Well done to both you and Joel. This work is unimaginably important.
A point to consider. Pfizer trial had an efficacy endpoint of 7 days post 2nd jab. So what happened to to the post jab risk there? It doesn’t show!
It is something I looked at a while ago and the most probable answer (to me) is they wrote out 311 participants from the BNT trial arm results for “Important Protocol Deviation”.
This unusual category applied only to the second jab cohort where a large number (311, way more than those who caught Covid in the placebo arm) were excluded for IPD.
Having worked through the IPD definition it is clear that it is a retrospective assessment of product failure due to dosing and storing issues. But in all cases the doses were “administered”. So why administer the wrong dose or wrongly stored product? Answer: They can’t have known that at the time. So what made them suspect failure. Hmmm I think we can guess.
But surely Pfizer couldn’t have been so disorganised that this would happen in the first place? P Thacker’s expose of Ventavia is evidence that they could exclude participants at will if they wished to be pedantic.
The kicker is that the IPD rate in the main trial rate was then much higher in a much smaller trial - that of juveniles. Why would a much smaller (and later) trial get IPD worse? The IPD data is an artefact and is telling us something deeper.
The release of the IPD data will confirm if the trial was frauded. I know where my money would lie.
I wonder if all the IPDs will be like, "went to local ER with stroke/heart attack/neuro issues, instead of calling study doctors, so kicked out of trial..."
Well done to both you and Joel. This work is unimaginably important.
A point to consider. Pfizer trial had an efficacy endpoint of 7 days post 2nd jab. So what happened to to the post jab risk there? It doesn’t show!
It is something I looked at a while ago and the most probable answer (to me) is they wrote out 311 participants from the BNT trial arm results for “Important Protocol Deviation”.
This unusual category applied only to the second jab cohort where a large number (311, way more than those who caught Covid in the placebo arm) were excluded for IPD.
Having worked through the IPD definition it is clear that it is a retrospective assessment of product failure due to dosing and storing issues. But in all cases the doses were “administered”. So why administer the wrong dose or wrongly stored product? Answer: They can’t have known that at the time. So what made them suspect failure. Hmmm I think we can guess.
But surely Pfizer couldn’t have been so disorganised that this would happen in the first place? P Thacker’s expose of Ventavia is evidence that they could exclude participants at will if they wished to be pedantic.
The kicker is that the IPD rate in the main trial rate was then much higher in a much smaller trial - that of juveniles. Why would a much smaller (and later) trial get IPD worse? The IPD data is an artefact and is telling us something deeper.
The release of the IPD data will confirm if the trial was frauded. I know where my money would lie.
I wonder if all the IPDs will be like, "went to local ER with stroke/heart attack/neuro issues, instead of calling study doctors, so kicked out of trial..."
that is wishful thinking imo. i suspect we wont see that data straight up
Yes!