Tweet
There's a major issue with the vaccines at this point that all of these "scientists" aren't discussing. The vaccine was given emergency approval while studies were still ongoing. Somehow, without finishing the phase III clinical trials, the vaccine is suddenly "proven safe". Ok, VERY unusual, but so long as those phase III trials are still ongoing, right? They promise data by 2023...
Well, after the vaccine was approved, that meant that the company decided that the vaccine was "safe and effective" (mind you WITHOUT the trial actually being completed) so they decided that it wasn't "ethical" to continue with the placebo group and they vaccinated the ENTIRE placebo group.
These trials MUST compare safety and effectiveness compared to placebo, at least until there is at least ONE treatment that HAS done so. At that point it is fairly common to conclude that a placebo group is unethical because there is a proven treatment, so the new treatment is compared to the old treatment.
It isn't necessarily true, but at least then you have "Product A" that HAS been proven effective and safe compared to placebo in a randomized, double blinded study. Now you can compare Product A to the new Product B with a randomized, double blinded trial and hope that "If A>placebo and B>/= A THEN B is proven safe and effective", but this is a statistical stretch.
It always ends up essentially comparing groups that may not be randomized compared to one another. Two randomized groups from different studies can still have statistical differences compared to one another, even though that may not be common. If that's the case, any difference between the two is possibly just random chance. It is a concession that must be made if one doesn't want the unethical situation of denying a percentage of the study a KNOWN safe and effective treatment, however.
There was NO reason to do that in this case. Destroying the placebo group may make political sense as it is trying to state, "Hey, we've proven it so safe and effective that we can't possibly NOT vaccinate anyone", but this hasn't been proven and now NEVER CAN BE PROVEN.
To prove it safe you NEED to be able to compare adverse reactions to placebo. You no longer can do that, especially for long term side effects. To prove it is effective you NEED to be able to compare outcomes for treated vs. non-treated groups, something that you NO LONGER CAN DO.
If you now compare the test subjects against just random unvaccinated, you no longer have controlled groups and there are very likely differences between those people, differences that make any "difference between treatments" far more likely to be due to statistical anomaly than the treatment itself.
This is junk science at its worst. The vaccine MIGHT be safe and effective, but now they've thrown away ANY ability to prove it. I had a molecular biology professor in undergrad who did research that failed almost my entire section on the laboratory testing. He was a stickler for asking questions that weren't directly from the experiments. We would study what the lab test supposedly proved, only to have him throw in things that weren't discussed such as, "List 40 assumptions that you made about the experimental set up that could impact the results". Unless EVERY OTHER aspect of the study is properly controlled, the results are trash, and he was trying to teach us that these could NEVER be fully controlled, but a good researcher would make EVERY possible attempt to control as many as possible. He would be appalled at this "study".
Have I told you lately how highly I value your participation here on CGN?
I do.
Always appreciate your contribution through your experience and knowledge. Thank you!
)
Comment