It doesn't.
The blowje is just blowing smoke for the pharmapuppets.
The necro-omnicrom just surfaced 4 weeks ago [first mention on FR November 27th-ish]. We're expected to believe there's conclusive research about it this quickly.
OMNI
Posted on 12/29/2021 8:49:14 AM PST by DoodleBob
CLAIM: COVID-19 vaccines don’t provide protection against the new omicron variant of the coronavirus.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. While it’s true that people who are vaccinated can still get infected with omicron, early research has shown that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing severe disease, hospitalization and death stemming from the new variant.
THE FACTS: A video clip circulating on social media shows Dr. Robert Malone, a frequent critic of the COVID-19 vaccines who has researched mRNA vaccine technology, stating that the shots don’t protect people from omicron. The comments were made during a Dec. 17 interview with Laura Ingraham, a Fox News host, on her show the “The Ingraham Angle.”
“Omicron blows right through the vaccines and through the triple jabbed,” Malone said. “Omicron is very, very infectious and the data are already in that both the double and triple vaccination is not protecting you from omicron.”
...
But the claim is misleading, infectious disease experts say. Preliminary research has shown that while mRNA vaccines are less effective at preventing infection from the omicron variant, the shots are still very effective at preventing severe illness and death.
“It’s misleading. It implies that there is no benefit to boosting in the face of omicron and that is not true,” Chris Beyrer, a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told The Associated Press. “And it also implies that there is no benefit in the face of omicron to being vaccinated and that’s also not true.”
Beyrer said the evidence is “very clear” that vaccines, along with vaccine boosters, are “effective against omicron in preventing serious disease, hospitalization and death.”
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Yeah they are and want to name it Zyklon-B because they know that name works.
You've triggered them.
In other words, you got nothing.
Agreed...the in-sample short-term VE was 90%+.
Since then we've learned that the protection from infection wanes
...more on that later...
but protection from severe disease remains pretty high.
Those learnings on severity are not from controlled, clinical trials and the attendant data. Those learnings are from statistical studies using databases that don't have the same rigor that comes with clinical trials. That is a very big differential. Indeed, vaccine clinical trials fail to make it to approval about 59% of the time. We don't know if this collection of shots granted EUA would make it to the 41% or 59% cluster.
And while I will grant that some follow-up studies show favorable VE and a statistical linkage between getting shots and saying out of the hospital, that linkage is over a very short window (a few months) and with no controlled data collection on the flip side/side effects of those getting the shots. Indeed, I've seen studies (and not garbage studies or sensational Gateway Pundit crapola) showing the fatality rate being the same between the shot and non-shot groups. Finally, vaccine clinical trials take a median of nine years...we aren't even out of the first inning of our little league game.
Why would you revoke a EUA for a drug that's proven to be safe and very effective in preventing severe disease?
1. Because the EUA approval is for prevention only, not severity. If we think the shots also guard against severity, let's run a proper clinical trial and trot it before the FDA.
2. Because the early evidence shows negative VE against Omicron after a few months and that the shots failed to protect people at a "super spreader" event in Oslo.
My mistake.
COVID-19 breakthrough hospitalizations
Got a comment on the content?
Lucky you! Without the vax you'd be even deader.
OK, so how does any of that support the conclusion that the VACCINE is causing a less severe Omicron prognosis as opposed to the disease simply being LESS VIRILENT????
Fine, but why revoke authorization for something that's working pretty well?
...the early evidence shows negative VE against Omicron after a few months...
Wrong link, but if it's the article I've seen it's a statistical model based on not much data. Let's wait until Omicron has at least been around a couple of months before we start predicting negative VE.
...the shots failed to protect people at a "super spreader" event in Oslo.
Failed to protect from infection, but from what I can find they were fully effective in preventing serious disease.
DoodleBob wrote: “I can’t off hand. Why do you ask?”
Don’t you think it’s unreasonable to hold the CV vaccines to a standard (prevent 100% of all illnesses) that no other vaccines meet?
I haven't seen any definitive clinical yet but the vaccine manufacturers lab tests indicate their boosters provide good protection. We'll have to see as the hospitalization and death data rolls in.
I think the point of the fact check is Malone's claim that the vaccines don't protect from Omicron. While they may not protect from infection all indications are they do from severe disease, and that's what one would expect.
Malone certainly has no evidence they don't protect from severe disease.
Got a comment on the content?
...
LOL. Projecting again.
It was just fun to gig you for being sloppy, as is your wont.
I have my own answer about the "efficacy" of the quaxxccines from my vaxxed family. They're either 3 for 4, or 2 for 4, depending.
Because he wants everyone to take the death shot just like he did.
Is making me a keyword like how the unions will put a cap on the guy in a protest that they want the goons to attack?
It doesn't.
The blowje is just blowing smoke for the pharmapuppets.
The necro-omnicrom just surfaced 4 weeks ago [first mention on FR November 27th-ish]. We're expected to believe there's conclusive research about it this quickly.
OMNI
But thanks for telling me your thoughts. It helps.
Boy, that brings back old Free Republic memories...
Yes. I agree that 100% VE isn’t the benchmark. The FDA initially said they’d be happy with 50% for granting EUAs. And that is a primary basis for the EUA - the in-sample 90%+ VE regarding prevention.
DoodleBob wrote: “Yes. I agree that 100% VE isn’t the benchmark. “
But the article you posted essentially makes the claim that the vaccines do not protect since they are not 100% effective.
Of course you do.
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.