| There are 42 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
|
|
.
|
|
|
"The ABSOLUTE risk appeared at least two to three times higher in the vaccinated people in this trial than in UNVACCINATED people in the initial trial - 110 infections in 5,000 people in 10 weeks, compared to 162 infections in 20,000 people in about the same period. "
Why?
Vaccine suppress your body's natural immunity from making antibodies......hence the dramatic increase in VACCINATED infections.
|
|
|
What's so bad about a shot every 6 months?
Fricken LIBTARDS 
|
|
|
1990?
|
|
|
Ok, I'll bite...this is what is so maddening about both "sides". Easy to through names like Demon Rats and RepubliCunts...but take a step back and truly appreciate the idiocy of reveling in vaccine inadequacy. We just had the economy stopped for months...we are finally digging out and making some money again. So, let's scare the shit out of the "snowflakes" that cling to their vaccine card like a security blanket. Hey let's make them all insecure so maybe they won't continue to spend their money. How dumb is that?!? If you don't believe in vaccines, don't take it. But what's the point out of scaring the shit out of consumers in a country with a consumer based economy? How about this approach...don't take the vaccine. I was no fan for or against Trump, but he should get credit for getting the vaccines underway. I took it trusting he looked at the best options. So if people don't want to take it, also sign a waiver saying if you get hospitalized you will pay the bill cash, with no insurance. My rates shouldn't go up because someone doesn't want to avail themselves of something that might work. For that matter, if you want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet you should be able to, if you sign the same waiver for head injury. Just sick of both "sides" bellyaching about "my rights." What about others rights not to pay thousands in insurance because a few want to chance a $300k hospital stay?
|
|
|
We all pay for illegal aliens hospital bills, maybe we should start there,
then move onto the fat people and smokers too...
|
|
|
^Im with you on much of what you say, but the motorcycle helmet analogy doesn’t hold up. If you choose not to wear a helmet, the only one who suffers a negative consequence is you. If a person chooses to go unvaccinated, they not only have a higher risk of catching COVID, they have a higher likelihood of infecting others.
|
|
|
Vaxed peeps are spreading covid, going to the hospital and dying too.
|
|
|
Clearly Waterdisport22 is a master at propaganda, but he clearly failed his classes in science...
You exclude the first week or two from the study because it takes time for your immune system to develop to be able to mount the desired defense against the pathogen. For the first few days after the vaccine or booster, your immune system is in an immunosuppressive state. But don't let science prevent Waterdisport22 from trying to deceive...
Waterdisport22 wants you to compare absolute risks from two different time points. This is a no-no for two reasons. First, the whole point of the experiment is to control for other variables. Comparing at two different time points goes against this. In other words, because of other factors, you can't really compare. There are different variants, different seasons, different positivity rates... Secondly, comparing by absolute risks doesn't make sense because then you are dependent on the length of the study. An absolute risk will be different for 2 days, 5 days, or 10 weeks. To become independent of time of the study, you need to use the relative risk, which is very high for the booster -- 96%.
So, for now, we may need to take boosters every 6 months to ward off COVID infection. Big deal. Many people take much more powerful medicines with many more side effects daily. For people who already take a flu shot yearly, taking a shot twice a year (until we get different vaccines) is not a big deal.
And to top it off, Waterdisport22 continues in his lying ways. Of course the booster was tested for safety, as reported by Pfizer, and is just as safe as the original vaccine.
|
|
|
Angler,
No argument there. I hate the fact that we have to pay healthcare for workers brought here by the corporate farmers that want cheap labor. I live in farm country and can't tell you how many convos I have had with farmers that were for all things MAGA except the wall building because they wanted workers. And how many bitch now about not having workers. Can't have it both ways, if you want them here to work, pay them, including insurance.. we shouldn't have to subsidize mega buck corporate farms.
|
|
|
"Vaxed peeps are spreading covid, going to the hospital and dying too. "
Not at the same rates at all, unless, of course, you are a moron and believe what you read from the Gateway Pundit.
|
|
|
^Moron who never took basic biology to understand what the central dogma of molecular biology is thinks that mRNA vaccines change your DNA.
|
|
|
likeslegs, I'm not talking about the farm workers, they work their asses off.
I'm talking about the illegals who come for free health care and welfare.
|
|
|
nr, you don't know, that is YOUR OPINION.
|
|
|
I think after about 30 MILLION + illegals in the country we are farrrrrrr past farm workers.
And YTD we have had 1.5 million more.
|
|
|
NR, Since you like links...
|
|
|
EXACTLY Waterdisport22!
|
|
|
@ NR
The drug companies do NOT have good numbers to prove efficacy and therefore use a gimmick called RELATIVE RISK vs ABSOLUTE RISK.
