My impression is that ARR tells you something about the common sense real world, whereas RRR seems to be a sexy marketing tool used to convince the unsophisticated to take a vaccine.
For example faced with 95% RRR versus 0.85% ARR for the BNT163b2 Covid vaccine Pfizer unaccountably chose to trumpet the RRR not the ARR, even though they are based on the same data. I think we can agree that is marketing.
Surely Informed consent would require both numbers to be presented in the same breath to help people make rational risk based decisions as to whether to take a novel rushed biologic which had questions about its safety profile.
Writing this here to quote a story released after the market close. Pfizer stock was at $53 when the year began and hit $31 tonight, a 41.5% drop. So while no government will punish them, the market knows they're going to pay, and pay big, for their financial shenanigans.
05:11 PM EDT, 10/13/2023 (MT Newswires) -- Pfizer (PFE.NaE) on Friday lowered its 2023 earnings and revenue forecasts to account for changes in its supply agreement for Paxlovid with the US government.
The revenue guidance was lowered to $58 billion to $61 billion from $67 billion to $70 billion previously, and full-year adjusted earnings per share are expected at $1.45 to $1.65 compared to $3.25 to $3.45 previously, the company said.
Paxlovid is an oral COVID-19 medicine that was granted emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2021 and a full nod in May 2023.
In a change announced Friday, the US government is returning an estimated 7.9 million treatment courses of the emergency use authorized-labeled Paxlovid which will result in a non-cash revenue reversal of $4.2 billion, the company said.
The lowering of the financial guidance reflects those changes, as well as a delay in the commercialization of Paxlovid to January from the second half of 2023 and lower-than-expected vaccination rates for COVID-19, which impact the sales of Pfizer's (PFE.NaE) Comirnaty.
Additionally, Pfizer (PFE.NaE) announced a cost-cutting program to save at least $3.5 billion. Of the total, $1 billion is expected to be realized in 2023 and a further $2.5 billion is expected in 2024.
Shares of Pfizer (PFE.NaE) fell 3.8% in recent after-hours trading.
Albert Bourla lives in the US, walks around smiling and giving interviews to push his poisons. IMO he is a mass murderer, of children no less. There is no law in the USA, unless you try to fight back, then they apply the law.
From MT news wire today, this should bring a smile to you:
05:11 PM EDT, 10/13/2023 (MT Newswires) -- Pfizer (PFE.NaE) on Friday lowered its 2023 earnings and revenue forecasts to account for changes in its supply agreement for Paxlovid with the US government.
The revenue guidance was lowered to $58 billion to $61 billion from $67 billion to $70 billion previously, and full-year adjusted earnings per share are expected at $1.45 to $1.65 compared to $3.25 to $3.45 previously, the company said.
Paxlovid is an oral COVID-19 medicine that was granted emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2021 and a full nod in May 2023.
In a change announced Friday, the US government is returning an estimated 7.9 million treatment courses of the emergency use authorized-labeled Paxlovid which will result in a non-cash revenue reversal of $4.2 billion, the company said.
The lowering of the financial guidance reflects those changes, as well as a delay in the commercialization of Paxlovid to January from the second half of 2023 and lower-than-expected vaccination rates for COVID-19, which impact the sales of Pfizer's (PFE.NaE) Comirnaty.
Additionally, Pfizer (PFE.NaE) announced a cost-cutting program to save at least $3.5 billion. Of the total, $1 billion is expected to be realized in 2023 and a further $2.5 billion is expected in 2024.
Shares of Pfizer (PFE.NaE) fell 3.8% in recent after-hours trading.
If you are convinced that nano amounts can cause birth defects, autism, etc., no argument here, but I'm not convinced. I would never believe anything the CDC, NIS, or FDA published. Thanks for your comments.
The RSV virus did not come from a lab. RSV was identified first in 1956 in a group of chimpanzees and accordingly called chimpanzee coryza agent, but was later documented to be mainly a human pathogen.
Wayne an important thing to consider is the very real possibility all of the institutions you think you can trust have been "penetrated" (to use Klaus Schwabs terms).
Therefore the information you get will be in line with the narrative.
That is deceptive downplaying. The GSK trial was appropriately powered, and so given the numbers seen above, I doubt that the increase in preterm births was not statistically significant.
The repeatedly criminally-convicted organization known as Pfizer underpowered its study, so while the same signal was seen, the sample size was not large enough to have statistical significance in either direction - meaning no evidence that the vaccine is safe (and a suggestion that it is not). However, apparently the (corrupted/bought off) FDA did not require additional data to address the issue (theoretical because the FDAs employees work for their own profits and the corporations that hire them after their time at the FDA, rather the public’s interest, and both multinational/corporate-bought-off parties like it just that way).
