I have friends asking me how they can convince me to get the experimental vaccines and my first response is they haven't even provided any good evidence that Wuhan Flu is harmful enough to merit vaccination.
If you're healthy, you sure as fuck don't need it. If you're a fatty, lose some weight and then you sure as fuck don't need it.
I do feel bad for the 80% of deaths that had 4 or more co-morbidity's. Life never is fair. All the more reason to strength train and eat appropriately.
the sudden onset of weight made operation on her thyroids and lymp nodes riskey
the more exercise she put in the more her body fell apart.
they were contemplating diabetic leg amputation when she passed, she has lost control of her waist for a year before passing.
autopsy and medical school dissection couldn't isolate the reason why she passed or her body failures. and this was years before covid, and she was a democrat mayor that hated trump.
ThanQ for this find. So many people have been rushing out to take an experimental shot which does nothing against COVID what so ever. And other reports these shots are actually causing new variants.
The thing that bugs me with all of this, if it does nothing to help prevent Covid, then what is the end game? Get that money? Depopulation? Government dependance (having to get a shot from the government annually to stay alive?), Mass extinction event? Genocide? What? I have noticed the majority of those lining up first are lefties, with some of the soft brained right winged folk... Why would they intentionally hurt their own support base? This is the shit that keeps me up at night... If it's so great, why are they shoving it down everyone's throats so hard?
And it works hand in hand with the Kalergi plan, because if the regular citizens die off and the country needs more workers, they get to bring in the third worlders, and thereby eliminate the "national" identity. Look at Minnesota with the large Somalian population: Are they all happy patriots? Not by a long shot. They will never assimilate and be "Americans", and this is what the elitists want.
You aren't going to know how deadly the vaxes are for now, they may have a very delayed action and just sit there rotting people from the inside. It also may very much be a binary weapon, just waiting to get the max number vaxxed before releasing the trigger virus which causes a cytokine storm via pathogenic priming.
the same as what is occurring with the HPV vaccine Gardasil. started in 2006 - now, 15 years later, young women in their late twenties/early thirties discover they are having difficulty getting pregnant. of course, the vaccine makers have studied all these cases and find absolutely NO correlation between their HPV jab and premature ovarian insufficiency.....surprise.
I have pleaded with my daughter to NOT have my young granddaughters to be given that vaccine (HPV). I reminded her that I didn't allow it for her and she is just fine. I have always thought it was a scam one way or another.
I believe also that vaccines play apart in , auto immune disorders, mental disorders( autism) , neurological disorders, cancers, weakened immune systems. Possibly Within the next few decades there will be an increase in many illnesses.
When you look around, it's astounding how many people have health issues, many are quite serious. I used to say that these things don't just drop out of the sky but what's sprayed in our skies contributes to all of this.
I was reading that 54% of children have chronic illnesses now. You can correlate the rise right along with vaccines being pushed around late 80’s until now.
I remember getting the "new" polio shot when I was around 7 yo. and later given a smallpox shot that left a huge scar on your upper arm. Back then we all got the measles, mumps and german measles, and we've lived to tell about it. I remember when my 2 older brothers had the measles and chickepox, my mom told me to go and play games with them so I'd get it too! LOL. We were a family of 8 kids and she wanted the whole "mess" done and over as soon as possible.
Morgellins disease for one comes from sky crap. One lady showed the filaments from her arm interacting with the nasal swab filaments. Both have magnetic particles in them. Other things shown to come from chem trails are genetically made human red blood cells that have no dna and are perfectly circular, which is not consistent with real blood cell shape.
Yes, I've looked at the geoengineering for some years and was appalled at what was part of those damned swabs. I've been noticing a lot of crap all over my car, blobs of dried stuff. I think that most people don't even notice.
I get the depopulation angle, but I suppose I see that as the enemy killing off its own army and seeing that as a good thing. It doesn't make sense to me. Withought the left and the useful idiots, the elitists essentially have no army.
Yes, Sinovac is a traditional vaccine. I keep asking why the US would push development of unproven technology, but no one has a worthy answer. Just another reason why my family and I will not be getting this experimental gene therapy BS.
Satan hates all humans. This should clear it up for you. Kill off the lefties first, and then do something else for the Patriots. Hey, any amount of dead humans is a WIN for SATAN.
Well, if one remembers the Communists always seem to take out the Liberals who supported them in the first place when they get in power because they KNOW too much might apply here.
If they feel are in total control they throw them to the wolves. It was ALL about the select few who will rule. Communism only rewards those in power. These Liberal/Democrat people were useful idiots to aid them to get the power. After the true Elite get into power those who helped them get there are useless to them.
Lenin banned the Liberal Party of Russia (even though they helped him gain power)
Mao eliminated ALL organizations operating outside of the party—religious communities, charitable organizations, study societies, independent chambers of commerce, civil associations—all were eliminated within a few years.
Many of those who fought against them were physically eliminated. So yeah, the liberals should be careful what they wish for. They are the first to be removed.
It doesn't matter when they get absolute power. Their previous base may become disillusioned and feel betrayed. They are now seen as a liability. There is no loyalty in communism. The frequency with which the Russian communists leaders bumped each other off is instructive.
Downloaded the pdf version. Gotta save these things locally these days. Paints a dismal picture of the vaccines. At best, using their numbers at least 80 people need to get vaccinated to stop ONE new infection. That's an absurd number for the common cold, makes sense why they push so hard. The vaccines don't work frens.
