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: 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.

You think posts on a conspiracy forum are indicative of what everyone knows.

that is the funniest thing you have posted yet.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

If standard knowledge you can easily provide a link to support it. You haven't.

Your quoted text says nothing about onward transmission.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

You think posts on a conspiracy forum are indicative of what everyone knows.

that is the funniest thing you have posted yet.

You are in one of these forums by the way and you are trying hard to propagate some really weird conspiracy theories such as that testing for transmission isn't required as part of a vaccine trial. You argue on the basis of a conspiracy theory so you can defend Pfizer.

a reply to: ScepticScot

All I will say regarding believing in existing Covid stats, is that I think some variables may have been left out, so the big picture can't really be seen, at least IMO.

After reading that more recent Janssen (J&J) vaccine study and them admitting that they don't know how the vaccine ingredients react with other drugs, I'm now not only alarmed but very skeptical. I know it's new technology and very early in the studies, but I would have thought that would have been high on the agenda.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

If standard knowledge you can easily provide a link to support it. You haven't.

Your quoted text says nothing about onward transmission.

What other vaccine you know is not tested to see whether it prevents transmission or infection?

Apart from Pfizer's as they are moving with the speed of 'science' and don't need to test for much...

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.

Look at phase3

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: 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.

You think posts on a conspiracy forum are indicative of what everyone knows.

that is the funniest thing you have posted yet.

You are in one of these forums by the way and you are trying hard to propagate some really weird conspiracy theories such as that testing for transmission isn't required as part of a vaccine trial. You argue on the basis of a conspiracy theory so you can defend Pfizer.

I don't think this forum represent what everyone knows or general opinion.

Again no link to support your claim it was required.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Are you saying Phase III trials weren't done?

According to Pfizer they started on July 27, 2020 and had 46,331 participants in January 2021.

Link

a reply to: ScepticScot

Do you actually claim that there is no need to test for transmission or infection in vaccine clinical trials?! Show me one other than Pfizer's then.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

Do you actually claim that there is no need to test for transmission or infection in vaccine clinical trials?! Show me one other than Pfizer's then.

Why would it ?

Testing for onward transmission is more complicated and less robust than testing for infection.

If it would make no difference to if the vaccine would be approved or not.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh look, there was even a Study of SARS CoV-2 Infection and Potential Transmission in Individuals Immunized With Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine (CoVPN 3006) completed in December 2021

(Yes, I know it's Moderna and not Pfizer, but this just shows that there has been trials done)

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Are you saying Phase III trials weren't done?

According to Pfizer they started on July 27, 2020 and had 46,331 participants in January 2021.

Link

According to Pfizer of course....

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.

See what a Phase3 trial is. Can you compress Phase3 trails in 5-6 months?! Is that possible??

It takes a lot of time to get to know the short, medium and long term effects of these vaccines. The benefit to risk ratio in all age groups, before you release these products in the market.

Do you know the medium and long term.effects?

They didn't even know about the short term effects. We have just started seeing them.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you compress Phase3 trails in 5-6 months?!

No idea. Phase 3 trials by Pfizer were done over 13 months.

a reply to: TerryDon79
Did Pfizer test (in their trials) to see if their vaccine stopped transmission before releasing it to the public?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: TerryDon79
Did Pfizer test (in their trials) to see if their vaccine stopped transmission before releasing it to the public?

They didn't.

But then they didn't need to, and would have had little or no impact on it getting approved or not.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: TerryDon79
Did Pfizer test (in their trials) to see if their vaccine stopped transmission?

Not as far as I'm aware because that wasn't there main concern.

Should they have? Probably?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you compress Phase3 trails in 5-6 months?!

No idea. Phase 3 trials by Pfizer were done over 13 months.

Ok it doesn't change things that much. Again impossible to get the vital information you want in that short period of time. It actually takes years to get to know them. In 13 months, if we trust them (not many do), you can only start seeing the short term effects.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you compress Phase3 trails in 5-6 months?!

No idea. Phase 3 trials by Pfizer were done over 13 months.

Ok it doesn't change things that much. Again impossible to get the vital information you want in that short period of time. It actually takes years to get to know them. In 13 months, if we trust them (not many do), you can only start seeing the short term effects.

How about 60 years? That's when studies into mRNA vaccines started.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: TerryDon79
Did Pfizer test (in their trials) to see if their vaccine stopped transmission before releasing it to the public?

They didn't.

But then they didn't need to, and would have had little or no impact on it getting approved or not.

In which Universe a pharmaceutical doesn't test for transmission before it releases its product in the market??

How a vaccine can be approved if you know nothing about it. They didn't test for transmission and neither for short, medium, and long term effects. This is scandalous together with the approval.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you compress Phase3 trails in 5-6 months?!

No idea. Phase 3 trials by Pfizer were done over 13 months.

Ok it doesn't change things that much. Again impossible to get the vital information you want in that short period of time. It actually takes years to get to know them. In 13 months, if we trust them (not many do), you can only start seeing the short term effects.

How about 60 years? That's when studies into mRNA vaccines started.

No vaccines approved by the FDA prior to this.
Do you know of any mRNA vaccine for other infectious diseases?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: TerryDon79
Did Pfizer test (in their trials) to see if their vaccine stopped transmission before releasing it to the public?

They didn't.

But then they didn't need to, and would have had little or no impact on it getting approved or not.

In which Universe a pharmaceutical doesn't test for transmission before it releases its product in the market??

How a vaccine can be approved if you know nothing about it. They didn't test for transmission and neither for short, medium, and long term effects. This is scandalous together with the approval.

Yet you still haven't provided any evidence it was required.