Oxford Vaccine - Reality vs Fantasy - Long Post

BFC_BFC_BFC

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
As this has been a bone of contention, I thought I would do a bit more detailed research to uncover the fact vs fiction.

So firstly a quick point of clarification for those who would refer to themselves as ‘optimists’ and who slate those of us who favour fact over fiction when it comes to important decisions like vaccination as negative or anti-vaccination...I simply say, I am pro-informed choice, where vaccines are concerned.

The Oxford Vaccine trial protocol does NOT include asymptomatic CoViD 19 in the results of their trials and the interim published results, as I have continued to suggest.

For anyone interested the information is set out clearly in the protocol in the US HERE

This is, by no means, bad news and it’s important to remember that limited results, so far have shown a reduction in symptomatic CoViD and no serious cases. Of course, due to mixing of results in the trial (both dosage regimen and national trials) the initially release results are somewhat unclear.

So to that extent there are a few important factors that people ought to be aware of with this particular vaccine.

1. The efficacy in the mixed (international) results are 62% reduction in symptomatic CoViD. These are the only results that, so far, includes a balanced age group.

2. There is a ‘possibility’, that the vaccine may also reduce asymptomatic transmission, but we do not know yet to what extent. This could prove to be very good news, although in comparing vaccines, it may well also be the case in other vaccines (that are seemingly more effective). We know very little about the basis for this claim so far, so it should not be over-stated.... AZ have said that there was a reduction in asymptomatic cases between their two dosage regimen.

3. The vaccine has seen results of 90% reduction in symptomatic CoViD in a limited scope accidental trial. My understanding is that this trial is limited in terms of the age profile and racial profile of individuals involved. The results of any trial should be treated with caution, but this one moreso. I call it accidental, because they got the first dose wrong by accident for a limited number of people and then decided just to plough on regardless. It is likely a further trial would be required to confirm this outcome.

4. The Oxford vaccine is likely to be more stable and easier to store than some of the other vaccines (not the Russian one). This means that distribution (particularly to third world countries) may be easier... Whilst it is envisaged that other technologies will improve in this respect over time, this is currently a huge advantage to get vaccine to lots of people quickly.

5. The Oxford vaccine is likely to only be useful once. This is because the vaccine uses an alternative harmless virus (like the common cold) as a Trojan horse in order to carry part of the CoViD virus involving the spike protein. So second time around the body becomes immune to this host virus and does not mount a new response. (This is considered to be one reason why the low dose / high dose protocol may have been more effective that two high doses).

This is obviously not great if the immunity provided is time limited, but presumably you will be able to get a booster from an alternative vaccine in future.

We may or may not have a choice in which vaccine we decide to take, but it is very important that we pay close attention to ALL the facts and that everyone understands any available options. I think it’s particularly important to understand the effectiveness of the Oxford vaccine for older people

Non of the results are particularly clear, but from a personal perspective, I will be aiming to get access to a vaccine which has shown the highest efficacy and safety standards, rather than where it came from.

I’m not sure if I have missed anything, but if anyone else has any more information or facts to add maybe it will help us to make informed choices as time moves on.

Relevant Vaccine Protocol Outcome (See Link)

Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. The efficacy of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared to placebo for the prevention of COVID-19 in adults ≥ 18 years of age [ Time Frame: 1 year ]
    A binary response, whereby a participant is defined as a COVID-19 case if their first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness occurs
    ≥ 15 days post second dose of study intervention. Otherwise, a participant is not defined as a COVID-19 case
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
As this has been a bone of contention, I thought I would do a bit more detailed research to uncover the fact vs fiction.

So firstly a quick point of clarification for those who would refer to themselves as ‘optimists’ and who slate those of us who favour fact over fiction when it comes to important decisions like vaccination as negative or anti-vaccination...I simply say, I am pro-informed choice, where vaccines are concerned.

The Oxford Vaccine trial protocol does NOT include asymptomatic CoViD 19 in the results of their trials and the interim published results, as I have continued to suggest.

For anyone interested the information is set out clearly in the protocol in the US HERE

This is, by no means, bad news and it’s important to remember that limited results, so far have shown a reduction in symptomatic CoViD and no serious cases. Of course, due to mixing of results in the trial (both dosage regimen and national trials) the initially release results are somewhat unclear.

So to that extent there are a few important factors that people ought to be aware of with this particular vaccine.

1. The efficacy in the mixed (international) results are 62% reduction in symptomatic CoViD. These are the only results that, so far, includes a balanced age group.

