我在海外说：外媒无耻修改中国疫苗新闻内容，两种标准太不要脸
前几天我说，我在海外的新媒体算是有点影响了，英文、日文、法文、西班牙文等’每个月的阅读量达到1000万次，而且还在不断增加。有朋友问我，到底写了啥？实话说，三分之一介绍中国的一些东西，比如各种中国菜、各种中国历史之类。三分之一在反驳外国人对中国污蔑。三分之一在揭露一些国家的老底，比如越南。我这也算讲好中国故事吧？跟老外必须讲外文。
这里就陆续转发一些内容，让大家看看，我同时附上英文，还有一些国外读者的评论。
前几天，西方媒体在疯狂转发，中国的疫苗只有只有50的有效率，西方的疫苗有超过90%的有效率，我找了下资料，发现这完全是一个骗局。实际上是两种疫苗的有效评估标准不一致。
美国疫苗使用后，把出现轻微症状的患者算成健康有效的。
中国疫苗使用后，把出现轻微症状的患者算成有问题的，也就是无效的。
然后大部分西方媒体忽略这个，而是揪住50%和90%不放。
我的中文账号粉丝不多，但是还是要去留言下，看到的人会很多。我很少在海外写中文，海外中文圈，无论左右，二货居多，没意思。
当然更重要的是在英文的内容上反驳。下面是我写的内容
Why is China's vaccine only 50% effective whereas Global Times says it is 100% effective?
If you take a closer look at the report, you'll find it interesting.
China’s CoronaVac significantly less effective than earlier data shows
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3117471/coronavirus-brazil-reports-more-modest-504-cent-efficacy-chinas
Ricardo Palácios, medical director of clinical research at Butantan, said the lower efficacy rate was caused by the inclusion of patients who were infected with the novel coronavirus but only displayed “very light” symptoms.
“Other vaccine manufacturers did not include those that had light headaches even after testing positive for Covid-19,” said Palácios. “The most important number is not the 50.”
Palácios added that the inclusion of those very light cases represented the most “stringent test”, complicating any comparisons to other Covid-19 vaccines.
“The more intense the disease, the more effective the vaccine,” he said. “This will avoid pressuring the health system because those who only have light symptoms can stay at home.”
Understand, it turns out that this is judged using different criteria.
With the Chinese vaccine, all people who develop mild symptoms are counted.
The US vaccine, on the other hand, does not count all people who develop mild symptoms.
The way the US vaccine is calculated, it does not take into account people with mild symptoms, so the effectiveness rate of the US vaccine becomes 90%.
The Chinese vaccine is calculated in such a way that it does not take into account people with mild symptoms, so the effectiveness rate of the US vaccine becomes 50%.
Let me use an analogy, perhaps a little more graphic.
In other words, they all treat 100 people. After the use of the vaccine. More than 40 mildly symptomatic patients and more than 50 normal people emerge.
1. For the Chinese vaccine, the statistical method, because there are only 50 or so normal people left, the Chinese vaccine is more than 50% effective.
2. For the US vaccine, because there were more than 50 normal people left, and then there were more than 40 mild patients, which, according to US practice, are not considered mild patients, so that's more than 90 normal people, so the effectiveness of the US vaccine is more than 90%.
Then the western media went crazy and reported that the Chinese vaccine was ineffective. Most of the Western media failed to mention that this was the result of different standards of judgement.
That's freedom of the press!
This is the same as the treatment of infected people in the US and China.
In China, all infected people are isolated and treated.
In the USA, those infected with mild symptoms go home for observation.
Even if they have mild symptoms, they are still infected and can infect people.
Now, as we have all discovered, the effectiveness of the Western vaccine is to exclude those with mild symptoms from the calculation. And then it has an effect of over 90%.
Then there is a frenzy of propaganda that the Chinese vaccine is only more than 50% effective, while most of the media do not report that this is the result of including people with mild symptoms.
This is a joke!
考虑到一些朋友阅读英文比较可能，翻译成中文给大家看吧
为什么中国的疫苗只有50%的有效性，而《环球时报》却说是100%的有效性？
如果你仔细看看这份报告，你会发现很有意思。
中国的CoronaVac效果明显低于早期数据显示的效果
htps://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3117471/coronavirus-brazil-reports-more-modest-504-cent-efficacy-chinas
Butantan公司临床研究医学总监Ricardo Palácios表示，疗效较低的原因是由于纳入了感染了新型冠状病毒但只表现出 "很轻 "症状的患者。
"其他疫苗制造商并没有纳入那些即使在检测出Covid-19阳性后仍有轻微头痛的患者，"Palácios说。"最重要的数字不是50"。
Palácios补充说，纳入那些很轻的病例代表了最 "严格的测试"，使任何与其他Covid-19疫苗的比较变得复杂。
"疾病越激烈，疫苗越有效，"他说。"这将避免给卫生系统带来压力，因为那些只有轻微症状的人可以呆在家里。"
明白了，原来这是用不同的标准来判断的。
中国的疫苗，所有出现轻微症状的人都会被计算在内。
而美国的疫苗，并不把所有出现轻度症状的人都计算在内。
美国疫苗的计算方式，并没有把出现轻微症状的人计算在内，所以美国疫苗的有效率就变成了90%。
中国疫苗的计算方式是不考虑轻度症状的人，所以美国疫苗的有效率就变成了50%。
我打个比方，可能更形象一点。
换句话说，他们都是治疗100个人。使用疫苗后。出现了40多个轻度症状的患者和50多个正常人。
1. 对于中国的疫苗，统计法，因为只剩下50多个正常人，所以中国疫苗的有效率超过50%。
2. 对于美国的疫苗，因为剩下50多个正常人，然后又出现了40多个轻度患者，按照美国的惯例，这40多个轻度患者不算轻度患者，所以就是90多个正常人，所以美国疫苗的有效性是90%以上。
然后西方媒体就疯了，报道说中国的疫苗无效。西方媒体大多没有提到，这是判断标准不同的结果。
这就是新闻自由!
这和中美两国对感染者的待遇是一样的。
在中国，所有感染者都被隔离治疗。
在美国，症状轻微的感染者就回家观察。
即使症状轻微，也是感染者，也会传染人。
现在，我们都发现了，西方疫苗的效果是把症状轻微的人排除在计算范围之外。然后它的效果达到了90%以上。
然后又疯狂的宣传，说中国的疫苗只有50%多的效果，而大部分媒体却不报道这是包括轻度症状的人的结果。
这简直是个笑话!
（附注：美国真的是这么干的，把无症状和轻微症状患者打发回家，医院只收严重并发症患者，而且从目前看，还有种族歧视，两个经常骂中国的分子就这么挂了。）
下面的评论一致支持我，还有的用专业的说法纠正了我表述的问题，尤其是下面贴上了一个猛料，就是辉瑞的90%的数据来源存在重大问题。
具体文章看本期推送的第二篇内容。
看下来，文章的观点跟我基本一致，就是辉瑞的95%有效率数据造假。当然这文章的作者是专业人员，感兴趣可以看一下。我已经翻译了全文。
哈哈哈，中文和英文、日文、西班牙文，普通的互相翻译，我都能搞定。法语差点，骂人没问题。
下一步徽剑的公众号，将主要分享一些我在海外发的文章（大部分文章是没法发进来啊），有人让我批薛蛮子和水库，问题在于没那么多料批他们啊，只能偶尔批啊。