ADVERTISEMENT

OT- A Very Significant Pfizer Vaccine Update (Nov. 18)

It's a sham.

"The final analysis was triggered when 170 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 developed among the 43,661 enrolled participants, of which 41,135 had received a second dose of the vaccine as of November 13.


Of the 170 cases, 162 were in the placebo group and eight were in the vaccinated group, yielding the 95 percent efficacy."


I don't know exact size of groups, but assuming it is 1/2 and 1/2

21,830 placebo group - 21,668 didn't get Covid - 99.26% didn't get Covid
21,831 vaccine group - 21,823 didn't get Covid - 99.96% didn't get Covid

I don't know how you could assume equal exposure across groups and difference in infection percent in groups would be easily within the margin of error for exposure differences.

Edit: This is how I think they calculate the "95% effective rate"
1 - .9926 = .0074 and 1 - .9996 = .0004 ||||| .0074 - .0004 = .0070 ||||| .0070/.0074 = .945946

Usually they calculate efficacy by measuring serum neutralizing antibody levels. Nice try though.
 
Please explain further.
What more is there to explain? Depending on their design or whatever the FDA mandates, they draw blood samples at a set time post vaccination and quantify how much antibody against the virus is present. The FDA I assume sets what they believe to be an acceptable level of antibody to provide protection. So, even IF that level falls below the desired threshold, that doesn't necessarily mean that person doesn't have some level of protection from the virus. They may have a level of cell mediated immunity from their T cells.
 
What more is there to explain? Depending on their design or whatever the FDA mandates, they draw blood samples at a set time post vaccination and quantify how much antibody against the virus is present. The FDA I assume sets what they believe to be an acceptable level of antibody to provide protection. So, even IF that level falls below the desired threshold, that doesn't necessarily mean that person doesn't have some level of protection from the virus. They may have a level of cell mediated immunity from their T cells.
just wondering what you all think about Trumps new socialist policies. He is asking Congress to pass new socialist legislation that would throw away capitalistic principles in favor of fixed drug pricing based on prices in socialist countries. he actually wants more socialism in our healthcare industry. where foreign governments and our government determine the prices many americans pay for their medicines. I thought he said socialism would destroy this country? why does he support socialism but speak out against it?
 
just wondering what you all think about Trumps new socialist policies. He is asking Congress to pass new socialist legislation that would throw away capitalistic principles in favor of fixed drug pricing based on prices in socialist countries. he actually wants more socialism in our healthcare industry. where foreign governments and our government determine the prices many americans pay for their medicines. I thought he said socialism would destroy this country? why does he support socialism but speak out against it?
I think it may be detrimental to development of new drugs and therapies. It's certainly a popular idea though and that's what he is. He got elected in part because of his populist stance on issues. He's a lame duck and it will be up to Pelosi and Biden to try to pass that type of legislation.
 
What more is there to explain? Depending on their design or whatever the FDA mandates, they draw blood samples at a set time post vaccination and quantify how much antibody against the virus is present. The FDA I assume sets what they believe to be an acceptable level of antibody to provide protection. So, even IF that level falls below the desired threshold, that doesn't necessarily mean that person doesn't have some level of protection from the virus. They may have a level of cell mediated immunity from their T cells.
So for every 20 people they tested 1 didn't make the desired antibodies?
 
So for every 20 people they tested 1 didn't make the desired antibodies?
No. Didn't make a high enough level to be considered protective against COVID. More than likely all test subjects developed some antibodies. Again, that doesn't measure your cell mediated immunity though. As I posted, I don't know for sure if that is how they are analyzing the vaccine but that has been the standard in humans. They don't do human challenges with live virus that I'm aware of. Back for SARs they did do primate trials at Oxford in England to test the vaccine they were developing for that there. I don't know if any of those were done for COVID vaccines or not at this point. I believe that will all be made public at some point in the future.
 
just wondering what you all think about Trumps new socialist policies. He is asking Congress to pass new socialist legislation that would throw away capitalistic principles in favor of fixed drug pricing based on prices in socialist countries. he actually wants more socialism in our healthcare industry. where foreign governments and our government determine the prices many americans pay for their medicines. I thought he said socialism would destroy this country? why does he support socialism but speak out against it?
It's hardly socialist IMO to expect Big Pharma to price fairly across the world. They need to redistribute their pricing so that rich countries in Europe pay their fair share of the R&D burden and the U.S. consumer should not be burdened with higher prices to offset that subsidy given to European consumers. Big Pharma right now is practicing price discrimination because they have monopoly power derived from their government granted patent protection (at least until the drugs finally go off patent protection to generic).

That's why their prices need to be regulated in terms of making sure there is a worldwide level field because they are a defacto monopoly with the patent protection. In practical terms, prices to European customers need to be raised (to share in funding the R&D costs) and prices to U.S. customers need to be reduced to unburden them from bearing all of those R&D costs.

Personally I've been very passionate and an advocate about this issue long before Donald Trump ever entered the political landscape. Big Pharma's lobbyists over the past years have protected their monopolistic pricing powers by lining the pockets of Congress (both parties).

P.S. As an addendum to illustrate the situation here's just one example. People who need insulin in Detroit are forced to pay an outrageous price. A short trip over the river to Canada, the price of that very same insulin product is magnitudes cheaper. Why is that? The costs of selling the product are the same on both sides of the river. The situation for some patients in Detroit needing insulin was getting so bad due to the high cost that a mother started organizing a trip across the river to buy insulin in Canada in quantities for use by U.S. patients. It was of course illegal for her to do that but so far (to my knowledge) she has not been charged with the crime. Authorities probably fear public blowback and too much publicity for the pricing inequity so they look the other way. But of course everyone who doesn't live near Canada still is being price gouged.
 
Last edited:
It's hardly socialist IMO to expect Big Pharma to price fairly across the world. They need to redistribute their pricing so that rich countries in Europe pay their fair share of the R&D burden and the U.S. consumer should not be burdened with higher prices to offset that subsidy given to European consumers. Big Pharma right now is practicing price discrimination because they have monopoly power derived from their government granted patent protection (at least until the drugs finally go off patent protection to generic).

That's why their prices need to be regulated in terms of making sure there is a worldwide level field because they are a defacto monopoly with the patent protection. In practical terms, prices to European customers need to be raised (to share in funding the R&D costs) and prices to U.S. customers need to be reduced to unburden them from bearing all of those R&D costs.

Personally I've been very passionate and an advocate about this issue long before Donald Trump ever entered the political landscape. Big Pharma's lobbyists over the past years have protected their monopolistic pricing powers by lining the pockets of Congress (both parties).

P.S. As an addendum to illustrate the situation here's just one example. People who need insulin in Detroit are forced to pay an outrageous price. A short trip over the river to Canada, the price of that very same insulin product is magnitudes cheaper. Why is that? The costs of selling the product are the same on both sides of the river. The situation for some patients in Detroit needing insulin was getting so bad due to the high cost that a mother started organizing a trip across the river to buy insulin in Canada in quantities for use by U.S. patients. It was of course illegal for her to do that but so far (to my knowledge) she has not been charged with the crime. Authorities probably fear public blowback and too much publicity for the pricing inequity so they look the other way. But of course everyone who doesn't live near Canada still is being price gouged.
There is no doubt that the U.S. consumer is largely paying for the research and development of new drugs and therapies for the whole world. IF we implement more government cost controls it will dramatically lower the incentive for companies to develop new drugs. As it is now, Medicare won't pay for some medications which are more expensive than alternative less effective treatments. It's a double edged sword. I'm not sure what happens when all countries begin telling drug companies what they can charge.

IF you want to stop advances in medicine, put government in control over prices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bugeater
I got the rona, no problem they said, 30 days of immunity then you can get it again...so how is that vaccine gonna work?
 
There is no doubt that the U.S. consumer is largely paying for the research and development of new drugs and therapies for the whole world. IF we implement more government cost controls it will dramatically lower the incentive for companies to develop new drugs. As it is now, Medicare won't pay for some medications which are more expensive than alternative less effective treatments. It's a double edged sword. I'm not sure what happens when all countries begin telling drug companies what they can charge. IF you want to stop advances in medicine, put government in control over prices.

If developing countries were to pay their fair share of development costs would it be more or less then what they expect from global warming?
 
There is no doubt that the U.S. consumer is largely paying for the research and development of new drugs and therapies for the whole world. IF we implement more government cost controls it will dramatically lower the incentive for companies to develop new drugs. As it is now, Medicare won't pay for some medications which are more expensive than alternative less effective treatments. It's a double edged sword. I'm not sure what happens when all countries begin telling drug companies what they can charge.

IF you want to stop advances in medicine, put government in control over prices.
You don't tell the companies what the actual price has to be, you tell them that the prices have to be equitable across the different markets and give them a formula to compute what equitable is. No formula is going to be perfect but it's a major improvement vs. today. And if some country tries to force a fixed price below what is equitable with other countries then the company can and should choose not to supply that market instead of having to apply that abnormally low price worldwide.

As far as what medicare will and will not pay for, that's a different issue from the equitable pricing issue in my opinion. That has to do with government provided healthcare and bureaucrats setting those rules. It's typically worse when it's the government making those kind of rules BUT it is true as well for what private insurance will and will not cover. The only remedy is having enough competition and choice between healthcare providers so that the providers have to compete with one another. IMO, government should never be allowed to be the sole choice available.
 
Last edited:
. The only remedy is having enough competition and choice between healthcare providers so that the providers have to compete with one another. IMO, government should never be allowed to be the sole choice available.
Drug pricing is just another rung in the ladder on the way to single payer government run health care. I predict we may see it come to reality in the next 8 years. Obamacare and coverage for pre-existing conditions has sealed our fate. The time is rapidly approaching where people will be given care they would have received back in the 60s because your government run system won't pay for the newest best care. My sister ran in to that with her HMO coverage in California a few years ago when it came to treatment for her breast cancer. She was 53,
 
I got the rona, no problem they said, 30 days of immunity then you can get it again...so how is that vaccine gonna work?
the odds of you getting COVID again within a year of having the virus are about 1:1,000,000. So you're saying there's a chance? Vaccine with the 2 shot protocol is thought to produce a year of protection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigred_b1624
Usually they calculate efficacy by measuring serum neutralizing antibody levels. Nice try though.


Did you read the article or research any other reporting on the Pfizer trial or did you just assume you know everything? Because that is not what happened in the Pfizer trial.

From the comments for the article:

"Participant here. We self-reported symptoms and tested accordingly. There was not active monitoring, other than swabs for PCR at the two initial visits to receive the injections. "
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT