Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Reported effectiveness disappointing despite the usual standard attempts of
 inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesperso
n for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less infec
tious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time to  
still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due dilige
nce in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past them.

https://time.com/5915055/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/




Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 7:06:23 AM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesper
son for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less inf
ectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time t
o still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due dili
gence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past the
m.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

How do they define dosing?

Half dose + full dose
or
Full dose + double dose

Based on how much they cost?

Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:13:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Lee wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
s of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesp
erson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less i
nfectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time
 to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due di
ligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past t
hem.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Usually dosing is determined to be the minimum amount that produces an adeq
uate and effective immunizing response while keeping the patient safe from  
ill-effects.

In this case AZ actually had to back off the dosing, reducing it by 1/3 on  
the primer shot because the patient immunity was responding more to their v
accine vector adenovirus than the COVID-19 antigen, resulting in a weak COV
ID-19 antibody response. This sounds to me like something they should have  
discovered and known about years in advance of developing this vaccine. The
y were using this same chimpanzee virus in many other vaccine developments  
previous to this one. They had lots of experience with it and should have d
iscovered this effect before now.

Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 7:28:58 AM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
pts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spoke
sperson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less
 infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the ti
me to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due  
diligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past
 them.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
equate and effective immunizing response while keeping the patient safe fro
m ill-effects.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
n the primer shot because the patient immunity was responding more to their
 vaccine vector adenovirus than the COVID-19 antigen, resulting in a weak C
OVID-19 antibody response. This sounds to me like something they should hav
e discovered and known about years in advance of developing this vaccine. T
hey were using this same chimpanzee virus in many other vaccine development
s previous to this one. They had lots of experience with it and should have
 discovered this effect before now.

Why can they just decrease the chimp virus, or increase the covid-19 virus  
ratio?  Sound like they are just rushing out to be the first, without doing
 all the homework.


Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:36:07 AM UTC-5, Ed Lee wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
empts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spo
kesperson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected le
ss infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the  
time to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their du
e diligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get pa
st them.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
adequate and effective immunizing response while keeping the patient safe f
rom ill-effects.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 on the primer shot because the patient immunity was responding more to the
ir vaccine vector adenovirus than the COVID-19 antigen, resulting in a weak
 COVID-19 antibody response. This sounds to me like something they should h
ave discovered and known about years in advance of developing this vaccine.
 They were using this same chimpanzee virus in many other vaccine developme
nts previous to this one. They had lots of experience with it and should ha
ve discovered this effect before now.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
s ratio? Sound like they are just rushing out to be the first, without doin
g all the homework.

It was definitely a rush job, and now it's catching up with them.  

The adenovirus vaccines are an older technology ( over two decades) rapidly
 becoming obsolete. The latest and most effective vaccine technology is bas
ed on messenger RNA, mRNA, and doesn't use problematic viruses to deliver i
t to the cells. This is the technology being used by Pfizer/BioNTech and Mo
derna, and the results so far are spectacular effectiveness.

Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:50:33 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You see it as "becoming obsolete" - I see it as *tried and trusted* -
a safer option for those of us who are risk-averse.
It's also the cheapest shot so far announced.
They're also going to produce it on a NOT-FOR-PROFIT basis around the
world.
And it doesn't need some fancy megabucks freezer to store it.
OK, it takes two shots to get 90% effective, but all things considered
I'd take this one in a heartbeat. AZ has been partnering with Oxford
for decades so it's not some marriage of convenience.
I don't trust the other shots - especially the Pfizer one.


Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 7:57:03 PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
dly becoming obsolete. The latest and most effective vaccine technology is  
based on messenger RNA, mRNA, and doesn't use problematic viruses to delive
r it to the cells. This is the technology being used by Pfizer/BioNTech and
 Moderna, and the results so far are spectacular effectiveness.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Why would you make such a statement when you obviously don't know the facts
.

