A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients
And how about this?
Another showed vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.
And the real kicker:
In several cases Ventavia lacked enough employees to swab all trial participants who reported covid-like symptoms, to test for infection. Laboratory confirmed symptomatic covid-19 was the trial’s primary endpoint, the employee noted. (An FDA review memorandum released in August this year states that across the full trial swabs were not taken from 477 people with suspected cases of symptomatic covid-19.)
The entire premise of 95% efficacy came from this study where 8 people from vaccine group and 162 people from placebo group tested positive for Covid (<1% error margin). These missing 477 people is almost thrice that population and could have completely upended the results.
When you take the unblinding and the exclusion of 477 people from testing, the picture emerges that perhaps they knew which patient was control and which was vaccined, and hence eliminated the vaccined from testing.
When I first read this trial I had a strong suspicion this is what happened, but I had no way to prove that they had the means to know who were vaccinated.
I am not really sure what your issue is. Go back and look at the original EUA that quoted these studies. Go back and look at the videos by Robert Malone and others, who criticised these numbers quoting specifically these studies.
but don't go down the rabbit hole of jumping on some small thing in the hopes of proving that.
Yeah, I think we not only have to contend with Sheeple who have their eyes closed but also with people who have their eyes very partially opened and are so scared to believe anything slightly outrageous to be true. Good luck when more and more outrageous stuff comes out, and I mean that sincerely.
Yes, the 95% number did. Good Lord. Don't go saying stupid crap. It makes all of us who are skeptical look like morons. If you don't know, don't say it. The 95% did in fact come from this study. They had 43,000 people. Half got the vax. Half didn't. They waited a few months and screened anyone who showed up with flu-like symptoms. 8 positive cases in the vaxxed group, 162 in the placebo group --> 95% efficacy.
So, if you just don't bother to screen your test subjects when they have flu-like respiratory symptoms, it makes it look like the drug is more effective than it actually is. In truth, those people could be: 1) sick with something else (no change), 2) all in the placebo group (vax is even better), or 3) heavily in the vax group (vax is much worse). But we don't know because they didn't get the PCR test. Any proper peer-reviewer would toss the study on this and any proper journal with integrity would retract the paper. It's not a small deal.
What exact word would you use to describe this ?
And how about this?
And the real kicker:
The entire premise of 95% efficacy came from this study where 8 people from vaccine group and 162 people from placebo group tested positive for Covid (<1% error margin). These missing 477 people is almost thrice that population and could have completely upended the results.
When you take the unblinding and the exclusion of 477 people from testing, the picture emerges that perhaps they knew which patient was control and which was vaccined, and hence eliminated the vaccined from testing.
When I first read this trial I had a strong suspicion this is what happened, but I had no way to prove that they had the means to know who were vaccinated.
The 95% didn't come from this study.
We all know the vaxx is a disaster, but don't go down the rabbit hole of jumping on some small thing in the hopes of proving that.
We need to be honest in our research so people can replicate and follow on their own.
I am not really sure what your issue is. Go back and look at the original EUA that quoted these studies. Go back and look at the videos by Robert Malone and others, who criticised these numbers quoting specifically these studies.
Yeah, I think we not only have to contend with Sheeple who have their eyes closed but also with people who have their eyes very partially opened and are so scared to believe anything slightly outrageous to be true. Good luck when more and more outrageous stuff comes out, and I mean that sincerely.
Soooo you still didn't read the article you linked?
Yes, the 95% number did. Good Lord. Don't go saying stupid crap. It makes all of us who are skeptical look like morons. If you don't know, don't say it. The 95% did in fact come from this study. They had 43,000 people. Half got the vax. Half didn't. They waited a few months and screened anyone who showed up with flu-like symptoms. 8 positive cases in the vaxxed group, 162 in the placebo group --> 95% efficacy.
So, if you just don't bother to screen your test subjects when they have flu-like respiratory symptoms, it makes it look like the drug is more effective than it actually is. In truth, those people could be: 1) sick with something else (no change), 2) all in the placebo group (vax is even better), or 3) heavily in the vax group (vax is much worse). But we don't know because they didn't get the PCR test. Any proper peer-reviewer would toss the study on this and any proper journal with integrity would retract the paper. It's not a small deal.
That is not what that article says at all.