Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the "No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies" concerns me. Yes, anyone citing 90% mortality is wrong and disingenuous. BUT, I would not put it past Pfizer to hide unwanted outcomes in patients who don't follow up. There were a significant number of patients in the phase 3 clinical trial that just didn't follow up as well.
In other words, the clinical trial for this product was a shit show.
How about a 90% mortality rate for those reported? But hell, even IF all the other 238 pregnancies were just fine, 9% is still a horrible, horrible, mind blowing number when it comes to "safety". There is no way it should ever be approved for ANYTHING with numbers that high, considering COVID itself is NO RISK to them.
90% out of the known outcomes would make any statistician expect a similar rate in the unknown ones if they were otherwise comparable. Which we have no way of knowing, from this. IF all the rest had no incident at all it would be a wonder. The one way this could reasonably happen would be if all the pregnancy losses came at the same time in fetal development and that was somehow critical. We don't know that either, but I do recall some other news from months ago about a cohort with very high losses in the first trimester. Even normally the very earliest weeks of pregnancy have a high loss rate. Still, it is alarming and unlikely that we are looking at the only losses.
Pfizer is trying to prove their jab is safe with these studies. These are “controlled” studies from a fast tracked novel treatment, not randomized population data. From a company that has the largest criminal fine in history for false claims.
These types of statistica evaluations are intended to be predictive and that goes out the window when the source of the data is suspect.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the "No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies" concerns me. Yes, anyone citing 90% mortality is wrong and disingenuous. BUT, I would not put it past Pfizer to hide unwanted outcomes in patients who don't follow up. There were a significant number of patients in the phase 3 clinical trial that just didn't follow up as well.
In other words, the clinical trial for this product was a shit show.
I do not disagree, but going off the data presented, claiming a 90% mortality rate is disingenuous at best.
Yes but 9.6 is disingenous as well.....
How about a 90% mortality rate for those reported? But hell, even IF all the other 238 pregnancies were just fine, 9% is still a horrible, horrible, mind blowing number when it comes to "safety". There is no way it should ever be approved for ANYTHING with numbers that high, considering COVID itself is NO RISK to them.
I dont disagree, but normies are going to see "oh you said 27, but this actually says 270, why are you trying to be deceptive?"
I'm trying to prevent that scenario entirely. We have the truth on our side, and 9% is devastating enough to wake some people up.
The ACTUAL REPORTED SURVIVABILITY RATE, from the DATA we have, that YOU POSTED:::
270 = FLUFF, Page Filler, words on Paper with the purpose of writing words and not giving real info.....
they Tested and got results for 32 Victims, of which ONLY ONE SURVIVED....
1 Survivor = 3.125% SURVIVABILITY RATE....
This leaves a 96.875 MORTALITY RATE.....
Stick to your guns MORON, maybe some day, when only MORONS run the world, YOU can teach them how to do New WOKE Maths.....
Now you'll say something Extremely STUPID::
Let me guess::
""Oh, but the 270 that didn't return or weren't Reported on SURVIVED.""
You don't know that, and that Information was NOT REPORTED.....
You have to IGNORE that junk, because it is NOT PART OF THE EQUATION....
What you are doing is worse... it means you don't understand studies.
Read it again.
Is 9% horrible? What was the rate pre-vaccine? Probably higher than you think.
90% out of the known outcomes would make any statistician expect a similar rate in the unknown ones if they were otherwise comparable. Which we have no way of knowing, from this. IF all the rest had no incident at all it would be a wonder. The one way this could reasonably happen would be if all the pregnancy losses came at the same time in fetal development and that was somehow critical. We don't know that either, but I do recall some other news from months ago about a cohort with very high losses in the first trimester. Even normally the very earliest weeks of pregnancy have a high loss rate. Still, it is alarming and unlikely that we are looking at the only losses.
Pfizer is trying to prove their jab is safe with these studies. These are “controlled” studies from a fast tracked novel treatment, not randomized population data. From a company that has the largest criminal fine in history for false claims.
These types of statistica evaluations are intended to be predictive and that goes out the window when the source of the data is suspect.