"While adenoviral vectors have been tested in far more people than mRNA vac
cines, the technology is used in only one commercial vaccine today: a rabie
s vaccine used to immunize wild animals. So far, no adenoviral vector vacci
nes have demonstrated they can prevent disease in humans."

Key takeaway is no adenovirus vaccine has EVER been successful on humans, a
nd this is not for lack of trying. How the hell is that "tried and trusted?
" Tried and trusted to be an ineffective failure is what it is. And the par
ticular Oxford group at Jenner has a record of total failure in using this  
exact same virus vector in an attempt to produce a vaccine for the original
 SARS.

https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/Adenoviral-vectors-new-COVID-1
9/98/i19


Quoted text here. Click to load it

It doesn't take megabucks refrigeration to maintain -70oC. There is quite a
 huge selection of off-the-shelf units that deliver that kind of performanc
e affordably. And that temperature is specified only for long term storage  
life. The vaccine can be removed to  conventional refrigeration unit a day  
or two prior to use.  

Stop allowing yourself to be victimized by mindless propaganda.

Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On 24/11/2020 15:13, Ed Lee wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Enough to trigger a decent immune response without causing collateral  
damage or adverse reactions in too many people. Same as anyone else.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Since it is looking like half dose, delay, full dose works best then  
they are likely to use that regime and do 3 people for every 2 doses.
Nature has some reasonably informed comments on it in their News:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03326-w

It is a clear win-win if their data truly supports that claim.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

They have a price advantage with a more conventional bulk vaccine  
production process and a much less demanding cool chain distribution.

Now might be a good time to buy shares in dry ice manufacturers.

--  
Regards,
Martin Brown

Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:48:49 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokes
person for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less  
infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the tim
e to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due d
iligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past  
them.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

"Decent" response being arbitrarily defined as neutralizing antibody titers
 taken from recovered patients, and considered a controversial threshold se
eing as some people recover with zero antibodies in circulation..
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Excuse me but 1+2/3= 5/3 dose per patient is 5 doses for every three pati
ents, not two.

AZ is desperately trying to salvage real bad phase 3 trial in Brazil- anyth
ing else they have to say is smoke screen.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You get what you pay for.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:13:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Lee wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
s of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokesp
erson for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less i
nfectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the time
 to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due di
ligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past t
hem.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Drug dosing has always been a crap shoot because, at least in the US, they  
don't take into account the size of the patient.  Someone weighing 110 lbs  
should not receive the same dose as someone weighing 220 lbs.  That creates
 problems when the dangerous dose is close to the therapeutic dose.  For sm
aller people they get a dose that is twice what it needs to be or the large
r people get a dose that is barely effective.  

I get that they think it is awkward or even dangerous to dose according to  
body weight simply because of the opportunities for error.  So we have what
 we have.  

Compressing the studies into a shorter time presents hazards, but it's more
 about economic risk.  The hazard at each level is reduced even if there is
 some overlap in timing.  The economic risk is much greater as each phase o
f studies cost very much more.  So if the end of phase 2 finds issues after
 some lion's share of the cost of phase 3 is spent, then it's all money dow
n a rat hole.  

--  

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:28:33 -0800 (PST), Rickster C

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Here is a decent explanation of the effectiveness

https://youtu.be/GOq8-FR8s1E




Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:06:15 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You love all this death and misery.  



--  

John Larkin      Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.


  

Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On 24/11/2020 16:37, snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Maybe his is just pissed because the Oxford vaccine is much cheaper,
easier to mass produce and easier to distribute than the two American
candidates?

In reality, it's a good thing that there are several vaccines that look
like they will do a decent and safe job.  Different vaccines have their
pros and cons.  It means that we can give the best protection to groups
that need it most, and solid but cheaper protection to everyone.  It
means we can distribute vaccines even in countries and places that don't
have high-tech deep freezers.  We can see which vaccines work best on
different age groups or other differentiating factors.  We have a good
chance of still having something that works even if there is serious
mutation in the virus.  We have improved techniques, competence and
infrastructure for when the next pandemic comes along - or for adapting
for other existing diseases.

All in all, the more the better for different types of Covid vaccines,
and even less-than-ideal efficacy is still good.

(And I include the Russian and Chinese vaccines in this group of likely
vaccines - they may have rushed the testing more than what is safe, just
as a matter of national pride, but that doesn't mean the vaccines
themselves are bad.  It just means we don't know for sure that they are
good.)


Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 4:23:20 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ts of inflate the findings beyond all reason. Now the bullshyte Brit spokes
person for AZ claims the vaccine makes the people who do get infected less  
infectious when no such measurements are being done. Phase 3 is NOT the tim
e to still be playing around with dosing. Someone was not doing their due d
iligence in test design, data collection and analysis to let this get past  
them.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Oxford is not going to be approved for use in the U.S. for the simple reaso
n their trials testing is not conforming to FDA regulation. They may have F
DA approval to conduct their testing, but when they deviate into conformanc
e with regulation, their trial results become null. They outright lied abou
t their vaccine efficacy. It is measured at 70% on their largest Phase 3 co
hort of nearly 40,000, even that modest result is probably a lie, and the 9
0% lie comes from a super small  unrepresentative sample of 2,000 people re
ceiving the reduced dose primer. AstraZeneca is lying about everything.
The entire idea of an adenovirus vaccine is fundamentally flawed in practic
e because of the enduring immune response to their vector, which may even p
re-exist in many third world regions of the world, suppressing the desired  
immune response to the coronavirus. And it really creates problems for peop
le needing booster vaccination at a later date.
These people are frauds.

Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 12:31:19 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

<snip>

Quoted text here. Click to load it
son their trials testing is not conforming to FDA regulation. They may have
 FDA approval to conduct their testing, but when they deviate into conforma
nce with regulation, their trial results become null. They outright lied ab
out their vaccine efficacy. It is measured at 70% on their largest Phase 3  
cohort of nearly 40,000, even that modest result is probably a lie, and the
 90% lie comes from a super small unrepresentative sample of 2,000 people r
eceiving the reduced dose primer. AstraZeneca is lying about everything.  

If they were lying about everything, you wouldn't know that the 90% efficac
y was obtained on a small sample of test subjects - 2000 subjects may be a  
smaller group than 40,000, but it isn't all that small.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
ice because of the enduring immune response to their vector, which may even
 pre-exist in many third world regions of the world, suppressing the desire
d immune response to the coronavirus. And it really creates problems for pe
ople needing booster vaccination at a later date.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not as big a fraud as Fred Bloggs, and not actually fraudulent at all, even
 if Fred doesn't like what they are doing, in competitions with the compani
es whose stock prices he seems to want to boost.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 8:55:09 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
eason their trials testing is not conforming to FDA regulation. They may ha
ve FDA approval to conduct their testing, but when they deviate into confor
mance with regulation, their trial results become null. They outright lied  
about their vaccine efficacy. It is measured at 70% on their largest Phase  
3 cohort of nearly 40,000, even that modest result is probably a lie, and t
he 90% lie comes from a super small unrepresentative sample of 2,000 people
 receiving the reduced dose primer. AstraZeneca is lying about everything.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
acy was obtained on a small sample of test subjects - 2000 subjects may be  
a smaller group than 40,000, but it isn't all that small.

The real world of experimental design doesn't work with such uselessly simp
lified thinking like yours. Sample size is determined by the hypothesized p
robability of occurrence of the event, the estimated standard deviation of  
the event,  and a specified confidence in the final measured results. All o
f this falls under the rubric of the statistical power of the analysis. The
 sample size of 2,000 is unanimously considered to be way too small to be u
seful by people who actually know what they're doing.
Another factoid omitted from the press release by AZ is that the subgroup w
as restricted to enrollees of good health in the age range 18-55, making it
 somewhat easier to end up with 90% efficacy, and coincidentally worsening  
the power of analysis of their data even more.
Now we're finding Oxford has omitted including stabilizing mutations in the
ir antigen, a practice adopted by every other vaccine maker, and for good r
eason. People who know vaccines and inducing strong responses with them say
 this was a bad move.
Here's more background on the subject, and hopelessly beyond your grasp:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/after-dosing-mix-latest-covid-19-va
ccine-success-comes-big-question-mark

  

Quoted text here. Click to load it
ctice because of the enduring immune response to their vector, which may ev
en pre-exist in many third world regions of the world, suppressing the desi
red immune response to the coronavirus. And it really creates problems for  
people needing booster vaccination at a later date.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
en if Fred doesn't like what they are doing, in competitions with the compa
nies whose stock prices he seems to want to boost.  

Sloman fiercely competing for the 2020 SED Idiot Poster of the Year award..
.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 2:30:28 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 reason their trials testing is not conforming to FDA regulation. They may  
have FDA approval to conduct their testing, but when they deviate into conf
ormance with regulation, their trial results become null. They outright lie
d about their vaccine efficacy. It is measured at 70% on their largest Phas
e 3 cohort of nearly 40,000, even that modest result is probably a lie, and
 the 90% lie comes from a super small unrepresentative sample of 2,000 peop
le receiving the reduced dose primer. AstraZeneca is lying about everything
.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
icacy was obtained on a small sample of test subjects - 2000 subjects may b
e a smaller group than 40,000, but it isn't all that small.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
mplified thinking like yours. Sample size is determined by the hypothesized
 probability of occurrence of the event, the estimated standard deviation o
f the event, and a specified confidence in the final measured results. All  
of this falls under the rubric of the statistical power of the analysis. Th
e sample size of 2,000 is unanimously considered to be way too small to be  
useful by people who actually know what they're doing.  

Don't be silly. Sample size is what you can afford, and you confidence abou
t the outcome is determined by the results you get. Making assertions about
 the confidence limits you can hang on the test results from a particular s
ize of sample means that you are obsessed with statistical theory and not i
nterested in what was actually going on.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
 was restricted to enrollees of good health in the age range 18-55, making  
it somewhat easier to end up with 90% efficacy, and coincidentally worsenin
g the power of analysis of their data even more.  

So what.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
heir antigen, a practice adopted by every other vaccine maker, and for good
 reason. People who know vaccines and inducing strong responses with them s
ay this was a bad move.  

You aren't one of them. so where is the link to the authority you are prete
nding to be quoting.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
vaccine-success-comes-big-question-mark

It's more popular science reporting. It's entirely unspecific about what th
e "stabilizing mutations" might be, or what they are stabilising against.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
ractice because of the enduring immune response to their vector, which may  
even pre-exist in many third world regions of the world, suppressing the de
sired immune response to the coronavirus. And it really creates problems fo
r people needing booster vaccination at a later date.  

Which is why the Russians used one adenovirus for the first dose of the vac
cine, and a different one for the second.  

AZ is using chimpanzee adenovirus. The chance of a pre-existing immune resp
onse is remote, unless you spend a lot of time with chimpanzees.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
even if Fred doesn't like what they are doing, in competitions with the com
panies whose stock prices he seems to want to boost.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
...  

