a brief outline of the Nov 1 PHMPT release.

mega.nz/file/yRgyQZzZ#…
these are all the BNT162-01 related .xpt files as .csv, the C4591001 file is too big to open in excel πŸ˜… and you don't need me for the .pdf (i hope) Image
first file is -suppex.csv. it seems to be a protocol checklist, with six rows per patient except if there was a protocol deviation. includes medication nr's. the screenshots show the only two deviations recorded in this file. ImageImageImage
which brings us to -suppec.csv
at a glance, it looks identical to -suppex.csv, but it isn't. while it also lists the two deviations shown above, it also lists a few more. in -suppex.csv, 1-dose patients only have three rows, -suppec.csv just provides add. info? ImageImageImage
-suppds.csv is next. this seems to list patients by their cohort, group, and protocol version at time of enrollment.
group B is BNT162b1, group C is BNT162b2. So what's group A? will x-ref with the protocol amendments. not sure this has all Pts, will check. ImageImageImage
next is suppcm.csv
this lists ATC codes (Anatomical Therapeutical Chemical) for patients that received medication (presumably due to AEs?). will be digging deeper into this one and x-ref'ing with my AE file Image
next is -suppae.csv
this seems to be a classification file for AEs. each AE has three rows, very rarely is there a "Y" under "Dose limiting toxicity". might be interesting to compare with the actual AEs Image
next is S-D-se.csv
seems to be a timeline per patient listing intervals between screening, pre-dose assessment, vax dates, and followup.

lots of patients with "NA" under followupπŸ€”some patients don't even have a fifth "FUP" row. will look at prev files if theres smthg to x-ref Image
next is S-D-pe.csv
this is a list of medical assessments of different parts of the body per patient per visit(>20 rows/pt). very peculiar as many patients who had AEs get a clean sheet in this file. another one to x-ref with the AE listings. Image
last BNT162-01 file in this batch is S-D-ce.csv
this seems to be another AE list by type, time of onset, prime/boost related, and systemic or injection site related. at first glance there seems to be more AEs listed than made it into the other AE filesπŸ€” Image
pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/110122/1…
the possibly juiciest item in this drop however is this rat fertility/teratogenicity study from june-oct 2020, which has a lot of very questionable results: ImageImage
so that's it for the brief overview! looking forward to digging into this batch in greater detail, but now i'm off to work πŸ’ͺπŸ’ͺ #stoptheshots #readthefiles

β€’ β€’ β€’

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
γ€€

Keep Current with a_concerned_robespierre_enthusiast πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦πŸ’œπŸ­

a_concerned_robespierre_enthusiast πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦πŸ’œπŸ­ Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @a_nineties

Oct 18
Why the full spike? a🧡

Study BNT162-01 dosed its first patient on April 23rd.

On April 29th, BioNTech reported that the first cohort had been dosed, implying 12 pts per candidate.

This is not factual. The first BNT162b2 patient in Cohort 1 was dosed on 15th June. >>
C4591001 dosed its first patient April 29th.

The first two doses of BNT162b2 were administered on June 8th.

So the first 1.5 months of clinical trials were spent testing BNT162a1, -b1, and -c2. >>
Looking at the BNT162-01 protocol, BNT162c1 (saRNA encoding only the RBD of S protein) was replaced by BNT162c2 (saRNA encoding full 2P-spike) prior to any patients being dosed.

Did the same happen with BNT162b1/b2, just a little bit later on? >>
Read 16 tweets
Jun 12
" Listing of Subjects Withdrawn From the Study"
phmpt.org/wp-content/upl…
first two pages tell us that no patients of the phase 1 trial discontinued between doses. however, the 100ug data was not used in the calculations, despite the participants being boostered with a 10ug dose..
.., because the original 100ug dose had a shit safety profile! as for the first table, could it be referring to the bnt162b1 cohort, whose data also wasn't used?
so phase 2, the 180/180 group, only had one withdrawal? it appears so, see linked tweet#1
however, how did they manage so much better dose1+dose2 compliance compared to bnt162-01 b2 group and phase 3, as we're about to see?
Read 23 tweets
Jun 2
casually scrolling through this months phmpt.org pfizer pfraud pfiles, and what dost mine eyes behold! famotidine and ivermectine are covid-19 therapeutics in a clinical trial setting, whatever the fuck that means. is the #gtmp not given in a trial setting? fuckers Image
phmpt.org/wp-content/upl…
19/334 good to know it wasn't just bnt162b2 being tested in the clinical trials. somehow that fact rarely finds mention. and yeah, stabilising the cleavage site is gonna enhance "immunogenicity" aka damage. Image
was there evidence of "non-vaccine-related" disease enhancement or fertility/fetal dev/postnatal dev, though?
some interesting details on the april 2020 german human dose finding study ImageImage
Read 36 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(