Thank you for this. Fun with numbers as my accountant likes to say. Finally, a major journal allowing in some facts that counter the narrative. Long past due.
Imagine if 99% of cars sold didn't actually run. And not only did they not run, almost all of the time the seats had spikes, were covered in diseased rotting filth, or they caught fire, or gave out severe electrical shocks and burns. Or all of the above.
Would people still dutifully line up to buy cars?
Vaccines are a shit industry, it only exists at all due to the massive disinfo out there in the public sphere that has had censorship of dissenting opinions, studies, doctors, symptoms etc censored way before this same orwellian nonsense reared its ugly head elsewhere. That and the exemption from legal liabilities that no other industry has been granted.
With the average vacc taking 10+ years to develop (and being shit all the same), do you think a rushed china-virus one bought out in less than a year will be any good? Idiotic doesn't even do justice to describe what a farce of a product these are.
A trojan horse for pharma companies looking to murder and sicken you, and regulators/governments happy to look the other way while you die for their own reasons.. none of them good.
Because OP is a halfwit and fails to understand that ARR is never used for anything ever except for a few chronic conditions, because it is a completely contextual value that can differ wildly over 2 identical tests when dealing with a viral condition?
RRR is the only thing you ever see used because its the only thing with actual indicative properties.
Let me put it this way;
you have 2 surgery methods for the same condition:
One has been tried 1000 times, saw 45 die mid-procedure
Another one has also been tried 1000times, and saw 40 die mid-procedure.
The ARR in this case is 4.5% and 4% respectively, and only a treatment effectiveness delta of .5% relative to eachother. Thats fucking nothing. If 2 populaces were treated in the exact same way, there would be 11.25%% more mortalities from method A. Now, you might think that that makes the much more meaningful 11.25% the RRR. You'd be wrong.
Because consider this; we expect 5% of people from die from complications to begin with if not given immediate surgery. So the actual control group, the one isolated from the background risk, is only a group of 50 individuals, not the one with 1000 we started off with. And taking the AR event to be death, we are looking at a 20% RRR relative to the control group from method B and only 10% RRR relative to the control group from method A. the ARR in both cases remains the previously. This means that despite the seemingly diminutive initial numbers, the ACTUAL statistical conclusion, is that operation B is twice as effective at preventing mortalities than operation A. and yet, our ARR has remained .5%.
Now imagine if instead of death, it was a disease that you take as your AR event. Depending on the present spread rate of the virus, the background risk might fluctuate from as low as .1% to as high as 30% for a single span of a month. And if you were to have the exact same fucking test the next month, you end up with a vastly different ARR
For those under 40, it may be, for those under 20, it probably is. This push to have children get the shot (I refuse to call it a vaccination) is a crime against humanity!
Where I live they're allowing kids 12 and older to get the jab.... All I can do is hope their parents aren't that stupid. I live in a extremely red area so fingers crossed for the kids
I have a science background and several degrees but I can't tell in this example the diff between "ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine" (RRR)
and
"difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine" (ARR)
I know the diff btw a ratio (division) and a difference (subtraction) but can't seem to make sense of this for some reason...input welcome
Saw that. What does the phrase "participants who could benefit from the vaccine" mean? How is that group even defined? There is an implicit ASSUMPTION in there that smoeone could benefit from the vaccine. What if that's completely erroneous?
It's basically vaccinated people divided by the size of the study group, where the other is vaccinated people divided by the entire population... That might not be 100% accurate, but it's essentially a study group vs the total population, and the study group quantity is determined by the manufacturer running the test...
These considerations on efficacy and effectiveness are based on studies measuring prevention of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection; they were not designed to conclude on prevention of hospitalisation, severe disease, or death, or on prevention of infection and transmission potential. Assessing the suitability of vaccines must consider all indicators, and involve safety, deployability, availability, and costs.
Basically we only wanted to look at the number of reduced sniffles cases, not how many hospitalizations or deaths this is causing...
So let me get this straight... the vax pretty much is worthless BUT there’s a major push to make you get one. Peer pressure at it finest. Outcast of society...so what is really going on here? Could this shot actually be the bio weapon? Just a money making scam?
What makes you so confident in the sterilization piece? I’ve read this a number of times but find it hard to believe people at these companies wouldn’t speak out.
In the article there is a whole paragraph which could be distilled into "We can't draw any kind of reliable conclusion because everyone is doing every vaccine study differently." Only Israel with its big Pfizer push has enough consistency, and the conclusion there is that it takes 1.8 people being vaccinated to prevent one more case of infection.
Better reading, thanks. All statements with "might," "could," and "perhaps" belong on The Ancient Aliens show. And aside, why did Israel go so big on Pfizer?
And of course, "cases" is meaningless. Additionally, as we saw, "diagnoses" was pretty much meaningless. So we have a huge steaming pile of lies, based on lies, correlated with lies, reported as truth that is lies, stemming from the father of all lies. How 'bout them apples?
I have been working on crunching VAERs data for covid stuff vs all other vaccines since 1990... The gene therapy shots are far, far worse than anything in the last 30 years.
At least the measles and chicken pox vaccines are effacious. Kids aren't getting chicken pox anymore. Old people are getting shingles instead. But they have a vax for that now.
I know the Covid shots are many times more letal. I'm wondering how many times less effective they are too.
It’s a religion built on lies. They are in too deep now. Their entire world view is an artificial one, it’s not just the vaccine. It’s all of the lies.
