Replies

Horse wormer doesn’t prevent transmission and doesn’t drop the RT below one causing the virus to die off. If it is successful the person is already am active vector shedding virus to everyone around them. There is loads of data that shows both Pfizer and Moderna prevent symptomatic and asymptomatic infection 94% of the time. That means a 94% reduction in the RT value vs unvaccinated people as it is impossible for someone to shed virus if they are neither symptomatic nor asymptomatic. For the simpletons Pfizer and Moderna have proven data to state they prevent 94% of people from ever catching corona in the first place. That is the key difference the vaccines will end the chains of transmission something that HQZ nor invermectin can ever do when administered to already symptomatic people who are by definition contagious and shedding virus.

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

Your information is false, but it is written in such a confusing manner that it's a little hard to isolate specific ideas you're mistakenly asserting.

Ivermectin is FDA approved for use in humans and has been used around the world, safely, for many years to treat scabies, river blindness, and other parasitic diseases. It's also used in animals. Many drugs sold or dispensed by veterinarians for the treatment of illness in domestic animals are generic equivalents of human drugs.

Contrary to what you have said, the 'vaccines' don't prevent infection and spread. When Pfizer and Moderna filed with the FDA, they stated they didn't have data on the impacts the 'vaccines' may have on mortality and spread:

-i.e. there is no data to suggest safety or efficacy regarding:

Anyone younger than age 18 or older than age 55
Pregnant or lactating mothers
Auto-immune conditions
Immunocompromised individuals
No data on transmission of covid
No data on preventing mortality from covid
No data on duration of protection from covid

If you want to see the actual documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their Emergency Use Authorization, you can check out this, or this respectively. The data gaps can be found starting with page 46 and 48 respectively.

As to 'preventing spread,' the vaccine companies only tested 'protection from infection' for 2 months. Those infected a few days after this window would ordinarily decrease efficacy stats but were not counted.

Also, Fauci, the CDC and the companies all stated that the vaccine would not prevent infection or spread but would instead lessen severity.

This was the party line for a long time when the 'vaccines' were first introduced, and now it 'breaks through' updated talking points in the MSM sometimes.

The way most people think of vaccines is pretty simple: you get vaccinated, and your immune system is primed and trained to fight off the invisible intruder in question, be it virus or bacteria. If you’re protected, you can’t be infected, and if you’re not infected, then you can’t spread it to anyone else.
And that’s true most of the time. But not all vaccines work that way, and it’s not actually what the two COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration—made by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNtech—are designed to do. Their effectiveness is measured by how well they protect people against moderate to severe COVID-19 disease—not how well they prevent infection or spread of the COVID-19 virus itself." Do Vaccines Stop Spread of COVID-19? What You Need to Know | Time BY ALICE PARK FEBRUARY 11, 2021, TIME.COM

After administration began, Fauci, the CDC and other shills all started saying, "We're seeing evidence...." This is an otherwise laughable tactic. It's not scientific evidence if you advise public health policy on anecdotal cherry picked data 'we saw'.

The 'vaccine' companies failed to adequately test these 'shots' with double-blind trials (because people with inflammation and headaches were 'unblinded), of sufficient size (too few enrolled) and sufficient length (2 to 3 months is a joke) and sufficient rigor (e.g., fudged data that didn't fit their expectations re negative PCR tests).

So now Fauci and the CDC have dropped scientific rigor through the floor and are digging. "We're seeing evidence..." is the scientific equivalent of "we're providing biased talking points as if they are proof of something."

They do this to a degree I find criminal. The 'shots' were never tested on pregnant women, but the head of the CDC and Fauci encourage those women to get the shots because "We're not aware of any evidence...." You see - they are preparing a "What did they know and when did they know it" defense, at the expense of pregnant women and their unborn babies.

The following article shows that the raw data from the companies' trials were never released, and is now needed to prove their protective claims, as trial documents basically admit they opportunistically interpreted results when a person appeared to have a respiratory illness but they had a negative PCR test result. This could ultimately mean 'efficacy' was never above 20% during the ridiculously short 2-month trial.

Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data January 4, 2021
bmj.com ^ | January 4, 2021 | Peter Doshi

Also, let's pause to consider how invalid these 'vaccine trials' were given they relied upon the invalid PCR test, which cannot detect the presence of the virus, nor the Covid illness.

JD_UTDallas said: "For the simpletons Pfizer and Moderna have proven data to state they prevent 94% of people from ever catching corona in the first place."

Ah. You embarrass yourself here. But you are not alone as I've seen reporters and medical staff relay the same ridiculous error. It's being shared in the MSM because the CDC and Fauci intentionally want the public to believe this to be the case.

In reality, Pfizer said, after its little two-month trial, that infection rate was .93 of one percent in the unvaccinated, and .05 of one percent in the vaccinated for two months. They can't say what the efficacy rates are beyond that 2-month period.

In both instances, the chances of contracting what they deemed Covid, without using a valid test, was less than 1 percent. For Pfizer's data, both vaxxed and unvaxxed had a 99% chance of not catching Covid.

You need to study up if you're going to go around calling others simpletons for understanding the science better than you do.

Here's a thread to help you understand the difference between RR and ARR efficacy rates.

Check Your Understanding Of The "Efficacy" Claims For 'Vaccines': The Claim "95% Effective" Means A Fraction Of 1% Of The Vaccinated Are "Protected" For 2 Months

The vaccine companies never tested who was and who was not shedding viruses, or the billions of spike proteins produced in response to the 'vaccines'. Therefore, your assertions about shedding are fiction.

The vaccines do not 'end the chain of transmission'. However, being infected and recovering from Covid imparts lasting immunity, and that should 'end the chain'.

The risks of 'vaccinations' pile up with every injection. The CDC/Fauci are assuring the public that they'll need booster shots to 'maintain' protection (reduction in severity of infections).

The vaccine 'breakthrough' rate is climbing even though the CDC has elected not to collect most of the cases, proving their assertions of 'vaccine' efficacy and reduction in severity are false.

Here's a study which seems to indicate adverse reactions to the Covid 'vaccines' result in the 'vaccine taking more lives than it saves.

Calculating Vaccine Effectiveness in Ontario From December 14, 2020 - April 17, 2021
docs.google.com ^ | June 4, 2021 | Koen Swinkels

Posted on 6/8/2021, 9:40:48 AM by ransomnote

Something is very wrong with the Covid 'vaccines'.