I'll leave the issue of the comparisons you're drawing, though I'll note that you've drawn them yet again.

> I'm sorry is that your opinion?

It's the result of a peer-reviewed study conducted by the Gamelaya Institute and published in the prestigious journal The Lancet.[1]

> And Russia, like China, have done all they can to obscure standardized third-party testing of their vaccines (because they are worried that less efficacy is a political loss). They limit the data, then turn on their propaganda machines to try and convince people they are the best. Apparently, it works.

> ...

> Results of data handed to them as a honeypot. The first rule of data analysis is you collect your own data, otherwise you could be setup. And China specifically forbid the release of the raw patient data, as I already mentioned.

The phase-III trials weren't even conducted in China. They were conducted by institutes that have nothing to do with the Chinese government in the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Turkey, Brazil and other countries. The data is all public and published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. The WHO and various national drug regulators around the world have evaluated the data and approved the vaccines. The vaccines' real-world effectiveness has since been evaluated by various national health agencies, and the Chilean Health Ministry has published a detailed analysis in a peer-reviewed journal.

I linked to some of these papers in my previous comment, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that the data is secret, or that it hasn't been evaluated by independent third parties. What you're saying here is just factually wrong.

> Gao Fu said what he said, it was translated directly

Again, this is not the case. Gao Fu's statements were not published, even in Chinese. One of the slides from his talk was photographed and posted online. It speaks very generally about vaccines (not even Chinese vaccines in particular), and discusses ways to improve their efficacy. The suggestions are identical to suggestions being made at the time for improving the efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Someone from a US think tank then claimed that Gao Fu was saying Chinese vaccines were substandard, and that spread in the press. Gao Fu then gave an interview in which he said that he was being misrepresented, but that was just written off by Western news media.

> He walked it back (of course) because his political masters saw it as embarrassing.

Or because his statements were actually misrepresented. If you look at the slide that this is all based on, it doesn't even mention Chinese vaccines. It's very general/vague.

But there's actually hard data on the efficacy of the Chinese vaccines, collected outside of China and published in solid journals outside China, so we don't have to parse the words of a Chinese health official.

> Chinese officials TO THIS DAY publicly claim they need to make their vaccines more efficient.

You linked to a statement by the Chinese Ambassador to the US, who says that in light of the surge in cases in the United States and the outbreak in China, both countries should work together to improve vaccines. It looks to me like a jab at the US for not having the virus under control, concealed behind a supposedly friendly message. As I said before, there's hard data on the efficacy of Chinese vaccines, so we don't have to go parsing Tweets by Chinese diplomats.

To me, the vaccine issue is a pretty good illustration of the problems with reporting on China. A lot of people have the same general sense that you've expressed that there's no data Chinese vaccines, or that the data's being concealed, despite the fact that this is quite provably not the case. This impression is widespread because of really terrible reporting like the NY Times article I linked earlier. If the NY Times were to sow FUD about the Moderna vaccine in the same way, there would be an uproar, and rightly so.

1. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...