Also, I wanted to ask a question, this substack started as a anti-Covid-vax blog but I later expanded into covering the WEF. Are you guys actually interested in the WEF related discussions, lab-made meat etc?
If you understand their intentions, the vaxxajabs are effective at killing people, at sterilising people, and at making them profits. The vaxxajabs are safe for them because of the indemnification from the Reagan years and from Operation Warp Speed. They don't care at all about the victims of their crimes so the jabbed are not included in their thinking about "safe and effective."
There is much discussion of 'effectiveness' or efficacy of vaccines these past couple of years, but they are always given as percentages - and percentages are always tricky things. (Mostly as the denominators are unclear ... percentage of what??). There are two well-understood - but quite different - measures of vaccine efficiency, 'relative efficiency' and 'absolute efficiency'. The first compares two treatments (such as a vaccine and a placebo) while the second is directly interpretable in terms of outcomes. Thus, for example, the original Pfizer study touted 95% efficiency (which was 'relative' efficiency - or relative e risk reduction - relative to the placebo used) and very very rarely described the 0.7% efficiency (which was 'absolute' efficiency - or absolute risk reduction - describing how much less likely a person was to attain the targeted condition, if the vaccine was used). To state the obvious, 95% sounds pretty good, while 0.7% sounds pretty poor. Proponents of vaccination routinely use the larger figure, of course, although both figures ought be given. An advantage of describing absolute efficiency is that it is then very easy to determine a NNV, or number of people that need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one adverse outcome. [There is a good discussion of this in many places, such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/ ]
While most discussions use relative efficiency, IMHO it would be better if this was explicitly said to remove all doubt. That seems especially important when some of the figures get quite low. In reading this piece, I assumed you were using relative efficiency (as is common), but I would prefer that this were made explicit. (And I would also prefer that BOTH figures were given, as best professional advice used to argue.)
Here I am in Canada for a 3+ week visit --- having to do something I mostly avoid in NZ as I live a hermit-like existence there --- and that is have to visit with the Rat Juicers.
Another old friend dropped by with his wife yesterday --- another round of stories of unexpected illnesses and deaths .... one Turbo Cancer/sepsis death that ripped through one healthy mate of theirs in less than 2 months... an older brother who was still running long distance competitively in his early 60's has a severe neurological disorder than has torn through him in less than a year -- he'll be in a care facility soon - and no doubt dead not long after.... another who beat cancer some years ago but it has come back with a vengeance.
And yet many people here say they know nobody with a vax injury. The 3 above are almost certainly a product of shooting untested Rat Juice.... but my friend and his wife are not making the connection.
Nothing has changed. Nobody is waking up. The lies continue to pour out of the CDC and BBCCNN... and the mob does not question - they remain oblivious to the carnage.
the FDA in 2020 announced that in order for an experimental Covid-19 vaccine to get the green light, it would need to be safe (assume that would be minuscule VAERS reports) and have VE, ie - prevent disease or decrease its severity in at least 50 percent of people who are vaccinated. Actual 44% VE with 7.7% adverse events? Where are you FDA???
At some point we must, for the sake of sanity, simply identify the liars, their lies, and call it a day.
Twisting ourselves up trying to prove their lies when they control the data is sort of a masturbatory exercise. Fun, easy to do, but leaves you feeling kinda empty.
Now with a bunch of the liars who profited in some future fantasy court with the gallows present, it makes more sense to try.
There is a SPAM attack underway in the comment section.
My phone number does NOT start with (9o9).
Do not give the spammer any money or reply to their messages.
==============================================================
Also, I wanted to ask a question, this substack started as a anti-Covid-vax blog but I later expanded into covering the WEF. Are you guys actually interested in the WEF related discussions, lab-made meat etc?
The original trials showed more died in the vaccinated vs placebo
If you understand their intentions, the vaxxajabs are effective at killing people, at sterilising people, and at making them profits. The vaxxajabs are safe for them because of the indemnification from the Reagan years and from Operation Warp Speed. They don't care at all about the victims of their crimes so the jabbed are not included in their thinking about "safe and effective."
