Pfizer Vaccine Efficacy Explained - Coronavirus News
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 11. 2020
- As you're here on CZcams, you may want to watch "How Social Media Hacks Your Brain" • How Social Media Hacks... -~-
The math behind the reports of 95% efficacy for the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine.
Click here to subscribe: czcams.com/users/methodsmanm...
Get more medical news analysis at www.methodsman.com or www.medscape.com - Věda a technologie
Here's to hoping I'm in the 22,000 - 162 group. That is >99% chance of no problem with no vaccine.
None of the efficacy has been independently verified so we don't really know what is the real efficacy except taking the vendor's word for it.
Taking the word of the biggest liars on the planet shielded from lawsuits ...that is just shear genius!!
We still have a problem, that is, how long has this study took? Because if it haven't had enough time, these numbers could change. Like 3 months later, the Vaccinated group could catch COVID19 and these numbers changes and the 95% of efficacy could decrease.
also the results exclude the people they took out of the study between the first and second jab
According to the Pfizer BioNtech request for emergency use authorization document submitted to the FDA, their vaccine's efficacy was determined seven days after the second dose had been administered. This extremely short cut-off probably explains why only 170 participants contracted Sars-CoV-2 coronavirus.
You can review and download Pfizer's complete EUA request document submitted to the FDA at: www.fda.gov/media/144245/download
Indeed. In fact this efficacy is based on 2 months observation only.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7745181/
In most of 3rd phase vaccine trial, the outcome is measured between 6 months to 2 years in order to measure efficacy and the need of booster. So basically most of efficacy mentione in these vaccines is not the final one.
@@keselekbakiak thanks very much. the best part is some manufacturers used meningitis vaccine as the placebo. a vaccine with well known side effects that overlap nicely with the Rona. if they used saline as a placebo, the huge difference in side effects would be quite apparent and that doesn't look good for any vaccine.
@@andyp8464 thank you. I think they choose meningitis vaccine is a good comparation for aide effect, because if it's worse that means the side effect outweight its benefit. However i think pfizer is better, because at least they publish the claim and we can judge it. Sinovac which is already given greenlight in some countries is way less reliable. In fact sinovac phase 2 trial is based on seroconversion rate, while pfizer use the covid case as measurement.
I heard somewhere that the FDA in the USA requires both relative and absolute risk to be reported. But only relative is reported thru the media and not the 0.71% absolute. Why is this? Since if it’s FDA mandate, won’t only reporting one type of metric be going against the rules? Thanks :)
Because it's 1. easier to understand. 2. You can't transpose it to other countries. Relative risk reduction is a bit more universal.
@@hellmaestroosu792 It's very misleading
Thank you! I took your coursera course and it was incredibly helpful during this time
Asymptomatic covid 19 positive persons...were they also represented in these figures?
@@Mycountryfirst1980you were not excluded from the trial (phase 3) if you had covid prior to it and were asymptomatic. Also not excluded if you were positive and asymptomatic either at visit 1 (first shot) or any time between visit 1 and 2 (second shot). We were swabbed during both visits.
And yet many people believe it’s 95% effective to their body. they don’t know 95% is referring to the group of people who might not be infected. risky one
I'm still confused about this. Any sugestion of where I can see explained this fact that 95% is regarding a group rather than an individual?
.03 × 100= 3% is the efficiency
@@joaovitorguedesaguiar103 Easy: in normal, unvaccinated circumstances, 162 would catch the virus while in vaccinated circumstances only 8 would. 8 is the 5% of 162. So if you were one of those that would get infected, having taken the vaccine would diminish your risk to 5% only.
Thank you for the concise overview!
So it's an arbitrary number depending on far too many variables that have little to no direct correlation between receiving the vaccine or not. This number could quite easily be manipulated
What variables?
Will this be carried out in the actual vaccination programme I.e a control vs case group to see how effective the vaccine has been in a country?
It is staggering to me that only 170 un-vaccinated people contracted the virus. How were these people exposed? Surely the infection rate (based on exposure) in real life is significantly higher than 170/20K.
Relative Risk to a Generalised Population means absolutely nothing.
this hasnt aged well
This didn't age well.
Taking these numbers, I got an absolute risk reduction of 0.704%, thus a NNT (Number Needed to Treat to prevent 1 more case) of 142.....that’s a really high ratio, as medicine tries to be as low as possible, to be as effective as possible (like, under 10 NNT, lower is better as it shows how many people need it to prevent another case from occurring)
Thanks this is very helpful.