That's a strong play to become the outright winner. Now that Flyguy has sto
pped posting pro-Trump election propaganda Fred Bloggs could be in with a c
hance, but there's still John Doe and John Larkin.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 8:36:30 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
te:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
e:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
le reason their trials testing is not conforming to FDA regulation. They ma
y have FDA approval to conduct their testing, but when they deviate into co
nformance with regulation, their trial results become null. They outright l
ied about their vaccine efficacy. It is measured at 70% on their largest Ph
ase 3 cohort of nearly 40,000, even that modest result is probably a lie, a
nd the 90% lie comes from a super small unrepresentative sample of 2,000 pe
ople receiving the reduced dose primer. AstraZeneca is lying about everythi
ng.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
fficacy was obtained on a small sample of test subjects - 2000 subjects may
 be a smaller group than 40,000, but it isn't all that small.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
simplified thinking like yours. Sample size is determined by the hypothesiz
ed probability of occurrence of the event, the estimated standard deviation
 of the event, and a specified confidence in the final measured results. Al
l of this falls under the rubric of the statistical power of the analysis.  
The sample size of 2,000 is unanimously considered to be way too small to b
e useful by people who actually know what they're doing.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
out the outcome is determined by the results you get. Making assertions abo
ut the confidence limits you can hang on the test results from a particular
 size of sample means that you are obsessed with statistical theory and not
 interested in what was actually going on.

Sample size is what the regulatory agencies tell you it is if you ever want
 approval to sell your product. A well-designed trial yielding results in w
hich the the science can have confidence is the best way to determine what  
is actually going on. Dunno what kind of Neanderthal would label that as be
ing obsessed with statistics, it is science.

Here is a piece even you can understand. Maybe try moving your lips as you  
read to improve comprehension.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-s
nuff/


Quoted text here. Click to load it
up was restricted to enrollees of good health in the age range 18-55, makin
g it somewhat easier to end up with 90% efficacy, and coincidentally worsen
ing the power of analysis of their data even more.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 their antigen, a practice adopted by every other vaccine maker, and for go
od reason. People who know vaccines and inducing strong responses with them
 say this was a bad move.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
tending to be quoting.

I know far more about them than you're capable of, and that's been amply de
monstrated by your response performance. I already  linked the article whic
h sources that bit of information, and which is far more than you deserve.  
So far you're just a skank bench-sitter

Quoted text here. Click to load it
:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
9-vaccine-success-comes-big-question-mark
Quoted text here. Click to load it
the "stabilizing mutations" might be, or what they are stabilising against.

It may seem that way to an idiotic near moron like yourself, but it doesn't
 to anyone with a modicum of intelligence who doesn't require every little  
bit of exposition to be self-contained information which is spoon fed to th
em in baby sized nibbles.

Apparently there is an entire class of proteins that are transiently metast
able in their folding, and this can have a profound effect on their present
ation to proto-antibody binding and hence neutralizing antibody production.
 How profound? An order of magnitude difference is how profound. This may a
lso have something to do with why some people are so slow to mount an effec
tive neutralizing response. It's all in the timing. The coronavirus spike p
rotein is metastable.

There are ways to stabilize against the effect. An article describing the e
ffect is here:
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200803/Stabilized-prefusion-spike-vacci
ne-candidate-induces-powerful-immune-response.aspx

Quoted text here. Click to load it
 practice because of the enduring immune response to their vector, which ma
y even pre-exist in many third world regions of the world, suppressing the  
desired immune response to the coronavirus. And it really creates problems  
for people needing booster vaccination at a later date.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
accine, and a different one for the second.  

Once again you demonstrate your inability to follow the simplest story.
The Russian vaccine use two separate virus to guard against immunosuppressi
on of the boost (2nd) vaccination. The shortfall of the AZ virus was too mu
ch immunosuppression of primer (1st) vaccination. These are two entirely di
fferent effects.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
sponse is remote, unless you spend a lot of time with chimpanzees.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
, even if Fred doesn't like what they are doing, in competitions with the c
ompanies whose stock prices he seems to want to boost.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
rd...
topped posting pro-Trump election propaganda Fred Bloggs could be in with a
 chance, but there's still John Doe and John Larkin.  

