@IsDatEchtZo5 @DrDavidNL @jannieOverkant En hier kun je het ook nog een keer nalezen https://t.co/LwTCYyYqaE
@Van_Silv @saverios7 @SandriAvv È un dato assoluto,gli studi parlano chiaro.https://t.co/R9sGu8b2lB E Pfizer non ha fatto i test perché non era quello lo scopo dei vaccini ma impedire malattia grave e decesso.
@anu_lindqvist @Timo_Raunio @MariaNordin @stkirsch @RWMaloneMD @P_McCulloughMD Et sitten ole lukenut tätä faasista 3, yli 40 000? Vertaisarvioitu. Julkaistu joulukuun 2020 alussa. https://t.co/R1Z0YCzGe6
This is a lie sadly being amplified by @MLevitt_NP2013. The endpoints of Pfizer's trial were symptomatic disease (or severe disease as a secondary endpoint) combined with a positive COV2 test. https://t.co/idszGpiT0S https://t.co/s0CczzxcWP
@GuerquinThomas @silvano_trotta @Cyrilhanouna @amine_umlil cf la publication de l essai du vaccin sur NEJM il y avait 37706 participant dont seulement 18860 ont reçu le vaccin et le autres le placebo et même si ils avaient été 25000 cela change quoi s
@Alvaroomega19 @Jaamra @jc_jugo @AntonioArauz_I Aquí tienes los datos de la "efectividad" de la vacuna de pfizer https://t.co/g5R9aiUCrP
@lajata2 @healthbyjames - RSV - Dengue Fever That's one of the reasons why we do clinical trials. As was done for BNT162b2, for example: https://t.co/9sO0ajc75q
@denarsims @stkirsch phase 3 trial ended Dec 2020. Here is the phase 3 trial publication https://t.co/RDOqFuljQe
@SteveRickettsSP nothing funny about seeing w/ your own eyes the trial purpose was to prevent SYMPTOMS as primary endpoint and secondary endpoint was SEVERE disease/death https://t.co/kmxiHPSlMK https://t.co/f4sn5nFpqh
@megan16283437 @mpc_xetts @dulcet_Panacea @GeorgeMonbiot @DrAseemMalhotra @DoubleDownNews Here's the trial data: https://t.co/Oec08KKnlc And here's where pfizer say they plan to stop the trial after 164 infections: https://t.co/FXkqZLXAlO
@JetHire @manchestermelly @RPur122 43 thousand. You should read it. https://t.co/lzdLiyDojp
This study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is highly effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and severe disease. It's a reliable source for vaccine skeptics to consider. https://t.co/y2HkkcoItU
@getyourtwocents @DrJBhattacharya This is from 2020, before it was approved. Would you like to go for double jeapordy where the score can really add up? https://t.co/z1xCLelAvP
@TECleveland @Ydennekde @ClownBasket The unblinding occurred after reaching the efficiency endpoints, but before other endpoints were reached: 10 Dec "Collection of phase 2/3 data on vaccine immunogenicity and the durability of the immune response to immun
@danielmaxx1 @AdrianChaffey @GeorgeMonbiot @DrAseemMalhotra The 2020 pfizer trial data states there were 3838 participants given the vaccine aged 65-75 and 774 over 75. I'd therefore dispute the accuracy of your statement. https://t.co/jK5fGNUdS2 https:/
@Van_Silv @saverios7 @SandriAvv Anche perché i dati erano già stati pubblicati e confermava la protezione da contagio fino al 94%.https://t.co/R9sGu8b2lB Boccalona.
@TalkDontInsult @BBudd8 @drsimonegold Would you like a #ScientificStudy to show you #Vaccines are safe? You showed such #concern for me, I want to return the favour, #Poodle! Here's one... I've got so many to share! https://t.co/6yvCXgSddq
@AprilAbigailWu @WJoosse @annemariehaast1 @thierrybaudet Ze zeggen, te klein aantal mensen zijn boven een bepaalde leeftijd en dat is een categorie die bovenmodaal kon sterven. Maar negeren dat 30% van de testgroep overgewicht had, juist om risicogroepen
@PepeDecipher @Annette_LEXA Essais cliniques de phase 3 terminés en décembre 2020. Voici la publication scientifique qui en atteste : https://t.co/jb8ifi1GMv
@MelBronze @DrAseemMalhotra @elonmusk The vaccines are no longer experimental (November 2020) Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine https://t.co/zRW5iaWG7t
@LehouxGregory2 @arikouts Ici pour BioNtech/pfizer : https://t.co/FCR8mbM0Tz
@alc_anthro @DrLoupis It was sold as 95% effective at preventing infection 🙄 Zero mention of severity, hospitalisation, or death. Stop parroting. https://t.co/BNrXGQk0kD
@slotcaller @all_in_tok @joerogan @DavidSacks @Jason There was no data for that at the time. The vaccine trial data showed 95% efficacy https://t.co/IEPIjQeDzL so the anti-vaxers were acting against the best data at the time. I agree the vaccines didn't sh
@Wolf_ofthe_West @Zigmanfreud There were 0 deaths in the actual Pfizer clinical trial study. The rate of severe infection was 20x higher in the placebo group (only 1 person in the vaccine group, and 0 after 7 days). https://t.co/viCDyg3rPd
