Lancet study showing the highest efficacy of any C19 vaccine being 1.3%
(www.thelancet.com)
Comments (31)
sorted by:
Any and all stats related to either C19 or the vaccine are bullshit.
This was by the admission of the CDC itself when it recalled the PCR test because it was bullshit.
So, all numbers derived from that bullshit are bullshit. All stats derived from bullshit numbers are bullshit.
There is no actual evidence that this "vaccine" ever had any efficacy re: preventing or lessening C19. Period.
The only evidence existing is "because we said so". Because we said so from the very same people who have lied to us at every step of this event, starting with the bullshit about it being a disease from a bat at a wet market in China.
Every step. No exceptions. Every. Damn. Step. Has been lies and bullshit.
Agree 100%. Would this include the Antibody tests, too?
Is there an actual virus? Or did the depraved degenerates cause some form of spike protein producer to be released for human consumption to make it appear as if a virus.
Remember, the people that claimed it was a virus also claimed it was caused by a species jump from bats to humans in a wet market in Wuhan. The source was a lie. MIght the cause be too?
And remember when early on the hospitals in NYNY were so slammed and hammered by the massive wave of infecteds that a USN hospital ship and some volunteer medical outfits set up overflow medical centers (ship at dock and tents in the park) that never saw much of any patients. But the hospitals were soo overwhelmed. Where were the patients?
And the same hospitals had to have their own employees go out on the street next to the hospital and line up acting like patients trying to get in when it was noticed by folks with cell phone cameras that there was zero traffic, in or out, at these hospitals.
Etc.
So on.
So forth.
And ad nauseum.
Every. Single. Damn. Thing. Out of their mouths or published by them has been outted as a lie. Without exception.
From this we can safely surmise that the entire event is orchestrated and as of now, the only infection spreader is the jab.
Yup. I agree with all of that - including the Infection Injection as the primary source for the Chyna Virus.
My question is more pointed at the nature of the Antibody test. My thinking is, if there is no isolation, and the PCR tests can't identify it, then how can we have a test to identify the "antibody" for it?? Are the Antibody tests simply detecting an antibody for a flu variant, and we're just "calling" it the covid antibody?
Other than being completely brainwashed, why does my wife's Dr hands down affirm she had it "because she took an antibody" test?
I had to just shake my head at him and say we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Well the CDCs own literature on the antibody tests say that a positive result for antibodies could mean antibodies for any coronavirus including the common cold
That’s an excellent point. I’ll look up the link on the CDC. I actually forgot they said this specifically about the antibody test. If I remember correctly they said this early on in this shit show? Man, can’t believe this slipped my memory. So much damn data (and lies) to keep track of! This little bit of data completes my arsenal of arguments. Ty for jogging my memory, fren.
I believe there is a virus but it is not the virus doing any damage. The damage is done by the spike proteins they did the GoF research on. The virus was just the initial means to spread the spikes. They are now spreading the spikes through the vax calling it different variants. The whole thing is utter bullshit.
Yes agreed, however sources of *legitimate data (or at least considered legitimate) are useful for people trying to avoid mandates or exclusion from education and similar scenarios, this is the intention here
This could be very useful to me. I need redpills from a very official sounding source for my daughter's headteacher.
You and me know about the Lancet though, after they put out the biased paper on HCQ safety and efficacy which influenced policy, then had to quietly withdraw it later. Scumbags!
OK this might help - Official UK Gov data showing 72% of UK covid deaths were Fully Vaxxed (Data from 1 Feb 2021 - 12 Sep 2021) Page 20
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf
This might help too:
https://greatawakening.win/p/13zNFadUcb/99-of-gibraltars-population-vaxx/c/
Thank you very much!
You're welcome
Data is for England, not the whole UK, right?
And 72% were either dose 1, dose 2 or unlinked.
100% - 72% = 28% unvaccinated.
Just to check and be sure that I've read correctly.
Yes data is for England only
72% were considered FULLY vaxxed (double dosed).
Total deaths 1,565 ≥14 days post dose 2
Hopefully this also might be of some help:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875889/
Thanks again fren!
you're welcome again :)
Everyone knows the answer:
Make Ivermectin available over the counter, in large quantities because it will sell out like toilet paper.
Shut down all the COVID bullshit.
The End.
Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 64 studies
https://ivmmeta.com/
Thanks for this.
You're welcome
After what amount of time? It’s hard to take anything seriously anymore. So are they effective initially and their efficacy drops over time or they’re just 1.3% effective from the beginning?
This was efficacy from the start, using ARR meaning the Absolute Risk Reduction where all other studies showing it to be effective, use RRR which is Relative Risk Reduction, so they quote the results that favor their narrative
Oh yeah. I forgot about that sorry. Dumb question
The initial efficacy they tried to quote was because they ratio'd a ratio. The most likely efficacy from the start was about 0.7%. A clever anon on here somewhere went through the mathematics involved, and how the big Pharma's managed to convince the sheep, whilst telling them to still wear a mask, social distance etc.
Thanks for the post, I will indeed save it.
An excellent study, showing the same technique Dr. Fleming demonstrated on the Alex Jones show. Although Fikkan and others here state that all numbers are bullshit, the study mentions this limitation. Nevertheless, using the statistics from all the studies and calculating an absolute risk reduction (ARR) is the honest way to interpret the results. And the ARR for Pfizer, for example, is only 0.49%, which is neglible. What Olliaro et al. (2021) are exposing is that the vaccines are basically useless.
LOL
1.3 is bullshit. The number is 0%. This death shot was not created with preventing anything in mind. In fact this death serum delivers exactly what their GoF virus does. Lies upon lies.
Yes agreed, however sources of *legitimate data (or at least considered legitimate) are useful for people trying to avoid mandates or exclusion from education and similar scenarios