Posted on 05/13/2021 5:34:02 PM PDT by dynachrome
Maher said that he feels fine, so how do we know that he really has the disease, rather than false positive? There are facilities that have been continually understaffed for a year due to positive tastes employees with no symptoms being quarantined.
Just goes to show that 95% does not equal 100%.
—
The 95% efficacy is the relative efficacy of the vaccine. The absolute efficacy is under 2%. Have a listen to this highly informative podcast where this rather important distinction between relative and absolute ( real world ) efficacy or risk reduction.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EDtdtxAdwyA
Love your post...my sentiments exactly...:-)
Oooh.....you’ve called the vaxxer hounds, with that, FRiend.
Thanks for that link.
Hush, child, the Fauci-bots will overhear you and carry you away by your elbows.
So anti-vax moms will be stampeding their children while running from vaccinated people.
Dear Media,Please retire the use of the term “Anti-vaxxer.” It is derogatory, inflammatory, and marginalizes both women and their experiences. It is dismissivemy simplistic, highly offensive and largely false. We politely request that you refer to us as the Vaccine Risk Aware. pic.twitter.com/WtAyFOhLuvDecember 1, 2019
That 8 players on the Yankees team are all positive after being vaccinated tells us something is very wrong. This is a sigma 6 fail.
- The vaccine is not as effective as initially seen in laboratory conditions
- The tests are meaningless or inaccurate
- variants are rapidly rendering the vaccine ineffective or actually resulting in more transmissible variants
The Absolute efficiency only has to be above zero for a vaccine to be effective and useful.
It’s bizarre that extreme anti-vaxxers try to fool people with this number.
Soon, extreme anti-vaxxers can say, reasonably, that so many are vaccinated that there is no need for them to vaccinate.
Duh. Not vaccines.
Your numbers are beyond false. You should remove Reagan’s name from your handle. I know of 5 vaccinated people in a suburb who’ve been hospitalized for COVID.
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.
Would be interesting to know if they gave them a PCR test and if so, what was the cycle count.
Hank Aaron could not be reached for comment.
heh heh heh heh
8^)
In an early CDC report that came out last month (before they changed policy and announced they will no longer be providing “breakthrough case” reports for anything except hospitalizations and deaths) they reported that only 27% of the breakthrough cases were asymptomatic and that 8% of all breakthroughs were hospitalized and 132 died.
Unfortunately we will not ever get a full report again; but tomorrow they will report on hospitalizations and deaths in breakthrough cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.