If they admit to themselves the vaccine is not effective and possibly even dangerous, they must also reckon with voter fraud and human trafficking. The same authorities that tell them they are the majority, that there was no fraud, that there is no pedophile problem, are telling them that the vax is the key.
They still live in an Obama fact check world in which they are the enlightened elite, and anyone else are dumb redneck morons. They have internalized this so much that they would rather die than admit they have been tricked.
It’s much much easier to fool a lefty, than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
And this my friends is spot on! Living in a lefty liberal cesspool I can confirm this 100%. The vax theories would totally shatter their worldview. Who knows, could be the thing Q said will bring the population to the “precipice”.
It’s maddening. I work with people who are die hard democrats, and some of them are so close to figuring it out. They aren’t all morons. One guy can see the logic of the points I make, but he just can’t overcome the hump. He did avoid the vaccine, but that’s because he doesn’t trust bill gates.
They won’t believe anything that isn’t approved by authority figures they approve of. That’s the problem. Even when critical thinking makes some shit obvious, they won’t believe it until they are ALLOWED to believe it.
The only thing that will get these people to believe are arrests. That’s it.
When you consider that these experimental drugs are claimed to be "effective" ONLY at reducing symptoms, and NOT at stopping someone from getting it or giving it, the numbers are even more pathetic.
It only matters that the useful idiots think they work so they can live life like normal human beings and quit being control freaks... just say "sure i got it" and be on with your day
I'm thinking it is likely that once you get the experimental genetic modification it will become essential to update frequently just to stay alive. A captive consumer.
Please don't cite studies if you literally haven't have the faintest idea what you are talking about and somehow fail to read the part that you are citing. I find myself saying this alot but shut the fuck up about "having done the research" if you can't research yourself out of a knee deep hole, haven't seen any meaningful developments of your understanding of statistics since you were 14, and haven't ever in any significant way needed to dissect an academic paper in an academic context, ie, something you don't really give a shit about but have to interpret as accurately as possible to prevent getting failed for your course.
You aren't referring to the "real efficacy rate", dipshit, and if you read what you posted or literally just googled the acronyms. ARR is practically never used for vaccine effectiveness because its a piss-poor metric for vaccine effectiveness, and should never be employed outside the consideration of chronic conditions, if even.
This is in no small part because it obscures the baseline risk (something known in a chronic condition where both the control and test group have a 100% chance to have the condition). Which is entirely fucking contextual. So, lets assume, for the sake of argument that this study was taken over a one month period. You have 1000 people in the control group, and 1000 people in the test group, all of them testing negative for covid prior to the test starting, else it wouldn't really make much of a difference. Assuming moderate virulance and daily case increase, and again, for the sake of argument, That 970 from both groups just straight up don't get the virus. This means you have a baseline risk of 3%.
Once you actually have this group, you have to isolate those who aren't actually undergoing any Absolute Risks, this being any meaningfully harmful health condition. No, losing your smell, doesn't count. This cuts the number down to 2%.
You then, for these 2% that undergo meaningful health conditions from catching covid, see 90% of the remaining patients or 1.8% of the total populace now not get sick. As such, the number of absolute risk events has gone done by 1.8%. The actual difference? 2 people sick instead of 18 people sick.
Now, why is this a dumb number? Again, context. you could take the exact same fucking study at the exact same region 2 months later, and end up with an ARR of .3% or one of 42% depending on what the baseline risk that month is And looking at the wildly divergent ARR's relative to the RRR's, it is safe to assume that all these studies were taken at different regions of infection density and different times of infection growth rate. ARR has practically no indicative properties to speak off outside a few edge cases
ARR can help contextualize RRR in the right situations. If we can assume the ARR is somewhat consistent over either time or region, which in this case (And for that matter, most viral phenomena), is absolutely not the case. The ARR of a 90% effective cure for a viral phenoma can swing from .1% to 40% in the span of a month if we are speaking about something with a ridiculous level of infectiousness, and it can vary again when you look into the next town. It is 100% contextual and in absence of said context, its junk data.
To elaborate on your example:
For every number of road crossings, there will be a small percentage people getting run over. the RRR in this case is most likely around 100% and thus the ARR will be the same as the AR% because we can assume that people who don't cross the road have a nil chance of getting run over.
Your chances of getting ran over IF you cross the street however will fluctuate wildly. If you were to cross the freeway, your chances will most likely grow by an order of several magnitudes (Extreme example). The RRR will remain the same, but context was far more dangerous, therefor the ARR grows. Yet this does not affect the efficacy of the obvious way to avoid getting ran over; not running across the freeway. Every street will also most likely have a slightly different ARR, and every season will also quite likely have a wholly different ARR.
All of this is wholly inconsequential to the efficacy of not crossing at all. It is consistent across all scenarios without fail.
Now, again, this is where "don't research if you don't understand how to research" comes back in, and that is how it factors into human risk assessment, which is what every article you could counter me with will invariable talk about and not about statistical merit. Because you see, due to the incident rate being variable across place and time, the context will inform the advisability of deciding not to cross or altering the way you cross; though if you are doughbrained you might make the conclusion that "in order to not get ran over, you shouldn't cross the road", and therefor refuse to cross a nigh-unused road on a summer morning. Now, naturally nobody will fall for this argument as we all have a pretty good understanding of which roads are dumb to cross, but if put in the context of a patient with a chronic condition it makes more sense (In case you missed it, the article that you quoted wasn't a statistical manual, but a communication manual); for example, when advising on 2 different, mutually exclusive treatments with differing efficacy for the same condition, it would be prudent to talk about the relative and absolute benefits of the treatment and the absolute risk they both have compared to non-usage, while only mentioning the relative risks they have relative to eachother.