Of course-that's part of being the winner- they're too dim to realize when  
they've won the award.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 2:15:02 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
e:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
rote:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ote:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
mple reason their trials testing is not conforming to FDA regulation. They  
may have FDA approval to conduct their testing, but when they deviate into  
conformance with regulation, their trial results become null. They outright
 lied about their vaccine efficacy. It is measured at 70% on their largest  
Phase 3 cohort of nearly 40,000, even that modest result is probably a lie,
 and the 90% lie comes from a super small unrepresentative sample of 2,000  
people receiving the reduced dose primer. AstraZeneca is lying about everyt
hing.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 efficacy was obtained on a small sample of test subjects - 2000 subjects m
ay be a smaller group than 40,000, but it isn't all that small.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
y simplified thinking like yours. Sample size is determined by the hypothes
ized probability of occurrence of the event, the estimated standard deviati
on of the event, and a specified confidence in the final measured results.  
All of this falls under the rubric of the statistical power of the analysis
. The sample size of 2,000 is unanimously considered to be way too small to
 be useful by people who actually know what they're doing.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
about the outcome is determined by the results you get. Making assertions a
bout the confidence limits you can hang on the test results from a particul
ar size of sample means that you are obsessed with statistical theory and n
ot interested in what was actually going on.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
nt approval to sell your product. A well-designed trial yielding results in
 which the the science can have confidence is the best way to determine wha
t is actually going on. Dunno what kind of Neanderthal would label that as  
being obsessed with statistics, it is science.  

Regulatory agencies are busy making sure that if anything goes wrong, they  
can't be blamed for it. Science is more about finding stuff that works. Sta
tistics can help there, but getting the statisitcs right isn't the same as  
getting the science right.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
u read to improve comprehension.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
-snuff/

"Wired" is popular journalism. Like most English-language publications, the
 authors don't know all that much about the science that they report about.
 Neither do you, so you may not have noticed.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
roup was restricted to enrollees of good health in the age range 18-55, mak
ing it somewhat easier to end up with 90% efficacy, and coincidentally wors
ening the power of analysis of their data even more.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
in their antigen, a practice adopted by every other vaccine maker, and for  
good reason. People who know vaccines and inducing strong responses with th
em say this was a bad move.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
retending to be quoting.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
demonstrated by your response performance.

To your own satisfaction. You still seem to think that receptor-bonding-dom
ain on the Covid-19 spike protein doesn't mutate - "hasn't mutated in the p
ast 11 months" and when I dug out a paper that  showed that there were Covi
d-19 variants in circulation that had a few minor mutations in that domain  
you failed to admit that you'd got it wrong.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
which is far more than you deserve.

But it didn't say what it meant - which makes it one more bit of marketing  
hype, rather than any kind of information.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Since you seem to be in the business of boosting the prices of stock in the
 some vaccine manufacturers, and I'm not, that does make me a bench-sitter  
in your little (and somewhat illegal) game.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
sp:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
-19-vaccine-success-comes-big-question-mark  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
t the "stabilizing mutations" might be, or what they are stabilising agains
t.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
't to anyone with a modicum of intelligence who doesn't require every littl
e bit of exposition to be self-contained information which is spoon fed to  
them in baby sized nibbles.  

So you can't explain it and feel unhappy because you have been shown up.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
stable in their folding, and this can have a profound effect on their prese
ntation to proto-antibody binding and hence neutralizing antibody productio
n. How profound? An order of magnitude difference is how profound. This may
 also have something to do with why some people are so slow to mount an eff
ective neutralizing response. It's all in the timing. The coronavirus spike
 protein is metastable.  

Sure. I posted a link to a PNAS paper on the subject months ago. The Covid-
19 spike protein spends most of its time folded up, so that the receptor-bo
nding-domain isn't exposed.

