It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler
Is that statistically significant? A difference of 0.12%.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler
Is that statistically significant? A difference of 0.12%.
originally posted by: schuyler
We both know that's unlikely, but that people can "have a reaction" does, of course, question how reliable the inevitable "objections" will be. My grandfather was an MD who worked for a mining company in Colorado. The miners would complain of ailments which he treated with colored sugar water. It worked.
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. The global trials are evaluating participants aged 18 years or over from diverse racial and geographic groups who are healthy or have stable underlying medical conditions.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: schuyler
These "placebos" sound like a wonder drug with much fewer negative connotations when compared with the Big Pharma poisons... where can I obtain a year's supply?
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler
Is that statistically significant? A difference of 0.12%.
We both know that's unlikely, but that people can "have a reaction" does, of course, question how reliable the inevitable "objections" will be. My grandfather was an MD who worked for a mining company in Colorado. The miners would complain of ailments which he treated with colored sugar water. It worked.
originally posted by: visitedbythem
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler
Is that statistically significant? A difference of 0.12%.
We both know that's unlikely, but that people can "have a reaction" does, of course, question how reliable the inevitable "objections" will be. My grandfather was an MD who worked for a mining company in Colorado. The miners would complain of ailments which he treated with colored sugar water. It worked.
How many of them died?
originally posted by: AutomateThis1
originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: schuyler
That's because the placebo in that study was a meningitis vaccine that's been previously known to cause reactions in people.
Sources?
In some COVID-19 vaccine trials, participants in the control group (the group receiving a placebo) are injected with a saline solution. In other trials, they receive an actual treatment. For example, in the COVID-19 vaccine developed by the University of Oxford, the control group receives a meningitis and septicaemia vaccine as a placebo
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler
Is that statistically significant? A difference of 0.12%.
Well, would you consider the difference between 0.63% experiencing negative allergic reactions to the vaccine and the approximate 1% of all COVID positives actually dying from the virus to be statistically significant? A difference of 0.37%.