BMJ article on malpractice, Pfizer trials

  • #1
pinball1970
Gold Member
1,609
2,232
TL;DR Summary
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

In her 25 September email to the FDA Jackson wrote that Ventavia had enrolled more than 1000 participants at three sites. The full trial (registered under NCT04368728) enrolled around 44 000 participants across 153 sites that included numerous commercial companies and academic centres. Many concerns raised.
Not what we want want to be reading in the BMJ at this time regarding trial integrity.
The Vaccine works, the data is overwhelming but this casts a shadow on the integrity of the trials and the Science community as a whole (especially seen from the tax payer/layman perspective)

Concerns raised​

In her 25 September email to the FDA Jackson wrote that Ventavia had enrolled more than 1000 participants at three sites. The full trial (registered under NCT04368728) enrolled around 44 000 participants across 153 sites that included numerous commercial companies and academic centres. She then listed a dozen concerns she had witnessed, including:
  • Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff
  • Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events
  • Protocol deviations not being reported
  • Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures
  • Mislabelled laboratory specimens, and
  • Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems.
There is also a mention of patients being unblinded.

Science guys seen this? Thoughts? Or is the human factor that is part and parcel of the process?
Thanks in advance.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2022 Award
22,254
6,326
Science guys seen this? Thoughts? Or is the human factor that is part and parcel of the process?
Can't spell 'science' without 'humans'. Else who would spell it?
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara, atyy and BillTre
  • #3
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2022 Award
22,254
6,326
To elaborate on my previous post, this isn't unexpected. Frankly I'd be amazed if no sites anywhere reported any of the problems listed above. People are flawed, fallible, and lazy. That's why the processes that inspect and report on said problems exist in the first place.
The Vaccine works, the data is overwhelming but this casts a shadow on the integrity of the trials and the Science community as a whole (especially seen from the tax payer/layman perspective)
If its a shadow, it's a small one. There doesn't appear to be any fraud or tampering with data and results. Most of the issues listed have to do with people not doing all the little nitty gritty things that they're supposed to be doing. You don't want to know all the little things that I've seen get skipped, missed, and overlooked in my career in the Air Force.

Still, little things lead to big problems, so these obviously need to be addressed.
 
  • Like
Likes atyy and pinball1970
  • #4
atyy
Science Advisor
14,789
3,333
The major trial results were quantitatively corroborated by real world data from Israel.
It's unclear how most of the issues would have affected the trial results. One of the issues - the non-testing of symptomatic participants - that could have affected the trial results, was analyzed by Pfizer and the FDA and found not to affect results.
Another point of view: https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/11/15/wtf-happened-to-the-bmj/
What @thackerpd didn't mention: The share of non-tested trial participants was very similar in the treatment and the placebo groups (9.2% vs 10.1%), and a sensitivity check was done on this issue. https://t.co/7g4B3AUqyG pic.twitter.com/q3DDySb2KG
— Andreas Backhaus (@AndreasShrugged) November 3, 2021
 
  • Informative
Likes pinball1970

Suggested for: BMJ article on malpractice, Pfizer trials

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
154
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
644
Replies
0
Views
71
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
389
Replies
2
Views
652
Replies
1
Views
442
  • Last Post
Replies
30
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
630
Replies
13
Views
744
Top