Vaccines Not Looking Good...Only 30% Efficacy

[Pattaya Spotter]

52 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Since they haven't developed a vaccine for the SARS coronavirus that kicked off almost 17 years go and weren't successful in getting one for the far more deadly MERS coronavirus from about 8 years ago either, why on earth would anyone be holding out hope for a silver bullet for this one?

This is what I thought at the start of the pandemic...I was pessimistic about a vaccine because as you point out, there has never been a vaccine developed for a human coronavirus disease (SARS-CoV-1 and the common cold). When people would say a vaccine would quickly be found, i would remind them that the average length of time from disease discovery to a vaccine, where they've been successfully found, is 10-15 YEARS...not months (and of course that one's never been found for a human coronavirus).

 

I'm more optimistic now, seeing the massive governmental resources that have been poured into vaccine research and development and the unprecedented speed with which private drug companies have marshaled their scientific talent and resources. This has never been done before on this scale and seems to be having a real effect. The fact that governments have been funding the basic research and paying for a vast scaling up of production facilities for potential vaccines has essentially taken the financial risk of vaccine failures off the books of the drug companies and thus allowed them to solely focus on vaccine research. I do think vaccines will be found relatively quickly...how effective the first round of them are remains to be seen, howe er.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Pattaya Spotter

[Mark Nothing]

On 10/22/2020 at 9:38 PM, tgw said:

 

could you please demonstrate your claims

Eleanor McBean Phd and Naturapathic doctor wrote a book called the Poisoned Needle in 1954 about the origin of the vaccine concept which started in the 1790's.

 

She was a child during the 1918 spanish flu outbreak in which her entire family refused vaccines and were unscathed.

 

She has a very different take than todays doctors and pharmaceutical companies.  If the book is accurate, profits supercede health.

 

The book in its entirety can be read online free.  It is interesting that the citizens of the world were never presented with this data from news, politicians, doctors, or pharmaceutical companies over the years.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:

Eleanor McBean Phd and Naturapathic doctor wrote a book called the Poisoned Needle in 1954 about the origin of the vaccine concept which started in the 1790's.

 

She was a child during the 1918 spanish flu outbreak in which her entire family refused vaccines and were unscathed.

 

She has a very different take than todays doctors and pharmaceutical companies.  If the book is accurate, profits supercede health.

 

The book in its entirety can be read online free.  It is interesting that the citizens of the world were never presented with this data from news, politicians, doctors, or pharmaceutical companies over the years.

And the amazing thing is that absolutely no families that were vaccinated escaped unscathed. And we know this because....? Actually we don't know it at all. And if you think that the good fortune of her family counts as evidence...On the other hand the worst afflicted nation was India where 10-20 million died. Kind of doubt there was much available in the way of vaccines to the impoverished Indian masses back then. But hey, there was ayurvedic medicine.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Since they haven't developed a vaccine for the SARS coronavirus that kicked off almost 17 years go and weren't successful in getting one for the far more deadly MERS coronavirus from about 8 years ago either, why on earth would anyone be holding out hope for a silver bullet for this one?

Actually the reason that efforts to create a vaccine for the SARs virus never resulted in a vaccine was because the virus more or less disappeared and with it, the will to fund expensive vaccination trials. There was promising research done on a vaccine.

[tgw]

3 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:

Eleanor McBean Phd and Naturapathic doctor wrote a book called the Poisoned Needle in 1954 about the origin of the vaccine concept which started in the 1790's.

 

She was a child during the 1918 spanish flu outbreak in which her entire family refused vaccines and were unscathed.

 

She has a very different take than todays doctors and pharmaceutical companies.  If the book is accurate, profits supercede health.

 

The book in its entirety can be read online free.  It is interesting that the citizens of the world were never presented with this data from news, politicians, doctors, or pharmaceutical companies over the years.

 

"Naturapathic doctor"  okay... so not a medical doctor...

1954... her research seems state of the art.

 

"She was a child during the 1918 spanish flu outbreak in which her entire family refused vaccines and were unscathed."

say no more - even if one anti-vaxxer refused vaccination and survived, that would be proof enough! right?

 

Anyway - as the viral cause of influenza was only identified in the 1930ies, it was quite to expect that none of the viruses worked. So the argument that the family was "unscathed" because refusing the vaccine(s) is akin to a swordfight between 2 people that are blind and deaf ... in a dark vacuum.

