3 ms·
> The clinical trial should have detected this, but it was rushed. Plain and simple. No, that is wrong. Trials generally don't detect very rare side effect tha
by bulbar 4mo ago
> The clinical trial should have detected this, but it was rushed. Plain and simple.
No, that is wrong. Trials generally don't detect very rare side effect that only occur for some special subgroups. They would have to have tested 100.000 males <40 to detect that. That's generally not feasible for any medication or vaccine.
That's also only talking about one particular side effect, more interesting would be a comparison of all-cause mortality, because that's more likely what you are interested in: Does the vaccine increase or decrease my chance of dying soon?
For example I calculated back then that getting unvaccinated Covid-19 would increase my (very low, male of age <40 living in central Europe) likelihood of dying within the same year by the factor 7.
There's also a problem with the study - there's always a problem, that's why a singular study is never sufficient. Within a big data set - and tens of millions is huge in this context, you can always find significant results if you just test enough subgroups. That's called alpha error accumulation, because the more hypothesis you test, the more likely you will have 'significant' results by pure coincidence.
That's why reporting significant results on (hypothetical example) "elderly people between 60 and 70 that don't own a TV" are always met with caution.
It seems to me they tested at least around 50 hypothesis from what data they gathered (sex, age in 10 years bins, ethnicity etc), but they might effectively have tested more and from a first look it seems they didn't account for that.
PS:
> Why were they so desperate for us all to get the vaccine when science proved that it didn't work by end of 2021?
You talking about one vaccine in particular? Or some combination in particular? But only covid vaccines, I guess?
Anyway, what you wrote is wrong. Every single one of them helped in the sense that people would be less contagious and would have less severe symptoms.
- Izkata 4mo ago> That's also only talking about one particular side effect, more interesting would be a comparison of all-cause mortality, because that's more likely what you are interested in: Does the vaccine increase or decrease my chance of dying soon? This is from memory but I think there were 16 deaths in the vaccine group and 14 or 15 in the control group in Pfizer's short-term safety trial of around 40k participants. None of the deaths were obviously vaccine related and it was statistically insignificant so the results were dismissed due to not being obviously bad. They also lost track of a huge number of participants (like 200-400?), and never figured out why. It's entirely possible they died and the safety profile world be completely different if they were included.
- bulbar 4mo ago> so the results were dismissed due to not being obviously bad. Not sure if 'dismissed' is the correct phrasing. The results were statistically analyzed as it's always done with empirical studies. > They also lost track of a huge number of participants (like 200-400?), and never figured out why. It's entirely possible they died and the safety profile world be completely different if they were included. Sounds like that were the drop outs which is normal for empirical studies. <1% drop out sounds quite small (don't know for this type of study in particular, though). I wouldn't be surprised if the very question you are asking has been subject to research in the last decades as every medication goes through a very similar process. In general, that phrasing sounds to me that somebody tries to frame something that's super normal (drop outs) to something questionable and mystical. I don't mean you, but the source you used back then.