Anti-vaxxers tell me these tests were never done. Odd as hell: Here’s a report on one of the trials. 2/n Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine - PubMed https://t.co/HoM3LJMrk8
@plumber_dragon @HeyNurseKat @DrCanuckMD @jonathanstea 4/ Tell me what these studies lacked. What part of the analysis or methodology do you disagree with? https://t.co/oncK71h3HE https://t.co/C3mgIumwb5 https://t.co/FtULfFnlI1
@IvanLoans @IanCopeland5 DRs went first. We got vaccinated, willingly, first. Side effects were available from the initial trial. Published December 10, 2020. https://t.co/Vgf3MZY5MG
@averros271828 @GloriaJH @stkirsch @Babydoll921961 So, it's all a conspiracy theory? Everything that doesn't fit your belief is a lie? What would convince you that P3 has been completed? It's easily demonstrable. Here are the phase 2/3 results. https:
@joshux321 @dr_jon_l @jason_willz1 @andrewbostom What study? No, a non-peer-reviewed Substack article from a non-expert paranoid crackpot like Fenton is not a "study". https://t.co/4fpLaWgVvc
RT @RightoidBS: @stkirsch Data like Pfizer's phase 3 randomized controlled trial of 43448 participants which found 95% efficacy of preventi…
@laurensbuijs @TimonLeeuw "Zoek op Google Scholar" ipv met concrete voorbeelden komen. 1 op 1 overgenomen uit de wappie handleiding. Kijk hier eens naar. Met je domme gelul over mRNA. https://t.co/myBgv3QkZ7
@Meagain10411919 @PampireRN @KissickBill @RepThomasMassie you probably think pfizer should conduct the study themselves too. stop pushing this bullshit.
@Yibril08 @RocketWolf89 @Carbonized_1 @creditannie @catturd2 False. My brother literally volunteered to be in a trial. They did do trials. https://t.co/jw70WN54sd
RT @RightoidBS: @stkirsch Data like Pfizer's phase 3 randomized controlled trial of 43448 participants which found 95% efficacy of preventi…
RT @nyuckie_yucks: @MidwesternDoc Pfizer stopped phase 3 safety trials 2 yrs early: "Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy for this v…
@literarysolace @VikiLovesFACS It underwent preclinical, Phase I, Phase II and Phase III clinical trials and post marketing surveillance before approval. It has an excellent safety record and was very effective. https://t.co/M3Q0VM9ecE
@Voice0vTheFree @MMeBlackSheep 1) avoir « toutes » les infos est impossible 2) certaines infos ne peuvent être obtenus qu’après vaccination à grande échelle 3) il faut >1 an pour ces résultats beaucoup seraient morts. 4) l’essentiel était là: protection
@jenenews @a_husby That was officially published Dec 2020, but they had data by Oct 2020 https://t.co/iqxV4fpZ6Z
RT @RightoidBS: @stkirsch Data like Pfizer's phase 3 randomized controlled trial of 43448 participants which found 95% efficacy of preventi…
@goddeketal Here is a so-called “scientist” blocking a real scientist because he doesn’t like having his lies exposed. Go figure. #VaccinesWork, with reference. https://t.co/rp4u2iC5va
RT @RightoidBS: @stkirsch Data like Pfizer's phase 3 randomized controlled trial of 43448 participants which found 95% efficacy of preventi…
@CBarronie @boomsmackrecord @chrischirp So you can't answer any of my 4 points. You are wrong: "BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6)" so statistically significant. https://t.co/SPokb76u23
Your definition of low is 1223 DEATHS, 42,086 case reports of Adverse Events with 158,893 different types in nearly all the participants in the study & 11,361 NOT Recovered participants with 9,400 Unknown outcomes. If that’s your definition of safe you
RT @RightoidBS: @stkirsch Data like Pfizer's phase 3 randomized controlled trial of 43448 participants which found 95% efficacy of preventi…
@libyourbestlife @benshapiro Do you know that even in Pfizer own RCT, MORE total people died in the vax group than in the non-vax group (4 extra deaths in the vax group from heart related issues)? Was that information shared with the public? Do you think
知ったかは、要らない。 確認されてる。お前、本当にバカだな。 お前はバカだから、読んでも理解できないので、読もうとしなくて良い ワクチンの効果と安全性は確認されている。 https://t.co/D6M6lwZAkc
@Wozza777 @Checkmate__2020 @healthbyjames You are embarrassing yourself. https://t.co/JKUdoAeNdp
RT @RightoidBS: @stkirsch Data like Pfizer's phase 3 randomized controlled trial of 43448 participants which found 95% efficacy of preventi…
@jonrice1 @dave43law @ABridgen Fake news. Here is the direct link to NEJM and what it says about the vaccine. https://t.co/M2btibyTLB
@cryptolady67 @Maxim_Holt Clinical trials van Pfizer. Afgerond in november 2020: https://t.co/IrzCqwXQ4R
@tom_anticomm @stkirsch Doctors had efficacy data like Pfizer's phase 3 RCT paper which anyone could have gone and read any time after it was published https://t.co/BrzvU4lgrC
