We have spent more time analyzing Pfizer's B.S. than either the FDA or the CDC, and probably both combined. There is a message in that. (Determining that message is an exercise left for the curious reader!) Also, when in doubt, please recall The Bad Cat's First Pfizer Postulate. Pfizer doesn't make mistakes; they make choices.
May 3, 2023·edited May 3, 2023Liked by Josh Guetzkow
Excellent article Josh, almost seems like the trial phase was all a façade and just formalities, they were going to approve this evil scam no matter what. This is exactly like the almost 60,000 UNPUBLISHED and DELETED ID#s in VAERS. They know the minutiae will knock out 99.9% of the public from realizing how they perpetrate fraud. https://www.vaersaware.com/unpublished-reports-id-s
Great work Josh and Pierre, let's hope that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has demanded full access to the Pfizer databases, gets the individual data for all trial recruits. That could lead to finding the ultimate fate of those who went "missing".
1) Regarding the protocol deviations, some of those could be fraud opportunities. Only the vaccinated group matters here, as there is no benefit to pfizer to exclude placebo patients. Just to be cynical for a bit:
a) "nasal swab collected when not required": Have an adverse event you need to exclude? Just make sure to take a swab when they visit for their chest pain.
b) "Nasal swab not collected when required": Have an adverse event you need to exclude? Just make sure you record that they had a mild temperature but you didn't swab them.
c) "Revised informed consent not signed": What is this "revised" informed consent? And when was it administered? Could vaccinated participants have AE's, and then they don't want to sign their second round of informed consent anymore? This category is unusually lopsided.
[I don't know how much patient-level data you have here, but ideally, you could see if the "did not sign" group had a higher burden of clinic visits or side effects.]
2) Is there any way to tell if placebo patients' local PCR tests had a higher proportion that were of the "approved" types than did the vaccinated? This would create less burden to need to get a confirming central test to label them as a covid case. But would that be inconsistent with the greater extent of missing central tests among the vaccinated, not among the placebo?
3) Did you guys research that 53 person dropout event at the Argentina site? I can't remember, but I don't see it summarized here.
4) Is there any way to recompute vaccine efficacy based solely on local PCR tests that were NOT at the trial sites? In other words, what happens when only tests that pfizer did not perform are analyzed? Though of course they still would have power over who got those tests to begin with.
5) If you recompute VE not based on the rate of covid, but based on the chance of a given covid case being severe, you end up with only 53% VE. I think this is better, because there is no preventing covid to begin with. Someday you guys are likely to end up recomputing a zero VE.
About point 1. The protocol deviations listed in that table were not considered important, so they did not lead to anyone being excluded from the efficacy analysis. However, they are in my opinion an indication of the poor blinding that characterized the trial.
2) Yes we can do that, but the numbers are very small -- not enough I believe to account for this difference, but we can check it. Even so, the assumption should be that local testing assays should be balanced across arms.
3. Yes, we did. It is discussed in the link to OpenVAET's post on the 301 missing subject ID's, I believe. Or his post on the exclusions. We now know from documents that Augusto obtained that those 52 subjects' first dose was improperly prepared so they got a higher dose than they were supposed to. I don't remember the number off the top of my head but it was something like 56 mcg instead of 30. They were unblinded, informed of the mistake, and given the option to continue with the trial, though they were eventually excluded from the efficacy analysis.
4. Yes, we could do that. Though as you point it will be biased by the lower local testing rate among the treatment subjects. We have found that subjects with only local tests were less likely to have positive Nucleocapsid antibodies at 1 month post dose 2. However, we also know from a Moderna study that vaccinated subjects are less likely to produce nucleocapsid antibodies after infection, so for the vaccinated this is not a reliable indicator of infection.
4) Though it's probably nothing, it may be good to confirm that when you restrict to non-pfizer local testing that roughly the same levels of testing imbalance occurs as you have already reported overall. Also, as I recall, based on only N-ab, VE is 53%. Given the issue with reduced seroconversion from vaccines, one might therefore argue 53% as an upper bound.
5) Please consider also calculating VE based on test positivity rate (e.g. cases per test, instead of cases per people). It's a good sanity check because if someone was holding back vaccinated cases from testing unless they were severe, then that would contribute to a decrease in this VE.
OK, good thoughts. Estimating efficacy from NAB is a bit tricky, because there was a higher rate of no-shows for NAB follow-up testing among those who were PCR+/COVID cases. Against that is the issue you pointed out: reduced seroconversion after second jab (at least in Moderna, probably Pfizer too).
LMAO ...fizer falsehoods? Are you kidding? Next time just report on fizer true-hoods which I assume will be a completely blank page of nothingness that will still speak volumes.
