Posted on 11/04/2021 5:59:06 AM PDT by catnipman
In Sweden, a new study followed 840,000 people who were double vaccinated for nine months which is longer than any previous study. The researchers matched them or “paired them” with another 840,000 people who were the same, age, sex and from the same area. Out of this 1.6 million pooled sample, 27,000 people went on to get infected, and most of them were unvaccinated (21,000). So that’s not surprising, but underlying this data was an extraordinary trend showing efficacy falling month after month. In the first two to four weeks, the double vaccinated were very well protected. But by nine months later, the efficacy was not just zero, but negative.
(Excerpt) Read more at joannenova.com.au ...
“the ‘success’ of ivermectin and HCQ is a myth promulgated by quack snake oil salesmen like Americas Front Line Doctors who are making millions off of the naive and gullible.”
Who’s the QUACK?
Study after study, report after report, testimony after testimony say just the OPPOSITE!
You quote a couple bullshit studies and we are supposed to ignore the vast majority of evidence that they DO work?
Who is paying you to post this propaganda?
I took it that negative numbers as saying not only over time the vaxxine value drops to zero, it continues to drop into negative territory meaning you would have been better off never getting it in the first place.
In other words you are at that point MORE likely to get COVID than had you never been vaxxed. Over time (months) not only are you not “protected” you are now MORE LIKELY to get COVID a disease with a 99.? survival rate.
Let’s not also forget the deadly/chronic side effects of the vaxxes/
Perhaps the vaccine isn’t effective. But it sure is one hell of an obedience needle.
Boosters for the flu, or for COVID?
This is outcome-based not a measurement of antibodies-based. Negative effectiveness means that as time goes on many more people in this cohort get sick(er) than the unvaccinated control group.
That’s pretty funny, chicomboy.
My own wellness MD has treated hundreds of cv19 patients using therapeutics, with zero deaths. AFLN has treated thousands, all with the FLCCC protocol.
We really do need military tribunals in this country...for people like you.
“ Interpretation: Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals. The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose.” (Emphasis added)
This is the mantra that must be protected at all costs. If it is proven that therapeutics exist which are effective at treating coronavirus then every emergency use authorization for the current forms of “vaccines” become invalid. This puts billions and possibly trillions of dollars earmarked for big pharma in immediate jeopardy.
In this type of environment aspirin would be said to have no therapeutic value against fever and a certain percentage of gullible fools would believe it. There are many therapeutics that are effective in the treatment of Covid. To deny this proves only that one is easily misled.
Despite your histrionics, this study, if anything only proves the need for boosters. BTW, almost all vaccines require boosters and none are 100% effective. There are no ‘proven and effective” therapeutics. And that includes ivermectin and HCQ.
Your post proves only that you did not bother to follow the link to the article that you are supposedly commenting on. Not that this does not happen here frequently, but the example that you provide is particularly blatant. But thank you for providing links not relevant to the discussion and contributing easily disproved meaningless drivel.
In your defense the article that you did not bother to look at somehow misses one of the most important points about the current vaccines. They were “designed” to fight a type of Covid that essentially no longer exists. A brainless pathogen that evolves quickly in response to “leaky” “vaccines” has outwitted so called “experts” who are advising people in positions of authority all around the world.
In my former profession, fires which also have no actual intelligence also outwits firefighters all of the time. This is because like you, a lot of those who believe that they understand the mechanics of the battle actually do not.
If people who have had the vaccine have smaller number of cases of COVID, the vaccine is said to have a positive efficacy.
If people who have had the vaccine have the same number of cases of COVID, the vaccine is said to have a zero efficacy.
If people who have had the vaccine have more of cases of COVID, the vaccine is said to have a _________ efficacy.
Fill in the blank...
And for long term to be looked for, you have to have enough time to pass to become long term, and this has not yet happened.
18 months is nowhere near long term. Years, many years, is.
Since time travel has not yet been invented it is therefore totally impossible to determine what long term effects there are going to be. And considering what we’ve seen of the short term effects, I will never buy that there won’t be any long term ones.
This is a description of the control group as the vaccinated people were vacinnated. Some of the control group got vaccinated after the beginning of the study.
Don't forget that the Under Emergency Authorization (UEA) was issued after only 2 1/2 months clinical trials by Pfizer, supposedly under the supervision of the CDC,
since Pfizer did its own study on the "vaccine", and reported the results to the CDC.
Pfizer had a financial, vested interest in the success of it's mRNA vaccine.
Even after the 2 1/2months the study was terminated, and the control group was given the Pfizer injection - so, in reality, there was no 'control group' in the study.
Exactly true !
My friend and her family raced out to get the booster as soon as it was available. They are Pfizeristas and wanted to make sure they beat the Moderna release and the crowds from that.
Can you be that stupid?
And the group who got vaccinated nine months ago, are obviously not the same sort of people as put it off til September. High risk people were vaccinated earliest and they are the first to reach the “nine months” mark.
The Swedish study is large (to put it mildly) and they even tested a bigger cohort too. By relaxing the matching process they managed to put together a second sort-of-matched cohort of nearly 4 million people. That’s pretty much the whole population of Sweden and it largely confirmed the trends.
In other news, they found that mixing and matching vaccines appear to give a bit better protection than sticking with the same brand.
Nice to read something thoughtful...
Clearly, you can.
And I’ll lay money on the fact that when problems kick in from the vaxxes, they won’t have a clue why.
That is why I stated earlier that you won't find the reason why there are increased failures until you look for it.
Who seems to be 'in charge' of determining which research gets a funded study ? Saint Fauxxi, himself .
Here’s the actual conclusion and interpretation, both from the study posted in the Lancet.
Note that it concludes:
“The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities.”
“Findings: Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against infection waned progressively from 92% (95% CI, 92-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 47% (95% CI, 39-55, P<0·001) at day 121-180, and from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07). The effectiveness waned slightly slower for mRNA-1273, being estimated to 59% (95% CI, 18-79) from day 181 and onwards. In contrast, effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was generally lower and waned faster, with no effectiveness detected from day 121 and onwards (-19%, 95% CI, -97-28), whereas effectiveness from heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 / mRNA was maintained from 121 days and onwards (66%; 95% CI, 41-80). Overall, vaccine effectiveness was lower and waned faster among men and older individuals. For the outcome severe Covid-19, effectiveness waned from 89% (95% CI, 82-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 42% (95% CI, -35-75, P=0·21) from day 181 and onwards, with sensitivity analyses showing notable waning among men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities.
“Interpretation: Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals. The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose.
The charts showing effectiveness against "Symptomatic Covid" and "Severe Covid" are the last two pages of the study.
I'm not sure what to make of the negative effectiveness against "Symptomatic covid". I suspect that it may have to do with behavior or the timing of variant D which was more infectious. Vaccinated people may take more risks and thus encounter covid more frequently. And Variant D which was more infectious was late to the game and may play into the comparison against non-vaccinated.
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.