Yep, and it wouldn't surprise me if they find some loophole to bypass traditional testing protocols and aim for full approval before the end of this year.
Not exactly. The manufacturers in their EUA documentation made claims of effectiveness, which is a claim about bestowing immunity. Pfizer claimed 95% effectiveness, but that was the relative risk reduction (RRR), which only compares the sick in the experimental and control groups. And this is the number they used for marketing, and it certainly was implied that this large number would keep you from getting infected.
The quiet part however, was the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which compares the entirety of the groups, at only 0.84%. This essentially said, to anyone who was listening, that the vaxx does not bestow any immunity at all.
I misread your original post. However, I'm pretty sure a lot of people got the jab with the idea that it would prevent them from getting it. After all, that's what traditional vaccines usually do.
Vaccine licensing is a lengthy process that can take 10 years or longer. The FDA requires that vaccines undergo three phases of clinical trials with human subjects before they can be licensed for use in the general public.
They won't stop until we stop them.
So then they will have to disclose side effects and ingredients, right?
Loophole incoming
If/when that happens, mandating will go into full swing, which is probably the impetus for this...because it sure isn't efficacy and safety.
Yep, and it wouldn't surprise me if they find some loophole to bypass traditional testing protocols and aim for full approval before the end of this year.
OB-GYN associations are recommending pregnant women be vaccinated? Clown world indeed.
Also that article has a blurb where it states that the vaxx reduces the chance of catching covid which is 100% BS.
These vaxxes are designed to reduce supposed symptoms not chance of catching covid.
The propaganda is in full swing.
If they reduce symptoms, then the vaxxed are “asymptomatic spreaders”
Not to mention the fact that they don't seem very effective at reducing the chance of catching covid.
They explicitly said from the start that these vaxxes do not prevent you from catching covid. They are not traditional vaxxes.
And it is also clear now that they do not reduce symptoms either for the vaxxed.
Not exactly. The manufacturers in their EUA documentation made claims of effectiveness, which is a claim about bestowing immunity. Pfizer claimed 95% effectiveness, but that was the relative risk reduction (RRR), which only compares the sick in the experimental and control groups. And this is the number they used for marketing, and it certainly was implied that this large number would keep you from getting infected.
The quiet part however, was the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which compares the entirety of the groups, at only 0.84%. This essentially said, to anyone who was listening, that the vaxx does not bestow any immunity at all.
I misread your original post. However, I'm pretty sure a lot of people got the jab with the idea that it would prevent them from getting it. After all, that's what traditional vaccines usually do.
No problem.
Well if that happens, get ready for the fight at our front doors.
So much for "Science."
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/history/index.html