May 3, 2023·edited May 3, 2023Liked by Josh Guetzkow
Caught the RTE show live it was fantastic but it's awesome to have a text collection and references to link to as well... makes me irate every time with these fraud stories & reminder we are ruled by criminal nitwits.
Big time kudos & thanks for incredible research truly in the public interest y'all rock!!! <3
May 3, 2023·edited May 3, 2023Liked by Josh Guetzkow
It is difficult for me to compare the table summarising Central vs Local PCR tests with the table showing the Positive PCR not counted listed by "Visit/Internal"giIt. It would be useful to see the same breakdown by "Visit/Internal" when distinguishing between Central vs Local PCR tests.
The thing that jumped out at me for the Positive PCR Cases not counted as COVID Cases. These are not simply people who had Covid-similar symptoms after vaccination. These are trial participants who had a positive PCR test!
1-6 days after Dose 2:
Total Positive: Placebo 19 (32% not counted); Treatment 6 (100% not counted)
and
Dose 2 visit:
Total Positive: Placebo 90 (87% not counted); Treatment 73 (96% not counted)
How can a PCR test be more prone to giving a false positive at dose 2 visit or in immediate aftermath of dose 2???
There's a lot to unpack. These aren't necessarily false positives. Remember that to be a COVID case you had to have at least one of 9 official "COVID" symptoms AND a positive PCR test. But the other thing going on in that table is that it counts positive central OR local PCR tests.
Everyone was given a PCR test when they came in for dose 2. Only people who reported a symptom at that visit and whose PCR test was positive would be counted as a COVID case. So it's not an issue of false positives; it's just that more of the placebo group coming in at dose 2 are recorded as having a symptom.
The local site PIs were given discretion over whether to test subjects who complained of symptoms within the week after each jab. They rarely did. For the 6 days post dose 2, my guess (I probably looked at this in the past but it's worth revisiting) is that the positive tests not counted as cases were local tests that didn't count towards the official efficacy analysis.
Hope this clarifies. I'm not sure what you mean by "Visit/Internal" breakdown so can't address that part of your comment.
Of course! Thanks for the clarification, I had forgotten the original trials were based around the endpoint of symptomatic infection so legitimate positive PCR cases without symptoms were not necessarily counted. (though I didn't really think they were false positives, just that that's what the trial was suggesting)
You can't really compare the N's across those two tables.
The first table shows whether a subject had a positive PCR test, either local or central. (To clarify, this counts only their first positive test. If they had more than one positive test on the same day it only counts them once, and it counts a positive test even if other tests came back negative).
The second table only shows the central testing outcomes among subjects who had a positive local PCR tests during the same "COVID visit." (To clarify, covid visit is defined as the period during which they were symptomatic. If subjects got better then developed new symptoms after a certain interval of time, this was classified as a separate covid visit. The visit at which a test occurred is clearly marked in the data. Like the other table, this only counts the first positive local test and the central tests associated with the covid visit at which that first positive local test was done.)
This post is a valuable resource summarising the various inconsistencies of the original Pfizer trials and provides links to more detailed articles on those various aspects. Great work, Josh!
Am looking forward to watching the Rounding the Earth podcast:
i remember when i first read how Pfizer was going to do the study they talked about a triple blinding.
it might have been blinded from the trial participant that got the jabs or placebos at the time, but i don't believe the double masking nor triple masking now.
i was impressed that they would keep their statisticians blinded, but now. NO.
I've just watched the "The Nitty Gritty of Pfizer's Falsehoods" discussion on Rumble. I wonder if you could clarify exactly what was (accidentally I'm sure) said that was wrong by The Daily Clout, and what it should have been?
The biggest problem I've had with Naomi Wolf's reporting has been about miscarriage rates. I cover this in point number 3 in my post about Stew Peters' "Died Suddenly." I don't mention her by name, but she's the main person I had in mind -- though by far not the only one making/repeating the same error:
I have just listened again to the interview she did with ukcolumn. I believe that she managed to stick to things that we correct, which made it a potentially very useful video for waking people up.
Comirnasty.
Ha!
Damn, I was beaten by half an hour.
We have spent more time analyzing Pfizer's B.S. than either the FDA or the CDC, and probably both combined. There is a message in that. (Determining that message is an exercise left for the curious reader!) Also, when in doubt, please recall The Bad Cat's First Pfizer Postulate. Pfizer doesn't make mistakes; they make choices.
MURDERNA
Excellent article Josh, almost seems like the trial phase was all a façade and just formalities, they were going to approve this evil scam no matter what. This is exactly like the almost 60,000 UNPUBLISHED and DELETED ID#s in VAERS. They know the minutiae will knock out 99.9% of the public from realizing how they perpetrate fraud. https://www.vaersaware.com/unpublished-reports-id-s
Great work Josh and Pierre, let's hope that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has demanded full access to the Pfizer databases, gets the individual data for all trial recruits. That could lead to finding the ultimate fate of those who went "missing".
