[alancalverd]

Yet the trial period isnt simply an examination of the efficacy it is also a consideration of side effects and other dangers.

Phase 1 trials involve tens  of volunteers, determine essential safety and tolerability, and also reveal "common" side effects  - i.e. those occurring in 5 - 10 % of cases.
Phase 2 trials with hundreds to thousands of patients and controls look at effectiveness and thus reveal "occasional" side effects  down to 0.1% occurrence
Phase 3 trials have commercial and longterm significance: does the vaccine or whatever perform better or have fewer ("rare") or milder side effects than the existing standard treatment when tens to hundreds of thousands of actual  patients are treated?

Pretty obviously you can't ethically conduct a competitive Phase 3 trial of the first and only vaccine for a newly emerging and rapidly spreading disease but the licence for emergency use will require adequate "postmarket surveillance" for rare and late complications including single instances correlated with but not proven caused by the medication.

If anyone actually read the caution leaflet, nobody would take aspirin.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Yet the trial period isnt simply an examination of the efficacy it is also a consideration of side effects and other dangers.

Phase 1 trials involve tens  of volunteers, determine essential safety and tolerability, and also reveal "common" side effects  - i.e. those occurring in 5 - 10 % of cases.

Normally lasts around 2 years. For these experimental mRNA treatments they took 3 months.

Phase 2 trials with hundreds to thousands of patients and controls look at effectiveness and thus reveal "occasional" side effects  down to 0.1% occurrence
Phase 3 trials have commercial and longterm significance: does the vaccine or whatever perform better or have fewer ("rare") or milder side effects than the existing standard treatment when tens to hundreds of thousands of actual  patients are treated?

Normally takes between 3 to 5 years.

Pretty obviously you can't ethically conduct a competitive Phase 3 trial of the first and only vaccine for a newly emerging and rapidly spreading disease but the licence for emergency use will require adequate "postmarket surveillance" for rare and late complications including single instances correlated with but not proven caused by the medication.

Again phrase 3 trails normally take 4 years.

So what should have been a trail of arround 7 years for phase 2 and 3 have been combined into an 8 month trail.

In all its 11 months of trials for all 3 trail phases. That's less time then a normal phase 1 trail takes.

We have learnt from experience we need time to assess the dangers, involved with a new vaccine. To add an experimental treatment into the mix just adds to potential problems.

If anyone actually read the caution leaflet, nobody would take aspirin.

Disagree Aspirin is naturally occurring in willow bark, people have taken it for years as a herbal remedy. Willow bark however contains other toxins that are removed with general aspirin.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

I believe there should also be a concern with antibodies dependent enhancement. ADE.

It would show up in any trial.
It didn't, so it is, if it's a problem at all, less of a problem than the virus.

Shows you have no understanding of the issue, the only way that shows up in a trail is if people catch the wild virus, or one of its mutations. The virus tested against isnt wild.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Whistle blower claims 25% of old peoples home residents died after taking the Pfizer vaccine in Germany.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/german-nursing-home-residents-died-pfizer-vaccine/

[Jolly2 (OP)]

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/health-officials-push-pregnant-women-covid-vaccine/

"Nearly a third (31%) of the women had miscarriages or preterm births, which occurred within as little as one day of injection — the majority after a single dose of vaccine."

Looks like the doctors original concerns when approaching European health authorities with regards to fertility and the vaccine may have been correct.

[Bored chemist]

Whistle blower claims 25% of old peoples home residents died after taking the Pfizer vaccine in Germany.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/german-nursing-home-residents-died-pfizer-vaccine/

They also died after Boris was elected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

"Nearly a third (31%) of the women had miscarriages or preterm births, which occurred within as little as one day of injection — the majority after a single dose of vaccine."

If that was widespread I would have heard about it on the news not from a link to a sensationalist web page.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Whistle blower claims 25% of old peoples home residents died after taking the Pfizer vaccine in Germany.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/german-nursing-home-residents-died-pfizer-vaccine/

They also died after Boris was elected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

"Nearly a third (31%) of the women had miscarriages or preterm births, which occurred within as little as one day of injection — the majority after a single dose of vaccine."

If that was widespread I would have heard about it on the news not from a link to a sensationalist web page.

