are getting your arguments confused.

You claim was that it was a requirement they forgot.

The confusion is entirely yours.

This is a standard practise in all Phase3 clinical trials. It isn't a claim. But you seem not to know what clinical trials are and how they are conducted.
But let's see for once more.

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

It's not the first time Pfizer is involved in scandalous practises. Not testing for transmission is a scandal. They have been convicted several times for fraud and other serious offences. Paid billions in criminal fines.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

Which part of the phase3 trial was successfully completed.

Look up on the 'prevention" part. Do they prevent transmission and infection? No.
Do they prevent disease? No.
Have they been tested? No

They reduce risk of infection.
They reduce risk of disease.
They have been tested.

More false claims from you.

so if you get the shot, and you get covid, you will be less sick, than if you didn't get the shot, and got covid, is that what you are saying here?

On average less likely to catch it.

On average less likely to be seriously ill if you do.

Based on your opinion?

Based on research which has been covered over and over again on this site.

Uk data can be found here.

www.gov.uk...

This is a government website that is peddling a narrative. We need solid proof and not politics or science blended with politics.

Which links to multiple studies.

As opposed to your anonymous unsupported claims on a conspiracy site.

It leads to nothing more than some studies that support the narrative and the disinformation campaign.

As I said earlier, no point in providing you with sources as you won't accept anything that contradicts your view.

You don't have much to provide anyway.
A little earlier you gave me an opinion piece in the BMJ who was authored by an Arts Graduate who knows nothing about infectious diseases. I am sure he also thinks the vaccines are safe and effective.

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

Which part was successfully completed from the phase3 clinical trials?

I have provudrd several sources which also link to other sources.

You don't want accept them as they disagree with you narrative.

Still no link to support your claim?

It's not a claim but an integral part of phase3 clinical trials. You have confused your arguments.

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Down the bottom you will see sources.

Still no links for your claim? Why is that I wonder?

You gave me a BMJ opinion piece by a freelance journalist who has a Bachelor in Arts and talks about SARS-CoV-2
Do you think that everyone here is a layman when it comes to science & medicine?

Do you know what the medium and long term effects are? How can you defend them that claim you made that these products are safe and effective?

Still more sources than you have provided.

Funny that.

This isn't a link you can rely on but a opinion piece by an Arts graduate.

Your links say nothing by the way.
I have provided several links over several threads do this is another false claim and an attempt to deflect from the conversation.

Do you know that medium and long term effects?

Link for your claim about transmission testing being required.

I have asked repeatedly snd you still haven't provided one. Probably because you made it up.

Pfizer didn't test for transmission. They have admitted it. So there isn't any link for it. You are getting your arguments confused.

You claim was that it was a requirement they forgot.

The confusion is entirely yours.

This is a standard practise in all Phase3 clinical trials. It isn't a claim. But you seem not to know what clinical trials are and how they are conducted.
But let's see for once more.

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

It's not the first time Pfizer is involved in scandalous practises. Not testing for transmission is a scandal. They have been convicted several times for fraud and other serious offences. Paid billions in criminal fines.

You have repeated that quoted text multiple times.

It still doesn't say anything about onward transmission.

If that's the best you can do it's pretty clear your claim is false.

a reply to: ScepticScot
Absolute risk reduction 0.84%.......119 vaccinated prevents 1 infection.

Efficacy and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccine - absolute vs. relative risk reduction
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Edit:
This is where the people on John Campbells two separate videos got the figures from.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Absolute risk reduction 0.84%.......119 vaccinated prevents 1 infection.

Efficacy and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccine - absolute vs. relative risk reduction
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I understood being vax'd reduces one's chances of ending up with a serious illness that will make you end up in ICU or worse.

I don't recall anyone ever saying the vax prevents infection.

And the authorities never said there would be 'no' risk and because this is still new technology, they are still conducting studies and experiments. So there could very well be adverse reactions we still have yet to learn about.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Down the bottom you will see sources.

Still no links for your claim? Why is that I wonder?

You gave me a BMJ opinion piece by a freelance journalist who has a Bachelor in Arts and talks about SARS-CoV-2
Do you think that everyone here is a layman when it comes to science & medicine?

Do you know what the medium and long term effects are? How can you defend them that claim you made that these products are safe and effective?

Still more sources than you have provided.

Funny that.

This isn't a link you can rely on but a opinion piece by an Arts graduate.

Your links say nothing by the way.
I have provided several links over several threads do this is another false claim and an attempt to deflect from the conversation.

Do you know that medium and long term effects?

Link for your claim about transmission testing being required.

I have asked repeatedly snd you still haven't provided one. Probably because you made it up.

Pfizer didn't test for transmission. They have admitted it. So there isn't any link for it. You are getting your arguments confused.

You claim was that it was a requirement they forgot.

The confusion is entirely yours.

This is a standard practise in all Phase3 clinical trials. It isn't a claim. But you seem not to know what clinical trials are and how they are conducted.
But let's see for once more.

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

It's not the first time Pfizer is involved in scandalous practises. Not testing for transmission is a scandal. They have been convicted several times for fraud and other serious offences. Paid billions in criminal fines.

You have repeated that quoted text multiple times.

It still doesn't say anything about onward transmission.

If that's the best you can do it's pretty clear your claim is false.

You probably haven't left with anything in your Pfizer defense.

One major requirement is to test for transmission. In a few words if the product prevents transmission. And infection too.

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

From the above text: Is the vaccine effective in preventing people from getting the disease?

To prevent a disease you need to stop transmission and infection. These vaccines don't prevent transmission and infection. Pfizer didn't even test for transmission which is scandalous.

To reduce significantly the chances of getting a disease you need to significantly reduce transmission and Infection. With negligence absolute risk reductions you can do nothing such.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Absolute risk reduction 0.84%.......119 vaccinated prevents 1 infection.

Efficacy and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccine - absolute vs. relative risk reduction
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Edit:
This is where the people on John Campbells two separate videos got the figures from.

Thanks.

This why I was asking.

Actually, ARR and its derivative number needed to vaccinate to prevent a disease (NNV) are time-dependent parameters, affected by follow-up duration (Figure 1) [12]. The above mentioned fall of risk reduction indices of BNT162b2 vaccine could therefore be, at least in part, correlated to the very short duration of the study [3] (median value 2 months).

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Absolute risk reduction 0.84%.......119 vaccinated prevents 1 infection.

Efficacy and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccine - absolute vs. relative risk reduction
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I understood being vax'd reduces one's chances of ending up with a serious illness that will make you end up in ICU or worse.

I don't recall anyone ever saying the vax prevents infection.

And the authorities never said there would be 'no' risk and because this is still new technology, they are still conducting studies and experiments. So there could very well be adverse reactions we still have yet to learn about.

Saving granny maybe?
You get vaccinated to protect your granny as these vaccines prevent transmission and infection.

Remember the US president saying you will get vaccinated and you won't get Covid-19

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Still says nothing about onward transmission.

If your interpretation of that text was correct it would be easy for you to show that onwards transmisson testing was required.

You haven't because you can't

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Absolute risk reduction 0.84%.......119 vaccinated prevents 1 infection.

Efficacy and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccine - absolute vs. relative risk reduction
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Edit:
This is where the people on John Campbells two separate videos got the figures from.

Thanks.

This why I was asking.

Actually, ARR and its derivative number needed to vaccinate to prevent a disease (NNV) are time-dependent parameters, affected by follow-up duration (Figure 1) [12]. The above mentioned fall of risk reduction indices of BNT162b2 vaccine could therefore be, at least in part, correlated to the very short duration of the study [3] (median value 2 months).

You continue on the denialism path.
Everyone by now knows that vaccines don't prevent transmission and infection. And everyone knows that the absolute risk reductions are negligible.

I sure hope this information on increased mortality is "peer reviewed"!

As we all know, all peers are magically never biased at all, so it's completely fair. 😁

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Still says nothing about onward transmission.

If your interpretation of that text was correct it would be easy for you to show that onwards transmisson testing was required.

You haven't because you can't

Pfizer didn't test for transmission. They have admitted it. There is no evidence that they tested for other major factors that prove the vaccine was safe and effective. No tests for short, medium and long term effects. So Phase3 clinical trial has failed.

Do you have any links for the claims that Pfizer wasn't required to test for transmission given that this is a an integral part of a vaccine trial.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Absolute risk reduction 0.84%.......119 vaccinated prevents 1 infection.

Efficacy and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccine - absolute vs. relative risk reduction
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Edit:
This is where the people on John Campbells two separate videos got the figures from.

Thanks.

This why I was asking.

Actually, ARR and its derivative number needed to vaccinate to prevent a disease (NNV) are time-dependent parameters, affected by follow-up duration (Figure 1) [12]. The above mentioned fall of risk reduction indices of BNT162b2 vaccine could therefore be, at least in part, correlated to the very short duration of the study [3] (median value 2 months).

You continue on the denialism path.
Everyone by nor knows that vaccines don't prevent transmission and infection. And everyone knows what the absolute risk reductions are negligible.

You seem confused again.

Your opinion is not the same as everyone knows.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Still says nothing about onward transmission.

