Pubpeer blocks valid bug reports from publication... to keep an illusion of transparency ?

Below a bug report which should have been accepted - or the label should at the very least have been fixed.

But hey, if you want, you can buy the data they scrapped on Pubmed 🤔

@brandonstell.bsky.social

They also delayed the efficacy announcement to deny Trump his political victory, so I'm not sure he would be very well disposed toward Pfizer.
openvaet.substack.com/p/pfizerbion...

Aside for the fact that you didn't audited the data when you inspected these sites, otherwise the frauds would have been obvious.
Trump did rush the vaccine to score a political win, but we know Pfizer delayed the efficacy announcement to deny him this win 🙄...
openvaet.substack.com/p/pfizerbion...

What do they mean, it wasn't the case before 🤔?

File that under "common sense" 👇

open.alberta.ca/publications...

@vikilovesfacs.bsky.social @debunk-the-funk.bsky.social @pauloffit.bsky.social

We addressed the part of "it being double blind" - it was neither, for the team or the participants - as long as they had a functioning brain at least.

After EUA the placebo recipients were offered the active product.

Obviously you weren't concerned by "having a functioning brain" 🤨

This shows independent corroboration of that these 252 treatment subjects from sites that received lot EE8493 were the only ones who were intended for the comparison between processes 1 and 2.

The comparison of process 1 vs process 2 recruitment has been represented on a weekly chart.

19/

A document lists which lots were supplied to each site as of Nov. 19, 2020. In that document, the only P2 lot listed is EE8493. Therefore, it can be inferred that EE8493 was the only P2 lot that had been distributed to the study sites when the comparison of P1 vs. P2 began on October 19, 2020.

11/

In a reply to FOI request 23/510, the United Kingdom’s Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) attested that “the first clinical batch which contained process 2 drug substance was dosed 19th October 2020 in US”.

10/

A document released by the FDA details which lots had been shipped to which clinical research site at approximately 6 months into the trial. It is dated March 17, 2021 and titled “125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-interim-mth6-patient-batches.pdf”.

phmpt.org/wp-content/u...

6/

A document made public by the TGA, FOI 3659 document 4, titled “BNT162b2 (PF-07302048) Comparability Report for PPQ Drug Product Lots”, lists the lots distributed, their use and their corresponding production processes.

5/

The differences between processes 1 and 2 are not trivial. A document from the TGA details some key changes performed between “P1” and “P2”. In P1, the DNA template for mRNA transcription was produced via PCR-amplification; P2 uses linearized plasmid DNA cultured in E. coli bacteria.

4/

In the development of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, BNT162b2 (commercially known as Comirnaty), Pfizer/BioNTech used two distinct manufacturing methods, which they referred to as “Process 1” ("P1") and “Process 2” ("P2").

www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10...

3/

A thread on Pfizer's Process 1, Process 2, and why it matters.

As a preembule, let's let @pauloffit.bsky.social explain the old rule of the industry : "The process is the product" - with a short extract from "The Curious Case of Science".

1/