Pfizer test results compromise

[Confused10101]

I’m trying desperately not to panic but is this a concern? There are articles on BMJ now regarding this, so I’m panicking

I’ve not read the articles as I’m already struggling with anxiety but if I have is this a cause for concern?

Please do not turn this into an anti vaxx post…that is not my intention

Have no idea what you're talking about

Me neither

I don't know about this. Can only see positive news re Pfizer

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/11/05/investing/pfizer-stock-covid-pill/index.html

Op you have health anxiety. This thread won’t help, just like all the others haven’t.

@PurpleDaisies could you please stop diagnosing me? I’m asking a question based on something I read

There have, possibly, been issues at one site

The trials were conducted across many sites. And millions upon millions of doses have been given.

It is not a concern, because of the weight of evidence from so many other sources

www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

This is what I’m referring to..

@UnmentionedElephantDildo thank you..that’s what my rationale side kept saying..that it’s just one site

This is what I said on another thread about this:
It doesn't say anywhere that data was falsified. The areas of concern in reality are the potential unblinding & the vaccine storage. The other things happen all the time in clinical trials unfortunately.
Whoever agreed to resolving queries within 24 hours in such a study was making a rod for their own back.
(I have worked in this area)
Don't worry, OP. Some slightly sloppy practices but it won't affect the results.

I've only glanced through it @Confused10101 but I don't think you need to panic. This is one site that was involved in testing but the vaccine has been tested in many other sites and has since been used worldwide with widespread monitoring (it's almost been like a worldwide trial) and good results. Look at how much lower hospitalisation and death is know than a year ago.
It's not ideal but not anything to panic over in my view

Exactly what @UnmentionedElephantDildo said.

Try not to worry OP.

I'm quite an anxious person but that article hasn't given me a flicker of anxiety.

I couldn’t be arsed to finish reading that OP.

Try not to worry. Easier said than done, I know. There’s still so much confusion and uncertainty out there but we are making progress.

[quote Confused10101]@PurpleDaisies could you please stop diagnosing me? I’m asking a question based on something I read[/quote]
Can you speak to someone who CAN diagnose you? Like your GP?

Coming to MN because you can't
a/self soothe and
b/stop yourself reading medical stuff you don't understand is clearly not working for you.

Perhaps it’s the best OP can do at the moment?

Completely agree with cookerhood.

^Ventavia was not keeping up with data entry queries, shows an email sent by ICON, the contract research organisation with which Pfizer partnered on the trial. ICON reminded Ventavia in a September 2020 email: “The expectation for this study is that all queries are addressed within 24hrs.” ICON then highlighted over 100 outstanding queries older than three days in yellow. Examples included two individuals for which “Subject has reported with Severe symptoms/reactions … Per protocol, subjects experiencing Grade 3 local reactions should be contacted. Please confirm if an UNPLANNED CONTACT was made and update the corresponding form as appropriate.” According to the trial protocol a telephone contact should have occurred “to ascertain further details and determine whether a site visit is clinically indicated.”^

I totally scoffed when I read this and think it undermines any argument in the article. This is like saying someone is late replying to an email to confirm something was done - it does not mean they did not do the thing that was needed on time. It is noteworthy that they say the query is open (ie someone has asked if the patient was contacted as required). The answer to this may be ‘yes’ in which case all is well. The concern would be if they could say the patients were not being contacted as required (this would be a genuine issue) but they are not making that claim. It makes me wonder what else they have misunderstood and taken out of context.

There are reasonable concerns in the article but I don’t think it brings the data into question. It is all too lengthy to explain whilst typing on a little phone but the main point is that the data is whether a test (done at a central lab, not at this site) shows patients have COVID or not. Those test results are not being questioned here.