@stkirsch Data like Pfizer's phase 3 randomized controlled trial of 43448 participants which found 95% efficacy of preventing covid-19 and low adverse events similar to placebo? https://t.co/BrzvU4lgrC
@VicD04966674 @zap_lock @DrAseemMalhotra If you don't want to get vaccinated, I couldn't care less, but leave others to decide for themselves NO, plenty of scientific studies and subsequent population data have shown the vaccines to be effective Present
@wtrbfflo @NBSaphierMD You must have missed the studies - here is the seminal study which lead to the vaccine FDA approval of the BioNTech/Pfizer joint vaccine… https://t.co/CzpJIx7kOF
@warrickfraser @DevilWearsMAGA @mikeinmarlton @nLyte2 @boaz_eric @catturd2 It was the FOI request which was going to take decades. Absolutely nothing to do with Pfizer. The results from the trials were released in 2020: https://t.co/7xlE2koMeF You’re bei
@JustinVillemure @MichaelVSmith7 @healthbyjames I’ve backed up my claims with sources. If you want to continue talking show yours. I dare you. https://t.co/tK29nrOgOY
@JustinVillemure @Trumpesantis @MichaelVSmith7 @healthbyjames @IanCopeland5 🤣 here you go. Proof your phase 3 is ongoing statement is inaccurate. https://t.co/tK29nrOgOY
@laylag2 لازم نفرق بين preventing disease و preventing transmission دراسة المرحلة الثالثة كانت مصممة لمعرفة ما إذا اللقاح يمنع الإصابة preventing disease و كانت الفعالية ٩٥٪ و لم تكن مصممة لمعرفة prevention of transmission هذه الدراسات جاءت لاحقاً http
@a_solveig96 @TracyBethHoeg The paper CLEARLY SHOWS the trial had ZERO to do w/ infection or transmission. Trial focused on INDIVIDUAL protection / antibody titers to protect from individual getting symptoms or severe disease. & your threat is duly rec
@judgeschmails @goddeketal Keep up!
@AvoquaD @arikouts @Ex_infirmier @AgretDenis Conclusion le 10 décembre 2020 en 3 mois d'étude: efficacité: 95%. https://t.co/m5RtP5aQes
RT @basemstat: @alhunayan من جدك دكتور دراسة على الحيوانات ثلاث مراحل دراسية على البشر دراسة المرحلة الثالثة فيها ٤٤ ألف مشارك و خضعت للمرا…
@alhunayan من جدك دكتور دراسة على الحيوانات ثلاث مراحل دراسية على البشر دراسة المرحلة الثالثة فيها ٤٤ ألف مشارك و خضعت للمراجعة و التدقيق Peer review و تم نشرها في مجلة NEJM و بعدها إعتماد طارئ و بعدها إعتماد كلي يعني معقولة كل هذا ما صار !!! https://t.
@KerryOLeary4 @healthbyjames Please highlight on the paper where this is said? https://t.co/y69ZPV8G8P
@Allisonb1 @BradClugston @PatrickGman @healthbyjames No I’m referring to the Phase 3 trial data published in the New England Journal of medicine. https://t.co/bXmsZkJWnD
@Chris93254924 @mikenike1290 @lesoleildeqc https://t.co/mWqbSC0eij C’est quoi ça si c’est pas la phase 3 🤔
@dttpeople @IanCopeland5 @unhealthytruth There are important differences between “population at large” studies and clinical trials. Both are useful. For your vaccination safety and efficacy concerns where the requested info is mostly known: https://t.co/jP
RT @shmuelcshapira: 2020 safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. 2023 we still don't have them. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162…
@FuriousDmac @focusingman Correct. Note, too, that mRNA vaccine safety was assessed in 10's of thousands of individuals over a six-month timeframe. See below for BNT162b2 example. https://t.co/RFRus9VK9w
@Enix_Moon_ @catturd2 The vaccine WAS tested. Thoroughly. See the study linked below. Not only that, but we have a vast amount of data on outcomes, so we KNOW it's extremely safe. Your news is lying to you. Flat out lying. Read more widely please. https
RT @shmuelcshapira: 2020 safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. 2023 we still don't have them. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162…
RT @shmuelcshapira: 2020 safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. 2023 we still don't have them. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162…
RT @shmuelcshapira: 2020 safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. 2023 we still don't have them. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162…
RT @PBasiukiewicz: W "przebadanych bezpiecznych i skutecznych" w oryginalnych RCT nie zanotowano zapalenia m. sercowego - które było przycz…
RT @PBasiukiewicz: W "przebadanych bezpiecznych i skutecznych" w oryginalnych RCT nie zanotowano zapalenia m. sercowego - które było przycz…
RT @PBasiukiewicz: W "przebadanych bezpiecznych i skutecznych" w oryginalnych RCT nie zanotowano zapalenia m. sercowego - które było przycz…
@JapanSenelar @lonnibesancon Je vous ai donné le lien : https://t.co/msdaCdduaE Non il n'y a pas en double aveugle. Oui un test pas comme ceux de Raoult. Je suis d'accord avec vous
RT @Wide9Giants: @IanCopeland5 @stkirsch @RWMaloneMD @P_McCulloughMD @horseivermectin @stkirsch why didn’t this study show increase in deat…
RT @shmuelcshapira: 2020 safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. 2023 we still don't have them. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162…
@NikoandOkin @sarahbosetti Hier die Zulassungsstudie: https://t.co/QyWEgTYy1c Auch in der Packungsbeilage wird heute noch eine Wirksamkeit von 95% behauptet: https://t.co/ThcGCEzBEs https://t.co/HNs7Q3nK4s
@JapanSenelar @lonnibesancon Déduction ? https://t.co/msdaCdcWl6 Depuis le temps vous avez dû la lire. Il y a celle aussi de moderna si vous voulez. Mais comme vous avez l'air d'aimer plus Pfizer
@JustDaweed @goddeketal Fair point. Here you go then to get you started. https://t.co/rp4u2iCDkI
#COVID19 #FreeSpeech #vaccines Problems continue. We still don't have the outcome measure we need
RT @shmuelcshapira: 2020 safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. 2023 we still don't have them. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162…
RT @shmuelcshapira: 2020 safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. 2023 we still don't have them. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162…
RT @shmuelcshapira: 2020 safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. 2023 we still don't have them. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162…
RT @shmuelcshapira: 2020 safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. 2023 we still don't have them. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162…
RT @shmuelcshapira: 2020 safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. 2023 we still don't have them. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162…
RT @shmuelcshapira: 2020 safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. 2023 we still don't have them. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162…
RT @shmuelcshapira: 2020 safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. 2023 we still don't have them. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162…
2020 safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. 2023 we still don't have them. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine | NEJM https://t.co/0Duw6hrPyW
@Trumpsfield @AnnalenaLogopae Die erste Phase-III-Studie zur Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit wurde bereits 2020 publiziert. https://t.co/l6yMcCLnxU
@telesynth_hot @Navarp @outfielding @MeanderingRhode @shmuelcshapira Years of testing? - it’s completed all the testing any other vaccine does. The stages where done concurrently not sequentially, hence the speed! No paper? - https://t.co/1h3kQjXO1C @Na
@boriquagato Also, simply read that first study that claimed 95% efficacy & led to the EUA. Most of the "believers" were satisfied with MSM headlines. If they would have read the paper, even without any medical background, common sense would have pre
@Aaaaa1985ttt まず反ワクチンの時点でお察しw 致死率こそインフル並みになったといえ後遺症が高い確率で出て長続きするんだよw ここで学業に支障を来したらお先真っ暗だよ?倦怠感も程度次第じゃ動けなくなるし対策しなきゃw 東京都保険福祉局https://t.co/df0lIfRIDg https://t.co/hHHCJY1q2f
@gohawks789 @goc1978 @vancemurphy It was tested. Here's the original study, released the month before it was approved. Note that they never claimed it stopped asymptomatic transmission (in the "Discussion" section) https://t.co/P0xMo1xgQb
@VaxFreeSperm @ElenaTh5 @TerriMccarter4 @Jamesdtweets2 @RWMaloneMD Being from the UK makes me less true. https://t.co/mNxYOHzdmN
@NIKOLAT42891347 Voilà les publication originale des publications des vaccins à ARNm contre le SRAS-CoV-2 Pfizer : https://t.co/6izC869ih5 Moderna : https://t.co/NemKzJGpzr
@LelenaPeacock @jvgraz @RealSteveCox @twittposter @lmcsomewhere @RogerAramayo2 @jimmy_dore Here's the RCT for Pfizer/BioNTech. https://t.co/8cWQVACyyU
@Leon1969 @ThomasInLeiden @SeKuRiGo @28111970jef @OmroepOn Zal je iets specifieker moeten zijn over waar je je informatie vandaan haalt. Als je kijkt naar de trials (bijv. https://t.co/2DOUV2MgOW) wordt voor bijwerkingen écht geteld vanaf moment van inje
Funding and Disclosures Supported by BioNTech and Pfizer.
@IanCopeland5 @stkirsch @RWMaloneMD @P_McCulloughMD @horseivermectin @stkirsch why didn’t this study show increase in death in vaccine if your amazing totally valid survey “study” of ratios showed increased death https://t.co/Ke31qc5eQW
RT @MannicheVibeke: I didn´t get vaccinated because I was NEVER afraid of COVID-19. Also the small study which gave Pfizer access to the wo…