Slogans are for people who need to be told what to think.
Unfortunately, public perception matters to both scientists and biotech companies. I wish it would matter less, but realistically, it does not.
Recently, as I've mentioned in my previous posts, people have been relieved vaccines are efficacious. Pfizer, Moderna and even "big bad" Gamaleya Research Center (Russian state-backed company) reported efficacy of their COVID19 vaccines of 90% and higher. Then Astrazeneca/Oxford decided how they want to be part of the hype. As a consequence, their first public report stated that their vaccine is 70% efficacious on average, and 90% efficacious when received in two-dose regimen.
To be fair, at least that is what most of the media reported and mostly (surprise, surprise) in a countries that already signed up for Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine.
However, is it really what is going on?
After more thorough reading, I found out that actually, following their clinical trials protocols, Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine is 62% efficacious. Not 90%, not 70% - 62%. So, where is 70% and 90% coming from?
Let us start with reported 90%. Apparently, someone within the trials made an error - retrospectively, discovered - and gave group of participants much lower dose of the vaccine. The only reason this was discovered - the group had much milder side effects than expected. Following discovery, these participants received another vaccine - as a booster. A result: 90% efficacy. A problem: several (not approved trial protocol, no idea how or why this works or even whether it is real result, retrospective "discoveries"...).
So, instead of just reporting "we made an error" (and frankly, we all make errors), biotech decided to "boost" the 62% by including those 90%. Bit of averaging, probably bit of weighting by group size...and viola! 70% and possibly 90%! In all headlines. Certainly, sounds bit better than the real result: 62%. Especially, now, that some countries are going forward sticking with that one dose regimen...
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/astrazeneca-probes-mistake-behind-90-covid-vaccine-efficacy
This was a very late recording contrasting two news articles about Omicron - so called "Covid super-strain".
I know I haven't been around lately...work...life...However, the 12-years-old clip popped into my feed and I wanted to share it. The reason? This clip provides the great basic understanding into what are the issues with so-called "evidence" related to anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change and the lack of logic when it comes to the interpretation of such evidence. The sad reality is that even after 12 years from this clip, we are still forced to endure nonsensical conclusions that hurricanes hitting Florida are caused by big bad climate change.
The mainstream media is doubling down on the alarmism, and it is not hard to guess why. However, to be fair, consider my little observation an educated guess, an opinion, rather than the fact. Time will show whether I am right.
(1) 'Climate change affects everyone': Europe battles wildfires in intense heat by Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/spain-portugal-battle-wildfires-heatwaves-scorch-southern-europe-2022-07-17/)
If you spent time in Southern Europe, Mediterranean, during summer season - July and August in particular - you probably know that heat-induced wildfires are nothing new. In fact, they are quite common and remarkably devastating for the affected communities, and I have witnessed several in person. Most of the time, the wildfires occur due to heat igniting grasses, especially in the areas where there are broken glass or broken bottles. The glass serves as an amplifier for the sun rays, especially, in the vicinity of dry grasses, or even dry pine needles, and as ...
