COVID-19 Vs. COVID Vaccine logic:

Absolutlely, I never claimed otherwise. The same people who are at greater risk of dying from COVID are the same people at greater risk from getting the vaccine.

You're utterly and irretrievably WRONG.

But there’s a doctor on the faculty of Harvard Med School, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, whom one of his colleagues described as one of the top 3 people in the world on vaccine reactions.

He got thrown OFF the CDC advisory committee, for wanting to continue with the JNJ jabs, and not pause them.

A VAXXER.

Harvard Med.

Advising the CDC.

Got that?

He says that these jabs should be reserved for the over-70 crowd, since they need them the most, AND that they suffer far fewer coagulopathies from the jabs, than younger people. He says there is no medical reason to give these shots to teenagers.

But Pfizer said that they see the injections and boosters as a significant source of revenue going forward, even as they are pushing to give the injections to children as young as 12.

But people are not dying from "if they encounter the virus or a virus MONTHS later," No. That's not how infection and immune responses work. It takes many particles to overcome a reasonable immune system.

Umm, Einstain.

That's what ADE *is*. An UNreasonable immune system.

OR President Trump handled it like a supply-chain problem and he got lied to be Faux-Xi and others (mixture of eugenics/depopulation with greed over mandatory jabs).

You *do* know Moderna filed with the SEC last year and said their jabs was an experimental gene therapy and having problems getting approval, right?

And that they were $1.74 billion in debt.

Your rebuttal to vanderbossche is a mixture of equal parts pomposity, bombast, pedantry, and egregious errors of its own.

When they are talking about protection given by the jabs, they admit that variants of concern demonstrate reduced antibody neutralization, but then attempt to justify this by saying (their words) "we do not have an absolute correlate for which antibody levels would be protective and therefore the meaning of this is hard to determine".

Bart Simpson's "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything" weak sauce.

Then they go on to say "even though there is a drop in neutralization, it may not mean a loss in protection" and that "however the key point is that: no one in the vaccinated group developed severe disease".

Wait, I thought "vaccines" were there to stop the chain of transmission? Why are they babbling about severe disease? If you have severe disease, you are put in a hospital, and you are no longer among the general public spreading virus particles.

They don't do a lot better on leaky vaccines, either.

Quoting from their paper:

According to [the leaky vaccine model], the risk of infection/disease in all vaccinees is reduced (by VE %) compared to non-vaccinees, none of the vaccinees being fully protected.

The assumption that no vaccinee is totally or permanently protected implies one or both of the following:

i) No amount (titre) of the immune marker is totally protective or, if it is, no individual can maintain that titre for a long period (because of waning or transient immunosuppression);

ii) The degree of protection is a function of the level of the immune marker – the simplest explanation being that protection is a function of both the level of the immune marker and the challenge dose.

In other words, leaky vaccines are vaccines which are not able to significantly affect transmission of the pathogen. The critical question here is firstly: are COVID-19 vaccines leaky vaccines?

Funny how they admit early on that the jabs aren't fully protective, then kind of change the rules when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road:

This study compared PCR positivity among asymptomatic individuals who had received an RNA vaccine to those who had not been vaccinated and found it was approximately 80% lower. This is a very strict bar and it likely underestimates the ability of the vaccines to reduce transmission, because PCR can detect as few as ~100 copies of viral RNA. SARS-CoV-2, being a coronavirus, likely requires several hundred viral copies to initiate productive infections from one person to the next. An asymptomatic individual who tests positive may not necessarily be contagious.

So they admit 20% of those given a jab, are still positive. (And what's with using PCR anyway?)

Novavax’s vaccine demonstrated sterilizing immunity (the virus failed to even initiate infection) in nonhuman primate studies.

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle. Doesn't tell us how human immune systems will react.

ChAdOx-nCoV-2019 also showed significant reductions in PCR positivity among vaccinees compared with unvaccinated controls.

Read that link, it says the efficacy of that vaccine was 67% or so. Sounds leaky to me.

The SIREN study showed that Pfizer’s vaccine prevents infection with B.1.1.7 variants.

A single dose showed vaccine effectiveness of 72% in the study.

etc. etc.

I'm bored so Imma quit now.

There weren't enough new people to infect, family visits were over, et

If there aren't enough new people to infect, Einstain, why the desperate mad rush to give everyone the jab?

He says that these jabs should be reserved for the over-70 crowd, since they need them the most, AND that they suffer far fewer coagulopathies from the jabs, than younger people. He says there is no medical reason to give these shots to teenagers.

Since I made that comment I watched the interview of some doc on Tucker Carlson, and I agree with you I was mistaken about the immune boosting properties of the vaccines. This particular doc also said IIRC vaccines should be given to those over 60. The idea seems to be that weaker immune systems need the vaccines, but they could be harmful to those with stronger immune systems.

The link to the interview was given to me when I asked for more data. That wasn't the answer, and of course, nobody has supplied the data. Not you, not anyone. The data I want is the numbers of strokes and other blood clotting events per million people per day. Sometimes people will post the nunbers for vaccinees instead of just posting anecdotes. But they never post the "compared to" numbers.

Compared to what? We have 2 million vaccinations per day (was 3 million in early April) How many clotting events are expected in 2 million people each day?