Mainstream media don't want you to know the difference between vaccines that work and vaccines that

CNBC reported that Chile has been experiencing rising cases of COVID-19 despite having one of the world's best vaccination rates. As Thomas Lifsonnoted in American Thinker, the CNBC article buried the fact that Chile was using a Chinese vaccine.

A similarly deceptive report came out Wednesday on the Bloomberg website, this time about the Seychelles, where 62% of the population is fully vaccinated, yet COVID cases are still rising. The headline of the story indicated that vaccines in general are ineffective, but, as in the Chile story, buried deep inside was the fact that Seychelles was mostly using a Chinese vaccine.

Vaccine Effectiveness

The two primary U.S.-made vaccines (Modern and Pfizer) use the mRNA technology, which is about 95% effective. The European vaccine (AstraZeneca) uses a spike protein technology that is about 70% effective. The Chinese vaccines (Sinovac and Sinopharm) use a killed viral particles technology that appears to be ineffective.





https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/05/mainstream_media_dont_want_you_to_know_the_difference_between_vaccines_that_work_and_vaccines_that_dont.html







The lamestream media doesn’t want us to know how much better our vaccines are than these of them. They are covering for their friends in China whose vaccines as suspected are next to worthless. The technology behind the US vaccines is very effective. The UK one is reasonably effective. The Chinese technology truly sucks.

 

The USA has an opportunity to step in and help nations around recover from the ill effects of the China vaccine. It’s also an opportunity to subvert Chinese propaganda and remind the world where the virus came from in the first place.

 

You're joking right? The effectiveness of each vaccine has been discussed extensively.

 

The lack of effectiveness of the China vaccines isn’t that widely known in this country.

 

i am more concerned with what is available to me than i am with the chinese vaccine.

it would be nice if all vaccines are safe and effective vs all variants for long lasting immunity, but there is a lot that the most diligent researchers do not yet know and, unlike fox news personalities or ex presidents, refuse to make up.

 

the effectiveness of the 5 (count 'em) cuban vaccines are not well known either.

 

“The two primary U.S.-made vaccines (Modern and Pfizer) use the mRNA technology, which is about 95% effective. The European vaccine (AstraZeneca) uses a spike protein technology that is about 70% effective. The Chinese vaccines (Sinovac and Sinopharm) use a killed viral particles technology that appears to be ineffective.”

 

i heard you the first time.

for a vaccine that "appears to be less effective" should we be using the limited results in the seychelles or the larger sample space and longer time span of mainland china?

 

the vaccine does not prevent you from getting the virus, it just teaches your body how to fight it

 

Is the BBC mainstream enough for you?

Sinovac: Brazil results show Chinese vaccine 50.4% effective

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55642648

 

I don't think anyone is getting the vaccine in China anytime soon.

 

could that be because it's not approved here, so no one cares

that said, the way effectiveness is calculated is a bit deceptive

if during the trials of 20k people

2 die in the placebo group and 1 dies in the vaccine group, that is 50% effectiveness, if 4 die in the placebo group, you just raised effectiveness to 75%

this is a problem with all drugs, including things like Statins

if the results are that small, then obviously, no drug is needed, but people hear 75% and think that means more than it does, have to look at all the numbers to get the big picture, look at all the people on Statins because of this very math

 

The PFEIZER VACCINE IS GERMAN!!!!! Created in Germany by a husband and wife pair of Turkish/German MUSLIMS!!!

 

Perhaps because those vaccines are not available in the US market. Why should the US media be concerned about effectiveness of vaccines not used here?

 

now now, Trump is the father of all vaccines, so America gets to take credit for them all

 

I could nitpick about your description but it is close enough.

Why exactly are you saying that this is deceptive and a problem?
What would you suggest as an alternative method?

 

China sucks. The media sucks. Vaccines suck. Everything sucks.

What on earth is your point? These are new vaccines for a novel virus. We don't know yet.

The media doesn't say "China sucks" so....what exactly? Why should they? We have you.

 

I do not know a better method, I am just pointing out you need to look at all the data, not just this percentage as it's not what most people think it is - I use Statin's as an example - many drug makers can use this number to sell a placebo as a real drug

the real proof that vaccines are working is the huge drop in the numbers we are seeing with the virus imo

 

I am not following your logic.

Using a control (placebo) group as an active comparator is PRECISELY how you scientifically assess effectiveness. They are doing everything in their power to isolate down to one variable (which is those that did and did not receive the actual drug), and then making a direct comparison between the results in both groups.

Something such as a statin is not typically expressed as %effectiveness, but rather whether or not you see a better reduction in Cholesterol levels in the active versus the comparator group. In order to gain FDA approval, a drug needs to demonstrate a significantly better response than does the placebo group, while doing so safely. It is then up to the physician and patient as to whether or not that expected drop in cholesterol level is worth the cost and risks associated with taking the drug.

The problem with statins is not that they do not produce a rather significant drop in cholesterol levels ( because they do), but rather whether or not lowering cholesterol levels produces a lower risk of heart disease. It is clearly established that people with heart disease tend to have higher levels of cholesterol, but the connection as to whether lowering cholesterol levels decreases heart disease risk is not as clear and definitely not revealed in the short term phase 3 clinical trials required for a drugs approval. Therein lies the debate in regards to statins. That debate is NOT predicated upon comparing an active versus a control group to determine efficacy.

 

if you have 200k people in a trial for both placebo and the drug

4 die on the placebo and 1 on the drug, that is 75%

but do you really need the drug if out of the 200k only 4 more died and the drug has many risks of it's own as with statins? as the results of the study would be almost identical to the placebo group

"better reduction in Cholesterol"

I agree, that is another measure used to sell the drug, also false though, as Cholesterol was not the real issue

all I am saying is that % is not the only thing one should look at, look at all the data

 

Why would that matter if we're not using China's vaccines?

 

That grouping of numbers would not provide a statistically significant result, thus, that trial would be concluded to be a failure and the drug not approved. Those numbers would be an example of a numerical but statistically insignificant advantage, which is considered to be equal and the active group did not separate from the control group.

As far as statins, death is not the endpoint of those studies. Most studies last for 3 months to maybe a year, and you would not expect there to be a difference in death rates in that short of a time period. Cholesterol levels are thought to be related to the long term buildup of fatty deposits, and as such, a study length of one year does not adequately measure death rates for a long term correlation such as cholesterol and heart disease. The miniscule deaths that you would encounter in such a study would basically never achieve statistical significance. The endpoint of statin trials would be cholesterol level, and they are in fact quite good at lowering that number. The question is whether or not lowering that number decreases future heart problems.

Statins are relatively benign, so they do have a pretty good safety profile. With that being said, personally, if my cholesterol were on the low end of high (200ish) I might opt to not take them because I would not want to commit to taking them for life, but if my number were truly high, I personally would take them because in my estimation the risks associated with them are outweighed by the potential risk that a high cholesterol number may increase my progression of heart disease.

On a side note, I had a contractor working in my house last winter and he had just had an internal cardio defribrillator placed in his chest. He was an anti medicine guy and he told me that he had been reading information on the internet and according to some internet doctor you should never take statins and so he refuses to do so. I asked him what was his cholesterol level and he said 390, which is the highest number that I have personally ever heard of.

In my opinion, he is the poster child for whom should be taking a statin.

 

that was a simplified example, to show the concept

"Statins are relatively benign"

do not agree


you can change your cholesterol score based on what you eat the days prior to the test - that makes it useless as an indicator of risk

good site that describes it

https://cholesterolcode.com/

 

Yet you tried using it to prove your position regardless. A more realistic set of numbers would provide a more realistic analysis. In truth, you are trying to insinuate that using an active comparator versus a control group is somehow nefarious, when in reality, comparing a drug arm to a non drug arm is the ONLY means of assessing efficacy, and the concept of statistical significance is how they use larger numbers to assess whether a different result is potentially due to happenstance or if statistically if you continue to repeat that test you will overwhelmingly likely get the same result. I am not sure what you are trying to insinuate about this practice.

This is a tough one to address. They are regarded in the medical community as relatively benign. With that being said, as with literally ALL drugs, you can look at the package insert and find a long list of potential side effects that were not necessarily due to that drug ( not a statistically significant difference), but need to be listed because they did occur to people in the active group. With literally every drug one can point to a myriad of horrific sounding side effects.

I can make a pregnant womans pregnancy test come up negative by replacing her urine with mine. So what? That proves nothing other than I am simply wasting my time by getting a pregnancy test.

The fact that one can fool a cholesterol test means absolutely nothing in regards to whether a person should or should not take a statin. If fooling your doctor is your goal, I suggest not going in the first place.

 

I was almost scared to open this. Glad to see Moderna is on the good list