 

yes, there is a problem today in the balance betwen pharma profits and health benefits and costs to patients and healthcare systems.

that's where government agencies should step in to check health benefits. the next question is whether they are doing that properly or if they are even capable of doing it, especially in a situation of urgency.

but this kind of situation is not unique to healthcare. for covid at least there is a genuine goal to save people, but look at what the FAA did with Boeing when it certified the 737 MAX. it will take vaccine side-effects a long time to kill as many people as the 737 MAX did.

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, tgw said:

 

"Naturapathic doctor"  okay... so not a medical doctor...

1954... her research seems state of the art.

 

"She was a child during the 1918 spanish flu outbreak in which her entire family refused vaccines and were unscathed."

say no more - even if one anti-vaxxer refused vaccination and survived, that would be proof enough! right?

 

Anyway - as the viral cause of influenza was only identified in the 1930ies, it was quite to expect that none of the viruses worked. So the argument that the family was "unscathed" because refusing the vaccine(s) is akin to a swordfight between 2 people that are blind and deaf ... in a dark vacuum.

 

yes, there is a problem today in the balance betwen pharma profits and health benefits and costs to patients and healthcare systems.

that's where government agencies should step in to check health benefits. the next question is whether they are doing that properly or if they are even capable of doing it, especially in a situation of urgency.

but this kind of situation is not unique to healthcare. for covid at least there is a genuine goal to save people, but look at what the FAA did with Boeing when it certified the 737 MAX. it will take vaccine side-effects a long time to kill as many people as the 737 MAX did.

Actually there never was a vaccine for the Spanish Flu. I believe that what that naturopathic doctor meant was that her family had never been vaccinated for anything. Which is not a serious piece of evidence linking vaccinations to susceptibility to the Spanish Flu.

[Pattaya Spotter]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

Actually the reason that efforts to create a vaccine for the SARs virus never resulted in a vaccine was because the virus more or less disappeared and with it, the will to fund expensive vaccination trials. There was promising research done on a vaccine.

Partially right...the sars-cov1 virus "disappeared" because there was little asymptomatic spread and people with the virus were quickly isolated and treated/died. Therefore the spread of the virus was contained and it "disappeared." (It's actually still out there in its animal host...just not in humans currently.) Because of this, promising vaccine research was given a low priority and the world moved on. The Russian Gamalaya Institute was able to produce their  current vaccine so quickly based on their prior SARS-COV1 research.

[rumak]

11 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:

Eleanor McBean Phd and Naturapathic doctor wrote a book called the Poisoned Needle in 1954 about the origin of the vaccine concept which started in the 1790's.

 

She was a child during the 1918 spanish flu outbreak in which her entire family refused vaccines and were unscathed.

 

She has a very different take than todays doctors and pharmaceutical companies.  If the book is accurate, profits supercede health.

 

The book in its entirety can be read online free.  It is interesting that the citizens of the world were never presented with this data from news, politicians, doctors, or pharmaceutical companies over the years.

 

Maybe "interesting" to you and me.......... but anything anti pharma  and  pro "naturapathic"  (meaning prevention and/or  solutions NOT using big pharma drugs)   is certainly NOT  interesting to the mainstream world.  Even most of the otherwise intelligent people responding on forums exhibit the usual reflex action associated with brainwashed individuals :     mind closes, eyes roll

[rabas]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Actually there never was a vaccine for the Spanish Flu. I believe that what that naturopathic doctor meant was that her family had never been vaccinated for anything. Which is not a serious piece of evidence linking vaccinations to susceptibility to the Spanish Flu.

Actually there was, a few types were produced and possibly up to 1 million people were vaccinated in the US. Here is a good article:

 

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/blog/vaccine-development-spanish-flu

 

Unfortunately these vaccines were based on altered bacilli as they didn't know the flu was caused by a virus. (though viruses had been discovered) It's now thought the little protection these vaccines offered was from bacterial co-infections.

 

The naturopathic doctor's family probably reacted to news like this in 1918.

 

[Rancid]

Doesn't matter if its 1%, we will all be getting it. There are billions to be made, nothing will be allowed to derail this CEO retirement package. And should there be deaths or side effects then that will be written off as the price to pay to keep us safe, plus of course vaccine makers cannot be sued. Sweetest deal ever...

[Pattaya Spotter]

1 hour ago, Rancid said:

plus of course vaccine makers cannot be sued

Interesting...didn't know this; applies in the US...don't know about other countries.

 

https://healthcare.findlaw.com/patient-rights/can-i-sue-vaccine-manufacturers-.html

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 10/22/2020 at 7:05 PM, Pattaya Spotter said:

Thalidomide is a drug, given to sick people, not a vaccine given to healthy people. The standards are different.

