https://x.com/A1an_M/status/1783807671134478425
I don't think it's widely known but three out of four of the phase 3 AZ COVID vaccine trials used to measure its safety and effectiveness prior to its emergency use approval used a Meningitis vaccine, not saline, as the comparator with the COVID vaccine under test.
Talk about stacking the odds in your favour! It's basically saying "even though any vaccine causes the immune system to be overstimulated and carries a risk of autoimmune issues and a host of other potential adverse reactions we're going to ignore all of that and just say it's no different from a saline placebo"!
Unbelievable.
It's like using an old climate model to "prove" that a new climate model is correct.
Corrupt, junk science.
Link to AZ document on the topic:
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centr ... ancet.html#
AZD1222 Oxford Phase III trials interim analysis results published in The Lancet
PUBLISHED: 8 December 2020
Interim analysis showed vaccine is effective at preventing COVID-19, with no severe cases and no hospitalisations more than 21 days after first injection
Regulatory submissions underway to support approval
Results of an interim analysis of the Phase III programme conducted by Oxford University with AZD1222, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet today, demonstrated that the vaccine is safe and effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and that it protects against severe disease and hospitalisation. The interim analysis for efficacy was based on 11,636 participants accruing 131 symptomatic infections from the Phase III UK and Brazil trials conducted by Oxford University.
As announced on 23 November 2020, the primary efficacy endpoint of the programme statistical plan, based on the pooling of two dosing regimens, showed that the vaccine is 70.4% (95.8% CI: 54.8% to 80.6%) effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 occurring more than 14 days after receiving two doses of the vaccine. A secondary efficacy endpoint of prevention of severe disease demonstrated no cases of severe infections or hospitalisations in the vaccine group.
A further analysis of the efficacy regimens showed that when the vaccine was given as two full doses, vaccine efficacy was 62.1% (n=8,895; CI 41.0% to 75.7%), and 90.0% (n=2,741; CI 67.4% to 97.0%) in participants who received a half dose followed by a full dose.
Vaccine efficacy was also assessed on the secondary endpoint of early prevention of severe disease after the first dose. There were no hospitalisations or severe cases of COVID-19 more than 21 days after the first dose of the vaccine. Ten participants in the control group were hospitalised due to COVID-19, among whom two were assessed as severe, including one fatal case...
Let's say both the vaccine and comparator have an ingredient in common - an adjuvant for example.
And that adjuvant causes 1 serious adverse event every 1,000 doses.
Meanwhile the other ingredients in the vaccine cause 1 serious adverse event every 10,000 doses, and in the comparator vaccine 1 every 50,000 doses.
In terms of AEs, for the vaccine you have 55 serious AEs every 50,000 doses, and for the comparator 51 every 50,000 doses.
As a percentage they look very similar, don't they? 0.11% versus 0.102% Both "99.9% safe".
So the trial report states, accurately but misleadingly "There was no statistical difference between the vaccine and the comparator"
But in reality, they are both not very safe, the new vaccine is less safe than the comparator, and we have absolutely no idea how dangerous the vaccine is compared to nothing at all.
Vaccine research is junk/tobacco science.
No vaccine has been tested against a true placebo. They use another vaccine instead.
Inject mercury in both groups & vaccine looks "safe."
If 2 brands of cigarettes are tested with similar lung cancer outcome, it doesn't prove safety.
Unfortunately, this is par for the course. Generally speaking, most if not all vaccine trials use a non-placebo solution for the control. It's either a previous generation vaccine, or the experimental vaccine without the viral material (still contains the adjuvants and other active ingredients).
This is one of the methods they use to hide the safety signals.
I recommend "Turtles All the Way Down" as an excellent, yet infuriating, primer on the topic.
That's how the majority of Vaccine 'safety' trials are done.
Use an existing vaccine that is considered safe (but which has never actually undergone safety trails itself) as the comparator.