- Oct 3, 2016
Just like your 2tb pen drive & 40000mah battery bank ?The Walvax vaccine could be a game changer! mRNA technology mean targeted antibody response which could mean up to 95% efficacy. But unlike the other mRNA Pfizer and Moderna which need to be frozen and require two shot, Walvax is stored at room temperature and requires just one shot!
The Walvax vaccine requires a single dose, uses mRNA technology and does not require freezing.
The official explained that no later than May 30, the studies would begin if approved by the Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks ( Cofepris ) and specified that some 6,000 volunteers will participate in the tests.We are going to be the first country outside of China to carry out phase 3 studies of this vaccine, "Ebrard said at the daily press conference of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
On the menu today: A country that has done gangbusters at vaccinating its citizens finds itself with a significant outbreak among people who were already vaccinated — raising questions of just how much good the Chinese vaccine actually does; the pause on the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine “made it harder for enthusiasm to bloom among the skeptical,” in the eyes of one analyst; and an undiplomatic choice for U.S. ambassador to Japan.
The World Grows Increasingly Reliant on Unreliable Chinese COVID Vaccines
Say it with me, China enthusiasts: “Vaccine diplomacy” is only a masterstroke if the vaccine works. Otherwise, you might as well just send other countries syringes full of soy sauce. As the April 21 Morning Jolt observed, “the Chinese-made vaccine works about as well as the Chinese-made personal protective equipment: It’s really hit-and-miss.”
The Chinese vaccines appear to sort of work, sometimes. And if you’re in a situation like India is currently, with COVID-19 deaths around 4,000 per day, or afraid your country could end up in a situation like India’s, the Chinese vaccine probably looks a lot more appealing than nothing.
Today, the Wall Street Journal reports that the “Seychelles, which has vaccinated a higher proportion of its population against coronavirus than any other country, is struggling to contain a new surge in COVID-19 infections, raising questions about the effectiveness of a Chinese shot the island nation has administered to the majority of its vaccinated residents . . . According to the health ministry, more than one third of new active cases are people who are fully vaccinated. Authorities in the Seychelles haven’t said how many of those cases arose among people vaccinated with the Chinese shot.”
The thing is though, the signs have been there all along.
As I noted last week, the Chinese government insists that the COVID-19 pandemic effectively ended in their country last February, that their deaths and case numbers have been astoundingly low since early last spring, and that none of the variants have had any impact on their country in any significant way.
The Chinese government is so committed to this narrative that it said it could not conduct the usual testing of the effectiveness of the vaccines, because the virus was so rare in China: “China’s vaccines have had to be trialed elsewhere because the country didn’t have enough transmission itself to conduct them, says George Gao, who heads the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Beijing.” As of this date, there is still no public large-scale trial results of the Sinopharm or SinoVac vaccines among the Chinese people.
China approved the Sinopharm and SinoVac vaccines for emergency use back in July. The Sinopharm vaccine is currently being administered into arms in 38 countries, mostly across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, and the Sinovac vaccine is being administered in 24 countries, including Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, and Ukraine.
The pandemic in India is so severe, the government there has halted exports of the Indian-produced version of the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine, called CoviShield. With India’s exports suddenly no longer available, countries such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are turning to the Chinese vaccines. For a lot of countries, the choice is not between the iffy Chinese vaccines and the more reliable Pfizer or Moderna ones. The choice is between the iffy Chinese vaccines and nothing.
The best news for Sinovac vaccine came from a study in Turkey with more than 10,000 participants that began in September and ended in March, and found the efficacy of 83.5 percent. That’s not up in the 90s like Pfizer, but numbers like that suggest the Sinovac vaccine is more than sufficiently effective for large-scale use. (Remember, “90 percent efficacy” doesn’t mean 90 people wouldn’t catch the virus and 10 would. It indicates “a 90 percent reduction in disease occurrence among the vaccinated group, or a 90 percent reduction from the number of cases you would expect if they have not been vaccinated.” If you had two samples of 100 people, you would not expect all 100 people in the placebo group to catch the disease.)
The bad news is that another large-scale study of the Sinovac vaccine on the other side of the world told a dramatically different story: On January 12, Brazilian scientists “announced that China’s Sinovac vaccine was far less effective than originally touted, at just 50.38 percent effective against COVID-19 in late-stage trials, nearly 30 percentage points lower than initial data showed.”
When two studies research the effectiveness of a vaccine and come back with dramatically different results, researchers start wondering if they measured infections and efficacy differently, or whether one study involved a more contagious and virulent version of the virus than another. Maybe the Brazilian study had a lower threshold for “infected” than the Turkish one did. And it’s worth keeping in mind that the primary goal in fighting COVID-19 is first to avoid death and second to avoid hospitalization to prevent overwhelming the medical system. A vaccine that keeps someone out of the hospital probably is indeed “good enough.”