Also, at the time Thalidomide was introduced, it did not have to go through much, if any testing because safety standards were much less stringent back then. In fact the whole Thalidomide tragedy is one of the main reasons for the strict drug safety regulations we have nowadays - they were largely developed in the wake of it.

Edited October 26, 2020 by GroveHillWanderer

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 10/24/2020 at 6:19 PM, NanLaew said:

Since they haven't developed a vaccine for the SARS coronavirus that kicked off almost 17 years go and weren't successful in getting one for the far more deadly MERS coronavirus from about 8 years ago either, why on earth would anyone be holding out hope for a silver bullet for this one?

Other people have already addressed why they never completed development of a SARS vaccine (basically because it disappeared as a threat so quickly) and your point about MERS is misleading. 

 

Very promising efforts are ongoing for a MERS vaccine with the Oxford vaccine development group's candidate vaccine currently undergoing human trials in Saudi Arabia. However it's never received the funding or had the urgency the current coronavirus has because again, it's not that much of a threat, since it kills less than 200 people a year on average, in the entire world.

 

In fact, the Astra Zeneca/Oxford vaccine is directly based on their MERS vaccine and is the reason why it is so far along the development path - all they had to do was replace the part of the vaccine construct based on the MERS spike protein, with the one for SARS-CoV-2.

[ourmanflint]

It would help if you read the original article and not some garbage recycled one. 

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037

 

The reason none of the trial candidates vaccines detect reductions in serious outcomes such as hospitalization or death is because such events are extremely rare

 

Quote

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.

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 10/24/2020 at 7:49 AM, placeholder said:

"In a sobering essay, Doshi said those hoping for a breakthrough to end the pandemic would be disappointed, with some vaccines likely to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection by only 30%."

He actual doesn't say that. He says that three of the trials (those from Moderna, Pfizer and Janssen) are only designed to show a 30% reduction, but what is he basing that on? He says it's because they have to meet FDA guidelines and that's what the FDA requires.

 

I read the FDA document that's referred to. It says the following:

 

Quote

 

To ensure that a widely deployed COVID-19 vaccine is effective, the primary efficacy endpoint point estimate for a placebo-controlled efficacy trial should be at  least 50%, and the statistical success criterion should be that the lower bound of the appropriately alpha-adjusted confidence interval around the primary efficacy  endpointpoint estimate is >30%.

 

 

As far as I can tell, that only means that the FDA will not approve a vaccine unless it's at least 50% effective (with a confidence interval of >30%). Even if only 50% is required, that doesn't mean it's what the trials are designed for, or aiming to achieve and I don't see how it has any bearing on what they're actually going to achieve. We won't know how effective (or ineffective) the vaccines will be until they've completed phase 3 trials and published their results, which none of them have done.

[Pattaya Spotter]

5 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

He actual doesn't say that. He says that three of the trials (those from Moderna, Pfizer and Janssen) are only designed to show a 30% reduction, but what is he basing that on? He says it's because they have to meet FDA guidelines and that's what the FDA requires.

 

I read the FDA document that's referred to. It says the following:

 

 

As far as I can tell, that only means that the FDA will not approve a vaccine unless it's at least 50% effective (with a confidence interval of >30%). Even if only 50% is required, that doesn't mean it's what the trials are designed for, or aiming to achieve and I don't see how it has any bearing on what they're actually going to achieve. We won't know how effective (or ineffective) the vaccines will be until they've completed phase 3 trials and published their results, which none of them have done.

One almost has to have a degree in statistics to understand it all...and what use is a 50% effective vaccine; would anyone buy a car that only started 50% of the time?

[GroveHillWanderer]

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I reckon that Peter Doshi is misrepresenting the situation.

 

Firstly, there no indication I can see, that any of the vaccines will be only 30% effective (the truth is, we just don't know yet) and secondly the FDA guidelines which he actually cites, say that no vaccine will be approved unless it's at least 50% effective. So any vaccine which is only 30% effective (as he baselessly asserts they're designed to be) would never be approved for use.

[GroveHillWanderer]

31 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

One almost has to have a degree in statistics to understand it all...and what use is a 50% effective vaccine; would anyone buy a car that only started 50% of the time?

50% efficacy is just the absolute lowest possible boundary for what might be approved by the FDA. There's every reason to hope (looking at the immune responses from the phase 1 & 2 trials) that some if not several of the candidate vaccines will achieve a much better efficacy rate than that.

[sscc]

The 3-4 vaccines developed by China is currently under Stage 3 testing outside China

(  UAE, Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Indonesia, Pakistan etc in total of roughly 10 ) and reported going well in the trial.

