I am sorry but everything to do with the Covid travesty was "misleading by design", vaccines just came at the end of the whole debacle. No injection/ vaccine should be administered under bribing, coercion, shaming, shunning or name calling any individual even if it was shown to be 100% effective. All of us must have control over what is put into our bodies without fear of retaliation be it social, personal or physical. If the substance is safe and effective then it must be left to each individual to choose and take responsibility for that choice. The vaccine trials in my opinion were a show/theatre and the end result was always going to be that they were safe and effective. The script was written far in advance of the deployment of the Covid injection.
"On the other hand, vaccines are designed with the primary goal of keeping individuals healthy by preventing the onset of a specific disease. Therefore, the efficacy of vaccines is best measured by comparing the health status among participants at the end of the trial."
This is the main point in this article from my perspective. Did the vaccine prevent more illness than it caused? The intervention may prevent some symptomatic illness, but how much illness did it provoke?
The shortest way to measure this is to use mortality data. We should mainly be concerned with "all-cause mortality" at the end of the trial. Vaccines are rarely subjected to this test and so there is an embarrassing lack of evidence that they do indeed reduce mortality. Pharma will say such a study has to be too large and last too long. I say regulators should insist.
I disagree with the quoted statement. Vaccines should prevent _serious outcomes, death or hospitalization, not cases. There's nothing wrong with _merely being ill for a while.
Imagine a trial with 100 people in each arm. One person a week suffers symptomatic illness in both arms (because the intervention is ineffective). Those who become ill in the treatment arm are counted as being in the placebo arm for the first two weeks (because the intervention is believed ineffective for this time).
Total numbers who are cases:
Week. Intervention Arm Placebo Arm
1...........0............................2
2..........0.............................4
3...........1............................ 5
4..........2 ............................6
5..........3.............................7
60........56..........................64
120......116.........................124
etc
The intervention appears to work (at a statistically significant level) up to about three months.
This is the bias introduced when there is no efficacy, right?
But what I am saying is that there is negative efficacy in the first few days, particularly after dose 1.
This not only worsens outcomes on the individual level, but also affects transmission dynamics. These vaccines boosted covid waves, especially in the second half of 2021.
And how very ironic, that most critics are busy denying COVID is an infectious disease at all. And even more are convinced the RT-qPCR test is useless, when it is in fact the smoking gun.
Almost a silly heading to this article! No disrespect meant! But most of us seem to know the whole Covid & DEADLY VAX scam was introduced by design after several years of Planning!
It seems there are more diseases and illnesses caused by the DEADLY COVID JAB. The crap does nothing to stop or reduce the man-made virus. The jab, they pretend is a 'Vaccine', seems to reduce our natural resistance to every known illness. The jab also stimulates long-forgotten illnesses we might have historically recovered from AND seems to introduce new diseases and CANCERS along with many other DEADLY complications. But still, the murderous vax-makers deny all LIABILITY and RESPONSIBILITY for health issues and DEATHS their injections so obviously cause.
HEADS MUST ROLL (literally) for the pre-meditated mass murders the vax makers planned with their co-conspirators at the CDC & FDA.
We cannot simply let these insane criminals apologise and expect to continue a normal life, while millions have died due to their greed or insane beliefs which we've all had to endure.
Hopefully, there are some honest and fair leaders who have the will to rid us of the tyrants who wanted us dead or injured for their profit. If we don't exterminate these vermin they will try again!
NEVER AGAIN is my motto - even though I baulked at many of the ridiculous Rules and restrictions that effectively destroyed every nation's economy through insane restrictions that we will never recover from.
Destroying our National economies with ridiculous Lockdowns and segregation was probably one of the WEF's New World Order intentions to justify the urgent introduction of digital currencies and the banning of CASH MONEY!
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed and ready to fight dirty!
The data acquired via force of law via FOI shows them excluding any bad looking participant using a variety of excuses, including falsely stating deaths and injures weren't related without presenting evidence as to why, and even using overt forms of racism.
They gave two different products; one for clinical, one for commercial. Commercial was subpar by a wide margin. This was only revealed by the EMA documents leak, and not via any public form of transparency.
So saying their trials were 'misleading by design' is like saying Ian Brady is 'a bit deadly'.
[V]accines are designed with the primary goal of keeping individuals healthy by preventing the onset of a specific disease. Therefore, the efficacy of vaccines is best measured by comparing the health status among participants at the end of the trial. This involves assessing how many individuals remained healthy and disease-free in the vaccinated group versus the control group. Such an approach accurately reflects the preventive nature of vaccines.
But of course, how do you measure those, in either group, who don't (or do) get sick due to other reasons, NOT connected to the vaccine? For example, innate immunity? What then of your 'control'?
I am impressed by Harvey Risch's recent Brownstone article on randomized control trials. He points out that the purpose of an RCT is to neutralize the effect of unknown confounders. A confounded is an unknown quantity which relates to the whole number of participant subjects and _both arms of the result. Therefore there must be a sufficiently large number in both outcomes to randomize successfully. If the vaccinated arm has only 8 people catching covid after a week, this could easily be by chance. The vax outcome arm is not randomized and the Pfizer paper should not have passed inspection. This thinking is proven by the real world observation that efficacy was far less than 95%. For the first time I understood what an "under-powered" RCT meant.
I am sorry but everything to do with the Covid travesty was "misleading by design", vaccines just came at the end of the whole debacle. No injection/ vaccine should be administered under bribing, coercion, shaming, shunning or name calling any individual even if it was shown to be 100% effective. All of us must have control over what is put into our bodies without fear of retaliation be it social, personal or physical. If the substance is safe and effective then it must be left to each individual to choose and take responsibility for that choice. The vaccine trials in my opinion were a show/theatre and the end result was always going to be that they were safe and effective. The script was written far in advance of the deployment of the Covid injection.
Even if it makes us invincible it should have never been forced on anyone.
Imho the public dicourse needs to focus on that sooner or later.
"On the other hand, vaccines are designed with the primary goal of keeping individuals healthy by preventing the onset of a specific disease. Therefore, the efficacy of vaccines is best measured by comparing the health status among participants at the end of the trial."
This is the main point in this article from my perspective. Did the vaccine prevent more illness than it caused? The intervention may prevent some symptomatic illness, but how much illness did it provoke?
The shortest way to measure this is to use mortality data. We should mainly be concerned with "all-cause mortality" at the end of the trial. Vaccines are rarely subjected to this test and so there is an embarrassing lack of evidence that they do indeed reduce mortality. Pharma will say such a study has to be too large and last too long. I say regulators should insist.
I disagree with the quoted statement. Vaccines should prevent _serious outcomes, death or hospitalization, not cases. There's nothing wrong with _merely being ill for a while.
Depends on the seriousness of the illness and your vulnerability I suppose.
Agreed
Moderna didn't include vaccinees who became infected within 14 days of dose 1 in their primary aim and I think Pfizer excluded them altogether.
This would suggest they knew very well that the prognosis in this subpopulation was very poor.
Or am I mistaken there? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Imagine a trial with 100 people in each arm. One person a week suffers symptomatic illness in both arms (because the intervention is ineffective). Those who become ill in the treatment arm are counted as being in the placebo arm for the first two weeks (because the intervention is believed ineffective for this time).
Total numbers who are cases:
Week. Intervention Arm Placebo Arm
1...........0............................2
2..........0.............................4
3...........1............................ 5
4..........2 ............................6
5..........3.............................7
60........56..........................64
120......116.........................124
etc
The intervention appears to work (at a statistically significant level) up to about three months.
Remind you of anything?
This is the bias introduced when there is no efficacy, right?
But what I am saying is that there is negative efficacy in the first few days, particularly after dose 1.
This not only worsens outcomes on the individual level, but also affects transmission dynamics. These vaccines boosted covid waves, especially in the second half of 2021.
Yes by counting new cases (for the first two weeks in the vaccine arm) as people in the placebo arm they would cover up this effect. Oh dear!
Oh dear indeed. An unspeakable crime.
And how very ironic, that most critics are busy denying COVID is an infectious disease at all. And even more are convinced the RT-qPCR test is useless, when it is in fact the smoking gun.
Almost a silly heading to this article! No disrespect meant! But most of us seem to know the whole Covid & DEADLY VAX scam was introduced by design after several years of Planning!
It seems there are more diseases and illnesses caused by the DEADLY COVID JAB. The crap does nothing to stop or reduce the man-made virus. The jab, they pretend is a 'Vaccine', seems to reduce our natural resistance to every known illness. The jab also stimulates long-forgotten illnesses we might have historically recovered from AND seems to introduce new diseases and CANCERS along with many other DEADLY complications. But still, the murderous vax-makers deny all LIABILITY and RESPONSIBILITY for health issues and DEATHS their injections so obviously cause.
HEADS MUST ROLL (literally) for the pre-meditated mass murders the vax makers planned with their co-conspirators at the CDC & FDA.
We cannot simply let these insane criminals apologise and expect to continue a normal life, while millions have died due to their greed or insane beliefs which we've all had to endure.
Hopefully, there are some honest and fair leaders who have the will to rid us of the tyrants who wanted us dead or injured for their profit. If we don't exterminate these vermin they will try again!
NEVER AGAIN is my motto - even though I baulked at many of the ridiculous Rules and restrictions that effectively destroyed every nation's economy through insane restrictions that we will never recover from.
Destroying our National economies with ridiculous Lockdowns and segregation was probably one of the WEF's New World Order intentions to justify the urgent introduction of digital currencies and the banning of CASH MONEY!
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed and ready to fight dirty!
"Were covid vaccine trials misleading by design?"
Worse, they were evidently fraudulent.
Raw data has been withheld.
The data acquired via force of law via FOI shows them excluding any bad looking participant using a variety of excuses, including falsely stating deaths and injures weren't related without presenting evidence as to why, and even using overt forms of racism.
They gave two different products; one for clinical, one for commercial. Commercial was subpar by a wide margin. This was only revealed by the EMA documents leak, and not via any public form of transparency.
So saying their trials were 'misleading by design' is like saying Ian Brady is 'a bit deadly'.
You write:
[V]accines are designed with the primary goal of keeping individuals healthy by preventing the onset of a specific disease. Therefore, the efficacy of vaccines is best measured by comparing the health status among participants at the end of the trial. This involves assessing how many individuals remained healthy and disease-free in the vaccinated group versus the control group. Such an approach accurately reflects the preventive nature of vaccines.
But of course, how do you measure those, in either group, who don't (or do) get sick due to other reasons, NOT connected to the vaccine? For example, innate immunity? What then of your 'control'?
I am impressed by Harvey Risch's recent Brownstone article on randomized control trials. He points out that the purpose of an RCT is to neutralize the effect of unknown confounders. A confounded is an unknown quantity which relates to the whole number of participant subjects and _both arms of the result. Therefore there must be a sufficiently large number in both outcomes to randomize successfully. If the vaccinated arm has only 8 people catching covid after a week, this could easily be by chance. The vax outcome arm is not randomized and the Pfizer paper should not have passed inspection. This thinking is proven by the real world observation that efficacy was far less than 95%. For the first time I understood what an "under-powered" RCT meant.
To correct myself, 8 out of 22,000 could in greater or lesser part be by chance.