Why would corporate media tell the truth? They generally don't

[alancalverd]

The average length of stay in old folks' nursing homes is 13 weeks. 100% die eventually, so if only 25% die after receiving COVID vaccine, we seem to have found the elixir of life.

About 30% of human pregnancies abort spontaneously.

So: very few people understand statistics, but bad journalists can still make a living.

 

[Bored chemist]

Why would corporate media tell the truth? They generally don't

How could you know?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Why would corporate media tell the truth? They generally don't

How could you know?

Past experience. Combined with censorship of truthful information the establishment wants suppressed.

I've caught CNN lying so many times, it's almost a given today it's all they do. And we see the Truth censored on Twitter and Facebook repeatedly.

[Kryptid]

Why would corporate media tell the truth? They generally don't

And yet you trust some unidentified whistle-blower?

My grandmother, who is 80 years old, got her second COVID shot on February 3rd. She is doing just fine. Ditto for my 72-year old uncle, who got his first shot a week or so ago.

[Bored chemist]

My grandmother, who is 80 years old

Yeah, but I bet she's not pregnant...

[alancalverd]

And why not? Jolly has already told us (reply # 43) that the vaccine prevents death, so perhaps it restores youth too?

[Kryptid]

Yeah, but I bet she's not pregnant...

True, but my post was in response to this in particular:

Whistle blower claims 25% of old peoples home residents died after taking the Pfizer vaccine in Germany.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/german-nursing-home-residents-died-pfizer-vaccine/

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Why would corporate media tell the truth? They generally don't

And yet you trust some unidentified whistle-blower?

My grandmother, who is 80 years old, got her second COVID shot on February 3rd. She is doing just fine. Ditto for my 72-year old uncle, who got his first shot a week or so ago.

Statistics are slightly more important than anecdotes.

Sadly the companies producing the vaccines have an interest in suppressing negative information, and influence over the both government and media narratives, it's a sad time for actual science and truth, we have Facebook and Twitter picking sides when experts disagree about issues, they and the media have no qualification to do so, legitimate concerns about the rushed nature of the vaccines, there experimental nature and the potential side effects are all being suppressed by an imposed consensus which is utterly unscientific.

The majority of the data we have is coming from trial ran and controlled by the very companies that produced them and they are not even sharing all their data, this entire situation is a travesty.

[Kryptid]

Statistics are slightly more important than anecdotes.

Says the person sharing an anecdote from an unidentified whistle-blower.

[Bored chemist]

Given that this thread is based on a false premise- that the trials actually stop- has it run its course now?

they and the media have no qualification to do so

Nor have you- as demonstrated at length in this thread and others.

[alancalverd]

Statistics are slightly more important than anecdotes.

Which is why every trial has an independent data monitoring committee and reports intermediate and final results to another independent research ethics committee. A product is not licensed for general release until the entire trial to date has been scrutinised by the MHRA and a program is in place for continuous postmarket surveillance and monitoring.

It is true that the stuff that gets published in peer-reviewed journals rarely includes products that failed to work, and probably less than 10% of stuff that reaches a Phase 2 trial makes it to market. "Suppression" is a rather harsh word for scrapping a project.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Statistics are slightly more important than anecdotes.

Which is why every trial has an independent data monitoring committee and reports intermediate and final results to another independent research ethics committee. A product is not licensed for general release until the entire trial to date has been scrutinised by the MHRA and a program is in place for continuous postmarket surveillance and monitoring.

It is true that the stuff that gets published in peer-reviewed journals rarely includes products that failed to work, and probably less than 10% of stuff that reaches a Phase 2 trial makes it to market. "Suppression" is a rather harsh word for scrapping a project.

As I have been trying to point out for a while the system is broken, business and the suggestion that the market is better then government to control society has allowed regulators to be captured by the very market forces they are meant to be monitoring.  We need a new system.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Statistics are slightly more important than anecdotes.

Says the person sharing an anecdote from an unidentified whistle-blower.

Funny that for the last 4 years and even before anonymous sources about Russia gate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and all manner of other lies have been propagated by the media, when it's a anonymous whistle blower, which Assange at Wikileaks used often, and Wikileaks has never had to retract a story because they were false. Suddenly it's a problem,  what a joke, anonymous whistle blowers are fine if they help the corporate system and its agendas and bad if they don't, sorry if I find the double standard rediculas.

Monumental scandal