In Pfizer’s 6 month clinical trial in adults — there was 1 covid death out of 22,000 in the vaccine (“treatment”) group and 2 Covid deaths out of 22,000 in the placebo group (see Table s4). So NNTV = 22,000. The catch is there were 5 heart attack deaths in the vaccine group and only 1 in placebo group. So for every 1 life saved from Covid, the Pfizer vaccine kills 4 from heart attacks. All cause mortality in the 6 month study was 20 in vaccine group and 14 in placebo group. So a 42% all cause mortality increase among the vaccinated.
All of the NNTV estimates above are based on data from adults. In kids the NNTV will be even higher (the lower the risk, the higher the NNTV to prevent a single bad outcome). Children ages 5 to 11 are at extremely low risk of death from coronavirus. In a meta-analysis combining data from 5 studies, Stanford researchers Cathrine Axfors and John Ioannidis found a median infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.0027% in children ages 0-19. In children ages 5 to 11 the IFR is even lower. Depending on the study one looks at, COVID-19 is slightly less dangerous or roughly equivalent to the flu in children.
“In Pfizer’s 6 month clinical trial in adults — there was 1 covid death out of 22,000 in the vaccine (“treatment”) group and 2 Covid deaths out of 22,000 in the placebo group (see Table s4). So NNTV = 22,000. The catch is there were 5 heart attack deaths in the vaccine group and only 1 in placebo group. So for every 1 life saved from Covid, the Pfizer vaccine kills 4 from heart attacks. All cause mortality in the 6 month study was 20 in vaccine group and 14 in placebo group. So a 42% all cause mortality increase among the vaccinated.”
None of these numbers are remotely statistically significant.
Did this pair of paragraphs come from the CDC information cited in this thread post?
The numbers, for a group of 22,000, seem insignificant and more like noise to me. I mean if I were doing a sample of data similar to this for a mechanical system, as I have done many times, I would have to dig really deep to become convinced these events were related to the study I was conducting. You need to see patterns to call anything a systematic problem instead of random from other things or just random things.
I continue to be baffled that anyone was willing to call this a vaccine and instead go to treatment for a low fatality rate disease instead of just giving up on that as they did and still do.
Are they afraid of the treatment cost or is it something else?
According to my doctor’s experience alone and then you have McCullough and others, this appears to be a very treatable disease when caught early and managed at the same time instead of he CDC protocol of just waiting until there is no choice but extreme and desperate hail Mary type intervention taken after the fate of the patient is probably sealed already.
When something does not make sense look for ulterior motives.