2. There is a ‘possibility’, that the vaccine may also reduce asymptomatic transmission, but we do not know yet to what extent. This could prove to be very good news, although in comparing vaccines, it may well also be the case in other vaccines (that are seemingly more effective). We know very little about the basis for this claim so far, so it should not be over-stated.... AZ have said that there was a reduction in asymptomatic cases between their two dosage regimen.

3. The vaccine has seen results of 90% reduction in symptomatic CoViD in a limited scope accidental trial. My understanding is that this trial is limited in terms of the age profile and racial profile of individuals involved. The results of any trial should be treated with caution, but this one moreso. I call it accidental, because they got the first dose wrong by accident for a limited number of people and then decided just to plough on regardless. It is likely a further trial would be required to confirm this outcome.

4. The Oxford vaccine is likely to be more stable and easier to store than some of the other vaccines (not the Russian one). This means that distribution (particularly to third world countries) may be easier... Whilst it is envisaged that other technologies will improve in this respect over time, this is currently a huge advantage to get vaccine to lots of people quickly.

5. The Oxford vaccine is likely to only be useful once. This is because the vaccine uses an alternative harmless virus (like the common cold) as a Trojan horse in order to carry part of the CoViD virus involving the spike protein. So second time around the body becomes immune to this host virus and does not mount a new response. (This is considered to be one reason why the low dose / high dose protocol may have been more effective that two high doses).

This is obviously not great if the immunity provided is time limited, but presumably you will be able to get a booster from an alternative vaccine in future.

We may or may not have a choice in which vaccine we decide to take, but it is very important that we pay close attention to ALL the facts and that everyone understands any available options. I think it’s particularly important to understand the effectiveness of the Oxford vaccine for older people

Non of the results are particularly clear, but from a personal perspective, I will be aiming to get access to a vaccine which has shown the highest efficacy and safety standards, rather than where it came from.

I’m not sure if I have missed anything, but if anyone else has any more information or facts to add maybe it will help us to make informed choices as time moves on.

Relevant Vaccine Protocol Outcome (See Link)

Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. The efficacy of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared to placebo for the prevention of COVID-19 in adults ≥ 18 years of age [ Time Frame: 1 year ]
    A binary response, whereby a participant is defined as a COVID-19 case if their first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness occurs
    ≥ 15 days post second dose of study intervention. Otherwise, a participant is not defined as a COVID-19 case
Click to expand...
Thanks for putting the work in Bifster 👍 Interesting stuff.
I don’t understand the bit about using the common cold virus ( or any other harmless virus ) in the vaccine to give single time immunity 🤔 that makes it sound like if you had the common cold recently then this would give you some short term immunity from Covid , but that’s me probably being a bit thick 🥴
 
LALA, that was an example... My understanding was that they used a genetically modified chimpanzee cold virus in the case of this vaccine.
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
LALA, that was an example... My understanding was that they used a chimpanzee cold virus in the case of this vaccine.
Click to expand...
Argh right ok 👌
Now I’m wondering what a chimpanzee cold virus has in it that brings about immunity to Covid and how they found out this was the case 🤦‍♀️
But these aren’t your questions to answer so thanks for the info anyway 👍
 
Lala said:
Argh right ok 👌
Now I’m wondering what a chimpanzee cold virus has in it that brings about immunity to Covid and how they found out this was the case 🤦‍♀️
But these aren’t your questions to answer so thanks for the info anyway 👍
Click to expand...
They essentially genetically modify the chimpanzee virus to give it the appearance of CoViD as it enters our immune system. In this case they have specifically mimicked the spike protein...Si essentially it’s a harmless virus that attacks the body in the same way that CoViD does... if that makes more sense.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
They essentially genetically modify the chimpanzee virus to give it the appearance of CoViD as it enters our immune system. In this case they have specifically mimicked the spike protein...Si essentially it’s a harmless virus that attacks the body in the same way that CoViD does... if that makes more sense.
Click to expand...
Yep, watched the video too, get it now. Thanks 😊
 
I think the other important thing to clarify, because the press releases were very misleading, is that there is no 70% effective vaccine.

What we have is a 62% effective vaccine (based on results to date)

or

The possibility of a 90% vaccine based on a dosing error and questionable participant profile.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The Oxford Vaccine trial protocol does NOT include asymptomatic CoViD 19 in the results of their trials and the interim published results, as I have continued to suggest.

For anyone interested the information is set out clearly in the protocol in the US HERE
Click to expand...