Notice how some people only ever read headlines and then attempt to convey and preach the whole message?
I think that's what's happening here and that phenomena is being exploited.
Too many distractions. Too many worries. Everyone wants the short story that makes them feel good, about themselves or their team.
So these messages stick. Because it tells the audience what they want to hear.
It’s a bio weapon; am surprised it had any efficacy.
Thanks Igor. However, can I make a suggestion?
There is much discussion of 'effectiveness' or efficacy of vaccines these past couple of years, but they are always given as percentages - and percentages are always tricky things. (Mostly as the denominators are unclear ... percentage of what??). There are two well-understood - but quite different - measures of vaccine efficiency, 'relative efficiency' and 'absolute efficiency'. The first compares two treatments (such as a vaccine and a placebo) while the second is directly interpretable in terms of outcomes. Thus, for example, the original Pfizer study touted 95% efficiency (which was 'relative' efficiency - or relative e risk reduction - relative to the placebo used) and very very rarely described the 0.7% efficiency (which was 'absolute' efficiency - or absolute risk reduction - describing how much less likely a person was to attain the targeted condition, if the vaccine was used). To state the obvious, 95% sounds pretty good, while 0.7% sounds pretty poor. Proponents of vaccination routinely use the larger figure, of course, although both figures ought be given. An advantage of describing absolute efficiency is that it is then very easy to determine a NNV, or number of people that need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one adverse outcome. [There is a good discussion of this in many places, such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/ ]
While most discussions use relative efficiency, IMHO it would be better if this was explicitly said to remove all doubt. That seems especially important when some of the figures get quite low. In reading this piece, I assumed you were using relative efficiency (as is common), but I would prefer that this were made explicit. (And I would also prefer that BOTH figures were given, as best professional advice used to argue.)
Thanks
Uh, yeah. You ask the best rhetorical questions.
Here I am in Canada for a 3+ week visit --- having to do something I mostly avoid in NZ as I live a hermit-like existence there --- and that is have to visit with the Rat Juicers.
Another old friend dropped by with his wife yesterday --- another round of stories of unexpected illnesses and deaths .... one Turbo Cancer/sepsis death that ripped through one healthy mate of theirs in less than 2 months... an older brother who was still running long distance competitively in his early 60's has a severe neurological disorder than has torn through him in less than a year -- he'll be in a care facility soon - and no doubt dead not long after.... another who beat cancer some years ago but it has come back with a vengeance.
And yet many people here say they know nobody with a vax injury. The 3 above are almost certainly a product of shooting untested Rat Juice.... but my friend and his wife are not making the connection.
Nothing has changed. Nobody is waking up. The lies continue to pour out of the CDC and BBCCNN... and the mob does not question - they remain oblivious to the carnage.
Psst. The CDC is code for LIAR...
the FDA in 2020 announced that in order for an experimental Covid-19 vaccine to get the green light, it would need to be safe (assume that would be minuscule VAERS reports) and have VE, ie - prevent disease or decrease its severity in at least 50 percent of people who are vaccinated. Actual 44% VE with 7.7% adverse events? Where are you FDA???
Trust the science and your Overlords peasants
At some point we must, for the sake of sanity, simply identify the liars, their lies, and call it a day.
Twisting ourselves up trying to prove their lies when they control the data is sort of a masturbatory exercise. Fun, easy to do, but leaves you feeling kinda empty.
Now with a bunch of the liars who profited in some future fantasy court with the gallows present, it makes more sense to try.
It was our money that paid for this as well. Our hard earned tax dollars at work. Think about that for a moment.
Isn't the link for this document here on the CDC website:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/slides-2023-02-22-24.html
Scroll down to Updates to COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in the United States [29 pages]
Dr. Amadea Britton
I don't think it's unpublished, from what I can see.
Lies, damned lies and statistics?
No, it's just lies. Utter and complete fabrications.
People are IDIOTS if they keep swallowing this BS!
I am so over all the lies....
Igor, just received a reply from you ? With a us phone # area code 909 on the previous article. You have been hacked ?