Do you know the age groups in this trial?
The link to Pfizer's EUA request submitted to the FDA that I linked above breaks this down into age groups and provides a lot of other useful info.
Thanks Dr. Wilson. How do we know that 162 cases is statistically significant? That seems like an awfully small number!
We know what to expect if there was no difference - roughly the same number in both groups, right? We also know (thanks to the binomial distribution) how far away from that even split you can get by chance. It's like we flipped a coin 162 times and only got 8 heads. Not a normal coin!
@@fperrywilson I disagree, if less than one percent of the people taking the placebo got Covid and none of them died of Covid it leads me to believe that either Covid is not deadly to warrant vaccination or that the viral load used was too small to cause serious infection rendering the study worthless. Unless we have a real study with many deaths occurring in the group not taking the vaccine you will have a hard time convincing anybody to take the vaccine, there should have been an animal trial first to show death reduction in vaccine versus non-vaccine groups but that critical part of the trial process was skipped which is why so many people do not trust this vaccine.
@@fperrywilson We (they) didn't flip a coin because the groups were never exposed intentionally to the virus. So the numbers are indeed small ( close to statistical error) .
@@fperrywilson is this correct? If you flipped a coin 162 times it is entirely possible a fair coin will give you 8 heads. But as flips converge to infinity, the law of large numbers predicts you will get 50%, but the law of small numbers does not. You are exhibiting the bias, belief in the law of small numbers.
@@chrisdawson7269 Hi Chris. You are correct, it is POSSIBLE that you could flip a fair coin 162 times and only get 8 heads, but it would be extremely unlikely. How unlikely? We can use the binomial distribution to calculate that! There is a handy calculator here: stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx You'll see if you put in 0.5 as the probability of success (that's assuming random chance / a fair coin), and 162 trials and 8 observed successes, you'll get an output that shows you that such a result happens less than one in a million times. Not impossible, but highly improbable. So now we have to interpret the data with that in mind. Option 1 - the vaccine didn't work and the company got really REALLLY lucky - like INSANELY lucky (and so did moderna who did an independent trial with similar results). Or option 2- the vaccine actually worked. You are right we can never be 100% sure when we do studies like this - it's all about strength of evidence. The evidence here strongly, very strongly, implies that the vaccine works.
Can you clarify the meaning of "Catch Covid-19"? Does it include very minor infection, or only severe infection? Asymptomatic infection is included?
Thanks for sharing this. Can you please post the link to the original dataset. Do we have demographic information on the people who took part in the trial? Do we know if people who are in the treatment and control have similar health conditions?
I wish! We don't have a medical publication about this vaccine yet, much less a publicly accessible dataset. This is all just pieced together from their press releases, etc... Hopefully soon?
@@fperrywilson Don't you think we are entitled to it? At least, given the impact of this pandemic... Since you are a practitioner, why would they refrain from releasing the dataset alongside the numbers? Is the public legally not allowed to access this data?
@@salmabouzid2684 I think we're 100% entitled to it. And I expect they'll release it soon. The efficacy numbers are so called "top line" results. Often, once the data is in, you do a quick analysis of your primary outcome just to see what you have / strategize next steps. But then they still have to go through all the other variables that will go into the dataset, verify them, etc. It can take time. In my experience, you sometimes calculate topline results like the day after you get to the required number of events. The process of creating the analytic dataset and the manuscript takes a bit more time. But I imagine they'll get there quickly because they'll know that transparency is the best way to increase acceptance of the vaccine.
@@fperrywilson well, I agreed with this comment...
But its been over a week and the UK government is talking about rolling the Pfizer vaccine out to care homes as early as next week (7/12/20).
And the data have not been released to the British public, there is infact no discussion whatsoever regarding side effects and age group efficacy.
@@Anon-xd3cf the efficacy of the vaccine is completely unknown. The trial was a fiasco, less than one percent in the placebo group got Covid, 0.74 percent to be precise, and nobody died of Covid-19. Nobody in their sane mind based on these results would take the vaccine and risk side effects when so few people on the trial that did not take the vaccine developed Covid-19 and nobody died without the vaccine of the 22,000 people. They need to conduct a proper trial in animals, as every other vaccine has done in the past, and compare deaths in vaccinated versus non-vaccinated groups. This trial is a waste of skin, totally useless, and frankly we have no clue if this vaccine is even effective at preventing death because no deaths of Covid occurred in those that did not take the vaccine.
Excellent! Clearest explanation yet. Thank you
thqt's dumb calculation. Here's how it's done.
Problem with trials by Pfizer/Moderan is.. they cannot for certainty say that all those 30,000-43,000 people (placebo and vaccinated) for exposed to the virus. Wihout knowing that the data of merely 160 or 8, people reporting symptoms means nothing.. and they cannot calculate efficacy sing thos efew people... this is blatantly cheeating and misleading people. Here's how the correct calculation shold happen for their data.. Otherwise, they have to make all those participants of the Trial sniff the real virus. But problem is they have never isolated the virus.. ha ha...
COVID-19 Vaccine: Relative versus Absolute Efficacy
COVID-19 vaccine trials appear to have caused huge confusion. Let’s clear this up. People genuinely appear to believe that the COVID-19 vaccines have undergone clinical trials and have been proven to be both safe and effective. That belief is simply wrong.
Understand the Difference between Relative Efficacy vs. Absolute Efficacy
Everyone was thoroughly impressed with the 95% effective claim. However, this was based upon relative risk reduction. That is the declared percentage difference between the vaccinated group’s 8/18310 chance (0.044%) of developing COVID-19 against a 162/18319 (0.884%) chance of COVID-19 symptoms without the vaccine.
It should be noted this only refers to an alleged reduction of COVID 19 symptoms among those who have the virus. The tested endpoints do not demonstrate that the vaccine will either reduce the spread of infection or save lives. It should also be noted that these figures suggest the threat from COVID-19 is vanishingly small.
Using Pfizer’s figures, the relative risk reduction = 100 [1 - (0.044/0.884)]. Which is 95%. Voila! This sounds fantastic and is a much better marketing strategy than reporting the absolute risk reduction.
The absolute risk of developing COVID-19 symptoms without the vaccine is supposedly 0.884% and with the vaccine 0.044%.
In absolute terms, the effectiveness of the vaccine is (0.884 - 0.044 = 0.84%). Would you consider 0.84% a decent 'efficacy' ?
Oh, I know, everyone hates math...
But 0.84% is barely a Perceptible “Efficacy”!
Another sheep that doesn't understand how vaccines work. They don't prevent getting vaccines like a condom prevents pregnancy lol.
My question is will my risk of side effects be higher then actually contracting covid.
Risk of getting COVID is death. None of the side affects of any of the vaccines had anyone dying.
@@MagicOfBarca actual risk of death is so low to healthy individuals its hardly worth the risk of a rushed vaccine being sold by big pharmaceutical...and not a shred of evidence it provides any protection. So many unanswered questions unless they do a double blind with 100 control of variables it’s all guess this and that with a sprinkling of probably
@@MagicOfBarca In this study nobody died of Covid of the people not getting the vaccine either. So Covid is not lethal, period. Any vaccine study where the control group not getting the vaccine experiences zero deaths, and only 0.74 percent develop Covid is either worthless or proves the vaccine is not needed and our immune systems are doing great without it.
@@MagicOfBarca u may need to check that again there
Do they assessed secondaries outcomes like IgG+? These 21,992 patients haven't developed the disease because they were IgG+. Truly protected or because they haven't had contact with the virus?
Clearly they have not had any contact with the virus, because if you look at the placebo group almost nobody got sick either, less than 1 percent. Plus nobody died without the vaccine either, so why take it and risk the side effects ? This vaccine trial frankly does not pass the “smell test”, it is a total hoax. A proper vaccine trial would have shown the number of deaths in the vaccine group versus the control group, and this type of trials are conducted on animals, but here they skipped altogether the animal tests. So frankly nobody knows if this vaccine is effective at all against serious viral exposure where deaths occur, because people clearly were not exposed to the virus otherwise there would have been more infections and deaths.
Did they run statistic test? Chi square to determine whether the difference have significant statistic number?
You can. But it's pretty obvious that its effective lol. Also statistical significance is not the same as practical difference.
can you make this for oxford and J&J vaccines?
So a very very major problem with this analysis is that we don’t know how many people out of a total of 44,000 were actually exposed to the virus and how many were infected by it. It also fails to give us information about what groups were involved in the total population for this analysis. In other words, how many had which underlying conditions and how many were in relatively good health, what was the age distribution, and other such factors.
95% Efficacy???
This is how a Used Car Salesman Calculates your Financing/Payments.
FDA "Recommends" Absolute Risk Reduction?
ARR
The Absolute Risk Reduction is LESS than 1% !!!
So I have a 5% greater chance of contracting covid if unvaccinated according to this data?
Here's a simple explanation:
Normally 162 people in vaccine group would also get sick. But it was only 8 people who ended up sick. That means the vaccine protected 162-8=154 persons out of 162. So 154/162=95%
"Protected" in what meaningful sense? I do not need protection against positive COVID test. I need protection against serious health risks or death. How cited numbers translate in my sense and what is the evidence?
@@Luzt. protection against severe disease is even higher.
Like any good experiment it would be helpful to know the details of the experiment for example were all 44k folks exposed the the virus in the same way to ensure stability and consistency there?
No of course not. They can't quarantine 44k people they would have to pay far too much,the stakeholders and Klaus Schwab would have a fucking meltdown.
From the reports I've read (doing a covid project from my master's thesis), only about 36k people met the criteria for this interim efficacy analysis.
Months later.. alot of professionals saying the 'relative' numbers used for comparing the different vaccines are misleading to the public.
And also question why the government agencies are not sharing the absolute numbers as well, as per their own guidelines?
Also confused because you are saying that the relative number is more important...
So many factors should be taken into an account though, were those 22K people on both groups in the same environment? to what kind of strain were they exposed? And what are their immunity systems like, I mean of those individuals? This sounds just randomly superficial where you merely compare numbers of those who got the virus without explaining all these behavioral and system factors. Thank you though for explaining how efficacy is calculated.
you got the point, this is pointless
Why can't the same efficacy calculation be used for a sample size of people with > 2500 covid antibodies resulting from a previous covid infection and see how many were re infected when exposed to covid?
Wonderful explanation
this was a waste of time, it's not even scientific. Did we do a control group? what about differences in behaviour between groups, location, sex, general health, insulin sensitivity, weight, single vs married with a family, group worker vs solitary worker, religious vs nonreligious? The difference shown within the infection rate is within the margin of error and statically irrelevant.
exactly, this is stupid
Does this RRR take age into consideration? I would think a 16 year old doesn't gain 95% Risk reduction
As of today (dec 6) the US infection rate is 0.045... the total population is 328.2 mil with 14.8 mil being infected... So why in this study is the infection rate for the placebo group so high???... Also isn't it odd to have a vaccine that is only 95% effective for a virus with a 0.019%death rate??? I'm in canada and our numbers are even lower than the US...
I dont have an answer. But I wanted to inform you politely, that you confused probability expressed in decimal and in percentage. US infection rate is 0.045=4.5%. And the 0.74% from the placebo group equals 0.0074
All right so I should get the vaccine for that extra 0.7% chance reduction? :v
Relative v absolute
Ok - let’s move the 22,000 number to 22 million.
Keep the other numbers the same.
You’d get the same efficiency.
It’s relative.
But in absolute terms both figures would give not significant.
Keep the masses ignorant and then tell them what ever you like.
Or you could just divide 8/162 and deduct that from 1 😉
too short a time... these figures...only in the short term...does not have to be the same in the long term
How to calculate 95% confidence interval of vaccine efficacy?
Something I'm struggling to find lmao. It seems different trials used different statistical methods for hypothesis testing and their subsequent confidence intervals.
I have silly query about vaccine efficacy
I just wonder during double blind test phase
1. Will patient receiving real vaccine be exposed to the real virus environment in order to verify the effectiveness of the immunity?
2. Will patient receiving the placebo dose also be exposed to the real virus environment in order to verify the effectiveness of the immunity?
3. If it is necessary for the pacablo group exposed to virus environment without protection, then any moral ethnic valuation
for increased risks for infection by purposely letting the pacablo group exposing to the harzard environment?
The patient in the pacablo group may think they will be immused from specific virus/disease, which indeed doesn't protected by the vaccine.
Both group are exposed to the real world environment. Both groups were taking covid precautions as the individuals dont know if the got the vaccine or placebo
Sounds great, but you only told half the story. What is the Absolute Risk Reduction? And its inverse Number Needed to Treat? What is the NNT? How many people must receive the vaccine for just one person to benefit? I'll wait..............
On second thought I will do the math. Subtract the difference between the 2 groups ( 0.74 - 0.036 = .704 ) Now take 100 and divide it by the Absolute difference of .704 = 142. There is your NNT. 142 people need to receive the vaccine for just one person to avoid covid. What did you come up with?
Been two weeks. Still waiting...........
Another 2 weeks. Still waiting.............142 people had to receive the vaccine for one person to benefit. The other 141 people got no benefit. If anybody wants to prove me wrong on the Number Needed to Treat, I'm a good listener......
Take the PERCENTAGE of the control group that got covid, and subtract the PERCENTAGE of the vaccine group that got covid, The result is the unadvertised absolute risk reduction. Suddenly 95% efficacy gets reduced to less than 1%, meaning for each person who avoided a covid diagnoses, over 100 people had to be vaccinated.
Should you be using the word efficacy? As I understand it, it should be effectiveness. Normally there's no problem using either, but where claims about medical products are concerned, it should be effectiveness.
Vaccine efficacy refers to how well it performs in a carefully controlled trial, whereas effectiveness describes its performance in the real world. A common mistake is to interpret a 95 percent efficacy to mean you have a 5 percent chance of getting sick even if you get vaccinated. That is not true at all. Efficacy is calculated based on trials that have an unvaccinated placebo control group, and at the end of the trial, they look at the number in the control group that ended up with symptomatic COVID to get the baseline infection rate.
why just use 8/162
these infections didn't necessarily result in severe illness or death. vaccines seem to offer an absolute risk reduction i would consider quite small. I wonder what the math is, which would show how many people would need to be vaccinated to prevent 1 infection, and the number of infections resulting in severe illness or death, and compare it to vaers injury list.....r we sure it all adds up. Seems like a lot of shots for minimal return....
What's placebo
Its a fake dose of the vaccine. A placebo is to do with psychology. Its the belief that because you've taken something, you convince yourself you're feeling better. Its a measure to ensure that results are accurate and because of the drug, not because people want to believe they're better just because they've taken the drug.
Does the efficacy % mean that 5% could still get hospitalized.
Nope. ❌The 95% efficacy doesn't mean that for a group of 100 individual who get vaccinated, 5 of them will get sick and hospitalize. ✅Instead, the 95% efficacy applies to the individual who gets the vaccine. It means they're 95% less likely to get hospitalize than the individuals who's not vaccinated.
@@JohnDoe-oe8gm So all who are vaccinated are 95% less likely to be hospitalized if they contract the Covid19, is that correct.
@@haydenharris3059 Yes, they may feel symptoms but it would be like a normal flu.
@@JohnDoe-oe8gm ok John thanks
i have a question: does developing a vaccine quickly make it more efficacious because the strains of the virus have less time to mutate? i heard a lot of people saying bad things about the covid vaccine because some flu vaccine have as little as 20-40% efficacy and they think the 95% efficacy figure for covid is a lie, but i think that's comparing apples to bananas, just because some vaccines are less effective than others doesn't mean they all are, also i think vaccines that take years to develop are less effective because it gives plenty of time for the virus to mutate and by the time the vaccine is out it's already "outdated", is that how it works?
What is the NNT?
The number needed to treat here is 142. Meaning you need to vaccinate 142 people to prevent one case of coronavirus (NNT = 1/ARR = 1/(0.0074-0.00036).
BUT
That is the number to prevent one case of coronavirus over the time period of the study. We know that more people in both groups (though likely way more in the placebo group) will continue to develop infections - this is still really early in follow-up. So as more infections accrue, the NNT to treat will drop. (We don't expect the relative risk reduction to change much, assuming the population recruited later in the study is pretty similar to the population recruited at the beginning of the study).
And of course NNT needs to be interpreted in light of the risks. Given the (apparerently) benign side-effect profile, vaccinating 142 people to prevent one infection may totally be worth it.
But again, the "true" NNT isn't known yet since it will take time for more infections to crop up.
@@fperrywilson But in circumstances of an RCT we consider the Placebo group as Therapeutic Approach as well? Together with the Vaccinated group?
@@fperrywilson Thank you very much.
No nut Tues/Thursday
So, out of 10000 vaccinated people 3.6 got a PCR+ test and out of 10000 unvaccinated people 74 got a PCR+ test?
Did any have any symptoms?
Can you read? From 20 000 unvaxed, 162 were positive, while from 20 00 vaxed only 8 did. 8 is the 5% of 162.
Can someone please help me here
So were the 44,000 people deliberately exposed to COVID-19 during the test or they were allowed to go out to the world to live their lives for a period of time after receiving the vaccine and placebo, and retested after.
