Posted on 01/03/2023 6:09:13 AM PST by Red Badger
Quote Monty Python: “I’m not dead yet”
call it nearly fatal event, so far.
And of course, prayers up for him.
What the doctor conveniently forgot to state, something that us physicians all know, is that CC is a diagnosis of exclusion.
Meaning, when an other likely and probable cause exists, we should investigate and explore that diagnosis first.
For #Hamlin, look for myocarditis 1st pic.twitter.com/49SAS2nGe9— Lumen Addy (@Lumenaddy) January 3, 2023
TY!
I mentioned the vaccines, Bill Gates, Gain of Function, Moderna, Pfizer, and RFK Jr. None of which you were able to discuss.
See that footnote that says "N = number of participants in the specified group"?
See where it says "N = 18198" in the vaccinated column and "N = 18325" in the placebo column?
That means there weren't 170 participants, there were 36,523.
Now I recognize that's within the anti-vax margin of error but, come on. Steal a better meme next time.
All the Pfizer adverse reactions. They wanted this hidden for 75 years. pic.twitter.com/qP5Fimj5cq— Jennifer Jablunovsky (@JenniferJablun1) January 1, 2023
You utterly lying cretin.
If your allegation were true, you could guarantee the acceptance of any medicine merely by having a large enough sample size — as you seem to allege, ~36,000 total.
The 170 participants who led to approval, were the 8 jabbed wh got the coof, vs. the 162 unjabbed who didn’t.
Falsely used to claim “95%”: which is relative risk reduction, not absolute. But since death from coof is < 1% (even with 5 Dem governors cramming patients into nursing homes instead of Trump-ordered, dedicated hospital ships or facilities, like the Javits Center in New York), the absolute risk reduction becomes ...tiny.
Such that side effects from the jab outdo the supposed good of the jabs.
Nice try, troll-boi.
I suspect an arrhythmia event
He seems mighty young for arterial disease but it does happen
My LAD was so pinched off I had collaterals from the womb
I would think these days, the NFL screens all players for potential heart defects.
What do you think about dad and the butt feeling
I haven’t seen a thread here on that surprisingly
Michigan QB dad
Let's review.
36K people participated, roughly half of whom were vaccinated.
Of that 36K, 170 contracted Covid in the timeframe of the study.
For every vaccinated person who got Covid, 20 unvaccinated people did.
If I were Pfizer I'd be putting that result on billboards, not trying to hide it.
If you want to say Covid wasn't dangerous enough to try to reduce risk by 20x, fine. That's an opinion.
The the sane medical world sees that reduction as a desirable outcome.
But back to the original question, what was in those papers that Pfizer would want to hide?
See this link for an updated table (TABLE 3) shown in your screen grab. https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/13978/smpc.
If I'm reading this table correctly, the top number (N=nnn) is the total population in the study group, the first number in the cell (N1b) is the number of people in the study group who reached the "endpoint definition," and the number in parentheses in the bottom line of the cell (N2d) is the number of people in the study group who are "at risk" for the endpoint.
I'm not sure what the "endpoint definition" is, but I'm assuming it's either death by COVID-19 or confirmed contraction of COVID-19.
If the table is suggesting that only 8 out of 18K people in the vaccine group actually got COVID-19 while 162 out of 18K people got COVID-19 from the placebo group, then it also suggests that about the same amount of people in both groups are still at risk of getting COVID-19 (reaching the endpoint)?
I'm not sure I'm interpreting the chart correctly, but is it saying that even though more people in the placebo group actually got COVID-19 while being studied, that roughly the same number of people in each group are still at risk of getting COVID-19? Or is there a different interpretation of the N22 number?
-PJ
Already answered, in this post (as I think a US Congresscritter pointed out recently, by using the jabs, we killed 150,000 to save 10,000) and in other posts.
Troll.
No wonder you’re confused. Jennifer Jablunovsky doesn’t know what she’s talking about yet you believe her.
LOL.
Politicians! Is there anything they can’t do?
These morons don't know how to write.
Look at the footnotes successively.
b. n1 = Number of participants meeting the endpoint definition.
c. Total surveillance time in 1,000 person-years for the given endpoint across all participants within each group at risk for the endpoint. Time period for COVID-19 case accrual is from 7 days after Dose 2 to the end of the surveillance period.
d. n2 = Number of participants at risk for the endpoint.
That makes it sound like subjects are "at risk" for the endpoint, which one would assume to be COVID infection.
' I think it makes more sense to read it differently (see the 2nd paragraph after the underlined header, Efficacy in participants 16 years of age and older – after 2 doses:
The population for the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint included, 36,621 participants 12 years of age and older (18,242 in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine group and 18,379 in the placebo group) who did not have evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 through 7 days after the second dose.
So the endpoint is a number of days after the jab, not a progression to a disease state: the "at risk" refers to the number of people, within either wing of the study, at the endpoint (which is not hard-and-fast calendar date blindly imposed on every test subject, but a number of days past the administration of the jab(s), for each individual).
As another example of sterling writing, consider this:
"In the clinical study, participants were required to observe a minimum interval of 60 days before or after receipt of blood/plasma products or immunoglobulins within through conclusion of the study in order to receive either placebo or COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine."
What the HELL does within through conclusion of the study" mean?
But the more important point is they used PCR to diagnose infection; Kary Mullis, who got the Nobel Prize for inventing PCR, said it shouldn't be used for diagnosis: which makes sense, since it amplifies ALL fragments; and for short enough fragments, you can't prove they came from the intended virus or whatever; and further, you can increase the positive rate by increasing the number of cycles. Finally, just because the target sequences are present in a sample, doesn't mean there was necessarily a viable or symptomatic infection in the subject.
Elect a conservative speaker, or hold honest elections.
“I suspect an arrhythmia event”
I think that fits with his being able to stand up before collapsing. Arrhythmia can result from a direct blow to the chest, “blunt cardiac injury”. People have even been killed by hard punch or by getting hit by a fast ball to the chest. If the collision hit him just right that could be what happened here.
https://www.aast.org/resources-detail/blunt-cardiac-injury
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.