Thanks Phil. We hate reading it as much as you hate writing it, but work of this kind needs wider discussion. For how long can the 'safe and effective' mantra be persisted with, when evidence of this kind is published?
This is something that must be published as widely as possible and the data looked at and challenged by as many qualified people as possible - also to get down as you say to cohort information level for greatest benefit. Well done Phil
J. Bart Classen published a damning critique of the trial data underpinning the EUA applications over a year ago. It's taken this long to go mainstream.
This is something that must be published as widely as possible and the data ooked at and challenged by as many qualified people as possible - also to get down as you say to cohort information level for greatest benefit. Well done Phil
Thanks Phil. We hate reading it as much as you hate writing it, but work of this kind needs wider discussion. For how long can the 'safe and effective' mantra be persisted with, when evidence of this kind is published?
Thank you! Critically important paper.
This is something that must be published as widely as possible and the data looked at and challenged by as many qualified people as possible - also to get down as you say to cohort information level for greatest benefit. Well done Phil
Thank you !
Something to correct, though : the definition you reproduce is not of AESIs but of SAEs (*Serious* adverse events).
J. Bart Classen published a damning critique of the trial data underpinning the EUA applications over a year ago. It's taken this long to go mainstream.
https://www.scivisionpub.com/pdfs/us-covid19-vaccines-proven-to-cause-more-harm-than-good-based-on-pivotal-clinical-trial-data-analyzed-using-the-proper-scientific--1811.pdf
This is something that must be published as widely as possible and the data ooked at and challenged by as many qualified people as possible - also to get down as you say to cohort information level for greatest benefit. Well done Phil