frozen-north wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 4:20 pm
Well, that's another story. The point is - while the study could be well off in absolute terms, intrinsically their numbers within the scope of the research should be comparable (again, hopefully. It could be quite a bold assumption too). Which means having a longer interval between the doses is indeed beneficial
I believe that admin's reply was in regards to the post by 'chilly' about the U of Chile *study*:
Nope, I was referring to both (all+), because none of them are "studies" just bullshit press releases (being generous here). I get better "data" from "press releases" when some company is about to screw me out of my stock investment in them by going bankrupt.
Here is a study:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... g5298.full
Not related to sinovac, but compare that to the bullshit both those "studies" the universities and government are putting out and claiming are "studies", or that "study" in the lancet from china (or any of those studies out of china about sinovac).
I might have my bones to pick about the study above's methods, data, conclusions, etc; but, I can clearly determine what they were and the reason behind them. I can reconstruct it on my own, and how they got there, then give it a thumbs up or thumbs down, along with clearly stating where they went off the rails.
I can not even start to guess at how the hell those "press releases" got where they got.
But here is the bottom line: over 1 year after the start of studies on sinovac, over one year since the first person got a shot, no one should be "suggesting" anything. They should KNOW with a fair degree of certainty, if it works or not. No one, anywhere, has done a full phase III trial.
Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
We use to call "suggesting" in Philosophy a scientific "weasel word".
Just like I can "believe" there is unicorn in my front yard, I could also "suggest" there is a unicorn in my front yard. I am signaling my doubt in my assertion.
Just in this case, that doubt has some very serious consequences.
Still does not mean there is a unicorn in my front yard; but, hey, don't hold it against me because I just "suggested" there was a unicorn in my front yard.
Not my problem, if you stick half a billion people with a unicorn.
At this point, the best "suggestion" I got about sinovac is my own little study, but we all know that is obvious scientific bullshit, if for no other reason than I am part of the study group. So far all I got is two out of three "weones" with confirmed antibodies, of some sort, on a bullshit antibody test made in china, that is probably a little flaky to say the least.
That is the terrifying thing. So far, my crap little study, is at least reproducible by most anybody on the planet. Hopefully, one or all of my friends do not have to die to get some sort of conclusive proof about sinovac.
Well that is the good news about my crappy little study.
The bad news, all you people that did not take sinovac are my control.
Think about what that means?