The US trial hasn't completed yet and does not form part of the published results, the US trial is different to the UK one which did test for asymptomatic infection and presumably did include them in the results.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The US trial hasn't completed yet and does not form part of the published results, the US trial is different to the UK one which did test for asymptomatic infection and presumably did include them in the results.
Click to expand...
The answer is we don't know.
You may be right or BFCx3 may be right time will tell.
What you are right about is BFCx3 link to the US trial has little relevance and does not allow him to catagorically state a fact that is unknown as true.
The primary end points will have been set by the regulator for any given trial and as we don't know these for the UK trial.
I suspect BFCx3 may be right but that is a guess and as such bad science.
 
Poolcat1 said:
The answer is we don't know.
Click to expand...

Agreed that we are only working off press releases and other fragmentary information only however here's what we do know:
  1. Pfizer/Moderna didn't test for asymptomatic cases (thus cannot include them), both reported 90%+;
  2. Ox/AZ did test for asymptomatic cases and reported 60 - 70%;
  3. a very large proportion of covid cases are asymptomatic;
  4. Ox/AZ has gone to the MHRA for approval;
  5. everyone involved seems to be very happy with the outcome.
It seems very likley that the difference in efficacy is at least partially down to the inclusion of asymptomatic cases because it would be very odd to test for them and then exclude them from your results and 4 + 5 above would be unlikely to happen if the vaccine were only say 30% effective once they were included.
 
Well done Bifster. 👍
I think on point 3 OU/AZ have already confirmed they will be conducting further trials on the half dose issue.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The US trial hasn't completed yet and does not form part of the published results, the US trial is different to the UK one which did test for asymptomatic infection and presumably did include them in the results.
Click to expand...
So they chose a protocol unique to the U.K. and then mixed the results?

The US, Brazil etc... all confirmed to use the same protocol.

Testing for asymptomatic does not mean they are included in the results and if they were it would be made explicitly clear, due to confusion.

Please link where the British protocol states asymptomatic cases are included as a PRIMARY objective.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
So they chose a protocol unique to the U.K. and then mixed the results?

The US, Brazil etc... all confirmed to use the same protocol.

Testing for asymptomatic does not mean they are included in the results and if they were it would be made explicitly clear, due to confusion.

Please link where the British protocol states asymptomatic cases are included as a PRIMARY objective.
Click to expand...
The British and Brazil protocols were different to each other(for example they used different placebos).
British one used meningococcal both doses and Brazil arm use meningococccal first dose, saline second dose
USA used saline for both doses.
The protocols were different so how do we know that the primary end point was the same??
As i have said before i suspect you may be right but you don't know but you keep stating it as fact.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Agreed that we are only working off press releases and other fragmentary information only however here's what we do know:
  1. Pfizer/Moderna didn't test for asymptomatic cases (thus cannot include them), both reported 90%+;
  2. Ox/AZ did test for asymptomatic cases and reported 60 - 70%;
  3. a very large proportion of covid cases are asymptomatic;
  4. Ox/AZ has gone to the MHRA for approval;
  5. everyone involved seems to be very happy with the outcome.
It seems very likley that the difference in efficacy is at least partially down to the inclusion of asymptomatic cases because it would be very odd to test for them and then exclude them from your results and 4 + 5 above would be unlikely to happen if the vaccine were only say 30% effective once they were included.
Click to expand...
Apologies for my limited reply, I have been out and about earlier...

It seems VERY UNLIKELY!! or more as to the point, it is NOT the case at all and these claims that asymptomatic cases are including are extremely misleading and very unhelpful to people wishing to make informed choices based upon factual information.

Details can be found HERE for registration of the Brazil Phase III trial, where I would draw your attention to the following:-

Volunteers will be followed for 12 months, and they will be tested for COVID-19 if they develop any symptoms which may represent COVID-19 disease. In addition, blood tests will be done during the study to look at how the volunteers' immune systems have reacted to the virus. At the end of the study, the researchers will look at how many people had COVID-19 disease in each group and this will help them to decide if the vaccine has worked.

Details can be found HERE in the New Scientist, where the various issues with the Oxford/ AZ interim trial results are outlined. I would also draw your attention to the following:-

Rather than results from one large phase 3 trial, which is what we saw from trials of other covid-19 vaccines, these results were actually pooled data from two separate trials, one in the UK and the other in Brazil.

Confitmation can also be found HERE on the Astrazeneca website:-

The pooled analysis included data from the COV002 Phase II/III trial in the UK and COV003 Phase III trial in Brazil. Over 23,000 participants are being assessed following two doses of either a half-dose/full-dose regimen or a regimen of two full doses of AZD1222 or a comparator, meningococcal conjugate vaccine called MenACWY or saline.

