Moderna: Covid Vaccine Shows Nearly 95% Protection

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
“The results come hot on the heels of similar results from Pfizer, and add to growing confidence that vaccines can help end the pandemic.

Both companies used a highly innovative and experimental approach to designing their vaccines.

Moderna says it is a "great day" and they plan to apply for approval to use the vaccine in the next few weeks.

The trial involved 30,000 people in the US with half being given two doses of the vaccine, four weeks apart. The rest had dummy injections.

The analysis was based on the first 95 to develop Covid-19 symptoms.

Only five of the Covid cases were in people given the vaccine, 90 were in those given the dummy treatment. The company says the vaccine is protecting 94.5% of people.

The data also shows there were 11 cases of severe Covid in the trial, but none happened in people who were immunised.”

Moderna: Covid vaccine shows nearly 95% protection
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
Design of the phase 3 trial:

A Study to Evaluate Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 Vaccine in Adults Aged 18 Years and Older to Prevent COVID-19

  • Participants will receivde 1 intramuscular (IM) injection of 100 microgram (ug) mRNA-1273 or placebo (saline injection) on Day 1 and on Day 29.
  • The outcome measure dealing with "protection": Number of Participants with a First Occurrence of COVID-19 Starting 14 Days after Second Dose of mRNA-1273 [ Time Frame: Day 29 (second dose) up to Day 759 (2 years after second dose) ]

Result of phase 1 trial:

An mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 — Preliminary Report

Trial Population

The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig. S1). Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected Covid-19 while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending. All continued to attend scheduled trial visits. The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1.
3 out of 45 dropped out.

Vaccine Safety
After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group; all were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2). Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events.

No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met. As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination.

None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination. After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever; one of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe. (Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.)

Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common. Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site. Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3).

To announce today that the vaccine is 95% protective is bogus. The side effects are not acceptable. ("moderate" means you felt very sick, but you did not need ICU and you have not died.). There is nothing in the design of the trial to check if the vaccinated are at higher risk for infections/diseases from all causes.

.....

Also see:

Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine

Increased Mortality After The Introduction Of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine
 

Maljam

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
715
Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events

Holy ***t was not expecting that.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
“The results come hot on the heels of similar results from Pfizer, and add to growing confidence that vaccines can help end the pandemic.

Both companies used a highly innovative and experimental approach to designing their vaccines.

Moderna says it is a "great day" and they plan to apply for approval to use the vaccine in the next few weeks.

The trial involved 30,000 people in the US with half being given two doses of the vaccine, four weeks apart. The rest had dummy injections.

The analysis was based on the first 95 to develop Covid-19 symptoms.

Only five of the Covid cases were in people given the vaccine, 90 were in those given the dummy treatment. The company says the vaccine is protecting 94.5% of people.

The data also shows there were 11 cases of severe Covid in the trial, but none happened in people who were immunised.”

Moderna: Covid vaccine shows nearly 95% protection

That's weird. According to the math, the dummy treatment is protecting 99.4% of people. Why would they claim the vaccine is less protective than the dummy treatment?
 

JudiBlueHen

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
482
In any case, these are VERY small trials. No more than 10 people in each dosage group. There is NO WAY that effectiveness accuracy can be calculated to a tenth of a percent with such small numbers.
 

Kram

Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
382
That's weird. According to the math, the dummy treatment is protecting 99.4% of people. Why would they claim the vaccine is less protective than the dummy treatment?
But based on the math you are using, the vaccine is then 99.97% effective. I see your point though, why even get vaccinated with such good results from a dummy treatment
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
But based on the math you are using, the vaccine is then 99.97% effective. I see your point though, why even get vaccinated with such good results from a dummy treatment

But that's kind of the point. Based on the trials, and taking the PCR positive test result at face value (an issue itself), we can conclude that-

Out of 15,000 people, 14,905 would not get infected with or without a vaccine, and 5 would get infected regardless of vaccine status. That leaves only 85 people out of 15,000 who would get protection from the vaccine. Which is about 0.566%. A number like that could easily occur by random chance, and in the best case scenario for the vaccine, offers little protection.

That's the real results of the trial.
 

AdoTintor

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2020
Messages
405
is there any meaningful independent monitoring of vaccine trials. Is it as good as election oversight?
 

Maljam

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
715
Viren sind nicht das Problem-bleiben Sie besonnen!

Wolfgang Wodarg said:
To prevent just one Covid-19 case , 256 people must be vaccinated with the BioNTech / Pfizer vaccine. At MODERNA it would be 177. The high-risk genetic engineering "vaccinations" only help 0.35% or 0.56% of those vaccinated. That is an extremely bad risk / benefit ratio.

Because the other 255 or 176 people have no benefit, but are exposed to the undesirable effects of the vaccines, whatever they may be and whenever we find out about them. A Pfizer top manager probably suspected that others could calculate better than the federal government and is said to have sold his own shares in the millions on the same day.

For the test presented today by Moderna with a large press, a similarly low protective effect against Covid-19, an infection that is nothing more than part of the annual flu, applies.
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
Components of mRNA Technology “Could Lead to Significant Adverse Events in One or More of Our Clinical Trials,” says Moderna • Children's Health Defense

Summary:

  • mRNA vaccines undergoing Covid-19 clinical trials, including the Moderna vaccine, rely on a nanoparticle-based “carrier system” containing a synthetic chemical called polyethylene glycol (PEG).
  • The use of PEG in drugs and vaccines is increasingly controversial due to the well-documented incidence of adverse PEG-related immune reactions, including life-threatening anaphylaxis.
  • Roughly seven in ten Americans may already be sensitized to PEG, which may result in reduced efficacy of the vaccine and an increase in adverse side effects.
  • If a PEG-containing mRNA vaccine for Covid-19 gains FDA approval, the uptick in exposure to PEG will be unprecedented—and potentially disastrous.
  • Moderna documents and publications indicate that the company is well aware of safety risks associated with PEG and other aspects of its mRNA technology but is more concerned with its bottom line.
 

Kram

Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
382
https://www.yahoo.com/news/modernas-chief-medical-officer-says-064550238.htmln

Some interesting quotes:

-Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks told Axios that the public should not "over-interpret" the vaccine trial results to assume life could go back to normal after adults are vaccinated

-"They do not show that they prevent you from potentially carrying this virus transiently and infecting others," Zaks told Axios

-While he believes, based on the science, that it's likely that vaccine does prevent transmission, but said there's still no solid proof of that yet.

-"I think it's important that we don't change behavior solely on the basis of vaccination," he said.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe

@tankasnowgod - it is actually worse than what Wolfgang said. You'd have to vaccinate ~1,000 people in order to prevent one death.
"...As of December 25, 2020, the U.S. reports 329,000 accumulated COVID-19 deaths since the start of the year within a population of 325 million Americans. In regard to mortality a vaccine cannot be any more effective than its death rate, which is only 1/10th of one-percent. You have to vaccinate 100% of all Americans to prevent 1 specious COVID-19 related death in 1000. That is a 99% over-vaccination rate."

"...The masses are being deceived. The 95% effectiveness numbers being bandied about by makers of experimental vaccines is just 1%. The 95% effectiveness number is a relative number. A placebo vaccine only reduces mortality risk by 0.1% and an RNA vaccine by 0.95%. But both numbers are under 1.0% in hard numbers (less than 1 in 100). Ninety-nine (99) out of 100 vaccinated individuals will receive no benefit and only face the prospect of side effects."
 
J

jb116

Guest
How could one ever really conclude the vaccination is even 1% effective, let alone 95%?
I'm dumb, could somebody explain this to me because it has always really sounded like nonsense to me i.e. unfalsifiable.
 
J

jb116

Guest
Bump. Seriously, can somebody enlighten me on this effectiveness concept?
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Messages
853
Age
62
Location
United Kingdom
Use a nasal spray, Taffix for example and for social access wear a mask, life resumes, mic drop :microphone:
 
J

jb116

Guest
Most science is marketing. They designed the trial to succeed, and managed to massage the numbers to get 95%, which sounds good. They will make a lot of money as a result.
No I get the logic of what they're saying and trying to do; the marketing etc. What I'm asking is for somebody to make sense of the "effectiveness " concept. Because to me it sounds like a bogus and purely suggestive word. How in the world can one truly prove effectiveness of really any vaccine? but like I said maybe I'm dumb and I'm not getting it. But if this really is just a loaded and suggestive word, it seems wreckless to have discussions about it as that can sometimes validate the concept. In other words its veracity goes on ignored assuming that it is true.
 

AdoTintor

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2020
Messages
405
they must really love double-blind trials. Only a few highly paid people at the top know which patients are in which group and can do the necessary tinkering. Everyone else in the study is nicely blinded and unaware. It's ideal, you don't need everyone to be in on it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom