Replies

I think the claim is that the vaccines prevent ~100% of serious outcomes if you get COVID, not that they will prevent you from getting it at all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The claim changes to mean whatever they want it to mean, when they ‘need’ to say ‘something.’

Initially the vax manufacturers and Faucists said it would reduce severity and not prevent infection or transmission.

People pointed out that it’s not a vaccine if it doesn’t prevent infection or transmission, and that it was a fraud - by classifying that ‘product’ as a ‘vaccine’, they are protected from liability.

So the CDC changed it’s website definition to read like the new products could be vaccines after all (used to say prevent infection/spread, no it sorta rambles on about protection).

People weren’t enthusiastic about an experimental shot that doesn’t function like a vaccine, so Fauci and his minions started saying vaguely, “We are seeing evidence that it does protect against infection and spread....”

Basically, they adjusted the numbers to make it look like fewer infections (fewer false positives with fake PCR test) and declared victory.

So now if infections occur, we’re scolded by the MSM to remember that the initial claims were always that it would only prevent severity.

And if people don’t want to get the vax, we’re scolded that such people endanger the lives of others with spread.

Whatever is needed, whenever its needed.

By the way, the mRNA technology has a history of causing more severe illness after vaccination in some people. Yup - it’s a known risk of the technology.

Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease
Timothy Cardozo 1, Ronald Veazey 2
Affiliations expand
• PMID: 33113270

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/

Results of the study: COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.