- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,485
- Reaction score
- 22,276
- Points
- 113
More like ****** flu shot that is no longer needed for the overwhelming majority of the population. It's not a vaccination.
Covid Vaccine
- Thread starter jitter77
- Start date
This was exactly my problem initially… scientific methodology is set up to reveal a thorough and repeatable answer through a series of tests done over a specific timeframe
Sometimes, if you have a solid grasp of the entire process and solid historical data that is repetitive, you can guestimate even accurately predict a result… but I’ve been on dozens of engineering fails where people took an unknown process and assumed a result and it was comically off.. likewise tge phase tgree testing she referred to wasnt really a phase three clinical trials outside of the name… the timeframe wasn’t right… sure they gave it to tens of thousands of people, but they did not test it for the full timeframe. They didn’t have good data.
it’s crazy. Pride month and **** is going nutts. Monkey pox is exploding and now meningitis outbreaks. 
it’s crazy. Pride month and **** is going nutts. Monkey pox is exploding and now meningitis outbreaks.
We are nearing the midterms. I suspect polio, small pox, and Covid42 outbreaks will all become very common as we approach November.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,054
- Reaction score
- 11,758
- Points
- 113
Phase 1 testing endpoint for the Phizer shot ends this Nov 22, 2022.
After examing results, experts can design the Phase 2 clinical trials, so that in mid 2024 there can be a determination of safety and efficacy, for the Publix, and allow for the all important Phase 3, which may get to completion in 2026/27, unless they find some issues.....
This may apply.
The news for Covid vaccines gets worse and worse
A big study says natural immunity protects against Omicron for over a year; mRNA shots fail in months. This is the third paper with awful mRNA data in a week. When will the media even pretend to care?
alexberenson.substack.com
A big study says natural immunity protects against Omicron for over a year; mRNA shots fail in months. This is the third paper with awful mRNA data in a week. When will the media even pretend to care?
Two doses of Covid vaccines offer no protection against Omicron infection and may even increase the risk of infection within months, according to a new paper in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In contrast, people previously infected with earlier coronavirus variants had a 50 percent lower risk of Omicron infection. That protection remained steady even more than a year after the initial infection.
But the details of the paper are even more devastating for mRNA shot advocates than those topline figures.
The new paper comes from researchers in Qatar, the wealthy Gulf city-state, which has comprehensive data on both vaccinations and Sars-Cov-2 infections. The New England Journal, which published it last week, is among the world’s best medical research outlets.
The researchers examined Omicron infections in Qatar this winter, comparing people who had previously been infected and those who had received mRNA shots with “unexposed” people who had not previously been vaccinated or infected.
Such a study is said to have a “test-negative, case-control” design. Although they are not as powerful as randomized controlled trials, when properly conducted and designed to avoid bias, such studies can provide solid evidence. (Unfortunately, the design can also be easily manipulated; the Centers for Disease Control has used “test-negative” studies as the basis for many junk Covid research papers.)
The Qatar researchers seem to have run the study without putting a thumb on the scale - and with a large enough sample that the results are relatively reliable.
Their findings add to the increasingly grim picture now emerging about mRNA shot protection against Omicron. A base regimen of two mRNA shots offered about 50 percent protection in the first three months, but by six months out it had fallen below zero, meaning people who had received the “vaccines” were more likely to be infected.
(Protection against Omicron from two Pfizer mRNA doses, over time):
The researchers found that a third mRNA dose briefly raised protection against Omicron over 50 percent, but after just one month it had declined to about 40 percent. (mRNA boosting started relatively late in Qatar, so the researchers did not have longer-term data.)
In contrast, protection that natural immunity offered against Omicron remained solid even a year after recovery:
Further, giving people who had natural immunity two shots of mRNA did nothing to increase that 50 percent protection. In other words, the public health argument that vaccination helps people even if they were already infected has proven wrong.
The authors acknowledged as much:
The protection conferred by hybrid immunity of previous infection and two-dose vaccination was similar to that of previous infection alone, at approximately 50%, which suggests that this protection originated from the previous infection and not from vaccination.
Meanwhile, while they acknowledged the failure of the mRNA shots against infection, the authors repeatedly insisted that the jabs still worked against hospitalizations and deaths - the final, endlessly repeated defense that vaccine advocates offer.
In fact, though, their data suggested that vaccine effectiveness against severe disease and death fell to about 70 percent for people who had received two shots; prior infection provided protection against severe disease that was at least as strong - and stronger, compared to the Moderna shots.
This paper provides a population-level counterpart to the bench findings published in the Lancet last week that showed vaccinated people had little antibody or T-cell protection against Omicron within months - even after a third dose. The shots simply do not work against Omicron. Whether they will provide any protection at all against severe outcomes within a few months of being dosed remains unclear. What to do next is also unclear.
Whether the media and public health authorities will be honest about any of this is clear, though: they won’t.
First, do no harm.
And if you can’t do no harm, ignore it!
My county was red then green, now back in red again all w/ in a matter of a couple weeks. My daughters daycare shut down Friday because of 5 cases and are requiring a negative test to return. We have had 5 cases at work recently luckily they are employees only and have not spread to residents. One lady has had covid at least 3x now and she is vaxxed and boosted. There just doesnt seem to be much rhyme or reason to who gets it and why. They are recommending a 2nd booster for people over 50 now. I just think they are throwing crap at a wall and seeing what sticks.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,447
- Reaction score
- 17,403
- Points
- 113
I am going to get a COVID test this morning. Got some kind of respiratory funk, complete with a low grade fever and a cough that makes my chest feel as though it is on fire. Hurts like a MF. So that should be awesome.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 3,703
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
Hope it's nothing bud. Feel better soon.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,054
- Reaction score
- 11,758
- Points
- 113
I swear Jitter, this must be you.
Monkey pox?
Hoping it's not the Rona. Best of luck!
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2014
- Messages
- 639
- Reaction score
- 817
- Points
- 93
Try https://baker.edu.au/news/media-releases/unexplained-cardiac-death-data - hopefully you won't question the credibility of this source, given its a media release from the Baker Institute's own website, dated 31 May 2020 reporting on the results of the first 12 months (which ended 30 April 2020, therefore started on 1 May 2019) tracking of the incidence of unexplained cardiac death.
You're an Aussie. Is SADS a new phenomenon down there? Being covered more than say in years past?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
The media release he posted was dated May 2020. Before vaccines existed. It discusses a registry started in April 2019. Before covid was a thing. Anti-vax propagandists put this exact information out there in "news" stories, intentionally leaving out the dates to give people the impression it was something new and alarming and related to vaccines. It is none of those things. See how misinformation works?
Yep, I'm quite aware. Like the suggestion that the CDC has been investigating VAERS reports is also misinformation.
The registry date of establishment doesn't negate the idea that SADS is supposedly on the rise however. I'd like to believe it's not and it's also blown out of proportion. But with all of the coincidences, I'm not so sure.
did you go on vacation?
While I don't wish ill upon him, ain't this some karma?
Meh people randomly die all the time. Im more concerned with the admissions that they knew about tge heart issues and didn’t disclose it and knew it was never really going to affect infection rates, and that its protection waned quickly
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
Let me know when you find data or a study or an actual quote from a physician or scientist that states SADS is on the rise. So far your evidence seems to consist of "people are hearing about it a lot more". The reason for that is anti-vax misinformation, unless you have any actual evidence to the contrary.
**** that. Hope his *** exposes with monkey pox.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,054
- Reaction score
- 11,758
- Points
- 113
If they believed it was of negligible health effect and had little efficacy, that explains the quick approvals.
But that is not what happened.
All bullshit aside, if the covid flu shots were useful, it would be evident & paraded around all the nations that paid for these placebos.......because they would all have legitimate claims to how many people they saved vs those that didn't get the shots.....but that didn't happen.
Wonder why.....
Similar threads
