Not really a bot, its actually synthetic data (probably being computed from the 6 actual subjects) and fudging the numbers to push through a desired narrative. But it's used in the same way bots are used.
They also “asked” their doctor friends who are brainwashed retards. No time to read or have any critical thinking. But can spend hours of Netflix, facebook, and tiktok.
If they released all the data, and only 1209 patients were totaled in the document, doesn’t that mean they fudged 96 percent of the 44k patient data with “non-humans”?
Pfizer is required to release 80,000 documents every month relating to the vaccine. This month one of the documents showed that in a trial that said it had 181 subjects data, there were actually only 6 real human patients.
So where did the rest of the data come from? It was synthetically produced likely using the 6 patients and some statistics random functions or machine learning GANs. So 175 "subjects" or 96.6% of the data was fake data used to justify the safety of the vaccines.
I'm missing something? If they are slow walking the data, why wouldn't they sample the data from each site. That is, rather than releasing ALL the data from some sites, and NONE of the data from other sites, they just release SOME of the data from ALL of the sites. It doesn't mean that there isn't more data to release later. They were only required to release 80,000 docs a month. It wasn't stated what algorithm they had to use in deciding what to release (was it?).
Releasing it this way (subset of data for each site) makes it easier to obfuscate the big picture.
Of the people in the files (181 of them) only 6 have a verified record associated with them. Though it could be due to the release schedule of the files, as of right now is it showing that Pfizer may have made up fake people for the studies.
I don’t understand his beef with the ID numbers being consecutive.
I’d expect them to be consecutive since you’re dealing with subjects at one site? And there’s no added value from skipping every five digits or whatever?
CRFs are supposed to be extensive because you should have a massive paper trail that is very specific in case something goes wrong. The bigger issue that I see is they didn’t collect symptom e-diaries from multiple participants, didn’t log medications for hospitalized participants/participants with pre-existing conditions at the start of the trial, and didn’t do thorough follow-up notes whatsoever.
They even tried to fake follow ups for patients who died before the month was up, and tried to fake ARDS being from things like strep instead of COVID despite a positive test.
I don’t understand his beef with the ID numbers being consecutive.
I think what he's getting at is the synthetic data was made from randomizing subject data. Look at the 4th picture on the first post.
The bigger issue that I see is they didn’t collect symptom e-diaries from multiple participants, didn’t log medications for hospitalized participants/participants with pre-existing conditions at the start of the trial, and didn’t do thorough follow-up notes whatsoever.
Of course that is a problem too, but somehow they even went a step further and played off 6 people as "181 people" and fudged the numbers further to push the vaccine through regulations.
They even tried to fake follow ups for patients who died before the month was up, and tried to fake ARDS being from things like strep instead of COVID despite a positive test.
This is important info! I haven't come across this yet, do you have any good sources handy?
She spent three months in the hospital. And had all of the COVID symptoms. No way in hell it wasn’t COVID; looks more like they waited to swab her in the hospital until they knew it would be negative.
Bots everywhere.
Not really a bot, its actually synthetic data (probably being computed from the 6 actual subjects) and fudging the numbers to push through a desired narrative. But it's used in the same way bots are used.
in silico
EXACTLY
This is what I usually get from liberals:
"I just don't have time to go through all of this information. Reading/watching this would take too much time out of my day. Blah blah blah"
This is another good example of an exchange with a PhD vaccine researcher working for the medical establishment
https://nitter.net/Jikkyleaks/status/1521779109684121601
This is why we run circles around them. 👆 WE PUT IN THE WORK.
Like anything the liberals are doing is that noteworthy that they couldn't sit down like us and study the reports.
They try to make shortcuts everywhere in their life and take no responsibilities.
University degrees are a "shortcut" to a better paying job and "higher status".
Victimization is a "shortcut" to government handouts and "job opportunities".
"Expert Fact Checkers" are a shortcut for "finding the truth".
Emotions are (most of the time) a shortcut to rigorous logical decisions.
The road to hell is a shortcut...
They also “asked” their doctor friends who are brainwashed retards. No time to read or have any critical thinking. But can spend hours of Netflix, facebook, and tiktok.
It’s cognitive dissonance
It's ego and not being humble.
Archived Thread:
https://archive.ph/J4ViT
@TTLBoats
It would appear that out of 181 trial participants, only 6 of them had files indicating they're actual people.
The other 175 were either fabricated, synthetic data, or proper records were not collected. #Pfizerdata
https://nitter.net/TTLBoats/status/1521666940082737155
https://archive.ph/abU82
If they released all the data, and only 1209 patients were totaled in the document, doesn’t that mean they fudged 96 percent of the 44k patient data with “non-humans”?
Yep
I'm really not following this thread. Can someone explain better?
Pfizer is required to release 80,000 documents every month relating to the vaccine. This month one of the documents showed that in a trial that said it had 181 subjects data, there were actually only 6 real human patients.
So where did the rest of the data come from? It was synthetically produced likely using the 6 patients and some statistics random functions or machine learning GANs. So 175 "subjects" or 96.6% of the data was fake data used to justify the safety of the vaccines.
I'm missing something? If they are slow walking the data, why wouldn't they sample the data from each site. That is, rather than releasing ALL the data from some sites, and NONE of the data from other sites, they just release SOME of the data from ALL of the sites. It doesn't mean that there isn't more data to release later. They were only required to release 80,000 docs a month. It wasn't stated what algorithm they had to use in deciding what to release (was it?).
Releasing it this way (subset of data for each site) makes it easier to obfuscate the big picture.
The only logical reason is that it's the best option for them at the moment which would have to mean the data not released is somehow worse.
They fabricated their data, by fabricating the test participants
Of the people in the files (181 of them) only 6 have a verified record associated with them. Though it could be due to the release schedule of the files, as of right now is it showing that Pfizer may have made up fake people for the studies.
This COULD be explosive!
More sunlight please.
I don’t understand his beef with the ID numbers being consecutive.
I’d expect them to be consecutive since you’re dealing with subjects at one site? And there’s no added value from skipping every five digits or whatever?
CRFs are supposed to be extensive because you should have a massive paper trail that is very specific in case something goes wrong. The bigger issue that I see is they didn’t collect symptom e-diaries from multiple participants, didn’t log medications for hospitalized participants/participants with pre-existing conditions at the start of the trial, and didn’t do thorough follow-up notes whatsoever.
They even tried to fake follow ups for patients who died before the month was up, and tried to fake ARDS being from things like strep instead of COVID despite a positive test.
I think what he's getting at is the synthetic data was made from randomizing subject data. Look at the 4th picture on the first post.
Of course that is a problem too, but somehow they even went a step further and played off 6 people as "181 people" and fudged the numbers further to push the vaccine through regulations.
This is important info! I haven't come across this yet, do you have any good sources handy?
Hmmm…I’ll have to revisit his tweet about randomization then I suppose.
It’s from the same latest drop of documents; I believe it’s the first patient on this PDF. basically she self swabbed positive, the hospital ER said she tested negative, so they classified her ARDS as strep after initially coding it as COVID induced.
She spent three months in the hospital. And had all of the COVID symptoms. No way in hell it wasn’t COVID; looks more like they waited to swab her in the hospital until they knew it would be negative.
Absolutely disgusting.
https://archive.ph/RwrcS
^ Threadreader Text ^