And the summary of all the countries now discontinuing booster shots for <50 (Denmark, Sweden, now UK, Florida - who actually cited side-effects as the cause).
Eli, that paper’s conclusion was that the bivalent vaccine afforded “modest protection” against Covid-19 . Not sure this is something I’d use to argue against them. However I didn’t see the chart, I just read the study conclusion since I’m in a hurry to get to church.
They always end with a sentence supporting the vaccines - the point is that the bivalent had not been around long enough for the effect to wane. (besides 30% is a failing score for a vaccine) but for all other shots you are in long term problems with a damaged immune system.
If your test has 14,000 people in each group. And 200 Get sick in the unvaxed. And only 20 do in the vaxed group they declare 90% effective. As of the 220 who got sick 90% were in the unvaxed. If 110 of the 220 are in each group they say 50% were protected. It is 50% effective. Ergo it proves nothing. But they call it 50% effective. Most people think ‘well 50% is better than nothing’. What they don’t realize is 50% is breakeven. Anything less than 50% , in this case 30%, means of the total who became sick 154 were vaxed and only 66 were unvaxed. 30% is not some help. It is below 50% ergo it is negative help. I’m using those numbers because Pfizer used those same numbers to prove out their vaccine. However, Pfizer’s study said ‘we are only looking at healthy people under 50 who got a mild case of COVID’. Of the total 220 people who got mild COVID out of the 28,000 in total 90% were unvaxed. When I read this I knew the real numbers were bad. Obviously if you look at 28,000 people you would consider deaths, major cases, and mild cases. Also wouldn’t you also look at older people? They cherry-picked the data, cutting it into chunks, until they found a cohort that had done better under the vaxed. However the rest must have done worse, right? If the vaxed group had fewer deaths they take the world by Storm. The fact they didn’t say this means the vaxed were worse off.
Is it possible to show them some facts that are on a good number of substacks?
I think substacks are an overload of information and not official enough for someone still holding to official government narratives.
My personal theory is to lob one or two grenades and then await a reaction to see where it can go - the easiest being the Cleveland clinic chart - Fig. 2 - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full
And the summary of all the countries now discontinuing booster shots for <50 (Denmark, Sweden, now UK, Florida - who actually cited side-effects as the cause).
Eli, that paper’s conclusion was that the bivalent vaccine afforded “modest protection” against Covid-19 . Not sure this is something I’d use to argue against them. However I didn’t see the chart, I just read the study conclusion since I’m in a hurry to get to church.
They always end with a sentence supporting the vaccines - the point is that the bivalent had not been around long enough for the effect to wane. (besides 30% is a failing score for a vaccine) but for all other shots you are in long term problems with a damaged immune system.
Depending upon how it is written 30% is not 30% of people are helped. It means 70% are worse off having had it.
If your test has 14,000 people in each group. And 200 Get sick in the unvaxed. And only 20 do in the vaxed group they declare 90% effective. As of the 220 who got sick 90% were in the unvaxed. If 110 of the 220 are in each group they say 50% were protected. It is 50% effective. Ergo it proves nothing. But they call it 50% effective. Most people think ‘well 50% is better than nothing’. What they don’t realize is 50% is breakeven. Anything less than 50% , in this case 30%, means of the total who became sick 154 were vaxed and only 66 were unvaxed. 30% is not some help. It is below 50% ergo it is negative help. I’m using those numbers because Pfizer used those same numbers to prove out their vaccine. However, Pfizer’s study said ‘we are only looking at healthy people under 50 who got a mild case of COVID’. Of the total 220 people who got mild COVID out of the 28,000 in total 90% were unvaxed. When I read this I knew the real numbers were bad. Obviously if you look at 28,000 people you would consider deaths, major cases, and mild cases. Also wouldn’t you also look at older people? They cherry-picked the data, cutting it into chunks, until they found a cohort that had done better under the vaxed. However the rest must have done worse, right? If the vaxed group had fewer deaths they take the world by Storm. The fact they didn’t say this means the vaxed were worse off.