It seems to mean that the virus moves further between production  and relea
se before it infects a new cell. More virus gets out of infected people to  
infect other people, and the infection move further down into the lung on e
ach infect and release cycle in the original infectee than it would if the  
spike protein spent less time folded up. More virus particle get lost becau
se they spend longer hanging around, but evolution is tinkering with the pr
oportion of the time the spike protein  spends folded up.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 effect is here:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
cine-candidate-induces-powerful-immune-response.aspx

You want your antibodies to latch onto the configuration of the spike prote
in that they can bond to effectively. There have been suggestions using a v
ariant of the spike protein which is stable in the unfolded state gets you  
a more effective antibody. Your link is totally unspecific about what the r
esearchers actually did, and going back to the original paper doesn't expos
e any discussion in those terms. It does talk about the amino-acid substitu
tions they made, and the effects on immunogenicity, but doesn't say anythin
g intelligible about the shape of the spike proteins that resulted. A more  
sophisticated reader might get more.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
in practice because of the enduring immune response to their vector, which  
may even pre-exist in many third world regions of the world, suppressing th
e desired immune response to the coronavirus. And it really creates problem
s for people needing booster vaccination at a later date.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 vaccine, and a different one for the second.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
sion of the boost (2nd) vaccination.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
st) vaccination. These are two entirely different effects.

Pull the other leg.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
response is remote, unless you spend a lot of time with chimpanzees.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ll, even if Fred doesn't like what they are doing, in competitions with the
 companies whose stock prices he seems to want to boost.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ward...  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 stopped posting pro-Trump election propaganda Fred Bloggs could be in with
 a chance, but there's still John Doe and John Larkin.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
n they've won the award.  

Let me be the first to congratulate you. I wouldn't say that you had won th
e award, but you are clearly a strong contender, even if you are too dim to
 realise it.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: Oxford Vaccine Looking More And More Like A Flop
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ote:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 wrote:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
wrote:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
simple reason their trials testing is not conforming to FDA regulation. The
y may have FDA approval to conduct their testing, but when they deviate int
o conformance with regulation, their trial results become null. They outrig
ht lied about their vaccine efficacy. It is measured at 70% on their larges
t Phase 3 cohort of nearly 40,000, even that modest result is probably a li
e, and the 90% lie comes from a super small unrepresentative sample of 2,00
0 people receiving the reduced dose primer. AstraZeneca is lying about ever
ything.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
0% efficacy was obtained on a small sample of test subjects - 2000 subjects
 may be a smaller group than 40,000, but it isn't all that small.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
sly simplified thinking like yours. Sample size is determined by the hypoth
esized probability of occurrence of the event, the estimated standard devia
tion of the event, and a specified confidence in the final measured results
. All of this falls under the rubric of the statistical power of the analys
is. The sample size of 2,000 is unanimously considered to be way too small  
to be useful by people who actually know what they're doing.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
e about the outcome is determined by the results you get. Making assertions
 about the confidence limits you can hang on the test results from a partic
ular size of sample means that you are obsessed with statistical theory and
 not interested in what was actually going on.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
want approval to sell your product. A well-designed trial yielding results  
in which the the science can have confidence is the best way to determine w
hat is actually going on. Dunno what kind of Neanderthal would label that a
s being obsessed with statistics, it is science.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
y can't be blamed for it. Science is more about finding stuff that works. S
tatistics can help there, but getting the statisitcs right isn't the same a
s getting the science right.

That's an uninformed dumb comment. All of these trials are assigned a board
 of oversight to monitor all the data collected, and these boards are compo
sed of MDs and scientists for the most part. The statistics used is not so  
esoteric that it cannot be competently managed by the medical science profe
ssionals.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it
you read to improve comprehension.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
to-snuff/
Quoted text here. Click to load it
he authors don't know all that much about the science that they report abou
t. Neither do you, so you may not have noticed.

The author of the article has a doctorate in health science and makes a liv
ing analyzing health science related experiments. You're a fool to discount
 her article just because it appeared in Wired. You missed the part about i
t appearing in a bunch of other publications too.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
bgroup was restricted to enrollees of good health in the age range 18-55, m
aking it somewhat easier to end up with 90% efficacy, and coincidentally wo
rsening the power of analysis of their data even more.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
s in their antigen, a practice adopted by every other vaccine maker, and fo
r good reason. People who know vaccines and inducing strong responses with  
them say this was a bad move.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 pretending to be quoting.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
y demonstrated by your response performance.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
omain on the Covid-19 spike protein doesn't mutate - "hasn't mutated in the
 past 11 months" and when I dug out a paper that showed that there were Cov
id-19 variants in circulation that had a few minor mutations in that domain
 you failed to admit that you'd got it wrong.

It's a virus, and viruses mutate. Your claim is wrong because the so-called
 mutants they're talking about are not permanently part of their own circul
ating strain. They're infrequent accidents of replication that can appear i
n any strain,  appear suddenly and disappear just as suddenly.  You have a  
fundamental misunderstanding of just exactly what a mutation is and how it  
differs from an evolution.


Quoted text here. Click to load it
 which is far more than you deserve.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
g hype, rather than any kind of information.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
he some vaccine manufacturers, and I'm not, that does make me a bench-sitte
r in your little (and somewhat illegal) game.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
rasp:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
id-19-vaccine-success-comes-big-question-mark  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
hat the "stabilizing mutations" might be, or what they are stabilising agai
nst.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
sn't to anyone with a modicum of intelligence who doesn't require every lit
tle bit of exposition to be self-contained information which is spoon fed t
o them in baby sized nibbles.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
tastable in their folding, and this can have a profound effect on their pre
sentation to proto-antibody binding and hence neutralizing antibody product
ion. How profound? An order of magnitude difference is how profound. This m
ay also have something to do with why some people are so slow to mount an e
ffective neutralizing response. It's all in the timing. The coronavirus spi
ke protein is metastable.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
d-19 spike protein spends most of its time folded up, so that the receptor-
bonding-domain isn't exposed.  

Irrelevant to the present situation because NONE of the vaccines vying for  
acceptance actually use the "spike" protein. They only use subdomains of it
.  You still cling to this fantasy of having noticed something that thousan
ds of career researchers have missed! Not likely.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
ase before it infects a new cell. More virus gets out of infected people to
 infect other people, and the infection move further down into the lung on  
each infect and release cycle in the original infectee than it would if the
 spike protein spent less time folded up. More virus particle get lost beca
use they spend longer hanging around, but evolution is tinkering with the p
roportion of the time the spike protein spends folded up.



Quoted text here. Click to load it
he effect is here:  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
accine-candidate-induces-powerful-immune-response.aspx
Quoted text here. Click to load it
tein that they can bond to effectively. There have been suggestions using a
 variant of the spike protein which is stable in the unfolded state gets yo
u a more effective antibody. Your link is totally unspecific about what the
 researchers actually did, and going back to the original paper doesn't exp
ose any discussion in those terms. It does talk about the amino-acid substi
tutions they made, and the effects on immunogenicity, but doesn't say anyth
ing intelligible about the shape of the spike proteins that resulted. A mor
e sophisticated reader might get more.

Maybe it's proprietary. What do you think all this hacking and espionage is
 about?  Obviously the stabilizing mutations are being kept secret. You nee
d everything spelled out because you're so simple.


Quoted text here. Click to load it
in practice because of the enduring immune response to their vector, which  
may even pre-exist in many third world regions of the world, suppressing th
e desired immune response to the coronavirus. And it really creates problem
s for people needing booster vaccination at a later date.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
he vaccine, and a different one for the second.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ession of the boost (2nd) vaccination.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
(1st) vaccination. These are two entirely different effects.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
e response is remote, unless you spend a lot of time with chimpanzees.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 all, even if Fred doesn't like what they are doing, in competitions with t
he companies whose stock prices he seems to want to boost.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 award...  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
as stopped posting pro-Trump election propaganda Fred Bloggs could be in wi
th a chance, but there's still John Doe and John Larkin.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
hen they've won the award.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
the award, but you are clearly a strong contender, even if you are too dim  
to realise it.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Site Timeline