And again, to reiterate; without knowing exactly the time, place and population characteristics of every single fucking ARR cited here in order to first relativize them towards eachother (In case the lack of rhyme and reason between the RRR's and the ARR's didn't tip you off; they were most likely tested in different regions and at different points in time), the ARR is useless. And if we had it, it still wouldn't tell us about the efficacy of the vaccine; it can, at best, be used in conjunction with the RRR to weigh its value so people can relativize the possible risk of a jab vs the possible benefits. But again, you'd need a recent, regional ARR to actually have it be of use. on its own, it could be used to estimate the effect the vaccine might have on the spread of the virus or future logistical needs such as hospitalizations and medical supplies. If the same test was to be done on that one cruise ship in the start of the pandemic that reached almost full saturation, the ARR would most likely end up at around 80%. Do it in eastern Siberia, and we are looking at about .01% if that.
**
Listen, unless you can provide me the research papers of these trails that state otherwise, we can freely assume that every single fucking AR event in the study is "the development of any singular meaningfully disruptive health effect due to Covid-19 infection", with a cap of 1 AR per person. In other words, every notable infection is counted regardless of its severity unless its asymptomatic.
RRR is the efficacy rate of the treatment itself.
ARR is the incidence reduction rate across the entire population, in other words, not the efficacy rate of the treatment itself but the efficacy rate of what a population wide rollout would look like.
This means that 95% is 95% is 95%. Really no other way to state it. If you, as a person, take the vaccine, your chance of suffering from a meaningfully disruptive health effect in the event you are exposed to COVID is 1/20th of what it used to be. Yes, your chances of actually getting exposed to it are highly variable and by factoring in this chance you can get an overview of what the efficacy of the vaccine could be at slowing down the spread.
And that wasn't what I stated. What I stated was "if you don't know the context of the control pool you cannot ascertain how meaningful the ARR is". Certainly there are analysis where ARR relates to the health of the control group but this only factors in whenever we are looking at specific health complications of a condition rather than the appearance of the condition to begin with. You'd have a point if this ARR analysis was looking at treatment options for active covid cases rather than preventative measures, but it doesn't, so you don't. Which means that in this case, ARR only and strictly refers to the risk of infectivity in your region at that specific time, which means it will vary wildly.
That being said, ARR in this way does actually inform the default vaccine package in most nations. For example, western countries typically don't have a yellow fever vaccine, because our the ARR on a population wide rollout is so phenomenally small as to not warranting even mentioning; we are talking like a one in a million shift, despite the yellow fever vaccine being one of the most reliable in the world. In third world nations within the tropical regions where the mosquitos that have the disease live, however, we are most likely looking at a .1 ARR (which, for the record, is still considerably lower than what you've stated here, though yellow fever is of course a lot more dangerous than covid)
A 1% better chance of “not” getting Covid... totally worth it...?
Nah
That’s the same as lottery odds and I’m no crazy gambler of my life
They love to twist their math. It’s all about which numbers you tell them. Never trust the numbers at face value.
I have friends asking me how they can convince me to get the experimental vaccines and my first response is they haven't even provided any good evidence that Wuhan Flu is harmful enough to merit vaccination.
I am no threat to you if your magic amulet works.
My body my choice. Fuck off.
KEK comment of the day. Fucking magic amulet ... I love you Fren!
I do as the crystal guides
Absolute gold! ^^^^^
But muh death numbers.
muh save lives.
Muh Grandma.
and my axe
Do you hate granny? Yes, I think you do.
Someone is peer pressuring you into trying experimental drugs? Those aren't friends.
If you're healthy, you sure as fuck don't need it. If you're a fatty, lose some weight and then you sure as fuck don't need it.
I do feel bad for the 80% of deaths that had 4 or more co-morbidity's. Life never is fair. All the more reason to strength train and eat appropriately.
my bosses wife would say otherwise.
the sudden onset of weight made operation on her thyroids and lymp nodes riskey
the more exercise she put in the more her body fell apart.
they were contemplating diabetic leg amputation when she passed, she has lost control of her waist for a year before passing.
autopsy and medical school dissection couldn't isolate the reason why she passed or her body failures. and this was years before covid, and she was a democrat mayor that hated trump.
ThanQ for this find. So many people have been rushing out to take an experimental shot which does nothing against COVID what so ever. And other reports these shots are actually causing new variants.
The thing that bugs me with all of this, if it does nothing to help prevent Covid, then what is the end game? Get that money? Depopulation? Government dependance (having to get a shot from the government annually to stay alive?), Mass extinction event? Genocide? What? I have noticed the majority of those lining up first are lefties, with some of the soft brained right winged folk... Why would they intentionally hurt their own support base? This is the shit that keeps me up at night... If it's so great, why are they shoving it down everyone's throats so hard?
I too believe this is a mass sterilization event.
It’s going to cripple this countries population (and much of the world) for generations.
And it works hand in hand with the Kalergi plan, because if the regular citizens die off and the country needs more workers, they get to bring in the third worlders, and thereby eliminate the "national" identity. Look at Minnesota with the large Somalian population: Are they all happy patriots? Not by a long shot. They will never assimilate and be "Americans", and this is what the elitists want.
They are also a really shitty labor force.
