Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories & Facts
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

51
Thread: 97% of Pfizer's vax "trial" patients were fake (twitter.com)
posted 3 years ago by axolotl_peyotl 3 years ago by axolotl_peyotl +51 / -0
12 comments share
12 comments share save hide report block hide replies
Comments (12)
sorted by:
▲ 8 ▼
– KiloRomeo 8 points 3 years ago +8 / -0

There's only 6 files but supposedly 181 participants for site 1006. Hence OP claim of 97% data made up or missing.

  • Red line shows bottoms of sort order for 5/2 for site 1006 and there's only 6 on top
  • other images reference participants with a site ID of 20, 50, ... , or even 181 thus expressing the number of supposed participants.
permalink save report block reply
▲ 8 ▼
– elfextinctionevent 8 points 3 years ago +8 / -0

after reading the entire twitter thread its replies and the comments in this thread it is safe to conclude that nobody but the person that posted this data has any idea what the actual fuck is going on with the data lmao

permalink save report block reply
▲ 7 ▼
– Redsky 7 points 3 years ago +8 / -1

I'm not quite following. Can you explain this to me like I am five?

permalink save report block reply
▲ 9 ▼
– KiloRomeo 9 points 3 years ago +9 / -0

What the OP is saying is that they always 1 file per patient per week per site. So, we should expect 181 files for May 2nd for site 1006 if, within their data, they claim to have 181 patients in the trial. Instead, they have just 6 which is a 97% reduction.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 5 ▼
– MindlessRationality 5 points 3 years ago +5 / -0

Could it be that they were 'excluded' from the study due to ....death, infection, or extraneous data point?


I got the sense that they frequently culled the patients during the study to ensure that the numbers were good.....

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– KiloRomeo 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0

Yeah it could be attrition but even then that's substantial attrition which indicates as you state something ominous

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 8 ▼
– newuserfromreddit 8 points 3 years ago +10 / -2

Twitter OP is saying that a court order compelled a release of all files concerning patients in the vaccine trials. Of all the patients recruited at these testing sites, case files were released for only 3.9% of patients. This leads to the inference that the other 96.1% of patients do not have case files and thus were fake.

At least, that’s what I take from the thread. I’m not familiar with this litigation or whether Twitter OP is making reliable claims. Axo can correct me if this is wrong.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 3 ▼
– BoberFett 3 points 3 years ago +3 / -0

If I'm understanding (and it's very possible I'm not) that Pfizer claimed their testing included 44,000 patients. That means there were 44,000 patients selected for the trial, as evidenced by the sequentially numbered patients. But there aren't 44,000 patients worth of test result documentation that has been submitted.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– MO-Carpenter 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0

I’m having similar confusion, I am super ready to believe they did this, but I’m too slow to connect the dots as they’ve been presented.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– cablez 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0

Here is my hypothesis....inflate the numbers so the %%% of vax sides is lessened. Because a much larger dilluted control group?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 4 ▼
– MO-Carpenter 4 points 3 years ago +4 / -0

I don’t care about your hypothesis I care how they’re fudging the numbers. It’s very obvious why inflated sample size numbers would be beneficial but catching them doing it is very significant and important.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

GIFs

Conspiracies Wiki & Links

Conspiracies Book List

External Digital Book Libraries

Mod Logs

Honor Roll

Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Community Rules: <click this link for a detailed explanation of the rules

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.

To prevent SPAM, posts from accounts younger than 4 days old, and/or with <50 points, wont appear in the feed until approved by a mod.

Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

Moderators

  • Doggos
  • axolotl_peyotl
  • trinadin
  • PutinLovesCats
  • clemaneuverers
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2025.03.01 - qpl2q (status)

Copyright © 2024.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy