It is definitely plausible that Pfizer didn't have the data until after the "field trial" on the general public. Given that the EUAs bypassed the normal process of clinical studies.
The subsequent suppression of data, that's another story. It could be a best seller - lies, intrigue, corruption, murder, ... all it lacks is a hero :-(
They released the trial data that 'proved' the 95% efficacy, and THAT DATA ITSELF proved the jab doesn't stop transmission, considering they only measured people who got sick. That's not how vaccines work (or wasn't back then!)
How does one demonstrate efficacy in such a trail? Give 100 people the vaccine, then expose all 100 to the virus, and see who get's sick? Then do the same with 100 people who did not receive the vaccine, to establish a control with which to compare the effect. While 100 people wouldn't be mathematically valid to generalize to a population of 7 billion, and there are ethical issues with intentionally infecting people.
I've read some clinical trials of other drugs that follow the control model, with volunteers - people who are already sick and usually untreatable. That sort of control can show a difference between no meds and meds in treating a condition, but how does one validate prevention of a condition? From the literature it seems typically a lot of ad-hoc methods masquerading as science are used. I didn't see data on the pre-release clinical trial because what I found on the FDA site made it look like there was none prior to the EUA.
It is definitely plausible that Pfizer didn't have the data until after the "field trial" on the general public. Given that the EUAs bypassed the normal process of clinical studies.
The subsequent suppression of data, that's another story. It could be a best seller - lies, intrigue, corruption, murder, ... all it lacks is a hero :-(
They released the trial data that 'proved' the 95% efficacy, and THAT DATA ITSELF proved the jab doesn't stop transmission, considering they only measured people who got sick. That's not how vaccines work (or wasn't back then!)
How does one demonstrate efficacy in such a trail? Give 100 people the vaccine, then expose all 100 to the virus, and see who get's sick? Then do the same with 100 people who did not receive the vaccine, to establish a control with which to compare the effect. While 100 people wouldn't be mathematically valid to generalize to a population of 7 billion, and there are ethical issues with intentionally infecting people.
I've read some clinical trials of other drugs that follow the control model, with volunteers - people who are already sick and usually untreatable. That sort of control can show a difference between no meds and meds in treating a condition, but how does one validate prevention of a condition? From the literature it seems typically a lot of ad-hoc methods masquerading as science are used. I didn't see data on the pre-release clinical trial because what I found on the FDA site made it look like there was none prior to the EUA.