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.
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.