I might have to disagree on this one. The evidence is that the final product did the opposite of what was stated from the trial. Ergo the trial result was falsified.
Now the next question is, did they have access to the information that could differentiate the swabs so that this could be done - without leaving an unblinding record on the database? The answer is yes.
Each Cobas sample tube had a barcode. I have a picture of one used in the open label BNT162b1 trial which recorded visit number and subject ID number as well.
No evidence of that. Unless Brook can reveal something along those lines?
I might have to disagree on this one. The evidence is that the final product did the opposite of what was stated from the trial. Ergo the trial result was falsified.
Now the next question is, did they have access to the information that could differentiate the swabs so that this could be done - without leaving an unblinding record on the database? The answer is yes.
Each Cobas sample tube had a barcode. I have a picture of one used in the open label BNT162b1 trial which recorded visit number and subject ID number as well.
Yep. They just needed the subject ID number for the PCR test and the subject ID number for the serology (first follow-up visit)