I'm no scientist and some of this is above my pay grade but I get the gist of it.
If the results were actually based on a "95% reduction in the chance of testing positive for Covid by a RCR test" what was the number of cycles used in the test? I am told that by increasing the cycles you can get almost any result you want. Isn't this an issue as well?
I'm no scientist and some of this is above my pay grade but I get the gist of it.
If the results were actually based on a "95% reduction in the chance of testing positive for Covid by a RCR test" what was the number of cycles used in the test? I am told that by increasing the cycles you can get almost any result you want. Isn't this an issue as well?
It's an issue, but that would be about the reliability of a test. What Arkmedic discusses here is primarily the abuse of statistics. I use the example (probably stole it from someone else, I admit) of buying two lottery tickets instead of one. You have improved your chance to win by 100%. But your odds of winning are still many millions against. In most medical contexts the rates are usually in the one per 1,000 to 10,000 range. Of several that I've looked at, the prize for "Hardly does anything" currently is held by aspirin therapy, which I computed provides an annual (absolute) risk reduction for healthy people of a whopping 0.02% (not a typo, that's "two one-hundredths of a percent", although the relative risk sounded better, at about 5.7% improvement.
If I recall one of Kendrick's rules of thumb: Generally speaking, if they are claiming a benefit, they will use a relative ratio. If dissimulating adverse data, use absolute.
1-thanks for the lottery analogy. very useful way to explain/understand RR concept.
2--the PCR test validity is very much an issue. first, it is useless test and not supposed to be used this way--as a diagnostic. second, it has a false positive rate that would be unacceptable in most realms of life--e.g., investing, DWI allegations etc. and of course, presence of antibodies doesn't actually mean you will feel sick/show symptoms.
I still can't believe how shallow the pharma research is apparently. 2-3 yrs ago I would have assumed arkmedic-type analysis was part of the vetting of new drugs. how na├пve I was.
Agreed. I'm dismayed how half-assed the entire industry is, from research on down to the doctor who writes Rx for your pill. I no longer trust doctors of any type, and to the extent possible, will do my own research about proposed treatments before subjecting myself to them.
Small risk, but there is a risk of serious bleeding even with the low daily dose. Just conjecturing, but I'm sure the risk of death is low, but "serious bleeding" is, well, serious.
Based upon my admittedly limited research, the risk of bleeding exceeds the expected protective benefit.
Pfizer used PCR equipment that stopped cycling as soon as a signal was detected. For many infected people that could be as low as 10 cycles. The machine is told not to cycle more than 45 times. The test uses primers that can detect 2 different regions of the Covid19 virus genome with good specificity. False positives are rare and can be traced to contamination during sample collection.
If I need a pcr cycled up to tell me why I had a sore throat and a headache with a dry cough for a day, this is insane. As a kid in Chicago we all had walking pneumonia lasting several years at a time. You ignore it and play baseball, or football or hockey. I donтАЩt understand how hypochondriacs took over the world.
Today I made a special request to the Deep Data Miners extracting the XPT files to see if they can find the Cycle Time cut-off for each PCR test. It will be recorded somewhere, but is it in the data so far dumped? Will let you know as soon as I hear back.
I might have to disagree on this one. The evidence is that the final product did the opposite of what was stated from the trial. Ergo the trial result was falsified.
Now the next question is, did they have access to the information that could differentiate the swabs so that this could be done - without leaving an unblinding record on the database? The answer is yes.
Each Cobas sample tube had a barcode. I have a picture of one used in the open label BNT162b1 trial which recorded visit number and subject ID number as well.
I think we should be all working together. Geoff is a very smart guy and mostly on our side but that doesn't matter. He is a great person to provide a valid view that we should use to strongman our arguments.
"Should" ..... Do you think our dear Earth is in its current state if "should" had been generally applied?
I welcome reasoned, rational views to "strongperson" my understanding and views. However, after looking at out biffs, I dumped him now. I had suspicions about him earlier.