Well looks like I will have to take one for the team and spread my seed. Any hot female anons out there? ;)
You aren't going to know how deadly the vaxes are for now, they may have a very delayed action and just sit there rotting people from the inside. It also may very much be a binary weapon, just waiting to get the max number vaxxed before releasing the trigger virus which causes a cytokine storm via pathogenic priming.
Can't tell lethality yet.
the same as what is occurring with the HPV vaccine Gardasil. started in 2006 - now, 15 years later, young women in their late twenties/early thirties discover they are having difficulty getting pregnant. of course, the vaccine makers have studied all these cases and find absolutely NO correlation between their HPV jab and premature ovarian insufficiency.....surprise.
I have pleaded with my daughter to NOT have my young granddaughters to be given that vaccine (HPV). I reminded her that I didn't allow it for her and she is just fine. I have always thought it was a scam one way or another.
That was in India wasn't it.
you got any sauce on this? would like to read up
The vaxes could also be used to cause numerous health problems for people that the medical industry can make profit off of.
I believe also that vaccines play apart in , auto immune disorders, mental disorders( autism) , neurological disorders, cancers, weakened immune systems. Possibly Within the next few decades there will be an increase in many illnesses.
When you look around, it's astounding how many people have health issues, many are quite serious. I used to say that these things don't just drop out of the sky but what's sprayed in our skies contributes to all of this.
I was reading that 54% of children have chronic illnesses now. You can correlate the rise right along with vaccines being pushed around late 80’s until now.
Yes....appalling. Figures that I've seen say that the rates of autism are now about 1 in 36. So many people just don't seem to see any of this though.
I remember getting the "new" polio shot when I was around 7 yo. and later given a smallpox shot that left a huge scar on your upper arm. Back then we all got the measles, mumps and german measles, and we've lived to tell about it. I remember when my 2 older brothers had the measles and chickepox, my mom told me to go and play games with them so I'd get it too! LOL. We were a family of 8 kids and she wanted the whole "mess" done and over as soon as possible.
Morgellins disease for one comes from sky crap. One lady showed the filaments from her arm interacting with the nasal swab filaments. Both have magnetic particles in them. Other things shown to come from chem trails are genetically made human red blood cells that have no dna and are perfectly circular, which is not consistent with real blood cell shape.
Yes, I've looked at the geoengineering for some years and was appalled at what was part of those damned swabs. I've been noticing a lot of crap all over my car, blobs of dried stuff. I think that most people don't even notice.
I get the depopulation angle, but I suppose I see that as the enemy killing off its own army and seeing that as a good thing. It doesn't make sense to me. Withought the left and the useful idiots, the elitists essentially have no army.
China is using a different vax.
Yes, Sinovac is a traditional vaccine. I keep asking why the US would push development of unproven technology, but no one has a worthy answer. Just another reason why my family and I will not be getting this experimental gene therapy BS.
They will flood the country with the third world people who will be willing slaves.
Satan hates all humans. This should clear it up for you. Kill off the lefties first, and then do something else for the Patriots. Hey, any amount of dead humans is a WIN for SATAN.
Well, if one remembers the Communists always seem to take out the Liberals who supported them in the first place when they get in power because they KNOW too much might apply here.
In doing so, wouldn't they diminish their base and have less power? I'm by far no expert on -isms...
If they feel are in total control they throw them to the wolves. It was ALL about the select few who will rule. Communism only rewards those in power. These Liberal/Democrat people were useful idiots to aid them to get the power. After the true Elite get into power those who helped them get there are useless to them.
Lenin banned the Liberal Party of Russia (even though they helped him gain power) Mao eliminated ALL organizations operating outside of the party—religious communities, charitable organizations, study societies, independent chambers of commerce, civil associations—all were eliminated within a few years.
Many of those who fought against them were physically eliminated. So yeah, the liberals should be careful what they wish for. They are the first to be removed.
I guess I need to brush up on my history! Thanks fren!
Useful idiots are always among the first to go once the "elite" have no further need of them. But the current ones are too stupid to know history.
It doesn't matter when they get absolute power. Their previous base may become disillusioned and feel betrayed. They are now seen as a liability. There is no loyalty in communism. The frequency with which the Russian communists leaders bumped each other off is instructive.
Read Animal Farm. Find out what happens to lesser animals.
Watch the Bezminov videos. He says the useful idiots get lined up against the wall and shot.
People are truly disposable in the communist system.
Look at the CCP as a prime example.
Bring in the third world people, No problems.
Look at worldwide shot rates. Which countries have the highest rate of killshots? Are all countries getting the same shot?
We're going to see the answer in the next few months.
Personally, I don't think they want to own America so much as destroy it which is why they are pushing the shot so hard.
Downloaded the pdf version. Gotta save these things locally these days. Paints a dismal picture of the vaccines. At best, using their numbers at least 80 people need to get vaccinated to stop ONE new infection. That's an absurd number for the common cold, makes sense why they push so hard. The vaccines don't work frens.
The pdf is here: https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-5247%2821%2900069-0
Thank you for this. Fun with numbers as my accountant likes to say. Finally, a major journal allowing in some facts that counter the narrative. Long past due.
Thanks fren! Not sure how even the normies can debunk this seeing this is from The Lancet.
Imagine if 99% of cars sold didn't actually run. And not only did they not run, almost all of the time the seats had spikes, were covered in diseased rotting filth, or they caught fire, or gave out severe electrical shocks and burns. Or all of the above.
Would people still dutifully line up to buy cars?
Vaccines are a shit industry, it only exists at all due to the massive disinfo out there in the public sphere that has had censorship of dissenting opinions, studies, doctors, symptoms etc censored way before this same orwellian nonsense reared its ugly head elsewhere. That and the exemption from legal liabilities that no other industry has been granted.