You seem very confused. I was referring to the Pfizer trial in my statement. Effectiveness against severe disease in babies under 3 was 81.8%, that is a factual declarative statement. N = 3,495 and was absolutely statistically significant..
in high and low income countries there was no difference at all in preterm birth rates.
Again you are trusting Pfizer, I struggle to see how ANYONE..... could still trust the most corrupt, fraud driven illegal business I have ever seen in my life, and I have seen cartels, Pfizer is much much worse than a cartel.
What was the absolute risk reduction in the Pfizer trial? What was the confidence interval at 95% for your 81.8% number, and what does that translate to in absolute numbers (e.g., x out of 10,000 in Y population get severe RSV without vax, vs. x +/- Z out of 10000 in Y population)? Of severe diseases how many do you need to treat to prevent 1 death? Of that number, if treated, how many serious AEs?
ARR says nothing about the vaccine's ability to protect against disease. RRR is the most relevant measure for an infectious disease. You are utterly clueless
No, you're a dribbling idiot to dismiss ARR and follow the Pfizer playbook of playing with numbers to make a pimple into a volcano, while brushing aside dead children as not "significant"
How much are you being paid, 'Wayne'?
Is it really worth it? Does your mother know you do this shit?
Pfizer and GSK vaccines are interchangeable and GSK trial (which was larger so they had statistical significance) saw a significant preterm birth signal. Pfizer gamed the system by running a smaller trial.
that's your uneducated opinion. the data says otherwise. It was deemed nonsignificant. in high and low income countries there was no difference at all in preterm birth rates with the difference solely being driven by south africa
Oh, and the 81% is another example of lying with statistics - as (1) it’s the absolute risk reduction that matters, not relative, and (2) we know that pharma studies findings of relative risk reduction rarely actually hold up (because in part of data manipulation by the companies). Stop lying to people.
Not only am I likely as or more educated than you, and very likely a lot smarter, I am also very clearly a lot more honest.
Citing a Reuters opinion piece, which is what all so called fact checks are, but misleadingly titled and thus propagandistic in nature, is meaningless.
Meanwhile, you got it exactly backwards, it is relative risk reduction that tells you nothing. As an example: Drug reduces reduces deaths by 90% (and only increase serious AE by 10% over placebo!).
So how many deaths are prevented by universal use of drug? Oh, what’s that, you can’t know from the relative reduction! How many additional AEs? Again, you have no idea, because relative impact told you NOTHING.
Add in that only only 1 in 1,000,000 died, so need 10,000,000 to save 9… but Serious AEs are 1 in 10, meaning an increase from 10 in 100 to 11 in 100….. I.e., the absolute amounts… and now you know something.
ARR says nothing about the vaccine's ability to protect against disease. RRR is the most relevant measure for an infectious disease. ARR is more relevant for conditions with a stable baseline prevalence, such as liver disease, or cervical cancer. You also can’t use ARR for event driven trials which are designed to stop once accruing a set number of events and real world data comports precisely with RRR and not ARR.
As previously stated, Many trials are event driven rather than time driven. Hence why your number needed analysis shows a lack of understanding of VE trials https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/950117
You sound vaxed and arrogant.....Lancet's integrity is lost along with most all of the so called "peer reviewed" medical journals. The entire "peer review" process in these journals is tainted by greed and politics, and maybe some nefarious intentions. I would trust an independent researcher publishing on a free substack with nothing to gain except to advance truth, than our previously most revered medical journals. It's disheartening to see what has happened in the scientific world...
So actual increase in infant death from RSV vaccine will be anywhere from 4k to 23k. And that assumes every pregnant woman gets the vaccine. I'll put my clean bet to around 5-10k, accounting for a 25-50 percent increase in infant deaths.
It is the same with Vitamin K, given at birth, and the Rotavirus vaccines, very few die but the vax most likely kills more. Thank you for your hard work on this! So important.
Textbook stuff: Let a shoddily assembled pathogen slip from some bio-kitchen. Then make money on vaccines that kill and maim thousands or millions of people. Kids, pregnant women, who cares!
Dying people and interrupted pregnancies are "safety signals". We're truly in post-Orwellian territory, where it is significantly worse than anything a mid-20th century mind could conjure up. This dawned on me about a year ago when I read a German news article stating that "rare" victims of severe adverse events of COVID jabs were overcrowding the ambulances that were set up specifically to deal with them and that there were waiting lists of thousands of people. Of course, only very few thousands, I suppose?
