Wednesday, October 28, 2020

Scientists Debate How Much to LOWER THE BAR on Covid-19 Vaccine Potential- Disconcerting


The definition of "lower the bar" is as follows: lower the standards which need to be met in order to qualify for something..

Therefore 'scientists' (?) are debating how low a standard can be set, that would still allow for promotion of this injection as a vaccine.


"Everyone thinks  ( believes falsely, delusional) Covid-19 will go away with a vaccine," said William Haseltine, chair and president of Access Health International, a foundation that advocates for affordable care.

Ongoing clinical trials are primarily designed to show whether Covid-19 vaccine candidates prevent any symptoms of the disease which could be as minor as a sore throat or a cough. But the trials, which will study 30,000 to 60,000 volunteers, will be too brief and too small to prove that the vaccines will prevent what people fear most — being hospitalized or dying — by the time the first vaccine makers file for emergency use authorization, which is expected to occur later this year, Haseltine said.

Ongoing clinical trials are designed to show that the vaccine prevents symptoms of the disease.

Dr. Peter Lurie, a former Food and Drug Administration official who is president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said: "Would we like to know if the vaccine reduces illness or mortality? Of course. But there is a real time pressure. This is a pandemic. It's explosive."

Would we like to know if the vaccine reduces illness or mortality?  Of course. But, that can't be told or known at this time- Lowering the bar...

Researchers debated how rigorously to test Covid-19 vaccine candidates at a public meeting Thursday of the FDA's advisory committee on vaccines.

"Simply preventing mild cases is not enough and may not justify the risks associated with vaccination," said Peter Doshi, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, who detailed his concerns in an editorial in The BMJ.

"Simply preventing mild cases is not enough and may not justify the risks associated with vaccination"

But vaccine experts say there are good reasons to focus on milder cases of Covid-19.

Vaccines that prevent mild disease typically (assumption) prevent severe disease, as well, said Dr. Arnold Monto, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan's School of Public Health and temporary chair of the vaccine committee.

 Proving that a vaccine prevents severe illness and death is harder than showing that it protects against mild illness, because hospitalizations and deaths are much rarer. That's especially true among the type of health-conscious people who volunteer for vaccine trials, who are probably more likely than others to wear masks and to socially distance, Schaffner said.

Recall my mentioning the two women who became vaccine damaged, by all appearances, during the Covid vaccine trials, when they both acquired Myelitis (neurological disorder). AZ claimed the one woman had an undiagnosed case of MS, which I found doubtful. My comfort in saying that came from the fact that the drug companies would have gone through their guinea pigs health history, including  undertaking further assessments, with a fine tooth comb before they would have been allowed to participate. I could not imagine how it was possible her MS had be undiagnosed. Then there was the young man who died in Brazil.

Scientists agree that the ideal vaccine would provide "sterilizing immunity" — which means preventing not only disease symptoms but also any infection with the virus, said Dr. Corey Casper, a vaccinologist with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and CEO at the Infectious Disease Research Institute in Seattle.
Few expect Covid-19 vaccines to be that effective. "We're trying to lower that bar and determine how much lower is acceptable," Casper said.

Few expect Covid-19 vaccines to be that effective. "We're trying to lower that bar and determine how much lower is acceptable," Casper said.

Although the coronavirus vaccine trials are measuring severe disease or death, these are "secondary endpoints," meaning the current study isn't large enough to produce a statistically significant answer, Neuzil said.

Whether vaccines reduce severe disease and death will become clear in later studies, after vaccines are distributed, she said.

In other words, this is one giant experiment. That much is very clear.


  1. Lower the bar and have this as one giant experiment?

    Honestly, this is appalling.. But of course the brainwashed masses out there will accept this and without any thought thanks to the brain damage being done through face diaper wearing..

    Well... I guess this is all part of the 'new normal' and as I have been saying for some time now, you simply cannot fix stupid no matter how hard we try!

    1. Yup north, those are there own words "lower the bar"
      and it seems obvious that the additional data will be gathered real world once they distribute the vaccines

  2. Just finished watching this: Silent Epidemic: The Untold Story of Vaccines (A Gary Null documentary)

    Talk about lowering the bar! And how easily vaccine damage is glossed over. How do these people live with themselves?

    Seems to me that, more and more, it has to do with population reduction than with the actual health of the people. For instance, it's not likely that thousands of autistics will reproduce, nor will girls damaged by Gardasil. The Covid "cure" may well turn out to be far worse than the disease itself.

    1. Hey Yaya;

      When thinking about vaccines and our poor quality food the Bertrand Russel quote always comes to mind

      "Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible"

      From his book about the impact of science on society-
      Of course I'd say "science" airquotes
      because there is no science in much of what passes for science- by science I'm referencing a methodology..
      not what it appears to be now. A belief system.
      More tyrannical then a God centered religion.
      Science destroys
      God, created
      In a nutshell

  3. "It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished.

    And Bertrand Russell is seen as a good guy?

  4. I don't know the context, not having read the book, but I would have assumed that to be a prediction by Russell, not a recommendation. He seemed to care deeply about humanity, though he was a religious agnostic. With practically his last breath, he condemned Israel for its "aggression in the Middle East" -- and reportedly died 2 days later of -- get this -- the Flu! He was 98 years old, an icon of comorbidity.,_death_and_legacy

  5. The flu? Imagine that? At 98.
    He certainly had a long life

    Regarding the idea of this being prediction vs a recommendation?

    It's possible, but, this is also what is claimed about Aldous Huxley, that he predicted..(Brave New World) I don't believe that was the case because Huxley was a globalist through and through- His brother was involved with the UN in a big way- Julian was heavy into eugenics.

    The father of the Huxley's was known as Darwin's bulldog

    It's like Bill Gates predicting this pandemic. Did he?
    Or did he have a hand in the making of this pandemic?
    He certainly has the connections.
    This is how I see Russell.. (just my opinion)