With the average vacc taking 10+ years to develop (and being shit all the same), do you think a rushed china-virus one bought out in less than a year will be any good? Idiotic doesn't even do justice to describe what a farce of a product these are.
A trojan horse for pharma companies looking to murder and sicken you, and regulators/governments happy to look the other way while you die for their own reasons.. none of them good.
Would these shots fall under the "lemon laws," then?
Because OP is a halfwit and fails to understand that ARR is never used for anything ever except for a few chronic conditions, because it is a completely contextual value that can differ wildly over 2 identical tests when dealing with a viral condition?
RRR is the only thing you ever see used because its the only thing with actual indicative properties.
Let me put it this way;
you have 2 surgery methods for the same condition:
One has been tried 1000 times, saw 45 die mid-procedure
Another one has also been tried 1000times, and saw 40 die mid-procedure.
The ARR in this case is 4.5% and 4% respectively, and only a treatment effectiveness delta of .5% relative to eachother. Thats fucking nothing. If 2 populaces were treated in the exact same way, there would be 11.25%% more mortalities from method A. Now, you might think that that makes the much more meaningful 11.25% the RRR. You'd be wrong.
Because consider this; we expect 5% of people from die from complications to begin with if not given immediate surgery. So the actual control group, the one isolated from the background risk, is only a group of 50 individuals, not the one with 1000 we started off with. And taking the AR event to be death, we are looking at a 20% RRR relative to the control group from method B and only 10% RRR relative to the control group from method A. the ARR in both cases remains the previously. This means that despite the seemingly diminutive initial numbers, the ACTUAL statistical conclusion, is that operation B is twice as effective at preventing mortalities than operation A. and yet, our ARR has remained .5%.
Now imagine if instead of death, it was a disease that you take as your AR event. Depending on the present spread rate of the virus, the background risk might fluctuate from as low as .1% to as high as 30% for a single span of a month. And if you were to have the exact same fucking test the next month, you end up with a vastly different ARR
You didn’t explain this well at all. Not a dig and I’d like to understand your logic.
Dying from the jab is probably more likely than actually receiving immunity! But whatever, sheep gon' be sheep ???
For those under 40, it may be, for those under 20, it probably is. This push to have children get the shot (I refuse to call it a vaccination) is a crime against humanity!
Where I live they're allowing kids 12 and older to get the jab.... All I can do is hope their parents aren't that stupid. I live in a extremely red area so fingers crossed for the kids
I have a science background and several degrees but I can't tell in this example the diff between "ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine" (RRR)
and
"difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine" (ARR)
I know the diff btw a ratio (division) and a difference (subtraction) but can't seem to make sense of this for some reason...input welcome
Saw that. What does the phrase "participants who could benefit from the vaccine" mean? How is that group even defined? There is an implicit ASSUMPTION in there that smoeone could benefit from the vaccine. What if that's completely erroneous?
It's basically vaccinated people divided by the size of the study group, where the other is vaccinated people divided by the entire population... That might not be 100% accurate, but it's essentially a study group vs the total population, and the study group quantity is determined by the manufacturer running the test...
What is the difference between division and subtraction?
You know, I never thought of it that way.
You're right; there isn't any!
These considerations on efficacy and effectiveness are based on studies measuring prevention of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection; they were not designed to conclude on prevention of hospitalisation, severe disease, or death, or on prevention of infection and transmission potential. Assessing the suitability of vaccines must consider all indicators, and involve safety, deployability, availability, and costs.
Basically we only wanted to look at the number of reduced sniffles cases, not how many hospitalizations or deaths this is causing...
So they can still report severe cases and deaths, while at the same time reporting how well the vaccines work....
So let me get this straight... the vax pretty much is worthless BUT there’s a major push to make you get one. Peer pressure at it finest. Outcast of society...so what is really going on here? Could this shot actually be the bio weapon? Just a money making scam?
What makes you so confident in the sterilization piece? I’ve read this a number of times but find it hard to believe people at these companies wouldn’t speak out.
Sauce?
Be nice to compare these numbers to other known vaccines to show how pathetic these are.
Thanks! Ooh. The Lancet. That's gonna burn.
In the article there is a whole paragraph which could be distilled into "We can't draw any kind of reliable conclusion because everyone is doing every vaccine study differently." Only Israel with its big Pfizer push has enough consistency, and the conclusion there is that it takes 1.8 people being vaccinated to prevent one more case of infection.
Better reading, thanks. All statements with "might," "could," and "perhaps" belong on The Ancient Aliens show. And aside, why did Israel go so big on Pfizer?
And of course, "cases" is meaningless. Additionally, as we saw, "diagnoses" was pretty much meaningless. So we have a huge steaming pile of lies, based on lies, correlated with lies, reported as truth that is lies, stemming from the father of all lies. How 'bout them apples?
I was thinking compared to the measles vaccine or some trusted and established vaccine that everyone could relate to.
Makes sense that there's no consistency with these people. It's an absolute jumble.
Speaking of the MMR vaccine, this is what a tangled web can result. A great discussion of legal maneuvers that might apply in other situations. Still in litigation. https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/merck-mumps-motions-whistleblowers-the-actual-story/
I have been working on crunching VAERs data for covid stuff vs all other vaccines since 1990... The gene therapy shots are far, far worse than anything in the last 30 years.
