What if the covid-19 so-called "vaccine" trials were not really about vaccines that make you immune you an illness, like vaccines are supposed to do?
What if the covid-19 "vaccine" trials were designed not to give you immunity from contracting covid-19, but merely to reduce symptoms of covid-19?
What if the covid-19 trial doesn't have 30,000 to 60,000 participants?
Well, those aren't what ifs. That's what is actually taking place. As reported in Forbes, the covid-19 vaccine trails are designed to succeed because they are merely testing for reduced symptoms in order to be a successful trial.
The media keeps telling people the trials have tens of thousands of particpants to make sure they are safe. But that's not true. The trials have 100-164 participants actually receiving the vaccine in each big pharma trial:
The primary analyses are a bit more expanded, but need to be less efficacious for success: about sixty percent. AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer have primary analyses that distribute the vaccine to only 100, 151, 154, and 164 participants respectively. These companies state that they do not “intend” to stop trials after the primary analyses, but there is every chance that they intend to pursue an EUA and focus on manufacturing the vaccine rather than further thorough testing.
And what constitutes a successful trial?
or Moderna, the initial interim analysis will be based on the results of infection of only 53 people. The judgment reached in interim analysis is dependent upon the difference in the number of people with symptoms, which may be mild, in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated group.
Moderna’s success margin is for 13 or less of those 53 to develop symptoms compared to 40 or more in their control group. For Johnson & Johnson, their interim analysis includes 77 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 18 or less developing symptoms compared to 59 in the control group. For AstraZeneca, their interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 12 or less developing symptoms compared to 19 in the 25 person control group. Pfizer is even smaller in its success requirements. Their initial group includes 32 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 7 or less developing symptoms compared to 25 in the control group.
Yup, milder symptoms mean a successful "vaccine". Preventing deaths or severe illness aren't even the focus of the trial:
Again we find that severe illness and death are only secondary objectives in these trials. None list the prevention of death and hospitalization as a critically important barrier.
If total infections, hospitalizations, and death are going to be ignored in the preliminary trials of the vaccines, then there must be phase four testing to monitor their safety and efficacy. This would be long term massive scale monitoring of the vaccine. There must be an indication that the authorized vaccines are reducing infection, hospitalization, and death, or else they will not be able to stop this pandemic.
Yes, everyone in the public who receives the vaccine will be the real trial. That's why it's a military-big tech operation that is leading the Operation Warp Speed and then will track people for 2 years to see how safe the vaccine is on the long term.
Enjoy being a guinea pig all you "vaccine" lovers who are afraid of an illness that is on par with flu lethality.
There’s nothing new or shocking about that. The shingles vaccine reduces but does not eliminate your chance of contracting the disease and, if you do contract it, reduces the chance that you have severe symptoms.
That’s how it’s supposed to work.
If any "vaccine" only reduces symptoms, it's not really a vaccine in the traditional sense of how the word is used and how most people understand the word to apply as a way to provide immunity, but more of a treatment or therapy.
Agreed, what's the point of a vaccine if it only reduced the symptoms and doesn't prevent the contraction of the virus?
From what I understand, the vaccine will only be 50% effective.
Again, what's the point of getting the vaccine if it's only going to be 50% effective and it also only reduces the symptoms?
It doesn't make sense to rush out a vaccine with minimal testing, no indemnity for the manufacturers and which ultimately doesn't prevent the virus.
This is very concerning! The few case numbers and the very generous success criteria.
Congratulations @perceive! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @hivebuzz: