Critique of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Efficacy and Safety Trials
Tags: Coronavirus, Vaccines, Effectiveness, Safety

Critique of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Efficacy and Safety Trials

A look inside and under the numbers for the reasoning and motive — conspiracy to defraud, I think not. Hubris to think they know what’s best for the public, likely. But it’s not their right to inflate results and thereby create misinformed consent. Marcus Follow Dec 21, 2020 · 3 min read

Photo by Joshua J. Cotten on Unsplash (my search was “Big Pharma”)

As previously reported by me here in ILLUMINATION, and with poetic sarcasm in Political Sense, the unlikely to be happenstance convergence of results of each study state the patently absurd result that the placebos are more effective at stopping infections than simply being in the public at large. See Notes #1. As I reported, the studies clearly state that participants were only tested for the virus if they reported symptoms. See Notes #2.

Thus, the studies were not designed to find asymptomatic infections; or the studies were designed not to find asymptomatic infections. It does not really matter, yet, it is more than mere semantics. The former could be a gross oversight. The latter more than implies intent.

I posit intent. The remaining question in my mind is motive. I dismiss greed. Yesterday my intuition told me the motive is expedience; well-meaning but misguided expedience. The public is irrationally queasy about vaccines generally and understandably queasy about never-before-tested technology. This morning I read The Next Conspiracy Theory: “I Got Covid From the Vaccine,” by Julio Vincent Gambuto (whom I find myself having been inspired by on the diverse topics of vaccines and business closures (just published by Political Sense Editorial Team) both converging in the coronavirusverse):

“This is the fastest vaccine rollout in history, which is naturally going to lead to some skepticism.” The speed of the vaccine development (and distribution) can be credited to advances in science, technology, and genetic mapping. But it is that same speed — mostly, computing speed — that is responsible for the virality of misinformation that we, as a society, find ourselves now battling.”

This morning I asked a colleague in medium (The Dozen), who happens to be a professional grant writer, if he had experience with designing clinical studies? He replied unfortunately not and asked me why I asked? I replied:

Just someone with experience to confirm what I have written based purely on logic and intelligence — that the Pfizer and Moderna studies have a serious design flaw. They only tested participants who reported symptoms. Thus the study was not designed to eliminate participant bias. It also wasn’t designed to eliminate vigilance as a factor. It seems it was designed not to pick up asymptomatic infections. Thus the studies do not properly inform. Just writing this answer was helpful to me in organizing my next piece on the matter. Thank you.

I was 90% finished with this piece when The Dozen’s clap hit my notification feed.

I believe the companies have complete confidence in the efficacy and safety of the vaccines, though anything beyond short-term safety with a new technology that is akin to gene therapy and trains the immune system to attack proteins generated by our own cells because it turns our cells into spike-protein incubators, is hopeful thinking. To create public confidence, the studies need high efficacy to skew the pro vs con analysis. Not testing and thereby missing asymptomatic infections, massively skews the efficacy results. See Notes #3.

Hubris.

What do you think?