Several suggestions/comments:
1) Regarding the protocol deviations, some of those could be fraud opportunities. Only the vaccinated group matters here, as there is no benefit to pfizer to exclude placebo patients. Just to be cynical for a bit:
a) "nasal swab collected when not required": Have an adverse event you need to exclude? Just make sure to take a swab when they visit for their chest pain.
b) "Nasal swab not collected when required": Have an adverse event you need to exclude? Just make sure you record that they had a mild temperature but you didn't swab them.
c) "Revised informed consent not signed": What is this "revised" informed consent? And when was it administered? Could vaccinated participants have AE's, and then they don't want to sign their second round of informed consent anymore? This category is unusually lopsided.
[I don't know how much patient-level data you have here, but ideally, you could see if the "did not sign" group had a higher burden of clinic visits or side effects.]
2) Is there any way to tell if placebo patients' local PCR tests had a higher proportion that were of the "approved" types than did the vaccinated? This would create less burden to need to get a confirming central test to label them as a covid case. But would that be inconsistent with the greater extent of missing central tests among the vaccinated, not among the placebo?
3) Did you guys research that 53 person dropout event at the Argentina site? I can't remember, but I don't see it summarized here.
4) Is there any way to recompute vaccine efficacy based solely on local PCR tests that were NOT at the trial sites? In other words, what happens when only tests that pfizer did not perform are analyzed? Though of course they still would have power over who got those tests to begin with.
5) If you recompute VE not based on the rate of covid, but based on the chance of a given covid case being severe, you end up with only 53% VE. I think this is better, because there is no preventing covid to begin with. Someday you guys are likely to end up recomputing a zero VE.
About point 1. The protocol deviations listed in that table were not considered important, so they did not lead to anyone being excluded from the efficacy analysis. However, they are in my opinion an indication of the poor blinding that characterized the trial.
2) Yes we can do that, but the numbers are very small -- not enough I believe to account for this difference, but we can check it. Even so, the assumption should be that local testing assays should be balanced across arms.
3. Yes, we did. It is discussed in the link to OpenVAET's post on the 301 missing subject ID's, I believe. Or his post on the exclusions. We now know from documents that Augusto obtained that those 52 subjects' first dose was improperly prepared so they got a higher dose than they were supposed to. I don't remember the number off the top of my head but it was something like 56 mcg instead of 30. They were unblinded, informed of the mistake, and given the option to continue with the trial, though they were eventually excluded from the efficacy analysis.
4. Yes, we could do that. Though as you point it will be biased by the lower local testing rate among the treatment subjects. We have found that subjects with only local tests were less likely to have positive Nucleocapsid antibodies at 1 month post dose 2. However, we also know from a Moderna study that vaccinated subjects are less likely to produce nucleocapsid antibodies after infection, so for the vaccinated this is not a reliable indicator of infection.
5. Indeed we may!
Thanks for your input, appreciate it.
4) Though it's probably nothing, it may be good to confirm that when you restrict to non-pfizer local testing that roughly the same levels of testing imbalance occurs as you have already reported overall. Also, as I recall, based on only N-ab, VE is 53%. Given the issue with reduced seroconversion from vaccines, one might therefore argue 53% as an upper bound.
5) Please consider also calculating VE based on test positivity rate (e.g. cases per test, instead of cases per people). It's a good sanity check because if someone was holding back vaccinated cases from testing unless they were severe, then that would contribute to a decrease in this VE.
Incredible work.
OK, good thoughts. Estimating efficacy from NAB is a bit tricky, because there was a higher rate of no-shows for NAB follow-up testing among those who were PCR+/COVID cases. Against that is the issue you pointed out: reduced seroconversion after second jab (at least in Moderna, probably Pfizer too).
Not to beat the corpse to death, but it might be good to check if NAB-no-show rate was balanced between groups, for both PCR+/- subgroups.
Good idea. I think I did that awhile back but don't remember the results. We'll check it.
LMAO ...fizer falsehoods? Are you kidding? Next time just report on fizer true-hoods which I assume will be a completely blank page of nothingness that will still speak volumes.
Caught the RTE show live it was fantastic but it's awesome to have a text collection and references to link to as well... makes me irate every time with these fraud stories & reminder we are ruled by criminal nitwits.
Big time kudos & thanks for incredible research truly in the public interest y'all rock!!! <3
I could never pronounce Pfizer's product so I call it Cinderella.
It is difficult for me to compare the table summarising Central vs Local PCR tests with the table showing the Positive PCR not counted listed by "Visit/Internal"giIt. It would be useful to see the same breakdown by "Visit/Internal" when distinguishing between Central vs Local PCR tests.
The thing that jumped out at me for the Positive PCR Cases not counted as COVID Cases. These are not simply people who had Covid-similar symptoms after vaccination. These are trial participants who had a positive PCR test!
1-6 days after Dose 2:
Total Positive: Placebo 19 (32% not counted); Treatment 6 (100% not counted)
and
Dose 2 visit:
Total Positive: Placebo 90 (87% not counted); Treatment 73 (96% not counted)
How can a PCR test be more prone to giving a false positive at dose 2 visit or in immediate aftermath of dose 2???
There's a lot to unpack. These aren't necessarily false positives. Remember that to be a COVID case you had to have at least one of 9 official "COVID" symptoms AND a positive PCR test. But the other thing going on in that table is that it counts positive central OR local PCR tests.
Everyone was given a PCR test when they came in for dose 2. Only people who reported a symptom at that visit and whose PCR test was positive would be counted as a COVID case. So it's not an issue of false positives; it's just that more of the placebo group coming in at dose 2 are recorded as having a symptom.
The local site PIs were given discretion over whether to test subjects who complained of symptoms within the week after each jab. They rarely did. For the 6 days post dose 2, my guess (I probably looked at this in the past but it's worth revisiting) is that the positive tests not counted as cases were local tests that didn't count towards the official efficacy analysis.
Hope this clarifies. I'm not sure what you mean by "Visit/Internal" breakdown so can't address that part of your comment.
Of course! Thanks for the clarification, I had forgotten the original trials were based around the endpoint of symptomatic infection so legitimate positive PCR cases without symptoms were not necessarily counted. (though I didn't really think they were false positives, just that that's what the trial was suggesting)
QUESTION about the last two tables in the post:
Penultimate table shows Total positive PRC tests: 1300 (75% = 975 counted); 284 (40% = 114 counted)
BUT final table shows Central PCR test results: 812 Treatment and 117 Placebo.
So some Treatment cases were counted without being centrally tested?
I still can't get my head around why everyone was not systematically tested.
Note: sorry for typo in first comment, it should have read: "Visit/Interval", ie. between Dose 1 and 2, Dose 2 visit, etc.
You can't really compare the N's across those two tables.
The first table shows whether a subject had a positive PCR test, either local or central. (To clarify, this counts only their first positive test. If they had more than one positive test on the same day it only counts them once, and it counts a positive test even if other tests came back negative).
The second table only shows the central testing outcomes among subjects who had a positive local PCR tests during the same "COVID visit." (To clarify, covid visit is defined as the period during which they were symptomatic. If subjects got better then developed new symptoms after a certain interval of time, this was classified as a separate covid visit. The visit at which a test occurred is clearly marked in the data. Like the other table, this only counts the first positive local test and the central tests associated with the covid visit at which that first positive local test was done.)
False positives are very rare to the point of being negligible.
This post is a valuable resource summarising the various inconsistencies of the original Pfizer trials and provides links to more detailed articles on those various aspects. Great work, Josh!
Am looking forward to watching the Rounding the Earth podcast:
https://rumble.com/v2k9k6g-the-nitty-gritty-of-pfizers-falsehoods-round-table-w-josh-guetzkow.html
I saw Bourla interviewed this afternoon on Fox Business. He's promoting new cancer drugs and hopes for warp speed approval from the FDA.
Make-believe terminology "Warp speed" for a make-believe treatment.
i remember when i first read how Pfizer was going to do the study they talked about a triple blinding.
it might have been blinded from the trial participant that got the jabs or placebos at the time, but i don't believe the double masking nor triple masking now.
i was impressed that they would keep their statisticians blinded, but now. NO.
I can remember when fish was good for you. 😐
In case this is helpful. Covid 19 3/2/21,antibodies 4/16/21 250, 2nd 3/30/21 DOH ,antibodies 10/26/21 >2500 , ,3rd
Publix 11/12/2021,, antibodies 12/10/21 247, antibodies 2/1/22 151, antibodies 5/2/22 126, antibodies 8/11/22 163 , Walgreens 11/26/22 moderna bivalent
Thanks so much for all this brilliant work.
I've just watched the "The Nitty Gritty of Pfizer's Falsehoods" discussion on Rumble. I wonder if you could clarify exactly what was (accidentally I'm sure) said that was wrong by The Daily Clout, and what it should have been?
The biggest problem I've had with Naomi Wolf's reporting has been about miscarriage rates. I cover this in point number 3 in my post about Stew Peters' "Died Suddenly." I don't mention her by name, but she's the main person I had in mind -- though by far not the only one making/repeating the same error:
https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/died-suddenly-is-typical-trash-from
Thank you.
I have just listened again to the interview she did with ukcolumn. I believe that she managed to stick to things that we correct, which made it a potentially very useful video for waking people up.