What needs to be known is whether or not it reduces symptoms in the critically ill folks? I have my doubts. With most any flu or cold you can be pretty sure you are gonna get it no matter what you do to try to avoid getting it. It’s just the nature of highly contagious airborne viruses. The young and healthy do not need to be protected in almost all cases. Especially in the young as their chance of dying is essentially zero % for all variants. The young adults to age 60 or so, should never have been forced or fired for refusing. The medical,community went about “protecting” the vulnerable all wrong,,and to,cover it up, they are now demanding that infsnts be vaccinated too.
The other thing that needs answering is, even if it does reduce symptoms, what are the risks later in life from the vaccines? Is it actually causing more harm than good?
A baby’s body is growing a rapid rate. The so-called vaxxes insinuate their RNA into that rapidly growing matrix.
It cannot be good over the long term, say 3-4 years from now we’ll see the long term effects in kindergarten age kids................
For many people, this is the deal killer.
One of the most vital and important (yet perhaps boring) elements in legitimate clinical trials, is the consistent, routine, accurate, and timely collection and recording of side-effect and efficacy data. Trials usually run from two to ten years, with meaningfully large test and control groups. Indeed, the FDA's own websites clearly state that "It's the clinical trials that take so long--usually several years," says Sandra Kweder, M.D., deputy director of the Office of New Drugs in the CDER.
NONE of these shots underwent legitimate clinical trials. This is not insignificant: vaccines fail trials 59% of the time and take a median of 9 years.
With all this data being collected soberly, a full assessment of the benefits AND side effects can be determined. Things like adverse effects, fatalities, and the like can be observed AND recorded and also vetted (maybe Bob wasn't killed by the shot...or maybe he was).
Absent any legit data collection and long-term trials, we must rely on citizen reporting. I see a plethora of "died suddenly" articles. Are they dead because of the shots? I don't know. It's compelling. And yet a Greek Chorus of naysayers blast such reporting and claim that people have died suddenly forever. Maybe that's true, but in the absence of a legitimate trial, simply blowing off the hypothesis doesn't make it go away.
I had one FReeper argue that we simply couldn't wait nine years...people needed a "cure" NOW. Fair enough...,it's not like the FDA is efficient, and I could see an army of snowflakes rioting if they heard that a possible "cure" was being suppressed while awaiting the outcome of a nine year trial.
Instead of a fully transparent press release ("These shots have a 95% in-sample VE, but it's a new technology and VE will likely decline over time AND if your big toe falls off in three years or you turn into a wear wolf, don't cry for me Argentina"). But these shot were held up as Manna from Heaven, when in reality they were secular bread mix that had barely been poured into the bread maker.
I don't believe 1/3 of the people who took the shots will be dead in 5 years. But I also don't call a baseball game after one inning of play.
“Is it actually causing more harm than good?”
An FR rhetorical question sense of humor sarcasm.