The latter is correct
@@MrLexeye Thanks
The UK is going to start challenge trials that will see 18-30 year olds given vaccines and then the virus so we will soon know literally how effective this vaccines are
Good video, but base numbers are wrong. 22.000 with and without is wrong. Pfizer begun with 22.000 but excludes a lot (positives PCR included). The base numbers are 18559 with vaccine and 18708 with placebo. The conclusion (95%) is absolutely dumb with these numbers. Example: the study tried 796 asian people with vaccine and 808 with placebo. The same algorytm concludes 74.4% vaccine efficacy in asian people. This is not throwing a coin.
Another question: Efficacy is versus PCR+, not with chinese flu illness. None says that Pfizer vaccine change 95% of PCR+ into PCR-.
You can get the study googling EUA pfizer
Phase 3 is 2 years and is only beginning. Phase 3 is the one that test efectiveness and severe illness.
We are all chimpancee or laboratory rats.
the asian test has 4 PCR+ in placebo and 1 in vaccine ones.
We adont know weather or not the groups had identical physcal condition weather or not any of the people have suffered from COVID and now have existing antibodies or weather or not they already had existing complications personally too many variables here and long term complications are indeed unknown.
there is a major issue with the reasoning... if the case numbers are correct and the death rates are correct then we would have to admit that's it's not as leathal as they make out and on the hand if it is as leathal as they say it is the numbers of deaths dont correlate and thefore the case numbers are incorrect Ethier way there is a serious logical issue here.
And there is no quantitative standard for determining actual concentrations of COVID 19 being marked as a infection and thefore it's likely all posatives are cases which is problematic from a physical sciences POV so if the lab does not have a standard to calibrate to it dosnt tell us much about actual real world scenarios and the current tests are qualitative meaning it only detects the presence
And a symptomatic dosnt make sense as you are ethier sick or not
Lets hope the 162 people are distributed in all countries and all age groups. I would have thought a more decisive test would be 1000 exposed to a "super spreader" using the placebo. AND 1000 exposed to a "super spreader" using the vaccine. These results would be less ambiguous. I personally am not convinced when small percentages are compared against each other. The requirements for such low temperature storage is also baffling as its need has not been explained. In time everything will be released after independent scientific review of the data.
That is common sense. A proper test also needs to include deaths, in this test none of the 22,000 people that were not vaccinated died and only 162, less than one percent, contracted very mild non-lethal Covid-19. This test cannot possibly justify vaccination. They need a proper test with deaths in the non-vaccinated group before convincing anybody that the vaccine is effective, usually those tests are conducted in animals, but that phase of the test was skipped. They cut corners to get the vaccine approved and make a quick buck, people should be disgusted that they are being sold a bag of goods by the government and pharmaceutical companies.
@@henrka as a scientist myself I think that they would never lie or cheat. But this is also what engineers thought, the VW dieselgate fiasco says something very different. I always want to see the data to be convinced. It needs to be communicated in a simple language that everyone can understand. Likewise the mechanisms - often they are BS and just creates confusion. Yet people just seem to be nodding there heads and saying yes yes yes. I am not sure where you live? I live in Western Australia. Only 9 Covid deaths. Our state has been isolated from the rest of the world for 260 days until recently. I still haven't worn a mask and life is pretty normal. HOWEVER!!! I did lose my job!!
@@perthpete7906 I live in Canada. I never wear a mask either. This is not about cheating, but it is a fact that vaccine trials were not designed to determine whether the vaccine will reduce deaths or hospitalization, even the pharmaceutical companies have admitted that their vaccine trials were not designed to determine whether the vaccine will save lives, that was never the goal. So to me the trials were useless and we have no clue if these vaccines will save lives or not. Read here, www.healthline.com/health-news/what-the-covid-19-vaccine-trials-will-and-wont-tell-us
@@perthpete7906 so we know for sure that when the pharmaceutical companies and the government tell us the vaccine e is safe and effective they are cheating. They do not know if it is safe or effective. None of the trials the way they were conducted can answer either question. Yet the vaccine is being sold as safe and effective.
@@henrka I think the drug companies understand the safety of their product very well. Its the effectiveness that is the big unknown. They should have released the vaccine when the covid numbers start improving!! Then they could claim it was their vaccine!!
Unfortunately..your RRR did not age well…definitely cooked study numbers
So no one died? Out of these 44,000 people, half of which we unvaccinated.... no one died?
lol, so 8/22,000 vs 162/22,000 or 0% vs 0% 😂😂😂😂 The difference is less than the average rounding error in most studies. So stupid.
This is completely incorrect
this info is worthless without a precise definition of efficacy