If your interpretation of that text was correct it would be easy for you to show that onwards transmisson testing was required.

You haven't because you can't

Pfizer didn't test for transmission. They have admitted it. There is no evidence that they tested for other major factors that prove the vaccine was safe and effective. No tests for short, medium and long term effects. So Phase3 clinical trial has failed.

Do you have any links for the claims that Pfizer wasn't required to test for transmission given that this is a an integral part of a vaccine trial.

You haven't provided any evidence it was an integral part of the trial. (Because it wasn't,)

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Absolute risk reduction 0.84%.......119 vaccinated prevents 1 infection.

Efficacy and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccine - absolute vs. relative risk reduction
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I understood being vax'd reduces one's chances of ending up with a serious illness that will make you end up in ICU or worse.

I don't recall anyone ever saying the vax prevents infection.

And the authorities never said there would be 'no' risk and because this is still new technology, they are still conducting studies and experiments. So there could very well be adverse reactions we still have yet to learn about.

Saving granny maybe?
You get vaccinated to protect your granny as these vaccines prevent transmission and infection.

Remember the US president saying you will get vaccinated and you won't get Covid-19

I watched the news - all countries - when Covid started and I do recall people of all ages ending up in the ICU, sure elders had it worse because they were trapped and abandoned in indoor settings and what do we expect would happen?, and I don't recall the medical experts ever saying you will not get Covid-19 - if a president said you won't get covid-19 put that down to confusion - confusion reigned high then - do you recall that?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Absolute risk reduction 0.84%.......119 vaccinated prevents 1 infection.

Efficacy and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccine - absolute vs. relative risk reduction
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Edit:
This is where the people on John Campbells two separate videos got the figures from.

Thanks.

This why I was asking.

Actually, ARR and its derivative number needed to vaccinate to prevent a disease (NNV) are time-dependent parameters, affected by follow-up duration (Figure 1) [12]. The above mentioned fall of risk reduction indices of BNT162b2 vaccine could therefore be, at least in part, correlated to the very short duration of the study [3] (median value 2 months).

You continue on the denialism path.
Everyone by nor knows that vaccines don't prevent transmission and infection. And everyone knows what the absolute risk reductions are negligible.

You seem confused again.

Your opinion is not the same as everyone knows.

If you see from most of the above replies I am correct. Unless for those who are engaged in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. And recently defending Pfizer.

originally posted by: Phage
I would be interested in seeing the raw data. "Sudden an unexpected death" is rather vague. Sounds sensationalist, more like something the media would say than a physician.

We all know that no matter how much raw data or evidence there is... Phage will always toe that partisan line. Deny deny deny!! He is a denial specialist.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Still says nothing about onward transmission.

If your interpretation of that text was correct it would be easy for you to show that onwards transmisson testing was required.

You haven't because you can't

Pfizer didn't test for transmission. They have admitted it. There is no evidence that they tested for other major factors that prove the vaccine was safe and effective. No tests for short, medium and long term effects. So Phase3 clinical trial has failed.

Do you have any links for the claims that Pfizer wasn't required to test for transmission given that this is a an integral part of a vaccine trial.

You haven't provided any evidence it was an integral part of the trial. (Because it wasn't,)

Testing for transmission is an integral part of vaccine trials. This is standard knowledge. It's unfortunate you don't have it and this is there the confusion is.

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

It is scandalous not to test for transmission. But I assume Pfizer is used to being part of scandals of criminal and criminal fines.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Absolute risk reduction 0.84%.......119 vaccinated prevents 1 infection.

Efficacy and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccine - absolute vs. relative risk reduction
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I understood being vax'd reduces one's chances of ending up with a serious illness that will make you end up in ICU or worse.

I don't recall anyone ever saying the vax prevents infection.

And the authorities never said there would be 'no' risk and because this is still new technology, they are still conducting studies and experiments. So there could very well be adverse reactions we still have yet to learn about.

Saving granny maybe?
You get vaccinated to protect your granny as these vaccines prevent transmission and infection.

Remember the US president saying you will get vaccinated and you won't get Covid-19

I watched the news - all countries - when Covid started and I do recall people of all ages ending up in the ICU, sure elders had it worse because they were trapped and abandoned in indoor settings and what do we expect would happen?, and I don't recall the medical experts ever saying you will not get Covid-19 - if a president said you won't get covid-19 put that down to confusion - confusion reigned high then - do you recall that?

Yes the President is confused but the message was to get vaccinated to protect granny. The idea created in the minds of everyone is that the vaccines prevent transmission and infection. And I am sure many doctors did think that these products will prevent transmission and infection. Even the President did after taking advise by his doctors and experts.