At least the measles and chicken pox vaccines are effacious. Kids aren't getting chicken pox anymore. Old people are getting shingles instead. But they have a vax for that now.
I know the Covid shots are many times more letal. I'm wondering how many times less effective they are too.
Lmfao. Yet we’re the “idiots”
It’s a religion built on lies. They are in too deep now. Their entire world view is an artificial one, it’s not just the vaccine. It’s all of the lies.
If they admit to themselves the vaccine is not effective and possibly even dangerous, they must also reckon with voter fraud and human trafficking. The same authorities that tell them they are the majority, that there was no fraud, that there is no pedophile problem, are telling them that the vax is the key.
They still live in an Obama fact check world in which they are the enlightened elite, and anyone else are dumb redneck morons. They have internalized this so much that they would rather die than admit they have been tricked.
It’s much much easier to fool a lefty, than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
And this my friends is spot on! Living in a lefty liberal cesspool I can confirm this 100%. The vax theories would totally shatter their worldview. Who knows, could be the thing Q said will bring the population to the “precipice”.
It’s maddening. I work with people who are die hard democrats, and some of them are so close to figuring it out. They aren’t all morons. One guy can see the logic of the points I make, but he just can’t overcome the hump. He did avoid the vaccine, but that’s because he doesn’t trust bill gates.
They won’t believe anything that isn’t approved by authority figures they approve of. That’s the problem. Even when critical thinking makes some shit obvious, they won’t believe it until they are ALLOWED to believe it.
The only thing that will get these people to believe are arrests. That’s it.
BTW, great find! I'm saving this for future use. Thanks!
They may as well be zero effective with those numbers. Stupid is as stupid does.
The jabs are only meant to mutate the Wuhan bioweapon.
If they want to die...Just let them. Retards.
Thank you.
It’s insane, even with several lines of reasoning on why to not take the vax, or wait. People still take it, out of fear and group think.
You can slap them with all the data in the world, but their brain will cease to function.
Well... repetition is key! And also how we communicate these truths, memes are powerful! Comedy is powerful!
Thanks for sharing, I feel smarter than I was when I woke up. . I consider myself pretty knowledge about vaccines but this is new to me.
When you consider that these experimental drugs are claimed to be "effective" ONLY at reducing symptoms, and NOT at stopping someone from getting it or giving it, the numbers are even more pathetic.
It only matters that the useful idiots think they work so they can live life like normal human beings and quit being control freaks... just say "sure i got it" and be on with your day
What is the source on this?
NVM, found your other comment with the link, OP. Thank you for providing it!
Archive: https://archive.is/5JZlX
Thanks. This is interesting ..... Like comparing interest rates and inflation rates to measure your real return.
or Capital Project Risk
Country Risk, Political Risk, Economic risk, Counterparty Risk,
Some you can control/affect, others you cannot.
Is this info banned everywhere but here yet?
Hence the Powerful «China, where it all started, recovered without any vaccination... Why? Because it was already communist! »
I'm thinking it is likely that once you get the experimental genetic modification it will become essential to update frequently just to stay alive. A captive consumer.
They're talking about it over on patriots here:
https://patriots.win/p/12igvj1g1g/the-lancet-covid19-vaccination-r/c/
Dr. Janci Lindsay Sounds the Alarm: “Halt the Vaccine IMMEDIATELY” (AUDIO) By Cristina Laila Published May 21, 2021 at 4:30pm
https://patriots.win/p/12igmG0erx/dr-janci-lindsay-sounds-the-alar/c/
Think you might be off by a couple decimal places. .84% is .0084. I think you mean 84% for Pfizer. Same for the rest I suspect.
I re-read the article and looked at the appendix which detailed the info better and I stand corrected. It listed it as .0084 which indeed is .84%.
That being said, while I admit I didn't fully understand the article, not sure how useful the ARR number is.
Please don't cite studies if you literally haven't have the faintest idea what you are talking about and somehow fail to read the part that you are citing. I find myself saying this alot but shut the fuck up about "having done the research" if you can't research yourself out of a knee deep hole, haven't seen any meaningful developments of your understanding of statistics since you were 14, and haven't ever in any significant way needed to dissect an academic paper in an academic context, ie, something you don't really give a shit about but have to interpret as accurately as possible to prevent getting failed for your course.
You aren't referring to the "real efficacy rate", dipshit, and if you read what you posted or literally just googled the acronyms. ARR is practically never used for vaccine effectiveness because its a piss-poor metric for vaccine effectiveness, and should never be employed outside the consideration of chronic conditions, if even.
This is in no small part because it obscures the baseline risk (something known in a chronic condition where both the control and test group have a 100% chance to have the condition). Which is entirely fucking contextual. So, lets assume, for the sake of argument that this study was taken over a one month period. You have 1000 people in the control group, and 1000 people in the test group, all of them testing negative for covid prior to the test starting, else it wouldn't really make much of a difference. Assuming moderate virulance and daily case increase, and again, for the sake of argument, That 970 from both groups just straight up don't get the virus. This means you have a baseline risk of 3%.
Once you actually have this group, you have to isolate those who aren't actually undergoing any Absolute Risks, this being any meaningfully harmful health condition. No, losing your smell, doesn't count. This cuts the number down to 2%.
You then, for these 2% that undergo meaningful health conditions from catching covid, see 90% of the remaining patients or 1.8% of the total populace now not get sick. As such, the number of absolute risk events has gone done by 1.8%. The actual difference? 2 people sick instead of 18 people sick.
Now, why is this a dumb number? Again, context. you could take the exact same fucking study at the exact same region 2 months later, and end up with an ARR of .3% or one of 42% depending on what the baseline risk that month is And looking at the wildly divergent ARR's relative to the RRR's, it is safe to assume that all these studies were taken at different regions of infection density and different times of infection growth rate. ARR has practically no indicative properties to speak off outside a few edge cases
Again, dipshit;
ARR can help contextualize RRR in the right situations. If we can assume the ARR is somewhat consistent over either time or region, which in this case (And for that matter, most viral phenomena), is absolutely not the case. The ARR of a 90% effective cure for a viral phenoma can swing from .1% to 40% in the span of a month if we are speaking about something with a ridiculous level of infectiousness, and it can vary again when you look into the next town. It is 100% contextual and in absence of said context, its junk data.
To elaborate on your example:
For every number of road crossings, there will be a small percentage people getting run over. the RRR in this case is most likely around 100% and thus the ARR will be the same as the AR% because we can assume that people who don't cross the road have a nil chance of getting run over.
Your chances of getting ran over IF you cross the street however will fluctuate wildly. If you were to cross the freeway, your chances will most likely grow by an order of several magnitudes (Extreme example). The RRR will remain the same, but context was far more dangerous, therefor the ARR grows. Yet this does not affect the efficacy of the obvious way to avoid getting ran over; not running across the freeway. Every street will also most likely have a slightly different ARR, and every season will also quite likely have a wholly different ARR.
All of this is wholly inconsequential to the efficacy of not crossing at all. It is consistent across all scenarios without fail.
Now, again, this is where "don't research if you don't understand how to research" comes back in, and that is how it factors into human risk assessment, which is what every article you could counter me with will invariable talk about and not about statistical merit. Because you see, due to the incident rate being variable across place and time, the context will inform the advisability of deciding not to cross or altering the way you cross; though if you are doughbrained you might make the conclusion that "in order to not get ran over, you shouldn't cross the road", and therefor refuse to cross a nigh-unused road on a summer morning. Now, naturally nobody will fall for this argument as we all have a pretty good understanding of which roads are dumb to cross, but if put in the context of a patient with a chronic condition it makes more sense (In case you missed it, the article that you quoted wasn't a statistical manual, but a communication manual); for example, when advising on 2 different, mutually exclusive treatments with differing efficacy for the same condition, it would be prudent to talk about the relative and absolute benefits of the treatment and the absolute risk they both have compared to non-usage, while only mentioning the relative risks they have relative to eachother.
And again, to reiterate; without knowing exactly the time, place and population characteristics of every single fucking ARR cited here in order to first relativize them towards eachother (In case the lack of rhyme and reason between the RRR's and the ARR's didn't tip you off; they were most likely tested in different regions and at different points in time), the ARR is useless. And if we had it, it still wouldn't tell us about the efficacy of the vaccine; it can, at best, be used in conjunction with the RRR to weigh its value so people can relativize the possible risk of a jab vs the possible benefits. But again, you'd need a recent, regional ARR to actually have it be of use. on its own, it could be used to estimate the effect the vaccine might have on the spread of the virus or future logistical needs such as hospitalizations and medical supplies. If the same test was to be done on that one cruise ship in the start of the pandemic that reached almost full saturation, the ARR would most likely end up at around 80%. Do it in eastern Siberia, and we are looking at about .01% if that. **
....Ah for the love of....
Listen, unless you can provide me the research papers of these trails that state otherwise, we can freely assume that every single fucking AR event in the study is "the development of any singular meaningfully disruptive health effect due to Covid-19 infection", with a cap of 1 AR per person. In other words, every notable infection is counted regardless of its severity unless its asymptomatic.
RRR is the efficacy rate of the treatment itself. ARR is the incidence reduction rate across the entire population, in other words, not the efficacy rate of the treatment itself but the efficacy rate of what a population wide rollout would look like.
This means that 95% is 95% is 95%. Really no other way to state it. If you, as a person, take the vaccine, your chance of suffering from a meaningfully disruptive health effect in the event you are exposed to COVID is 1/20th of what it used to be. Yes, your chances of actually getting exposed to it are highly variable and by factoring in this chance you can get an overview of what the efficacy of the vaccine could be at slowing down the spread.
And that wasn't what I stated. What I stated was "if you don't know the context of the control pool you cannot ascertain how meaningful the ARR is". Certainly there are analysis where ARR relates to the health of the control group but this only factors in whenever we are looking at specific health complications of a condition rather than the appearance of the condition to begin with. You'd have a point if this ARR analysis was looking at treatment options for active covid cases rather than preventative measures, but it doesn't, so you don't. Which means that in this case, ARR only and strictly refers to the risk of infectivity in your region at that specific time, which means it will vary wildly.
That being said, ARR in this way does actually inform the default vaccine package in most nations. For example, western countries typically don't have a yellow fever vaccine, because our the ARR on a population wide rollout is so phenomenally small as to not warranting even mentioning; we are talking like a one in a million shift, despite the yellow fever vaccine being one of the most reliable in the world. In third world nations within the tropical regions where the mosquitos that have the disease live, however, we are most likely looking at a .1 ARR (which, for the record, is still considerably lower than what you've stated here, though yellow fever is of course a lot more dangerous than covid)
A 1% better chance of “not” getting Covid... totally worth it...?
Nah
That’s the same as lottery odds and I’m no crazy gambler of my life They love to twist their math. It’s all about which numbers you tell them. Never trust the numbers at face value.