Are they including the 20 million illegals let in without health background checks?
Wait for the once eradicated childhood diseases to start coming back full steam.
EC
PFIZER used ONLY 23 people in the COVID trials of it’s
“VACCINES”.
THAT ALONE IS FRAUD
Wait until in becomes part of climate change. The scumbag signed us over to the UN and the CDC in the event of another plan-demic
Triple vaxxinate all the illegals in the country.
Then line them all up for boosters.
Till then STFU CDC!
Funny.. vaccines are created through hypervirilization, aka gain of function.
What they have been threatening is another release.. something that will make us obedient to their frakenvaxxes.
Thank God RFK jr is running.. shedding some light on why big pharma should never receive a single taxpayer cent.
It’s the free market. Well not when presiding blank checks to big pharma.
Please tell me why in need to trust the CDC any more.
sounds like folks have soured on pretty much ALL annual vaxes after figuring how much they’ve been lied to by ALL so-called medical “authorities”, including their own doctors ...
I got flu, tdap, and shingles #1 the other day but not covid. Scheduled for Prevnar next week. Don’t think I’ll get shingles #2, too many really bad reactions.
From another site (Instapundit), 6 or 7 months ago, quoting an April 2023 article in the New England Journal of Medicine:
I link to a study published in the April 12, 2023 New England Journal of Medicine concerning efficacy of the bivalent vaccines.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2302462
The data I discuss below is from the study supplemental appendix (link found in NEJM article). You do not need an MD to understand the DATA published in the supplement in the linked NEJM article. You need an understanding of sixth grade math.
Important background: What is an “effective” vaccine? Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps. For covid, the World Health Organization set the success criteria at 70% (initially). The FDA set the covid bar at 50% (with a lower confidence interval bound of 30%). When the FDA set the bar at only 50%, they did so during the Trump administration, and many knowledgeable people claimed that Trump was forcing the FDA to set a bar that was too low - - so that Trump could claim a win for Trump’s Operation Warp Speed. 50% is a low bar.
Second important background: The NEJM is STRONGLY provax. The NEJM (and its ownership) derives large revenues from the pharma industry. NEJM is conflicted.
Third important background: The authors of the NEJM study here are “public health professionals.” If these authors publish studies outside of the provax narrative, they will be ostracized in their profession and cutoff from pharma and public health funding. The authors are conflicted.
Summary: Despite the fact that NEJM and the authors have incentives to “put the best face” on vaccine efficacy, the DATA (hidden) in the supplemental appendix is a disaster for advocates of the bivalent vaccine. The DATA says the bivalent does not confer benefits to young healthy people.
The study is a VERY LARGE data crunching exercise for 6.3 million people in a North Carolina database. The study looks at bivalent vaccine efficacy against infection, hospitalization and death.
Look at Table S2 results. We know that there is Week 22 & 23 data because there are values for Weeks 22 & 23 at the bottom of the columns for “Hospitalization” and “Hospitalization or Death.” Where did the data go for the bottom of columns for “Infection” and “Death”???
It’s obvious to me that the authors did not want to call attention to NEGATIVE efficacy numbers in their results. The authors “truncate at the zero bound.” In addition, the authors show not a single week where the bivalent vaccine protection against infection exceeds the FDA standard of 50%. Peak bivalent efficacy against infection of 29% lasts only about one month - - AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS?
Look at Figure G. This Figure shows NEGATIVE effectiveness against infection starting at about 16 weeks. For the benefit of 30% efficacy in the first month, the bivalent makes you MORE likely to get infected starting in Week 16.
What about protection against hospitalization and death?? Here the results are very bad. See Figure H.
Figure H is critical because it provides some AGE STRATIFICATION for a disease known to have a steep age gradient (in separate published studies using seroprevalence data to estimate infection fatality rate, the median covid IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years and 0.501% at 60-69 years).
In Figure H, for people age 12 to 64, bivalent efficacy against hospitalization or death goes NEGATIVE at Week 16. While there is a peak efficacy of 67% at week two, this “midpoint estimate” has a lower bound confidence interval that is NEGATIVE for all but Week 3/4. Age 12 to 64 is an exceptionally large range and lumps healthy 19 year old Marines in with diabetic 60 year old heart patients. It is very safe to say that healthy people under age 50 would see NEGATIVE efficacy against hospitalization or death well before the 16 Weeks shown in Figure H.
Conclusion: This is not me “doing my own research.” This is me reading the published research. This is not “my data.” This is data published in the New England Journal of Medicine by people who want to put a good spin on vaccine benefits. The efficacy of mRNA vaccines are not up to the “MMR standards (90% +/-)” They are not up to WHO standards (70%). They are not up to the FDA low bar (50% with greater than 30% low CI bound).
The bivalent vaccine, AT BEST, does not confer benefits to young healthy people. At worst, the vaccines harm healthy young people.
Doctors who follow “guidelines” unsupported by DATA are following glorified celebrity endorsements.
In other "not that long ago" news...
Before I ever get a stinking CDC shot, the entire CDC organization is gonna have to line up and take EVERY vaxx, booster, rebooster or new Covid vaxx in existence. THEN I might listen to them.