They still did but give you enough credit. That “3,410 suspected but unconfirmed cases lost to follow-up, divided almost evenly between the two groups” is more important than the whole study. If it is 53% vaccinated and 47% unvaccinated, there is negative effectiveness, and if there are definition and timing issues at play it could be 70% of the recently vaccinated or partially vaccinated conveniently and intentionally lost to follow-up. Reclassification of the vaccination status of hospitalized patients at 2 or 3 major hospitals in December 2019-March 2020 would probably be the best way to approximate that number. Many hospitals configured their intake software so that someone was was positive for Covid-19 was declared unvaccinated or vaccine status unknown, requiring a manual override to enter a Covid positive patient as fully vaccinated according to testimony from hundreds of nurses.
Still did not…. Anyway, your example of 95 to 5 and 1095 to 1005 was much better than my examples. These cases lost to follow-up were suspected but uncomfirmed, and so the positivity percentage could 1% to 90%. I forgot to account for that.
The actual data might still be available. With social security numbers, any PCR tests these people took might have left digital records whether negative or positive, and their insurance companies may have been billed. I just think Pfizer did not want to look.
Congratulations!!! So pleased for you, and, for us all! Appreciate so much that I found your substack presence; you have a great gift and great skill in what you do, and, communicating to the rest of us! Dr Malone, what a guy...
It isn't necessary but certainly nice, and a stark contrast to my reception in my own country. Many in Australia know about my research and story but don't seem impressed.
And recognised you are! Feel-good day, today.
The real ones right here. You all were reading my crazy thoughts before it was cool...
They still did but give you enough credit. That “3,410 suspected but unconfirmed cases lost to follow-up, divided almost evenly between the two groups” is more important than the whole study. If it is 53% vaccinated and 47% unvaccinated, there is negative effectiveness, and if there are definition and timing issues at play it could be 70% of the recently vaccinated or partially vaccinated conveniently and intentionally lost to follow-up. Reclassification of the vaccination status of hospitalized patients at 2 or 3 major hospitals in December 2019-March 2020 would probably be the best way to approximate that number. Many hospitals configured their intake software so that someone was was positive for Covid-19 was declared unvaccinated or vaccine status unknown, requiring a manual override to enter a Covid positive patient as fully vaccinated according to testimony from hundreds of nurses.
Still did not…. Anyway, your example of 95 to 5 and 1095 to 1005 was much better than my examples. These cases lost to follow-up were suspected but uncomfirmed, and so the positivity percentage could 1% to 90%. I forgot to account for that.
The actual data might still be available. With social security numbers, any PCR tests these people took might have left digital records whether negative or positive, and their insurance companies may have been billed. I just think Pfizer did not want to look.
Congratulations!!! So pleased for you, and, for us all! Appreciate so much that I found your substack presence; you have a great gift and great skill in what you do, and, communicating to the rest of us! Dr Malone, what a guy...
Superb!
So glad you are getting the recognition you and your work deserve!
It isn't necessary but certainly nice, and a stark contrast to my reception in my own country. Many in Australia know about my research and story but don't seem impressed.