@AprilAbigailWu @Anouck526 @annemariehaast1 @thierrybaudet Dit is de publicatie van de klinische studies (t/m fase 3). Kan jij in jouw woorden uitleggen wat er niet klopt? https://t.co/IrzCqwXQ4R
@justjckonecny @stkirsch Pre-market safety data (Phase 3 clinical trials) https://t.co/KzRcXntMqi Regardless of pre-market safety data, real world data supports safety. https://t.co/eqWhQiNLkv No increased risk of DVT in 792K patients. https://t.co/fSlPy
@LeaderJL3 @lonnibesancon "The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 & safety." I take laboratory-confirmed 2 mean they tested 4 infection,not symptomatic disease.I have other links for studies that suppo
RT @RoundEarthClub: @ONThealth @JesslovesMJK @welcometheeagle @joshg99 Beyond the fact that @pfizer's own investigators stopped looking aft…
@LeaderJL3 @lonnibesancon What was the denominator? Are you maybe falling for the base rate fallacy? I'll lookup the relevant studies. Please, post a link to the Pfizer RCT. I know of this one, (one of many papers that prove vaccines prevented infection in
@HuukedOnFonix @BossyKarl @whereisdaz @jordanbpeterson @pfizer No, it was sold as 95% effective at stoping you catching the virus 🙄 No mention of severity of symptoms, hospitalisation or death ☠️ https://t.co/BNrXGQk0kD
@Kevin_McKernan @RationalStoic @IanCopeland5 You mean this study never happened? https://t.co/Jnx2UPhmHS Nor this one https://t.co/TeebodoXLZ
@randytate @BeastlySwagman @ScottAdamsSays But there was this. No? https://t.co/BgSKhyPk3d
@laszek_wallace @AlejandroPotre1 @outsock2 @rohangilkes @IanCopeland5 @stkirsch Oh and here's more proof that FDA and Pfizer never said it reduced transmission when the vaccines came out. https://t.co/TTRCtwBWbf
@ONThealth @JesslovesMJK @welcometheeagle @joshg99 Beyond the fact that @pfizer's own investigators stopped looking after two weeks, and stopped accepting "unsolicited" adverse event reports after six months... #pfizergate #PfizerExposed #pfizerliedpeopled
RT @ChrisEd16512812: @geoffmiller2984 @g_gosden You have really set yourself up Im afraid because the definitive study said the product pr…
@geoffmiller2984 @g_gosden You have really set yourself up Im afraid because the definitive study said the product prevented transmission. Its here , in the results section I quote it says "BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 " which means
@MattRomanoII @ggreenwald They did release their data. https://t.co/zplfaBdLlw
@SynthIge @BadVaccineTakes Here's the science: https://t.co/mNxYOHyFxf
@ShadowKn0ws @anish_koka You have not read a single study. If you had, you wouldn't make such an ignorant claim. I'll send you one link, and then after you give whatever reason you're going to give to not believe it, I'll block you and we can be done wasti
@thebigwave11 Besides repeating misinformation word for word, which is all you’re doing, are you able to provide a critical evaluation of the following, with comments on the robustness of the methodology & statistical power of the data? https://t.co/Yo
@_TheAncientOne_ @DrEliDavid In the original study, they talked about "protection". It's now well know, it's less than 1% effective, hasn't stopped the transmission, driving immune escape variants in injected population. https://t.co/q0Wn9lpjBe
@BryceKnechtel @HeyNurseKat @jestdeserts @Martina @mcgilead Cool. Since you think you are so very smart, here are 3 studies that were just part of the studies completed before approval. Do explain the flaws in methodology and analysis. I look forward to yo
@AGreenroyd1958 @CXineax @AmandaINC @ArisKatzourakis There is no “if it is fully approved” as I sent you link to FDA fully approving it so no ifs. Second, it was tested in clinical trials https://t.co/6l7NRYem5w and https://t.co/I68P3Agz5N Next time do som
@Patrick_JOJO @pam33771 https://t.co/S81iPoaqPw Non, tout est transparent et public. Vous avez 2 ans et demi de retard.
@JjinUk64 @robfirstname @IanCopeland5 You mean this pfizer trial that only saw 4 SAEs in a group of 21,720? Stop lying. https://t.co/apcUPcE6Dh
@kokacav @pam33771 Elle est là l'étude, publiée et validée. https://t.co/S81iPoaqPw
@BryceKnechtel @DrLoupis A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. https://t.co/AeKiV44V49
@EntycaOfficiel @lePlaymobil28 @MenagerFabienn1 @LouisCapet13 Puisque vous avez l'air de vous y connaître.. 😏https://t.co/S81iPoaqPw
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
@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.
RT @RightoidBS: @stkirsch Data like Pfizer's phase 3 randomized controlled trial of 43448 participants which found 95% efficacy of preventi…
@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
@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.