香港人唔好懶 — 疫苗數據自己睇
2021/3/16
打唔打 BioNTech 疫苗，係一個好複雜嘅問題，早兩日我用一個考慮對社會影響嘅角度分享咗我嘅睇法。今日，想從返醫學角度補充返數據，俾大家參考。
大家成日聽「BioNTech 有效率高過九成」、「好似副作用多啲」，都好似道聽塗說，但究竟現有數據全面真相係點？其實，BNT 嘅數據一律全面公開，上網可以搵到研究全文，大家可以參考以下兩篇學術期刊報告，自己再作決定。
我可以節錄一啲重點，但更加希望，大家作為香港人，應該有足夠嘅教育程度同知識，去理解部份研究數據。兩篇報告嘅連結我都放埋係度，Google 都唔使，希望大家自己試下睇一下，分享比身邊親朋，唔好依賴道聽塗說嘅所謂分析。
大家唔應該盲信專家，而我更加冇資格叫你打唔打。自己身體自己負責，唔好懶啦。
第一篇，係整合以色列 60 萬人接種後嘅數據。接種第二劑後七日，防止感染武肺嘅有效率係 92%。全文亦有細分，唔同性別、年齡、病歷史下嘅有效率，可以睇清楚。
“BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting”
第二篇，係 BioNTech 嘅第三期臨床研究數據，整合 2 萬名打咗 BNT 嘅試驗對象嘅數據，有效率 95%。但睇呢篇重要嘅係，睇「副作用／不良反應」，因為呢點係上篇冇分析到嘅。
主要大家可以睇 Figure 2，分析咗喺唔同年齡層下嘅各種局部／全身副作用嘅數據。主要係 83% 人會接種處局部疼痛，47% 疲勞，42% 頭痛。
值得留意嘅係，有兩名接種疫苗者係研究追蹤期間死亡，死因分別係動脈硬化同心跳停止，但兩者都被判斷係與疫苗無關。而同期，亦有四名接種「安慰劑」（即係無打疫苗）嘅試驗對象離世，死因為中風、心肌梗塞、或死因不明。
“Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine”
先自己試下睇，特別係重點（abstract）。睇唔明嘅或者有疑惑嘅，先再向專業嘅醫護人員查詢。大家可以試下喺下面討論，原諒我冇時間逐個解答，但歡迎各位朋友互相幫忙討論。
最後，喺度都簡單講兩句我自己打完感覺點。我一個人嘅反應絕對冇任何科學意義或者代表性，只係預計有人想知想問我都分享定先。打完大約半日後，接種處開始痛，主要係郁到膊頭肌肉時先會痛，唔郁就唔痛。跟住痛咗大約一日半，而家都消退得七七八八。而我自己就冇任何其他不良反應，頭痛、疲勞等就冇。
我唔會同你講咩打完好興奮咩痛都唔痛，嗰啲都係呃人嘅。效用亦一定有，副作用一定會有，不確定嘅因素再少都好都總會有，再罕見嘅事，都可能會有人不幸遇上。所以大家自己睇，自己決定，呢個就係醫學倫理上 informed consent 嘅意思。
Corona 'Vaccines' Almost Useless if Real Numbers Were Reported
Well worth reading this interview with a leading epidemiologist. The essence is the following:
1. There are two measures used to report efficacy of vaccines - Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) and Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR).
有兩種方法被用於報告疫苗的效益 - 相對風險降低（RRR）和絕對風險降低（ARR）。
RRR is kind of like the CPR test when it comes to measuring the virus - it is only a relative measure to compare between different vaccines being tested; it says nothing about the actual reduction in risk when given to people.
ARR is the measure of the actual risk reduction, and tells the actual efficacy of a vaccine.
The RRR only is reported even though CDC guidelines say to report both. The RRR is close to 90-95% for the ones now being tested/used.
However, the ARR is close to zero - statistically almost no effect. See the chart below (the researcher had to distort the chart to even get the ARR to register. So, the real/actual reduction in risk of getting the corona virus is under 1%. This means that if you get the vaccine, your risk to getting the virus is only 1% less than if you hadn't gotten the vaccine. Statistically, essentially ZERO risk reduction.
https://gab.com/rudiv/posts/105897996218909842
太過難以入信的冠狀病毒疫苗背後的隱藏真相：與Ronald B. Brow醫生博士的訪談
The Hidden Truth Behind the Too-Good-To-Be True COVID-19 Vaccines: An Interview with Dr. Ronald B. Brown, PhD
March 14, 2021
Back in August 2020, Dr. Ronald B. Brown, PhD disrupted the academic world’s doomsday predictions about the COVID-19 pandemic when the journal Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness published his first paper on the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As he told me in an interview:
The manuscript cites the smoking-gun, documented evidence showing that the public’s overreaction to the coronavirus pandemic was based on the worst miscalculation in the history of humanity, in my opinion.
On February 26, 2021, the peer-reviewed journal Medicina published another paper by Brown as part of a special issue, “Pandemic Outbreak of Coronavirus.” Brown’s paper, titled “Outcome reporting bias in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials” is also listed in the U.S. National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health.
In Brown’s first coronavirus paper, he showed how mistaking infection fatality rates for case fatality rates exaggerated the predicted lethality of the SAR-CoV-2 virus. In this second paper, he shows how relative risk reduction measures are being used to exaggerate the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines.
I’ve read the latest paper two-and-half times (but only claim to understand 90% of it). The overall conclusion, however, seems clear to me: The COVID-19 vaccine trials, in fact, only showed a negligible reduction in risk of acquiring a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection; not the near perfect immunization the media is portraying.
As Dr. Brown writes in the paper’s conclusion:
Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.
The following is an informal interview I conducted with Dr. Brown, from his office in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario. It offers a layman’s interpretation of his findings and conclusions.
MANLEY:
more:
https://muchadoaboutcorona.ca/covid-19-vaccines/
ˊ
沒有留言:
發佈留言