Extracting the data to xlsx and beautifying it for aesthetes such as @MrChan78 you end up with this...
(1/n)
Next step: Calculate Incident Rate (IR) ratios of the Verum and placebo groups to get the "relative risk" for the vaccine groups. Positive % == risk increase for vaccinees, negative == risk reduction. Let's take a look at the most interesting adverse effects....
...and lets focus on the age group 18 <= 64 years.
Blood pressure: 100%
Eye Disorder: 167%
Reproductive system and breast disorders: 68%
Cardiac disorders: 21%
Immune system disorders: 90%
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified
(including cysts and polyps): 139%
Again: Positive percentage == % risk increase compared to placebo group.
Neoplasms benign == abnormal mass of tissue, Neoplasms malignant == cancer
So we have an 139% increased risk for suffering from neoplasms in the verum group.
To give Novovax a point, lets take a look at
positive PCR Tests. They are reduced!!! Thanks god, it is effective!!! The safe part is in the eye of the beholder...
But then comes bad smelling Uncle COVID and kills the party...
Diagnosed COVID-19 in the group >= 65 years of age
71 % increase.
From my understanding, the primary targeted age groups are the frail, weak and elderly...
So apparently it is effective to increase the likelihood to develop COVID-19 in the >= 65 years group.
Final thoughts:
Beware of funky statistics ;)
Relative risks are... very, very relative ;)
Read the PDF!
Would you go for Novovax based on this presentation?
Was wäre, wenn sich der ChAdOx1 vektor mit dem menschlichen Adenovirus Typ 41 verbunden hätte? Dieser wurde in den Hepatitisfällen häufig nachgewiesen und liegt genetisch sehr nahe am ChAdOx1 Schimpansen Vektor.
Ich bin seit April 2020 ein Verfechter der „SARS-CoV-2 kommt aus dem Reagenzglas“ Theorie. Bei all den Indizien kommt mir das deutlich wahrscheinlicher vor, als das „Gangbang von Pangolin mit Hufeisenfledermaus“-Narrativ. /2