True... idiocy upon idiocy. What we don't know, though, is how sick (with whatever) any of these people were such that they felt the need to get tested.
I have the same question. It would be interesting to see the incidence of ALL diseases based on vaccine status. I suspect the jabbed are experiencing antibody-dependent enhancement(ADE) and are increasingly susceptible to all diseases. I think the DMED report leaked a couple months back shows this.
Link: https://greatawakening.win/p/141YDyNIEb/dmed-report/c/
That’s what I thought, but Walgreens breaks out the tests given by vax status as well and 27% were unvaxxed so I suspect the unvaxxed are over-represented in this data.
Besides, this is “rates of positivity” so it’s automatically adjusted for differing numbers of people per cohort.
You might argue that vaxxed are more likely to get tested when feeling sick, but then you have to wonder why did 90% of the unvaxxed go get tested?
I think this data is pretty clear: the vaxxed are getting sick more readily than the unvaxxed. This is ADE or negative efficacy (same thing).
Yes, you understand that correctly; however, it is a limited window, representing only Walgreen customers and not the general population. Still, though, it's quite an amazing picture of that limited data subset.
If I understand it correctly, the unvaccinated group has the lowest positivity rate.
If the vaccine was just saline, we'd expect all the bars to be the same height, right?
So it appears from this that the vaccine makes you more likely to test positive?
Or more likely to take a faulty test.
Showing its a mental illness...
True... idiocy upon idiocy. What we don't know, though, is how sick (with whatever) any of these people were such that they felt the need to get tested.
I have the same question. It would be interesting to see the incidence of ALL diseases based on vaccine status. I suspect the jabbed are experiencing antibody-dependent enhancement(ADE) and are increasingly susceptible to all diseases. I think the DMED report leaked a couple months back shows this. Link: https://greatawakening.win/p/141YDyNIEb/dmed-report/c/
Great insight. And thanks for the link!
Now check the timeline for the increases in cases compared to when the FDA approved a fourth booster for the old and chronically ill.
You’ll see it started about two weeks after the announcement.
They are prolonging this shit with the boosters.
That’s what I thought, but Walgreens breaks out the tests given by vax status as well and 27% were unvaxxed so I suspect the unvaxxed are over-represented in this data.
Besides, this is “rates of positivity” so it’s automatically adjusted for differing numbers of people per cohort.
You might argue that vaxxed are more likely to get tested when feeling sick, but then you have to wonder why did 90% of the unvaxxed go get tested?
I think this data is pretty clear: the vaxxed are getting sick more readily than the unvaxxed. This is ADE or negative efficacy (same thing).
Perhaps the vaccine was designed to also prolong the pandemic by having people who took it test positive?
Now we're conspiracying! Good thought.
They are producing the spike proteins of the virus
Yes, you understand that correctly; however, it is a limited window, representing only Walgreen customers and not the general population. Still, though, it's quite an amazing picture of that limited data subset.
If DC politicians and Hollywood types hadn't been isolated from this list, it would've been so much worse.
This graphic also shows that over time, the positive results become more likely for those with more jabs.
3 doses more than 5 months ago being the worst at 21.6%.
Troubling is that we are still in the early days. What will this graphic look like in a year or 5 years?
there'd probably be some minor discrepancy, nothing's ever 1:1, but they'd all be about level, yes...