pues lo que comentábamos en:
pero en un editorial del British Medical Journal.. y ésto se lee en los círculos profesionales.. vayamos aportando:
But what will it mean exactly when a
vaccine is declared “effective”? To the public this seems fairly
obvious. “The primary goal of a covid-19 vaccine is to keep people from
getting very sick and dying,” a National Public Radio broadcast said
bluntly.
Peter
Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor
College of Medicine in Houston, said, “Ideally, you want an antiviral
vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get
severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and
therefore interrupt disease transmission.”
Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either . None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.
traduciendo: los ensayos no estudian si las "bakunas" protegen contra
"manifestaziones grabes del koronabirus-diez-y-nuebe", ni tampoco si impiden que el "kontagiado
hinfekte a otros"..
luego no hay ninguna base científica para animar a nadie a que "debe bakunarse por responsabilidaz sozial", para "no hinfektar a otros"..
no hay ninguna prueba de que las "bakunas" eviten "kontajiar" a otros.
In all the ongoing phase III trials
for which details have been released, laboratory confirmed infections
even with only mild symptoms qualify as meeting the primary endpoint
definition. In Pfizer and Moderna’s trials, for example, people with only a cough and positive laboratory test would bring those trials one event closer to their completion
el "
hensayo" realizado hasta ahora "
demuestra" que
la "bakuna" previene la tos.. no hay nada más.. sólo se ha "
demostrado" que los "
bakunados" tosen menos.. y a eso le llaman "
protekzión"..
hay otro pequeño detalle que no les han contado sobre el "
hestudio": en UK se ha usado vacuna de meningococo en el "
grupo de
control", lo cual es absurdo (como si el experimento genético disfrazado de "
bakuna" no fuera suficiente) porque supone meter otra variable que anula
todo propósito de "
controlar" nada..
se nos escapa algo que no tendrá respuesta: ¿y si es la "
vacuna del meningococo" del "
grupo de control" es la que ha hecho toser más?
Part of the reason may be numbers.
Severe illness requiring hospital admission, which happens in only a
small fraction of symptomatic covid-19 cases, would be unlikely to occur
in significant numbers in trials. Data published by the US Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in late April reported a symptomatic case
hospitalisation ratio of 3.4% overall, varying from 1.7% in 0-49 year
olds and 4.5% in 50-64 year olds to 7.4% in those 65 and over. Because most people with symptomatic covid-19 experience only mild symptoms, even trials involving 30 000 or more patients would turn up relatively few cases of severe disease...
...Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon
in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate
statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The
same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the
trials are not designed to find out.
otro pequeño detalle sin importancia: no computan la hospitalizaciones por "koronabirus-diez-y-nuebe" por la sencilla razón de que son tan infrecuentes que un estudio para estudiarlas debería ser 10 veces mayor..
y así es la "terrible pandemia" con la que han destrozado la economía y fulminado docenas de derechos mientras los borregos aplaudían con las orejas (y con las palmas): un "koronabirus-diez-y-nuebe" que no manda suficientes "hinfektados" al hospital, en un "hestudio" que no sirve para "balidar" las "bakunas"..
Stopping transmission
What about Hotez’s second criterion, interrupting virus transmission, which some experts have argued should be the most important test in phase III studies?
“Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,”
Zaks said, “because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a
week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”
seguimos: ninguna evidencia de que la "bakuna" impida la "transmisión del peligrosísimo koronabirus-diez-y-nuebe".
ninguna evidencia porque, como admiten, ni siquiera estaba previsto investigar éste aspecto.. y porque semejante "hestudio" requiere largos períodos de investigación.. lo cual es imposible si pretendes aprobar una "bakuna" en dos meses, cuando lo habitual es que requieran estudios de 10 años (y muchas vacunas nunca se consiguen)..
Safety and side effects
History
shows many examples of serious adverse events from vaccines brought to
market in periods of enormous pressure and expectation. There were
contaminated polio vaccines in 1955, cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome in
recipients of flu vaccines in 1976, and narcolepsy linked to one brand
of influenza vaccine in 2009.
en años anteriores hubo desastres con varias vacunas (hay varios ejemplos).. vacunas que en su tiempo se afirmó que eran "seguras"..