Since it is very similar in scope to your article, I would also highlight that this practice seems to make a lot of sense at least to some people since a similar calculation for COVID jabs yields similarly catastrophic best-case numbers: https://rome2ruins.substack.com/p/we-miserable-fools
Igor, I have a question. This is OT. I remember people arguing a lot that the PTB changed the definition of a pandemic, a while back. I recently looked to corroborate, and can't dig myself down to the answer. Can you confirm the change, or did I fall for BS on our side?
That is correct. They did change the definition. I have seen specifics somewhere, and also seen this point referenced a number of times. Iain Davis has a free downloadable book called Pseudopandemic. Details may be there. He covers much of the manipulation that was done to create the impression if a deadly pandemic.
Igor, this is completely off topic. But have you any idea why Rob Slane has stopped posting, over at The Blog Mire? He hasn't posted since Dec 30, nor has he posted any explanation. I'm kind of worried.
My impression is that ARR tells you something about the common sense real world, whereas RRR seems to be a sexy marketing tool used to convince the unsophisticated to take a vaccine.
For example faced with 95% RRR versus 0.85% ARR for the BNT163b2 Covid vaccine Pfizer unaccountably chose to trumpet the RRR not the ARR, even though they are based on the same data. I think we can agree that is marketing.
Surely Informed consent would require both numbers to be presented in the same breath to help people make rational risk based decisions as to whether to take a novel rushed biologic which had questions about its safety profile.
Writing this here to quote a story released after the market close. Pfizer stock was at $53 when the year began and hit $31 tonight, a 41.5% drop. So while no government will punish them, the market knows they're going to pay, and pay big, for their financial shenanigans.
05:11 PM EDT, 10/13/2023 (MT Newswires) -- Pfizer (PFE.NaE) on Friday lowered its 2023 earnings and revenue forecasts to account for changes in its supply agreement for Paxlovid with the US government.
The revenue guidance was lowered to $58 billion to $61 billion from $67 billion to $70 billion previously, and full-year adjusted earnings per share are expected at $1.45 to $1.65 compared to $3.25 to $3.45 previously, the company said.
Paxlovid is an oral COVID-19 medicine that was granted emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2021 and a full nod in May 2023.
In a change announced Friday, the US government is returning an estimated 7.9 million treatment courses of the emergency use authorized-labeled Paxlovid which will result in a non-cash revenue reversal of $4.2 billion, the company said.
The lowering of the financial guidance reflects those changes, as well as a delay in the commercialization of Paxlovid to January from the second half of 2023 and lower-than-expected vaccination rates for COVID-19, which impact the sales of Pfizer's (PFE.NaE) Comirnaty.
Additionally, Pfizer (PFE.NaE) announced a cost-cutting program to save at least $3.5 billion. Of the total, $1 billion is expected to be realized in 2023 and a further $2.5 billion is expected in 2024.
Shares of Pfizer (PFE.NaE) fell 3.8% in recent after-hours trading.
Price: 30.9, Change: -1.21, Percent Change: -3.77
Albert Bourla lives in the US, walks around smiling and giving interviews to push his poisons. IMO he is a mass murderer, of children no less. There is no law in the USA, unless you try to fight back, then they apply the law.
From MT news wire today, this should bring a smile to you:
05:11 PM EDT, 10/13/2023 (MT Newswires) -- Pfizer (PFE.NaE) on Friday lowered its 2023 earnings and revenue forecasts to account for changes in its supply agreement for Paxlovid with the US government.
The revenue guidance was lowered to $58 billion to $61 billion from $67 billion to $70 billion previously, and full-year adjusted earnings per share are expected at $1.45 to $1.65 compared to $3.25 to $3.45 previously, the company said.
Paxlovid is an oral COVID-19 medicine that was granted emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2021 and a full nod in May 2023.
In a change announced Friday, the US government is returning an estimated 7.9 million treatment courses of the emergency use authorized-labeled Paxlovid which will result in a non-cash revenue reversal of $4.2 billion, the company said.
The lowering of the financial guidance reflects those changes, as well as a delay in the commercialization of Paxlovid to January from the second half of 2023 and lower-than-expected vaccination rates for COVID-19, which impact the sales of Pfizer's (PFE.NaE) Comirnaty.
Additionally, Pfizer (PFE.NaE) announced a cost-cutting program to save at least $3.5 billion. Of the total, $1 billion is expected to be realized in 2023 and a further $2.5 billion is expected in 2024.
Shares of Pfizer (PFE.NaE) fell 3.8% in recent after-hours trading.
Price: 30.9, Change: -1.21, Percent Change: -3.77
I'll be happy when Bourla and his ilk are gone.
Staggering. Everything is falling apart.
Yea, I agree, bad choice of words.
If you are convinced that nano amounts can cause birth defects, autism, etc., no argument here, but I'm not convinced. I would never believe anything the CDC, NIS, or FDA published. Thanks for your comments.
I personally do not believe that you can cause a birth defect after birth
The RSV virus did not come from a lab. RSV was identified first in 1956 in a group of chimpanzees and accordingly called chimpanzee coryza agent, but was later documented to be mainly a human pathogen.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128036785003842
RSV vaccine was 81.8% effective against severe RSV
There was a non-significant difference in preterm birth in the trial.
Wayne an important thing to consider is the very real possibility all of the institutions you think you can trust have been "penetrated" (to use Klaus Schwabs terms).
Therefore the information you get will be in line with the narrative.
evidence free rant
Says the guy quoting 'sciencedirect'.com' ffs
yes I cite scientific evidence. you don't
That is deceptive downplaying. The GSK trial was appropriately powered, and so given the numbers seen above, I doubt that the increase in preterm births was not statistically significant.
The repeatedly criminally-convicted organization known as Pfizer underpowered its study, so while the same signal was seen, the sample size was not large enough to have statistical significance in either direction - meaning no evidence that the vaccine is safe (and a suggestion that it is not). However, apparently the (corrupted/bought off) FDA did not require additional data to address the issue (theoretical because the FDAs employees work for their own profits and the corporations that hire them after their time at the FDA, rather the public’s interest, and both multinational/corporate-bought-off parties like it just that way).
You seem very confused. I was referring to the Pfizer trial in my statement. Effectiveness against severe disease in babies under 3 was 81.8%, that is a factual declarative statement. N = 3,495 and was absolutely statistically significant..
in high and low income countries there was no difference at all in preterm birth rates.
https://www.fda.gov/media/169361/download
Again you are trusting Pfizer, I struggle to see how ANYONE..... could still trust the most corrupt, fraud driven illegal business I have ever seen in my life, and I have seen cartels, Pfizer is much much worse than a cartel.
evidence free rant
Doubling down, huh? Well that’srevealing.
What was the absolute risk reduction in the Pfizer trial? What was the confidence interval at 95% for your 81.8% number, and what does that translate to in absolute numbers (e.g., x out of 10,000 in Y population get severe RSV without vax, vs. x +/- Z out of 10000 in Y population)? Of severe diseases how many do you need to treat to prevent 1 death? Of that number, if treated, how many serious AEs?
ARR says nothing about the vaccine's ability to protect against disease. RRR is the most relevant measure for an infectious disease. You are utterly clueless
No, you're a dribbling idiot to dismiss ARR and follow the Pfizer playbook of playing with numbers to make a pimple into a volcano, while brushing aside dead children as not "significant"
How much are you being paid, 'Wayne'?
Is it really worth it? Does your mother know you do this shit?
uneducated evidence free ranting
Pfizer and GSK vaccines are interchangeable and GSK trial (which was larger so they had statistical significance) saw a significant preterm birth signal. Pfizer gamed the system by running a smaller trial.
Didn't Pfizer and GSK merge in of all years 2019?
that's your uneducated opinion. the data says otherwise. It was deemed nonsignificant. in high and low income countries there was no difference at all in preterm birth rates with the difference solely being driven by south africa
https://www.fda.gov/media/169361/download
A perfectly reasoned comment!
Oh, and the 81% is another example of lying with statistics - as (1) it’s the absolute risk reduction that matters, not relative, and (2) we know that pharma studies findings of relative risk reduction rarely actually hold up (because in part of data manipulation by the companies). Stop lying to people.
lying with statistics is an uneducated evidence free rant. ARR says nothing about the vaccine's ability to protect against disease. RRR is the most relevant measure for an infectious disease. Here is some reading four you https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-thelancet-riskreduction/fact-check-why-relative-risk-reduction-not-absolute-risk-reduction-is-most-often-used-in-calculating-vaccine-efficacy-idUSL2N2NK1XA
Not only am I likely as or more educated than you, and very likely a lot smarter, I am also very clearly a lot more honest.
Citing a Reuters opinion piece, which is what all so called fact checks are, but misleadingly titled and thus propagandistic in nature, is meaningless.
Meanwhile, you got it exactly backwards, it is relative risk reduction that tells you nothing. As an example: Drug reduces reduces deaths by 90% (and only increase serious AE by 10% over placebo!).