One final point, which should nit really go without mention is the fact that there have been a reported two cases of Transverse Myelitis occur in the AZ trial so far. Therefore this trial is not without 'potential' health and safety concerns either. In fact, the scientific community is somewhat split on whether or not the trials should have pressed ahead. At this stage, I think the concerns can be put into perspective, but people should be aware and keep an eye on this issue if they have any concerns... More information can be found HERE
 
I’d like to see the main vaccine options including AZ/Oxford rolled out UK and worldwide asap to return to normality and counter the high risk that Covid-19 could develop into a more deadly mutant or vaccine resistant strain.
Those who don’t want to take a vaccine: fine, they would have to weigh up the risks. But the country should be open business as usual by no later than early Spring.
 
Poolcat1 said:
The British and Brazil protocols were different to each other(for example they used different placebos).
British one used meningococcal both doses and Brazil arm use meningococccal first dose, saline second dose
USA used saline for both doses.
The protocols were different so how do we know that the primary end point was the same??
As i have said before i suspect you may be right but you don't know but you keep stating it as fact.
Click to expand...
Please STOP digging your hole!!

People need access to proper information, not you and your mates and your illogical hair brained theories!!

How could the possibly provide a pooled percentage efficacy, that was based on asymptomatic for one trial and symptomatic for another... You are being ridiculous...Moreover the scientific community would have ripped them a new one if that were the case... (not that they aren't already highlighting the numerous shortcomings of this so-called and frankly, rather bungled, trial)
 
Incidentally if anyone is still in any doubt... The detailed information concerning the British Trial Protocol is registered HERE and I would highlight the following:-

Primary Outcome Measures :

  1. Assess the efficacy of the candidate ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 in adults aged 18 years and older. [ Time Frame: Study duration (12 months from last vaccination) ]
    Number of virologically confirmed (PCR or NAAT positive) symptomatic cases of COVID-19
  2. Assess the safety of the candidate vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in adults and children [ Time Frame: Study duration (12 months from last vaccination) ]
    Occurrence of serious adverse events (SAEs) throughout the study duration.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Please STOP digging your hole!!

People need access to proper information, not you and your mates and your illogical hair brained theories!!

How could the possibly provide a pooled percentage efficacy, that was based on asymptomatic for one trial and symptomatic for another... You are being ridiculous...Moreover the scientific community would have ripped them a new one if that were the case... (not that they aren't already highlighting the numerous shortcomings of this so-called and frankly, rather bungled, trial)
Click to expand...
The USA results have not been pooled ,the trial has not yet reported.
How many times do i have to repeat myself, i suspect you are right but you cannot report it as fact without evidence, which the scientific community has not got until the data is released.
For the same reason i would call into question your supposed impartiality on this topic as referenced by point 3 of your original post.

'3. The vaccine has seen results of 90% reduction in symptomatic CoViD in a limited scope accidental trial. My understanding is that this trial is limited in terms of the age profile and racial profile of individuals involved. The results of any trial should be treated with caution, but this one moreso. I call it accidental, because they got the first dose wrong by accident for a limited number of people and then decided just to plough on regardless. It is likely a further trial would be required to confirm this outcome.'

AZ did not decide to plough on regardless. When the wrong dosing schedule was realised they approached the regulator who agreed that these subjects should continue being monitored as an independent arm of the trial. This is a long way from ploughing on regardless, a term a think you choose because of your obvious bias.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Incidentally if anyone is still in any doubt... The detailed information concerning the British Trial Protocol is registered HERE and I would highlight the following:-

Primary Outcome Measures :

  1. Assess the efficacy of the candidate ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 in adults aged 18 years and older. [ Time Frame: Study duration (12 months from last vaccination) ]
    Number of virologically confirmed (PCR or NAAT positive) symptomatic cases of COVID-19
  2. Assess the safety of the candidate vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in adults and children [ Time Frame: Study duration (12 months from last vaccination) ]
    Occurrence of serious adverse events (SAEs) throughout the study duration.
Click to expand...
Your link leads to the USA trial protocol !!
 
Poolcat1 said:
The USA results have not been pooled ,the trial has not yet reported.
How many times do i have to repeat myself, i suspect you are right but you cannot report it as fact without evidence, which the scientific community has not got until the data is released.
For the same reason i would call into question your supposed impartiality on this topic as referenced by point 3 of your original post.

'3. The vaccine has seen results of 90% reduction in symptomatic CoViD in a limited scope accidental trial. My understanding is that this trial is limited in terms of the age profile and racial profile of individuals involved. The results of any trial should be treated with caution, but this one moreso. I call it accidental, because they got the first dose wrong by accident for a limited number of people and then decided just to plough on regardless. It is likely a further trial would be required to confirm this outcome.'

AZ did not decide to plough on regardless. When the wrong dosing schedule was realised they approached the regulator who agreed that these subjects should continue being monitored as an independent arm of the trial. This is a long way from ploughing on regardless, a term a think you choose because of your obvious bias.
Click to expand...
I've provided links to the deatls for the Brazil trial, which confirmed the basis of the protocol and I have also provided a link to the British trial registration (including protocol). I didn;t suggest the US data had been pooled, I said the UK and Brazil data had... Please stop with your misinformation... You will end up confusing people..

Please post facts, with evidence, if you have them otherwise stop the random speculative rubbish.
 
The mistake of giving a half dose followed by a full dose will not only be trialled again but also two half doses as well. If the latter turns out to be more effective, then that will double the number of people they can then vaccinate. It might turn out to be the best mistake ever made in human history!
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I've provided links to the deatls for the Brazil trial, which confirmed the basis of the protocol and I have also provided a link to the British trial registration (including protocol). I didn;t suggest the US data had been pooled, I said the UK and Brazil data had... Please stop with your misinformation... You will end up confusing people..

Please post facts, with evidence, if you have them otherwise stop the random speculative rubbish.
Click to expand...
I'm out of this, You twist facts as you see fit.
I just implore ordinary Avftt viewers to wait till official data is published and then and only then consider the efficacy of the various vaccine candidates.
BFCx3 you make some valid points and scrutiny is vital but i am afraid some of your comments include too much bias to be construed as fact.
 
Having read all the above( well I must confess not quite all) I am little the wiser to make decisions except to conclude that BFC is well informed but perhaps starting out with a less than impartial opinion which characteristically he is striving to prove with all his might and main rather than starting with a completely open,fair and balanced as well as an enquiring approach.
 
Poolcat1 said:
I'm out of this, You twist facts as you see fit.
I just implore ordinary Avftt viewers to wait till official data is published and then and only then consider the efficacy of the various vaccine candidates.
BFCx3 you make some valid points and scrutiny is vital but i am afraid some of your comments include too much bias to be construed as fact.
Click to expand...

No.. YOU twist facts as you see fit... I am simply providing the complete facts and ensuring that the information that is not pushed in the media is available to people who wish to see it (Warts and all).

I've provided links as evidence for anything I have stated as fact. The fact that your personal bias sees that as me being biased, pretty much says it all.
Lost Seasider said:
Whatever.

At the end of the day it's gone to the MHRA for approval, so the team behind it think it works and think it will get approval, and that trumps everything.
Click to expand...
That's an unusually childlike reply from you Lost... I would have expected better.

You are correct, it has gone to the MHRA for approval and clearly the evidence suggests that it works (to some extent at least). It is also possible that despite limited health concerns and the low efficacy demostrated in trials to date, that this vaccine will be given approval (not least due to the pressing time constraints and nature of the issue)... However, that does not mean that there are not potentially better, safer and more efficatious options out there, for anyone who wishes to make an informed choice (if that is an option).
 
1950`spoolfan said:
Having read all the above( well I must confess not quite all) I am little the wiser to make decisions except to conclude that BFC is well informed but perhaps starting out with a less than impartial opinion which characteristically he is striving to prove with all his might and main rather than starting with a completely open,fair and balanced as well as an enquiring approach.
Click to expand...
I had a completely open mind at the outset... Moreso than most, because I was neither for or against vaccines. Therefore I had no particular bias or vested interest, save to make my own informed choice.

By contrast, you and many others have been guided instead by wishful thinking and have constantly been quick to cricise, dismiss or ignore anything that didn't fit with your preferred outcome. I get it, we all want a vaccine and a way out of this mess and it's tough when things may not go quite to plan. You talk about impartiality, yet in some cases people are basically convincing themselves that this one is better, purely because it is British😀

I have watched these vaccine trials carefully and periodically I have chipped in with more information, much to the dismay of many, who prefer to close their ears to the truth for what it is.

I want a vaccine too and a way out of this nightmare, but I'm not now or never have been prepared to let my impartiality be affected by that same kind of wishful thinking and instead I'd rather seek out all the facts and scrutinise them for myself.
 
Last edited:
Even if the efficiency drops as low as 50% (which I doubt), surely 50% is better than nothing?!
Everything else is inconsequential.
 
tangerine_neil said:
Even if the efficiency drops as low as 50% (which I doubt), surely 50% is better than nothing?!
Everything else is inconsequential.
Click to expand...
You're right, 50% is better than nothing, but itls not better than 95% and given that the age biased results have thrown out a significantly better efficacy for a younger age group, there are signifcant questions over how efficatious the vaccine may be for those it will matter most for.

Further a 50% efficacy for symptomatic covid only is unlikely to mean we can get back to anything like normality (especially in the short term).
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
You're right, 50% is better than nothing, but itls not better than 95% and given that the age biased results have thrown out a significantly better efficacy for a younger age group, there are signifcant questions over how efficatious the vaccine may be for those it will matter most for.

Further a 50% efficacy for symptomatic covid only is unlikely to mean we can get back to anything like normality (especially in the short term).
Click to expand...
The scientists are going to have to agree a strategy of who gets what vaccine based on what they currently know - and that advice may change over the course of the vaccination programme and more data becomes known.
 
Poolcat1 said:
Your link leads to the USA trial protocol !!
Click to expand...
More Misinformation!

I linked the British Trial on the U.S. website

The Clue is in the Brief Summary at the top of the page...

Brief Summary:

A phase 2/3 study to determine the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of the candidate Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in healthy UK volunteers.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
You're right, 50% is better than nothing, but itls not better than 95% and given that the age biased results have thrown out a significantly better efficacy for a younger age group, there are signifcant questions over how efficatious the vaccine may be for those it will matter most for.

Further a 50% efficacy for symptomatic covid only is unlikely to mean we can get back to anything like normality (especially in the short term).
Click to expand...
Sauce?

Good research x3
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I had a completely open mind at the outset... Moreso that most, bacuse I was neither for or against vaccines. Therefore I had no particular bias or vested interest, save to make my own informed choice.

By contrast, yourself and many others have been guided intead by wishful thinking and have constantly been quick to cricise, dismiss or ignore anything that didn't fit with your preferred outcome. I get it, we all want a vaccine and a way out of this mess and it's tough when things may not go quite to plan. You talk about impartiality, yet in some cases people are basically convincing themselves that this one is better, purely because it is British😀

I have watched these vaccine trials carefully and periodically I have chipped in with more information, much to the dismay of many, who prefer to close their ears to the truth for what it is.

I want a vaccine too and a way out of this nightmare, but I'm not now or never have been prepared to let my impartiality be determined by that same kind of wishful thinking and instead I'd rather seek out all the facts and scrutinise them for myself.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true and I think that your accusation is what a psychologist would call projection.
  • It was you that said several times that a press article about the vaccine was purely to boost the AZ share price and was rereleasing old news. This turned out to be completely untrue and you were forced to admit that what you had said repeatedly was speculation dressed up as a fact (i.e it was a complete fabrication by you) - so you are clearly guilty of what you are accusing others of
  • You have also repeatedly said previously that this vaccine will probably not reduce transmission of the virus - this was your justification for not being vaccinated because to paraphrase 'fine specimens like you can take their chances with COViD unlike the average morbidly obese AVFTTer who will need a vaccine'. In the press release on the OU website it states that the results suggest that it actually does reduce transmission rates - not fact yet but that is what the results point to. Unsurprisingly you haven't mentioned this recently but if this is true then it is fantastic news because being vaccinated will on average both reduce the severity of infection if it occurs and also reduce average transmission. I think that this is probably the most important thing that the press release says. What is your view on this now, given that you have been sort of telling us for a long time that this vaccine will have no affect on transmission rates? It would appear from the evidence given so far that you were wrong about this as well.

Finally I would say that you do seem to have a rather negative view of this vaccine for some reason. It is written all over every post that you make about it. To describe people who are positive about this vaccine as fantasists is ridiculous given that virtually every scientist in the link below said that the OU press release represents good or very good news in the fight against the virus.

expert reaction to media reports about the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine phase 3 trial, about dose and subgroups | Science Media Centre

www.sciencemediacentre.org
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure all volunteers will be getting antibody tests throughout their trials.
So if I'm on the placebo and the blood test shows I've developed antibodies then 2+2 means I've had Covid and was asymtopmatic.
That's not a scientific fact just my thinking.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I don't think that is true and I think that your accusation is what a psychologist would call projection.
  • It was you that said several times that a press article about the vaccine was purely to boost the AZ share price and was rereleasing old news. This turned out to be completely untrue and you were forced to admit that what you had said repeatedly was speculation dressed up as a fact (i.e it was a complete fabrication by you) - so you are clearly guilty of what you are accusing others of
  • You have also repeatedly said previously that this vaccine will probably not reduce transmission of the virus - this was your justification for not being vaccinated because to paraphrase 'fine specimens like you can take their chances with COViD unlike the average morbidly obese AVFTTer who will need a vaccine'. In the press release on the OU website it states that the results suggest that it actually does reduce transmission rates - not fact yet but that is what the results point to. Unsurprisingly you haven't mentioned this recently but if this is true then it is fantastic news because being vaccinated will on average both reduce the severity of infection if it occurs and also reduce average transmission. I think that this is probably the most important thing that the press release says. What is your view on this now, given that you have been sort of telling us for a long time that this vaccine will have no affect on transmission rates? It would appear from th eevidence that you were wrong about this as well.