Here is the difference from Pfizers own FDA submital for Emergency use.
1. Placebo group who got Covid.... .74%
2. Those who got the medcine and got covid .70%
This is where the math comes into play.
Pfizer..Moderna..they all do this.
They subtract .74 minus .70 and come up with .04%.
They then divide .04% into .70% and get 95%.
That is reason you heard all over the news.....95% efficacy.
However.....ABSOLUTE RISK is actually comparing the 2 numbers......74 minus .70 equals .04%.
Soooo class....the DIFFERENCE from taking the jab or NOT taking the jab is ONLY .04% difference.
For only .04% BETTER we have done all of this for 2 frickin years.......
Let that sink in.
|
|
|
In order for mRNA in the cytoplasm to enter the nucleus and attach itself to DNA, the mRNA needs to be coupled with or produce proteins that enable it to enter the guarded cell nucleus. The mRNA vaccines do not have this. Secondly, the mRNA would need to be coupled with or produce an enzyme called reverse transcriptase in order for the mRNA to be transcribed into DNA. Then the mRNA would need to be coupled with or produce endonucleases and ligases for it to attach itself to your DNA. Since the mRNA in the vaccine has none of these, this can't happen.
Of course in biology there are exceptions and it is possible, though rare for mRNA to be able to attach itself to DNA, if the right enzymes are there. That is what the MIT and Harvard studies show. However, this is NOT the case for mRNA vaccines.
|
|
|
Using the drug companys OWN math....
Take .74% and divide into .04%.....
And guess what......95%.
Take the jab or NOT take the jab its the SAME efficacy.
REALLY LET THAT SINK IN
|
|
|
NR So stop saying it isn't true...
Just because you took a 13th grade Biology class, makes you no expert on any of this.
|
|
|
Damn - I hope you're not planning on sharing your DNA with anyone - we don't need anymore ignorance.
|
|
|
So why are you so scared of the vaccine then?
|
|
|
@Waterdisport22.
You ignored what I wrote, so I'll spell it out for you...
Say you have a placebo group and an experimental group for the vaccine. You let the experiment run for a short period of time or when the prevalence of virus isn't large. You end up with 74/10000 people who get COVID who didn't get the vaccine and 70/10000 people who did get COVID who did get the vaccine. This translate to 0.74% and 0.7% respectively. To get relative efficacy, you divide 0.7 into 0.74 and get 95%.
But now you let the experiment run for a bit longer, during a wave. Eventually, more and more people from the experimental group and control group will get COVID. So, eventually you will get numbers like 3,700 people who didn't get the vaccine and got COVID and 3,500 people who did get the vaccine and got COVID. Now the absolute risk has jumped up to 2%, which is 50 times larger than the previous absolute risk, but the relative risk stays the same -- 95%.
And so on... The absolute risk will continue to get larger and larger because it depends on the length of time of the study and the disease prevalence, which are factors that cloud its meaning, but the relative risk stays the same. That's why relative risk is much more informative...
|
|
|
I've already had covid. I wouldn't take a vax anyway, I hardly ever get sick, I've never had a flu shot in my life. My immune system works great.
|
|
|
"NR So stop saying it isn't true...
Just because you took a 13th grade Biology class, makes you no expert on any of this."
Well, if you don't want to take my word for it, listen to Dr. Paul Offit, an American pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases, vaccines, immunology, and virology. He is the co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine. He says THE EXACT SAME THING I said.
See link.
|
|
|
This is why people in the middle call bullshit on extremes in either "side". Point taken on the farm workers...so play that out because I LIVE in a county with a huge undocumented population. When you buy the talking points you forget...for 1 worker in the field, he usually has a wife...she often cooks or cleans for wealthy people or hotels. They usually have a couple kids "getting free school"...so when you give the mega buck corporate farmers, that are so vocal in MAGA circles a pass, you ARE supporting something you are so against. You don't just get a single farm worker...and do you really think there are hoards of "illegals " sitting on their asses just collecting? Usually mom and dad work somewhere contributing like as a farm worker you agree works his or her ass off. Now CA giving money away to people on the street, I agree is causing an influx, but I'll clue ya...most are legal and don't speak Spanish.....
|
|
|
Oops. I did make a mistake. I said the RNA can't integrate because it doesn't have an exonuclease to cut the DNA and a ligase to join to the DNA. Actually, that's incorrect. The correct enzyme is an integrase. My mistake.
I guess my "13th grade biology" isn't good enough...
|
|
|
Actually, Waterdisport22's absolute risk numbers are off, which threw me off in my previous analysis, so I went right to the Pfizer Phase 3 study and calculated absolute and relative risks:
After 28 days, you had 162 cases out of 21728 that didn't take the vaccine (0.74%) vs. 8 cases out of 21720 that did take the vaccine (0.037%).
So the absolute risk is 0.7%, but the relative risk is 95%.
The absolute risk of 0.7% seems small, but that's because the experiment ran only 28 days. If the experiment ran for a lot longer, with a more transmissible virus, you could easily have numbers increasing proportionately like the following:
After many more days, you can have 8100 cases out of 21728 that didn't take the vaccine (37.2%) vs. 400 cases out of 21720 that did take the vaccine (1.84%).
absolute risk = 35.4%
relative risk = 95% (still)
So the absolute risk changes the longer the experiment runs and is dependent on the prevalence of the disease, so it's not as robust a metric as the relative risk, which stays the same. That's why scientists use relative risk in this instance.
|
|
|
Just like the pushers they are, use government to get you hooked and supply you more. See how that works.
|
|
|
lol, anti-vax people are the dumbest people in the country, I swear.....
|
|
|
If you wanted to eradicate 90% of mankind what would be the best way?
A) Famine - too localized, can't destroy all farmable land and still have your one world government.
 War - WW2 only killed 3% of 1940's world population. Nuclear bombs again destroy your world.
C) Disease - A pandemic can sweep through the world and not destroy the planet itself..but to kill 6 billion you will probably die too...
D) Death - Dole out death in an engineered and targeted, government mandated, safe and effective campaign. Many will volunteer for death. More will be coerced to death. And some will be dragged to death. The risk to you? None so long you don't inject yourself with death.
Cheers HX, I spent my prodigal youth with you, but we are not long for this world. The Son of Perdition will soon take the world's stage, may Christ take you and me from that wicked end.
|
|
|
Some people will never get it.
NIH Letter Proves Fauci Lied to Congress Over Publicly Funded Gain-of-Function Research at Wuhan Lab
Should be Gain-of-slaughter amongst the sheep.
A top NIH official admitted in a Wednesday letter that the US-funded so-called gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China and that the US nonprofit which conducted it, EcoHealth Alliance led by the controversial Peter Daszak, failed to report that they had created a chimeric bat coronavirus which could infect humans.
.
|
|
|
Harvard Business School has a 95% vaccination rate. They had a massive outbreak of covid and hard to shutdown in person operations and go back to remote learning. Apparently that rare to catch covid if you’re vaccinated tale is bullshit.
|
|
|
Look at the blog I just stated.....
UK gov stated what you just said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The vax'd are NOT making antibodies....
Again its from UK GOVERNMENT
|
|
|
I sure don't anything about a non vaxxed getting covid again.. Anyone?
|
|
|
You tell them Barbie!
"Phizer says covid-19 virus 90% effective in " Let's wait an see how this turns out.
|
|
|
@NR
I too could say something DIFFERENT about what MAY or MAY not happen to a group of people....the Realtive Rate that Pharma uses...is a joke and a LIE.
When you compare ABSOLUTE numbers......it shows the Vax is not effective.
Numbers do NOT lie....statisticians.....DO.
|
|
|
Btw NR....
If you take the .74% and divide it into the difference....04.....you get 95% also.
FFS......there is NO statistical difference from getting the jab
|
|
|
I do NOT care if you or anybody else gets the jab.
Its your choice....
But do NOT try and tell us its the end all.....when in fact Pfizers own FDA submittal says otherwise.
|
|
|
Of course the drug companies use Relative Risk....vs Absolute
Its the ONLY way they can justify the product that they make has any merit.
|
|
|
Its amazing that there are people who can not open their eyes.
For me....I am not a Rep or Dem or ANY political party.
I am ONLY interested in the truth.....
And one thing is for certain. We are NOT getting it from the medical community....our Gov leaders.....etc.
The SAME people who punish doctors for prescribing Ivermectin.....which has the SAME ingredient that Pfizer is now in FDA trials for.
Can NOT make this up....
Dr's & nurses are HEROES during the pandemic....but when they do NOT want to take a shot for a FLU virus....keep in the mind the "vaccines" do not protect against variants.....the Gov and Hopsitals FIRE these heroes....
lmao.....the irony.
Maybe these health care workers know someting....and they do.
Went to my Dr last week. Told me stories of people being admiitted b/c of reactions to the vax.
So tell me...what ever happened to MY BODY MY CHOICE....asking for a friend.
|
| There are 42 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