Medscape’s Eric Topol has been a vocal
critic of the trials’ many interim analyses. “These numbers seem
totally out of line with what would be considered stopping rules,” he
says. “I mean, you’re talking about giving a vaccine with any of these
programmes to tens of millions of people. And you’re going to base that on 100 events?”
una pequeña reflexión: están planeando obligar a miles de millones de personas a aceptar "boluntariamente" la "bakuna hobligatorya", en base a un ensayo que no cumple ni los mínimos requisitos, y cuya "hebidenzia y prueva" se basa en apenas 100 casos de personas con tos.. absurdo según la misma ortodoxia médica (de la que muchos ya ni se acuerdan)..
Great uncertainty remains over how
long a randomised trial of a vaccine will be allowed to proceed. If
efficacy is declared, one possibility is that the thousands of
volunteers who received a saline placebo would be offered the active
vaccine, in effect ending the period of randomised follow-up. Such a
move would have far reaching implications for our understanding of
vaccines’ benefits and harms, rendering uncertain our knowledge of
whether the vaccines can reduce the risk of serious covid-19 disease and
precluding any further ability to compare adverse events in the
experimental versus the placebo arm.
y aquí lo que muchos desean ocultar:
But the truth is that the science remains far from clear cut, even for influenza vaccines
that have been used for decades. Although randomised trials have shown
an effect in reducing the risk of symptomatic influenza, such trials
have never been conducted in elderly people living in the community to
see whether they save lives.
Only two placebo controlled trials in this population have ever been conducted, and neither was designed to detect any difference in hospital admissions or deaths. Moreover, dramatic increases in use of influenza vaccines has not been associated with a decline in mortality.
atención: nos hablan de la santa "bakuna de la grype".. de la que.. redoble de tambores.. hay cero evidencia de que reduzca muertes y hospitalizaciones.. ¿cómo se te queda el cuerpo?
décadas utilizando la "vacuna de la gripe".. y nadie ha estudiado si realmente salvan la vida de algún "bakunado"
(o si aumentan las muertes, lo que no sería tan raro puesto que, como ya se ha comentado: no hay evidencia)..
la "bakuna de la grype" sigue siendo experimental porque nadie sabe realmente si bajan (o
suben) la mortalidad de los "bakunados"..
el editorial apunta a que, posiblemente, se hará el mismo proceso para las "bakunas" contra el "koronabirus-diez-y-nuebe": pueden ser usadas y recomendadas, pero sin evidencia..
Despite recruiting tens of thousands, only two trials are enrolling children less than 18 years old. All exclude immunocompromised people and pregnant or breastfeeding
women, and though the trials are enrolling elderly people, few or
perhaps none of the studies would seem to be designed to conclusively
answer whether there is a benefit in this population, despite their
obvious vulnerability to covid-19.
otro pequeño detalle (para las "feministas" y "les aliades" que siempre se preocupan por la "hynklusión" y la "hygual-dá de jenaro"): no hay embarazadas en los grupos de ensayo de la vacuna..
el resultado de la "diskriminazión de jenaro" ya lo conocemos: en el ensayo de la talidomida tampoco hubo embarazadas (ya saben: la mujer siempre ha estado "hoprimida", "kosifikada" y "hovjetibizada" por el "heteropatriarkado") porque el medicamento no atravesaba la barrera placentaria.. y por lo tanto era "seguro" (como la "bakuna" de ARNm).. y hay miles de imágenes de lo "seguro" que era la talidomida.. no investiguen demasiado..
pero esperen, esperen:
One view is that trial data should be there for all target populations. “If
we don’t have adequate data in the greater than 65 year old group, then
the greater than 65 year old person shouldn’t get this vaccine"
la farmafia NO ha presentado datos segregados para mayores de 65 años.. por lo que, utilizando su "hestudio", no podemos saber si ésta "bakuna" les protege, o no.. pero con el añadido que, básicamente, los mayores de 65 años son casi los únicos que mueren "de koronabirus-diez-y-nuebe" (la edad media de los fallecidos es de 86 años, muy por encima de la esperanza de vida, de 83 años)..
“If we don’t have adequate data in
the greater than 65 year old group, then the greater than 65 year old
person shouldn’t get this vaccine"
traduciendo:
"Si no tenemos datos adecuados en
el grupo mayor de 65 años, entonces el grupo de personas mayores de 65
años no deberían recibir esta vacuna"
y es que un supuesto beneficio desconocido nunca compensa un riesgo seguro (porque toda intervención supone un riesgo):
Relación riesgo-beneficio (Farmacología) - Wikipedia
pueden suponer lo que quieran (el papel lo aguanta todo), pero no saben.. y si no saben entonces para qué sirven las "bakunas"?
Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us
