Update
I now believe I have jumped to the wrong conclusion.
What I think has happened here is the vaccine worked 100% on the first 3,000 ptients except where they already had COVID or caught it in the first few days before the vaccine had had time to …
Update
I now believe I have jumped to the wrong conclusion.
What I think has happened here is the vaccine worked 100% on the first 3,000 ptients except where they already had COVID or caught it in the first few days before the vaccine had had time to develop an immune response (nobody getting COVID after about the first five and a half days.
And then new vaccine resistant variants getting encountered in later parts of the trials making the data look so damned impossible.
I feel stupid for not thinking of it at the time. I will have to go back and look at the data but I think it was another country where the vaccine suddenly didn't work so well.
Original description text....
This might get unlisted as it is part of a longer video and I still to make sure that the Lancet website isn't just malfunctioning for me.
Of three lots of tests in the AstraZeneca trials.
The group where the vaccinated patients have the lowest chance of catching COVID are the group with the control group that had the highest chance of catching COVID out of all the groups.
Conversely the group where the vaccinated patients had the highest chance of catching COVID out of all the groups of vaccinated patients is also the group where the control group have the lowest chance of catching it of all the groups.
This is mighty suspicious.
There are more factors making it even more fishy.
People who were vaccinated are getting symptoms associated with the very very edgy choice of placebo given to some of the patients.
The company doing the trials also does business with competitors of AstraZeneca so it is not impossible that what I am pointing at is a thing.
Nobody wants this el cheapo 3 dollar vaccine to spoil the market.