Finally I would say that you do seem to have a rather negative view of this vaccine for some reason. It is written all over every post that you make about it. To describe people who are positive about this vaccine as fantasists is ridiculous given that virtually every scientist in the link below said that the OU press release represents good or very good news in the fight against the virus.

expert reaction to media reports about the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine phase 3 trial, about dose and subgroups | Science Media Centre

www.sciencemediacentre.org
Click to expand...


I'm not really sure I'd expect you to say much different really... You've been the leading denialist of factual information from the outset.


I recall you firstly making a hasty retreat and disappearing from the thread after being forced to face the facts over the reality of the animal trials and I'm not sure you've ever forgiven me for daring to confront you with the factual reality vs your own wishful thinkery.

You are correct, I did question whether the AZ press release, shortly after the release of data from Pfizer was strategically timed and whilst I'm happy to hold my hand up regarding the specifics on that occasion, I believe that the general principle rings true. Let's face it, they have not exactly covered themselves in glory with the recent data release...As you are aware, I swiftly confirmed my mistake, acknowledged it and apologised... I did so, because I believe that trust and truth are paramount in these cases and therefore any consequential dent in my ego (not that there was one) is less important than the truth.

Funny... I didn't see you holding your hands up after spouting misinformation concerning the animal trial data, when confronted with the facts, nor do I see you making a similar admission now, despite the insistence that asymptomatic cases were included in this trial data.

I have not repeatedly said that this virus WILL NOT reduce transmission... I have continuously said that initial trials did not prove any reduction in transmission and there were therefore doubts over the ability of the vaccine to meet that requirement. I also said that the likelihood is that they will determine success by elimination of the lower respiratory symptoms (note in the protocol there is reference to Oxford defined symptomatic COVID-19 ) as opposed to elimination or sterilisation of the virus... The reason I have said this is because that is precisely what happened in the animal trials..

Regarding the effect on transmission rates, I am not sure whether any tests have been carried out to determine transmission at all. What they have suggested (so far) is that there appears to be a reduction in the number of asymptomatic cases in the Low Dose/ High Dose trial vs the High Dose/ High Dose Trial.

With all the issues surrounding the disparities from one trial to another and the (let's say 'creative') way that these interim results have been presented, I'm not sure how much credence we could give to those results or what they mean. So, I'd describe myself as hopeful, but quite sceptical...

As far as your last paragraph is concerned, I don’t have a negative view of this vaccine or any of the alternatives. I DO have a negative view of any organisation (but moreso in the circumstances) who seek to use sleight of hand and the careful manipulation of words to mislead the general public. I don't mind admitting I was very annoyed / aggravated by the way some of the Oxford / AZ early data was presented / reported as I felt they set out to mislead and this did certainly influence my feelings on vaccines at the time.

As for the link.... I suggest you reread the content...whilst I agree that there is reason for optimism with this and other vaccines and I agree with the scientists to that extent, there remain many questions and concerns unanswered (as many have pointed out)....

So if, like me, people wish to make an informed choice, then they need to pay attention....Not get carried away with the misleading press spin and check out what is hidden in the subtext. That way, you can base your choice of vaccine or even no vaccine on accurate information.

I've highlighted your comments in bold and would (yet again) clarify (links dating back several months recently provided) that I have always been willing to be vaccinated and never been for or against vaccines or vaccination, but that I would want to make an informed choice based upon relative risk and the outcome of the trials and further science regarding the disease itself. I have defended the right of individuals to make a choice and expressed my belief that the vaccine should not be compulsory, but rather that people should accept it willingly based on demonstrable safety and efficacy. Unfortunately people (like yourself) have chosen to strawman mine and other people’s opinions as Anti-Vaxx or Negative etc... in order that you can attack and knock them down in order to carry on in your imaginary bubbles.

I would just finish by saying you and some others have absolutely harangued me for daring to speak the truth about the vaccine trials. You have accused me of being dangerous and that I am, in a small way, placing the public at risk by undermining confidence in the vaccines. I trust that you will perhaps consider your words much more carefully in the future and perhaps also consider the impact that providing your own misleading information (which I still don't see any acknowledgement of on here) has on public confidence.
 