But in early April, the head of China’s CDC publicly acknowledged that the Sinovac vaccine is just not effective enough, and then quickly backtracked a day later. Over in Cameroon, some health workers said they were reluctant to take the coronavirus vaccines donated by China because they doubt the drug’s efficacy.
The World Health Organization announced a few days ago that it was approving emergency use of Sinopharm, “the first time that any Chinese-made vaccine received emergency authorization from the WHO.” While I enjoy denouncing the WHO as a puppet of the Chinese government as much as the next guy, this decision does fit within the organization’s previously stated parameters of a threshold of 50 percent: “The 50 percent efficacy threshold set for COVID-19 vaccines is because COVID-19 was deemed such a severe disease, that if a vaccine is only 50 percent effective, it’s still worth using.” Even if the Brazil study represented the true efficacy of the Sinovac vaccine, it just barely cleared the threshold at 50.38 percent efficacy.
Meanwhile, here in the United States, our rate of vaccinations has no doubt slowed from the mid April peak, but we’re still averaging more than 2 million per day; nearly 3 million doses were administered Friday. With the Pfizer vaccine now approved for those between the ages of twelve and 15, we’re going to throw another 17 million or so Americans into the eligible pile. It has become somewhat trendy to sneer that we’ve hit the wall of vaccination demand, and that we’re doomed because of vaccine skeptics. Over at The Atlantic, Derek Thompson sizes up the considerable evidence that the government’s pause on the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine represented an irreversible inflection point, noting that average daily vaccinations peaked the very same day of the government warning. Thompson concludes that “the government’s underselling of the vaccines (and overselling of their risks) did not exactly cause the dip, but did make it harder for enthusiasm to bloom among the skeptical.”
That is not a controlled study. All they have done is looked at a bunch of health workers who didn't get Covid and automatically concluded that it is due to the vaccine, when it could've just as easily been due to use of PPE, or their immunity. It even says so in the article:Sinovac is highly effective!
Indonesian data adds to signs out of Brazil that the shot is more effective than it proved in the testing phase, which was beset by divergent efficacy rates and questions over transparency.www.japantimes.co.jp
That means it is not a controlled study, because they did not screen for asymptomatic carriers who would not have gotten sick even without a vaccine. And since the fatality rate is only 1 percent for Covid, the numbers given here are not reliable at all since there is no control group.though it’s unclear if the workers were uniformly screened to detect asymptomatic carriers.
Those articles are copy paste jobs of the exact same Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda puff piece you posted above touting Chinese vaccines in Indonesia, but that did not have a control group. The fact is that without a control group you cannot have an effective study, and there is no control group here, just biased observations from pro-CCP groups. Otherwise you cannot say if the health worker got better due to their own immune system or the vaccine, or did not even get infected in the first place due to use of PPE.100 countries that use Chinese vaccines had their studies and they were highly successful.
And this new powerful single-dose mRNA is beginning trials in Mexico who already use two other Chinese vaccines!
"Huang Zhen, vice-chairman of Walvax, said in March that Mexico and Colombia had contacted the company saying they were willing to conduct phase 3 trials.
Mexico has already approved for emergency use and received doses of China’s Sinovac Biotech and CanSino Biologics vaccines, and it is also expecting to receive doses of the Sinopharm shot."
NO, it is not a study without a control group, and there is no control group in the article posted about health workers. Go back and read your science books to understand how a scientific study is done. Without a control group, it is just considered anecdotal observation, because you cannot say for sure if the health workers survival rates were because of PPE, or their own inherent immunity. I even quoted from the same article you gave above:John, you are the only one posting propaganda of old stories
All of mine are current and involves actually current studies and sales.
I am sure that the 100 countries using Chinese vaccines are smart enough to know what they are using!
Without screening for asymptomatic carriers, you don't even know how many would not have gotten sick even without any vaccinations. So that means there is no control group, and this is NOT A STUDY.though it’s unclear if the workers were uniformly screened to detect asymptomatic carriers.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|‘Failed miserably!’ China ‘ran rings around’ US military in simulated ‘Taiwan war drill’||China||12|
|J||Oppression of Christians in China by the Chinese Communist Party||China||18|
|China will be building a lot more nuclear missiles!||China||7|
|Punching Above its Weight; U.S. Congressional Report’s Comparison of China’s J-10 Light Fighter to Elite F-15 Heavy Platform||China||7|