Views don't matter; only the basis for them matter. Agreeing or disagreeing does not add value to any debate or discourse unless reasons and evidence are provided. Like writing an essay.
To summarise re Dr Pain:
1. He asserts that N95 masks prevent "droplets" from c19.
2. He disapproved, or blamed, the border policies for allowing C19 in. The implications of this view are obvious.
3. He took the official data literally - like his reading of the pfizer dump
4. I've never heard of him on the bird before he was dissed by it
5. He has not answered nor rebutted me. He has "muted" me.
I understand. From my perspective I would rather have a challenge from Geoff than from the muttoncrew, who are singularly trying to waste my time or worse! At least I know that Geoff is aiming to get at scientific correctness and doesn't have a personal beef, so I don't take offence.
Did they explain the protocol for testing? It seems to me that the only way the test results mean anything is if every single participant gets tested at the same time, like every day for the two months. Otherwise, who knows who they are testing? Maybe they tested the placebo group participants more?
The Protocol had numerous revisions. The court ordered Pfizer data is here and lots of people are looking at it. Here is the easy search page where you can enter keywords and download pdfs. https://vaccines.shinyapps.io/abstractor/
You can also track individual trial subjects once you have their ID number.
"There is no rule for the number of primers used in PCR."??
Why not use one, then?
My limited understanding re the PCR was obtained via reading on the bird since early 2020. In particular, from Kevin McKernan.
Him and various other pundits all stated that the standard protocol is THREE genetic markers. I can find what those three markers are, but I won't - since you already knew.
So, how was I willfully wrong since I based my understanding on multiple credible pundits?
I'm no scientist and some of this is above my pay grade but I get the gist of it.
If the results were actually based on a "95% reduction in the chance of testing positive for Covid by a RCR test" what was the number of cycles used in the test? I am told that by increasing the cycles you can get almost any result you want. Isn't this an issue as well?
It's an issue, but that would be about the reliability of a test. What Arkmedic discusses here is primarily the abuse of statistics. I use the example (probably stole it from someone else, I admit) of buying two lottery tickets instead of one. You have improved your chance to win by 100%. But your odds of winning are still many millions against. In most medical contexts the rates are usually in the one per 1,000 to 10,000 range. Of several that I've looked at, the prize for "Hardly does anything" currently is held by aspirin therapy, which I computed provides an annual (absolute) risk reduction for healthy people of a whopping 0.02% (not a typo, that's "two one-hundredths of a percent", although the relative risk sounded better, at about 5.7% improvement.
If I recall one of Kendrick's rules of thumb: Generally speaking, if they are claiming a benefit, they will use a relative ratio. If dissimulating adverse data, use absolute.
1-thanks for the lottery analogy. very useful way to explain/understand RR concept.
2--the PCR test validity is very much an issue. first, it is useless test and not supposed to be used this way--as a diagnostic. second, it has a false positive rate that would be unacceptable in most realms of life--e.g., investing, DWI allegations etc. and of course, presence of antibodies doesn't actually mean you will feel sick/show symptoms.
I still can't believe how shallow the pharma research is apparently. 2-3 yrs ago I would have assumed arkmedic-type analysis was part of the vetting of new drugs. how na├пve I was.
Agreed. I'm dismayed how half-assed the entire industry is, from research on down to the doctor who writes Rx for your pill. I no longer trust doctors of any type, and to the extent possible, will do my own research about proposed treatments before subjecting myself to them.
At least a daily aspirin won't kill you?! Or will it?!
Small risk, but there is a risk of serious bleeding even with the low daily dose. Just conjecturing, but I'm sure the risk of death is low, but "serious bleeding" is, well, serious.
Based upon my admittedly limited research, the risk of bleeding exceeds the expected protective benefit.
I had a mini stroke after month or so of taking aspirin for a condition. I'll never take aspirin again.
Pfizer used PCR equipment that stopped cycling as soon as a signal was detected. For many infected people that could be as low as 10 cycles. The machine is told not to cycle more than 45 times. The test uses primers that can detect 2 different regions of the Covid19 virus genome with good specificity. False positives are rare and can be traced to contamination during sample collection.