 

In particular,  Brazil had tested multiple vaccines of different source and reports the one made in China is most promising . 

 

This is not reported in Western media,  or at least delayed in reporting in Western media. 

Expect the trial countries and China are the first group using it.  

[Pattaya Spotter]

45 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I reckon that Peter Doshi is misrepresenting the situation.

 

Firstly, there no indication I can see, that any of the vaccines will be only 30% effective (the truth is, we just don't know yet) and secondly the FDA guidelines which he actually cites, say that no vaccine will be approved unless it's at least 50% effective. So any vaccine which is only 30% effective (as he baselessly asserts they're designed to be) would never be approved for use.

What I gathered from reading the BMJ article was one of Doshi's main criticism of the current P3 trails is that they include too many younger (I.e. healthier) people and not enough older ones or those with underlying conditions who would be more vulnerable to serious illness if infected with the virus. Therefore the test results won't show how effective they are on the overall population (and especially among the vulnerable population) Maybe that's where he gets his 30% overall effectiveness number. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/24/2020 at 6:49 PM, BritManToo said:

Would you take a (largely untested) vaccine to reduce sniffles a bit?

Of course not, but I wasn't saying that I would.

The mantra seems to be that a majority of people take the jab, but perhaps they underestimate how many like I will be saying no ( till it's been properly tested over a couple of years ).

Remember way back when most were saying it takes a couple of years to develop a safe vaccine?

A vaccine expert on radio this morning was saying how it might be at least a year till the vaccine is widely available in NZ.

[thaibeachlovers]

IMO the important thing about producing a new vaccine isn't if it works against a specific disease, but if it has unintended and bad side effects. That's why I won't take a rushed vaccine, and in NZ they can't force me to.

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 10/27/2020 at 9:13 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the important thing about producing a new vaccine isn't if it works against a specific disease, but if it has unintended and bad side effects.

That's what phase 3 trials are designed for. You test the vaccines on tens of thousands of people so that any rare side effects can be discovered.

 

The Janssen phase 3 trial has 60,000 participants and the one from Astra Zeneca has over 50,000.

[Pattaya Spotter]

10 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

That's what phase 3 trials are designed for. You test the vaccines on tens of thousands of people so that any rare side effects can be discovered.

 

The Janssen phase 3 trial has 60,000 participants and the one from Astra Zeneca has over 50,000.

Half of them are getting a placebo. 

[3NUMBAS]

vary the dose and more jabs needed ..they have to work or thai tourism has gone forever and mankind is doomed

[3NUMBAS]

Dr Fauci warns that early COVID-19 vaccines will only prevent symptoms from arising - not block infection

• Dr Anthony Fauci cautioned that early COVID-19 vaccines are aimed at preventing symptoms during Yahoo Finance's All Markets Summit on Monday
• 'If the vaccine allows you to prevent initial infection, that would be great,' he said. '[But] the primary endpoint [is] to prevent clinically recognizable disease'  
• At least four vaccine candidates are currently in late-stage clinical trials  
• Fauci has said he is cautiously optimistic that a vaccine will arrive by year end
• But he warned that early vaccines may only be 50 to 60 percent effective 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884031/Dr-Fauci-warns-early-COVID-19-vaccines-prevent-symptoms-not-block-infection.html

 

[Pattaya Spotter]

1 hour ago, 3NUMBAS said:

Fauci warns that early COVID-19 vaccines will only prevent symptoms from arising - not block infection

As a general matter, it is very difficult to design a vaccine that blocks respiratory viruses, which by their very nature float around in the air people breath and stand/walk about in. It's almost impossible to prevent such viruses from entering the body through the mouth, nose, and eyes if present in the air in sufficient numbers. The purpose of respiratory virus vaccines is to get the body to recognize the virus after it enters the body and trigger the body's own immune system to attack and destroy it, i.e., trigger an immune response. In this way, the virus is eliminated and symptoms of Covid-19 disease are prevented. 

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

That's what phase 3 trials are designed for. You test the vaccines on tens of thousands of people so that any rare side effects can be discovered.

 

The Janssen phase 3 trial has 60,000 participants and the one from Astra Zeneca has over 50,000.

Some side effects might take a long while to show up, so how can they say a vaccine will be available this year?

[Pattaya Spotter]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Some side effects might take a long while to show up, so how can they say a vaccine will be available this year?

True...long term side effects can only be determined by long term observation. However, after a vaccinehas shown 50% efficacy and no serious short term side effects it will be approved for use (with monitoring for long term side effects). Basically you're a guinea pig if you take the first round of vaccines.

Edited October 30, 2020 by Pattaya Spotter