I did not come across any evidence that there was a screening halt during that 9 months. Someone, not naming names, was vigorously promoting this hypothesis here and in IV and now we have a new poster posting some apparent evidence to support his/her hypothesis. I don't know if I can believe all this. Looks very suspicious to me. If there was a halt at that time, why that info did not come to light?
It also seems to contradict the notion of a well controlled trial. I dont know how you would be able to account for an essentially different vaccine in the midst of a phase III trial. What you are suggesting is highly unlikely. How do you lump patients with the old vaccine together with the new vaccine??