Last edited:
Lala said:
Thanks for putting the work in Bifster 👍 Interesting stuff.
I don’t understand the bit about using the common cold virus ( or any other harmless virus ) in the vaccine to give single time immunity 🤔 that makes it sound like if you had the common cold recently then this would give you some short term immunity from Covid , but that’s me probably being a bit thick 🥴
Click to expand...
Not being thick, quite a number of scientists have this viewpoint.
 
I'll leave it there I think.

I'm sorry if I have assumed that you will not have a vaccine but you have (at the very least) given that impression previously (several others have noted this). I am very glad that you are willing to have a vaccine and apologise for my earlier comments if they have offended you.
There is now some evidence to suggest that the OU vaccine stops some transmission (if we are to believe their press release) so I think we have now moved on from arguments about whether this could be possible. It is up to the science now to prove or disprove this statistically.

To summarise my position;
I trust the scientific method. If there are problems with this vaccine they will be highlighted because there are literally thousands of scientists who would love to make a name for themselves by doing just that. And of course there are several commercial entities who will want to discredit it and various governments with vested interests who would like to do the same. In the science world you put your evidence on display for others to examine and criticise. Given that the whole world is watching this closely it is very unlikely that anyone will be able to get away with anything dodgy either through a manipulation of the statistics or through stating untruths about repeatable experiments. When released the papers and data will be scrutinized more than is normal because of the situation that we are in. This isn't (or shouldn't be) marketing, it is more about establishing the truth.

I think the problem here is that the scientists are conducting themselves via press release, in a way that they are not used to and in a way that raises more questions than it answers. The OU information and the way it has been released is a bit of a mess but no doubt they are under unusual pressure from our government to move things forward. Hopefully more information will be forthcoming soon from all of the vaccine groups in the way of trial data and scientific papers. At this time we will be able to make more informed opinions.
 
EBSN, I will acknowledge that I have been frustrated by some of the past press releases and that has certainly coloured my opinion. In addition, I think it's very important to challenge convention and also challenge the weight of opinion on here. You probably won't be suprised to hear me admit that I can be purposely obtuse / contrary... On occasion I might do that for a bit of fun, but I also see discussion and debate as a way of helping me to form my own opinions, which I will change, frequently as I gain information and insight.

Over the course of this pandemic, my view on both vaccines and also the nature / risk posed by the virus has changed and then changed again, but I really don't see that as an issue. I try not to wed myself to any particular opinion regardless of how vehemently I may have expressed that opinion in the past.

The prospect of a vaccine that reduces transmission is extgremely exciting and whilst it is not something I had written off completely, I had certainly toned down my own expectations, based on the way that many leading scientists had started to reset expectations in terms of what a succesful outcome meant and some of the early trial results.

I'll be over the moon if any vaccine proves to impact on the transmissability of the disease and I am also pleased that the results of all of the trials to date appear to have thrown out positive results. I'm keen to see further information from all of the trials and to hopefully see the positive impact of the vaccines on the virus and our collective lifestyles.... Like most people, I am resigned to the fact that (at least for now) vaccines are pretty much our only way out of this mess and therefore I want them to be succesful. 👍
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
EBSN, I will acknowledge that I have been frustrated by some of the past press releases and that has certainly coloured my opinion. In addition, I think it's very important to challenge convention and also challenge the weight of opinion on here. You probably won't be suprised to hear me admit that I can be purposely obtuse / contrary... On occasion I might do that for a bit of fun, but I also see discussion and debate as a way of helping me to form my own opinions, which I will change, frequently as I gain information and insight.

Over the course of this pandemic, my view on both vaccines and also the nature / risk posed by the virus has changed and then changed again, but I really don't see that as an issue. I try not to wed myself to any particular opinion regardless of how vehemently I may have expressed that opinion in the past.

The prospect of a vaccine that reduces transmission is extgremely exciting and whilst it is not something I had written off completely, I had certainly toned down my own expectations, based on the way that many leading scientists had started to reset expectations in terms of what a succesful outcome meant and some of the early trial results.

I'll be over the moon if any vaccine proves to impact on the transmissability of the disease and I am also pleased that the results of all of the trials to date appear to have thrown out positive results. I'm keen to see further information from all of the trials and to hopefully see the positive impact of the vaccines on the virus and our collective lifestyles.... Like most people, I am resigned to the fact that (at least for now) vaccines are pretty much our only way out of this mess and therefore I want them to be succesful. 👍
Click to expand...
Thank you for your answer.
Yes, for me the most exciting think about the press release is the single sentence about reducing transmission. But as you are very aware, it all looks a bit thin given what they have reported and no context or further information is given. If true, it would be a game changer as regards the virus both in this country and in the whole world.
I really hope there is something in it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top