Internal CDC document warns delta variant more infectious, can spread among vaccinated people - report

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,278
The study claimed it included data up to March 2021. And that it included data from SA.

Yet no statement was made with ANY references to any of the other variants running around in SA or in the World for that matter other than the Beta variant. :thumbsdown:

The study supposedly met its original protocol as listed in their trial registration? (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728). Well, I did a very quick check and no, they violated quite a few of their original protocols. The question is did they have a choice?
I don't think that did, especially those they violated on ethical grounds. but there it is, for those enslaved by process and protocols, this study is by no means covered in glory (as are many of the studies conducted around Coved 19) :thumbsdown:

Reactogenicity: Covered and listed in fig S1A and S1B. :thumbsup:
Adverse events: Tables S3 and S4. :thumbsup:

Decreased appetite, lethargy, asthenia, malaise, night sweats, and hyperhidrosis were new adverse events attributable to BNT162b2 not previously identified in earlier reports.
Limitations:
Duration of protection and safety data that could be collected in a blinded, placebo-controlled manner were limited by the ethical and practical need to immunize eligible initial placebo recipients under EUA and according to public health authority recommendations.
So one of the key cornerstones of all this placebo BS had to be compromised!
Data presented here do not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection, but evaluation of that question is ongoing in this study, and real-world data suggest that BNT162b2 prevents asymptomatic infection
Still under investigation.
This report does not address VE and safety in pregnant women and in children younger than 12 years
 
Last edited:

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
21,449
The study claimed it included data up to March 2021. And that it included data from SA
funny part about that being ... our vaccine rollout only started in Feb 2021 and it started with J&J only

really can't be much Pfizer data for South Africa in that timeframe
 

lumeer

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,745
funny part about that being ... our vaccine rollout only started in Feb 2021 and it started with J&J only

really can't be much Pfizer data for South Africa in that timeframe
South Africa was part of the Pfizer vaccine trials that started in 2020 already.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,278
funny part about that being ... our vaccine rollout only started in Feb 2021 and it started with J&J only

really can't be much Pfizer data for South Africa in that timeframe
There were however, SA citizens enrolled in the Pfizer trials. It is those individuals who are the subject of this report. And, the Delta variant had to have impacted some of them. I would have expected the report to specifically address this even if only a single one-liner.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,278
Pfizer's own 6 month study showing no difference in preventing death between vaxxed vs unvaxxed (or rather, no real risk of death either way, hence no significant deaths either way)


As posted on the IVM thread in case no one saw it:
Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information. https://www.medrxiv.org/
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,379
I'd recommend watching the video or reading the entire thing, that summary is inaccurate / misleading:

- participants were not tested for covid prior, so they actually don't know who already had covid or not
- hence efficacy can't be attributed to the vaccine or the potential previous infection recovery
- what is clear though is people died in similar numbers whether vaccinated or not
These are the points people keep missing. Without knowing who had natural immunity you can't say anything about the efficacy of the vaccines.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,379
I skimmed through the video and data. Death is not the only thing that we should be concerned about. Serious illness and hospitalization is also a large concern, if not larger. The main issues seems to be:

- they didn't test a representative portion of the population. Not enough people with comorbidities. I'd expect this to make the placebo group a lot worse with more deaths and more serious illness if there were more unhealthy people in the trials. But we don't know with the data in the trials. Also seems like they tested the vaccines on mainly a younger population. So once again, the death figures are going to be so low for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated, that comparing them doesn't mean anything (as young people with Covid rarely die anyway).

- more people got seriously ill with 1 or more covid symptoms in the placebo (which is where the 97% efficacy comes from) but they didn't mention how many people in either group were hospitalized. Though if you had one of those symptoms, you were likely to be hospitalized.
And these are the points we keep making. Young people are at no mitigable risk so should in general not get the vaccines.

This also puts to rest the claims that these vaccines aren't experimental with completed trials. Pfizer only completed one trial now and in the normal course of vaccines it would only be a preliminary trial with many follow up trials.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
21,449
As posted on the IVM thread in case no one saw it:
speaking of preprint research papers:
Clinically trained reviewers have undertaken a detailed analysis of a sample of the early deaths reported in VAERS (250 out of the 1644 deaths recorded up to April 2021). The focus is on the extent to which the reports enable us to understand whether the vaccine genuinely caused or contributed to the deaths. Contrary to claims that most of these reports are made by lay-people and are hence clinically unreliable, we identified health service employees as the reporter in at least 67%. The sample contains only people vaccinated early in the programme, and hence is made up primarily of those who are elderly or with significant health conditions. Despite this, there were only 14% of the cases for which a vaccine reaction could be ruled out as a contributing factor in their death.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,379
speaking of preprint research papers:
Now they have to separate the cases by vaccine.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,278
These are the points people keep missing. Without knowing who had natural immunity you can't say anything about the efficacy of the vaccines.
The point is the trial subjects were evaluated.
It is when the vaccine started being rolled out to the general population where the dividing line becomes a bit blurred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

lumeer

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,745
speaking of preprint research papers:
Despite this, there were only 14% of the cases for which a vaccine reaction could be ruled out as a contributing factor in their death.

Neither have they deduced that vaccines are the cause of death in the other 86% of cases.
 
