Vulpes vulpes

@JL
 
Merci pour la vidéo !
 
Elle est très intéressante !!
 

@JL
 

JL : Pharmacovigilance voir cette vidéo à la mn 40 et la mn 43.Et aussi un magnifique transparent intitulé pharmacovigilance du vaccin Pfiezrer, publié par l’ANS visisble à la mn 54

Merci pour les informations !

Le document (Enquête de pharmacovigilance du vaccin Pfizer – BioNTech Comirnaty / Rapport n°14 : période du 16 avril 2021 au 29 avril 2021 ) se trouve ici, et le detail en question est à la page 23.

@PFIZE®baba

bubu12 : l’efficacité est démontrée par les études de phases 3 qui sont publiées. Ce n’est pas une nouveauté que les phases 3 soient réalisées par le fabriquant

Corollary 6 : The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true. This seemingly paradoxical corollary follows because, as stated above, the PPV of isolated findings decreases when many teams of investigators are involved in the same field. This may explain why we occasionally see major excitement followed rapidly by severe disappointments in fields that draw wide attention. With many teams working on the same field and with massive experimental data being produced, timing is of the essence in beating competition. Thus, each team may prioritize on pursuing and disseminating its most impressive “positive” results. “Negative” results may become attractive for dissemination only if some other team has found a “positive” association on the same question. In that case, it may be attractive to refute a claim made in some prestigious journal. The term Proteus phenomenon has been coined to describe this phenomenon of rapidly alternating extreme research claims and extremely opposite refutations [29]. Empirical evidence suggests that this sequence of extreme opposites is very common in molecular genetics [29].

@PFIZE®baba

bubu12 : l’efficacité est démontrée par les études de phases 3 qui sont publiées. Ce n’est pas une nouveauté que les phases 3 soient réalisées par le fabriquant

Corollary 5 : The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Conflicts of interest and prejudice may increase bias, u. Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical research [26], and typically they are inadequately and sparsely reported [26,27]. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings. Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations. Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28].

@PFIZE®baba

bubu12 : l’efficacité est démontrée par les études de phases 3 qui sont publiées.

Pourriez-vous préciser l’efficacité de l’injection génique expérimentale PFIZE® pour la Covid-19™ sur la diminution  :

1. du nombre de cas graves

2. du nombre d’hospitalisations

3. du nombre de décès

4. de la transmission ???