I will have to go back and pull the original trial data that was part of what was submitted to the FDA for the EUA. The parameters were set around reduction of symptoms and antibody levels. I am not discounting Pfizer's slick slide of hand here. This is not the first time they have manipulated and massaged the data to make it sound like something that it never was. Early on when the trail data first came out, the information was buried in the study. What they claimed as effectiveness for them was the finding of antibodies and symptom reduction. They in turn then speculated that a rise in antibodies levels theoretically equated to a relative reduction in infection risk. It was a joke. Public Health officials then took that data and spun it into whatever they wanted it to be and gave that to the public. I have never had much use for Public Health studies or conclusions. It is not even real science.

It is unethical and illegal to deliberately infect a human test subject to evaluate whether or not a vaxxine is effective in preventing infection. So technically, there is no way Pfizer or any other vaxxine manufacturer can say that a vaxxine is effective in preventing infection on human studies alone. They were not lying when they said that the studies were not done - because those types of studies are only done in animals - and those animal studies were never done - at least no animal studies that were ever made public. Go figure. The results that Pfizer was getting from the human trials was so bad that they unblinded the study and conflated the control group with the test group by offering the jab to the controls. Not only were their test subjects getting sick, they were also suffering from side effects. That data at that point became forever useless.

I worked in medical research for over 10 years. The devil is always in the details of the studies. The language they use is always tricky. The sentence that you quoted never actually states a reduction in transmission. What is meant by "effective against" is left open to interpretation. It is all just BS. They were measuring antibody levels - so what. The OP doc was a CDC document and even the language used makes it sound like both the EUA product and the brand product are identical. This is why they are trying so hard to cover up the data that was actually submitted for authorization and was the basis for the approvals. What they release to the public is unclear and far from forthcoming.

This confusion is just like the language used in the FDA licensing of Comirnaty. It gives the impression that the EUA version of the jab and the licensed product are interchangeable legally. They are not. But the language that Pfizer and the FDA used was deliberately meant to obfuscate. They are still keeping the waters muddy looking at this CDC doc. They are not clear with what they mean to avoid legal liability. That is why it is so hard to sue these bastards. They bend the language to the point of breakage. I got out of research because the entire process made me disgusted.

Thanks for your reply.

I will have to go back and pull the original trial data that was part of what was submitted to the FDA for the EUA. The parameters were set around reduction of symptoms and antibody levels. I am not discounting Pfizer's slick slide of hand here. This is not the first time they have manipulated the data to make it sound like something that it never was. Early on when the trail data first came out, the information was buried in the study. What they claimed as effectiveness for them was the finding of antibodies and symptom reduction. They in turn then speculated that a rise in antibodies levels theoretically equated to a relative reduction in infection risk. It was a joke. Public Health officials then took that data and spun it into whatever they wanted it to be and gave that to the public. I have never had much use for Public Health studies or conclusions. It is not even real science.

It is unethical and illegal to deliberately infect a human test subject to evaluate whether or not a vaxxine is effective in preventing infection. So technically, there is no way Pfizer or any other vaxxine manufacturer can say that a vaxxine is effective in preventing infection on human studies alone. They were not lying when they said that the studies were not done - because those types of studies are only done in animals - and those animal studies were never done - at least no animal studies that were ever made public. Go figure. The results that Pfizer was getting from the human trials was so bad that they unblinded the study and conflated the control group with the test group by offering the jab to the controls. Not only were their test subjects getting sick, they were also suffering from side effects. That data at that point became forever useless.

I worked in medical research for over 10 years. The devil is always in the details of the studies. The language they use is always tricky. The sentence that you quoted never actually states a reduction in transmission. What is meant by "effective against" is left open to interpretation. It is all just BS. They were measuring antibody levels - so what. The OP doc was a CDC document and even the language used makes it sound like both the EUA product and the brand product are identical. This is why they are trying so hard to cover up the data that was actually submitted for authorization and was the basis for the approvals. What they release to the public is unclear and far from forthcoming.

This confusion is just like the language used in the FDA licensing of Comirnaty. It gives the impression that the EUA version of the jab and the licensed product are interchangeable legally. They are not. But the language that Pfizer and the FDA used was deliberately meant to obfuscate. They are still keeping the waters muddy looking at this CDC doc. They are not clear with what they mean to avoid legal liability. That is why it is so hard to sue these bastards. They bend the language to the point of breakage. I got out of research because the entire process made me disgusted.

Thanks for your reply.