Last edited:

Forum Reader

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
817
These are the points people keep missing. Without knowing who had natural immunity you can't say anything about the efficacy of the vaccines.

They had over 20k people take the vaccine and over 20k take the placebo. There were 30x more serious illness cases in the placebo group.

As long as both groups were randomly selected, the proportion of natural immunity in both groups would be similar (even though both had low comorbidities), which shows the vaccine does work.

The trials weren't perfect but the data is still useful. They were probably afraid to test widely it on older people with comorbidities. Or couldn't get enough older people with comorbidities to join the trail.
 

DA-LION-619

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
12,795
Well they can keep it all. It is just about useless anyway. And at R7000 a dose, who is going to ever be able to get better from it?
The US isn’t a great source for doing a like for like, remember for them it’s cheaper to go across border to get insulin.

This was prior to the Cipla deal.
If anything one positive of this whole mess is an upgrade to our production facilities.
 

Forum Reader

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
817
speaking of preprint research papers:

Here's the full piece. Important bit highlighted. There's another 81% that you need to add on to the 14% you quoted. There's not enough data for the 81% to say whether the vaccine was a factor in the death.

Yet, our analysis shows that the patients can be grouped into three main types: (i) those where the vaccine was most likely not a factor; (ii) those where the vaccine may have been a factor; and (iii) those where the vaccine was the most likely factor in their deaths. We found that in 34 of the 250 deaths (14%) a vaccine reaction could be ruled out as a contributing factor in their death; these were all patients either already bedridden and expected to die from a serious medical condition like lung cancer, or were described as at end of life or receiving palliative hospice care. For 203 of the 250 (81%) the vaccine may have been a factor in their death; however, many of these patients had one or more chronic or age-related comorbid conditions. Finally, for at least 13 of the 250 deaths (5%) the vaccine was the most likely cause of death; these patients had strong reactions soon after vaccination and died either on the same day, or during the next couple of days.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,278
Neither have they deduced that vaccines are the cause of death in the other 86% of cases.
Precisely! And the reason is a failure by many to understand the principles behind the null hypothesis.

Showing that 14% of the cases could be ruled out does not mean the balance was caused by vaccines. It just shows that 86% of the deaths have still to be analysed and accounted for.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,379
They had over 20k people take the vaccine and over 20k take the placebo. There were 30x more serious illness cases in the placebo group.

As long as both groups were randomly selected, the proportion of natural immunity in both groups would be similar (even though both had low comorbidities), which shows the vaccine does work.

The trials weren't perfect but the data is still useful. They were probably afraid to test widely it on older people with comorbidities. Or couldn't get enough older people with comorbidities to join the trail.
Agreed but it's still a variable that's unaccounted for but quite important. And herein lies the problem, only if the groups were randomly selected could the data be valid. That's not usually how clinical efficacy trials are done. Pharmaceutical companies have an interest in trying to overstate efficacy. This is done from the outset by selecting individuals that are the most likely to show an effect from the drug and at the same time least likely to show any adverse reactions.

Also what exactly is serious illness? These are mostly young people where serious illness is minimal.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,278
They were probably afraid to test widely it on older people with comorbidities. Or couldn't get enough older people with comorbidities to join the trail
The ethics of deliberately denying an older person (who we all know is at a higher risk of serious illness and death) access to a vaccine because some or other researcher wants to measure whatever is just untenable!
And especially IF that is done in a random manner when the person concerned is supposed to think he/her is getting the real thing.

Why not just herd all your victims into a concentration camp and experiment away on them? F@ck the entire big pharma industry!

Never mind the comorbidities. Here is a person, who is expecting to receive a vaccine that is supposed to protect him or her from getting sick and dying. There is no damn way I ( over 70) is going to join a lab rat experiment just to satisfy some or other morbid curiosity from a big pharma organisation, that has shown itself to be as trustworthy as the scorpion asking the tortoise for a ride over a river.
 
Last edited:

Forum Reader

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
817
The ethics of deliberately denying an older person (who we all know is at a higher risk of serious illness and death) access to a vaccine because some or other researcher wants to measure whatever is just untenable!
And especially IF that is done in a random manner when the person concerned is supposed to think he/her is getting the real thing.

Why not just heard all your victims into a concentration camp and experiment away on them? F@ck the entire big pharma industry!

Never mind the comorbidities. Here is a person, who is expecting to receive a vaccine that is supposed to protect him or her from getting sick and dying. There is no damn way I ( over 70) is going to join a lab rat experiment just to satisfy some or other morbid curiosity from a big pharma organisation, that has shown itself to be as trustworthy as the scorpion asking the tortoise for a ride over a river.

That's just the thing though. How do we actually test if something works without having a placebo group? That's probably why they stayed away from older people and more people with comorbidities. To give some 70 year old a placebo when they actually have a decent chance of death with Covid is a pretty bad thing to do. If they do, a portion of those 70 year olds are sentenced to death (thought they may have died anyway if they didn't take part in the trials). If they don't test the older people, then we end up in the situation we are now where the trials didn't really give us useful info about death rates and vaccine usefulness in older people. All those trials really say is that younger people or people without comorbidities who take the vaccine don't get seriously ill.
 
Last edited:
Top