Volunteer in Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Has Died, Brazil Health Authority Says

Volunteer in Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Has Died, Brazil Health Authority Says

BRASILIA (Reuters) – Brazilian health authority Anvisa said on Wednesday that a volunteer in a clinical trial of the COVID-19 vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University has died, stating it had received data from an investigation into the matter.

The Federal University of Sao Paulo, which is helping coordinate phase 3 clinical trials in Brazil, separately said that the volunteer was Brazilian.

Article continues at USNews.com

Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed

Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed

Not surprising to most who are familiar with the ‘science’ that goes into vaccines in general, writing for Forbes, William A. Haseltine, professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health says that the vaccine protocols are designed to succeed. Haseltine notes that preventing COVID-19 infection isn’t even being tested. With world leaders and people like Bill Gates stating that we cannot return to ‘normal’ until everyone is vaccinated, it’s concerning that the vaccine trials are not concerned with if the vaccines prevent infection at all.

Prevention of infection must be a critical endpoint. Any vaccine trial should include regular antigen testing every three days to test contagiousness to pick up early signs of infection and PCR testing once a week to confirm infection by SARS-CoV-2 test the ability of the vaccines to stave off infection. Prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for any of these vaccines. In fact, their endpoints all require confirmed infections and all those they will include in the analysis for success,  the only difference being the severity of symptoms between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Measuring differences amongst only those infected by SARS-CoV-2 underscores the implicit conclusion that the vaccines are not expected to prevent infection, only modify symptoms of those infected.

Essentially they’re only looking at the difference in severity between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, not whether one got infected and one did not as most people would assume is the purpose of the vaccine to begin with.

We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.
The greatest fear people have is dying from this disease. A vaccine must significantly or entirely reduce deaths from Covid-19. Over two hundred thousand people have died in the United States and nearly a million worldwide. None list mortality as a critical endpoint.

The bar for these manufacturers to claim “effiacy” is so low that they cannot miss, meaning that not only will the public be subject to dangerous vaccines, but they’re not likely to even work.

Interim analysis success requires a seventy percent efficacy. The vaccine or placebo will be given to thousands of people in each trial. For Moderna, the initial interim analysis will be based on the results of infection of only 53 people. The judgment reached in interim analysis is dependent upon the difference in the number of people with symptoms, which may be mild, in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated group. Moderna’s success margin is for 13 or less of those 53 to develop symptoms compared to 40 or more in their control group. For Johnson & Johnson, their interim analysis includes 77 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 18 or less developing symptoms compared to 59 in the control group. For AstraZeneca, their interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 12 or less developing symptoms compared to 19 in the 25 person control group. Pfizer is even smaller in its success requirements. Their initial group includes 32 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 7 or less developing symptoms compared to 25 in the control group.

The second surprise from these protocols is how mild the requirements for contracted Covid-19 symptoms are. A careful reading reveals that the minimum qualification for a case of Covid-19 is a positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms. These include headache, fever, cough, or mild nausea. This is far from adequate. These vaccine trials are testing to prevent common cold symptoms.

These trials certainly do not give assurance that the vaccine will protect from the serious consequences of Covid-19. Johnson & Johnson is the only trial that requires the inclusion of severe Covid-19 cases, at least 5 for the 75 participant interim analysis.

One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance.

It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation.

Article continues at Forbes.com

 

Pin It on Pinterest