So how many deaths are prevented by universal use of drug? Oh, what’s that, you can’t know from the relative reduction! How many additional AEs? Again, you have no idea, because relative impact told you NOTHING.
Add in that only only 1 in 1,000,000 died, so need 10,000,000 to save 9… but Serious AEs are 1 in 10, meaning an increase from 10 in 100 to 11 in 100….. I.e., the absolute amounts… and now you know something.
ARR says nothing about the vaccine's ability to protect against disease. RRR is the most relevant measure for an infectious disease. ARR is more relevant for conditions with a stable baseline prevalence, such as liver disease, or cervical cancer. You also can’t use ARR for event driven trials which are designed to stop once accruing a set number of events and real world data comports precisely with RRR and not ARR.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00119-1/fulltext
real world data follows RRR much more closely than ARR: https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2022/06/02/another-bit-of-pandemic-fallout-the-weaponization-of-absolute-risk-statistics/
As previously stated, Many trials are event driven rather than time driven. Hence why your number needed analysis shows a lack of understanding of VE trials https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/950117
The 81% risk reduction wanes even faster than the covid vaccine
if your evidence RSV came from a lab is a substack, you are as reputable about VE as used toilet paper
Says the vaxxed and vexxed 'Wayn', on substack...
uneducated evidence free ranting
You sound vaxed and arrogant.....Lancet's integrity is lost along with most all of the so called "peer reviewed" medical journals. The entire "peer review" process in these journals is tainted by greed and politics, and maybe some nefarious intentions. I would trust an independent researcher publishing on a free substack with nothing to gain except to advance truth, than our previously most revered medical journals. It's disheartening to see what has happened in the scientific world...
uneducated evidence free rant.
Once you understand how natural immunity against airborne viruses is created you will never want an injection again.
https://twitter.com/GauteNilsen/status/1698232618402132263
Big pharma and the Government are now killing machines, and we are all in the killbox.
Do not let anyone vaccinate you with anything.
Also do not let anyone test you for anything, unless you have sought medical attention for it.
Try to keep fit and healthy, watch what you eat and drink carefully, and enjoy life as much as possible.
Oh yeah, and keep well away from the MSM propaganda!!
And just for those who are interested in numbers: RSV accounts for 22 in Reverse English.
%116 of 20000 makes 23.200.
So actual increase in infant death from RSV vaccine will be anywhere from 4k to 23k. And that assumes every pregnant woman gets the vaccine. I'll put my clean bet to around 5-10k, accounting for a 25-50 percent increase in infant deaths.
I'll let you think about it.
WATCH THIS https://twitter.com/MAVERIC68078049/status/1705631832996499735 WTF
Pro-tip: don't click on anything linked by fast eddy, who is right up there with 'Wayne'....
Now more people will click it
Nah, we're getting wise to you and your kind.
It is the same with Vitamin K, given at birth, and the Rotavirus vaccines, very few die but the vax most likely kills more. Thank you for your hard work on this! So important.
Textbook stuff: Let a shoddily assembled pathogen slip from some bio-kitchen. Then make money on vaccines that kill and maim thousands or millions of people. Kids, pregnant women, who cares!
Dying people and interrupted pregnancies are "safety signals". We're truly in post-Orwellian territory, where it is significantly worse than anything a mid-20th century mind could conjure up. This dawned on me about a year ago when I read a German news article stating that "rare" victims of severe adverse events of COVID jabs were overcrowding the ambulances that were set up specifically to deal with them and that there were waiting lists of thousands of people. Of course, only very few thousands, I suppose?
Since it is very similar in scope to your article, I would also highlight that this practice seems to make a lot of sense at least to some people since a similar calculation for COVID jabs yields similarly catastrophic best-case numbers: https://rome2ruins.substack.com/p/we-miserable-fools
Igor, I have a question. This is OT. I remember people arguing a lot that the PTB changed the definition of a pandemic, a while back. I recently looked to corroborate, and can't dig myself down to the answer. Can you confirm the change, or did I fall for BS on our side?
Yea they did it back in 2009, before 2009 H1N1 "pandemic".
That is correct. They did change the definition. I have seen specifics somewhere, and also seen this point referenced a number of times. Iain Davis has a free downloadable book called Pseudopandemic. Details may be there. He covers much of the manipulation that was done to create the impression if a deadly pandemic.
Igor, this is completely off topic. But have you any idea why Rob Slane has stopped posting, over at The Blog Mire? He hasn't posted since Dec 30, nor has he posted any explanation. I'm kind of worried.
The Blog Mire is where I found out about you.