What if the cycle thresholds were set differently for the two groups?...
If I need a pcr cycled up to tell me why I had a sore throat and a headache with a dry cough for a day, this is insane. As a kid in Chicago we all had walking pneumonia lasting several years at a time. You ignore it and play baseball, or football or hockey. I donтАЩt understand how hypochondriacs took over the world.
Today I made a special request to the Deep Data Miners extracting the XPT files to see if they can find the Cycle Time cut-off for each PCR test. It will be recorded somewhere, but is it in the data so far dumped? Will let you know as soon as I hear back.
https://vaccines.shinyapps.io/abstractor/
I wondered that as well
Please clarify "two groups"
Placebo group and BNT162b2 group. What if the samples were processed at different Ct thresholds?
No evidence of that. Unless Brook can reveal something along those lines?
I might have to disagree on this one. The evidence is that the final product did the opposite of what was stated from the trial. Ergo the trial result was falsified.
Now the next question is, did they have access to the information that could differentiate the swabs so that this could be done - without leaving an unblinding record on the database? The answer is yes.
Each Cobas sample tube had a barcode. I have a picture of one used in the open label BNT162b1 trial which recorded visit number and subject ID number as well.
Yep. They just needed the subject ID number for the PCR test and the subject ID number for the serology (first follow-up visit)
What if the samples were only processed on paper only?
As you can read, I am having a jab at Dr Pain for his comments.
I think we should be all working together. Geoff is a very smart guy and mostly on our side but that doesn't matter. He is a great person to provide a valid view that we should use to strongman our arguments.
"Should" ..... Do you think our dear Earth is in its current state if "should" had been generally applied?
I welcome reasoned, rational views to "strongperson" my understanding and views. However, after looking at out biffs, I dumped him now. I had suspicions about him earlier.
Views don't matter; only the basis for them matter. Agreeing or disagreeing does not add value to any debate or discourse unless reasons and evidence are provided. Like writing an essay.
To summarise re Dr Pain:
1. He asserts that N95 masks prevent "droplets" from c19.
2. He disapproved, or blamed, the border policies for allowing C19 in. The implications of this view are obvious.
3. He took the official data literally - like his reading of the pfizer dump
4. I've never heard of him on the bird before he was dissed by it
5. He has not answered nor rebutted me. He has "muted" me.
I understand. From my perspective I would rather have a challenge from Geoff than from the muttoncrew, who are singularly trying to waste my time or worse! At least I know that Geoff is aiming to get at scientific correctness and doesn't have a personal beef, so I don't take offence.
Presumably placebo vs treatment.
Did they explain the protocol for testing? It seems to me that the only way the test results mean anything is if every single participant gets tested at the same time, like every day for the two months. Otherwise, who knows who they are testing? Maybe they tested the placebo group participants more?
The Protocol had numerous revisions. The court ordered Pfizer data is here and lots of people are looking at it. Here is the easy search page where you can enter keywords and download pdfs. https://vaccines.shinyapps.io/abstractor/
You can also track individual trial subjects once you have their ID number.
Dr Pain,
Have you compared what the pfizer documents claimed to the abundant empirics??
empirics, little used word.
Please answer my question?
That word is basal to any one with a PhD in science or economics, in particular.
I recall reading that pfizer used a max of 32 CT; definitely not 45.
A legit PCR test uses 3 different markers to test.
"False positives are rare ..." ?
Are you really the Dr Pain that I have been in correspondence with on Substack and GETTR?
You really are so wilfully wrong. You can't recall facts that are in black and white. There is no rule for the number of primers used in PCR.
"There is no rule for the number of primers used in PCR."??
Why not use one, then?
My limited understanding re the PCR was obtained via reading on the bird since early 2020. In particular, from Kevin McKernan.
Him and various other pundits all stated that the standard protocol is THREE genetic markers. I can find what those three markers are, but I won't - since you already knew.
So, how was I willfully wrong since I based my understanding on multiple credible pundits?