Not true.
The scientific basis for "it protects others" is not established with testing
Pfizer WAS pushing the idea that the "vaccine" would prevent TRANSMISSION. That was one of the big reasons for the push: Keep your family safe.
They did not study transmission at all, that is true, but they DID push it AS IF it had been studied.
Of course Pfizer did not test the concept of herd immunity in their initial safety and efficacy tests.
Herd immunity is not the same thing as transmission, necessarily. They did not test "herd immunity," true, but they DID SAY that it would prevent transmission, and that was NOT ever tested. Even to today, it has never been tested.
initial phase 3 clinical trials
It was not a REAL Phase 3 trial, because there was never a REAL Phase 1 or Phase 2. They lumped all of them together, due to "Warp Speed."
They tested safety and efficacy which is what the regulators wanted to know.
NO ... THEY DID NOT.
They NEVER tested safety.
They NEVER tested efficacy.
They ran a 100% fraudulent experiment.
They had participants self-describe any SYMPTOM of illness, such as headache, and for those who self-described, they gave a bogus PCR "test."
And they didn't even do that for all. They STOPPED giving even the bogus PCR "test" to the vaccinated group, likely due to results they did not want to see.
You take the efficacy from the tests and use a statistical method to calculate rates of transmission.
This is FRAUD. It is a surrogate of the real thing, and NOT the real thing.
There was NO efficacy results from the trial because the entire trial was based on two fraudulent concepts: (1) Self-described "symptoms of illness" and (2) PCR test that is NOT a diagnostic tool. They also stopping the PCR testing of the vaccinated but NOT the placebo group (problem #3).
Then after 3 months, they gave the jab to the placebo group AS WELL, thereby completely destroying any control group (problem #4). Yet 6 months later, they made claims about that control group.
The entire thing was a sham.
The higher the transmissibility of the virus
Tramissibility of THIS "virus" has NEVER been demonstrated clinically.
NEVER.
Therefore, ANY model based on ZERO real data is ... IRRELEVANT.
Again though, no one actually does a clinical trial to test herd immunity.
In THIS trial (Pfizer), they never tested for transmissibility, efficacy, OR safety.
What happened in the EU was that sound, established science was co-opted by corrupt, authoritarian politicians to attempt a massive power grab in hopes of establishing police state authorities for themselves.
There was NO "sound, established science" here. NONE.
The power grab was real, but it was based on fake, non-science.
The fault for that isn't Pfizer's.
Pfizer is most certainly at fault for FRAUD from the beginning.
Last thought: Is the science itself correct? Does the statistical model behind herd immunity work? Yes, and in hundreds of infectious diseases ...
No, the science is fraudulent.
It is ASSUMED that "infectious diseases" operate a certain way ... WITH ZERO RESEARCH TO PROVE IT ... and then models are created to arrive at conclusions. But those conclusions are not valid -- because the assumptions they are based on are not valid (they are just made-up speculation, and nothing more).
If you're vaccinated, you can't get the disease, so you can't spread the disease.
False. This has NEVER been proven CLINICALLY for ANY viral disease (possible for others, be we are talking about a supposedly viral disease here).
With the COVID vaccines, that assumption is false.
Correct.
Even with the vaccinations, you can get the disease and you can shed virus.
Not correct. The vaccines DO NOT WORK and CANNOT POSSIBLY work in the real world. FULL STOP.
There is NO shedding of a virus. FULL STOP.
It simply does NOT happen and has NEVER been PROVEN ... CLINICALLY.
NEVER.
Further, with COVID, we never established a threshold that accounts for natural immunity from exposure to the disease itself
That is because there is NO laboratory ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD ... that has a sample of SARS-CoV-2 virus. NOT ONE LAB.
Therefore, it COULD NOT be tested, and never was.
We took a good model, plugged garbage into it and got garbage out.
No, the model itself is garbage.
Again, it was the politicians who abused the science ...
No, it was the scientists who committed FRAUD, and the politicians swooped in to push tyranny, which was based on that fraud.
They do this with climate models all the time too: plug in garbage numbers, getting garbage results.
Actually, that is a good analogy. With so-called "climate models," they use a pre-determined set of ASSUMPTIONS, and then when they plug in numbers, they get results they want. Never mind that their prediction results NEVER come true. That is because their ASSUMPTIONS within their computer program are NOT VALID.
They use basically two variables (with many variations from there): (1) The direct effect, and the (2) feedback effect. It is the feedback effect that is ... ENTIRELY MADE UP WITH ZERO SCIENCE. Just a GUESS and ASSUMPTION that it somehow "must be valid." It is not, and it is why none of those models work.
Same is true for virology. They make ASSUMPTIONS and then base everything off of those assumptions. But the assumptions are NOT VALID, so none of their supposed results or models, etc. are valid, either.
I don't have time for debate of all the points here. So, I will leave you and others reading this with previous GAW posts where these ideas were discussed many months ago:
Pfizer's fraudulent study --
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJPv3MkS/
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jcvZXRBO/more-info-on-the-actual-pfizer-v/c/
Vaccines do not work (and never will) --
https://greatawakening.win/p/12kFGJhbXD/
The Covid "virus" is nothing but a scam and incompetence by "virologists" who do not understand what they are really looking at --
Not true.
The scientific basis for "it protects others" is not established with testing
Pfizer WAS pushing the idea that the "vaccine" would prevent TRANSMISSION. That was one of the big reasons for the push: Keep your family safe.
They did not study transmission at all, that is true, but they DID push it AS IF it had been studied.
Of course Pfizer did not test the concept of herd immunity in their initial safety and efficacy tests.
Herd immunity is not the same thing as transmission, necessarily. They did not test "herd immunity," true, but they DID SAY that it would prevent transmission, and that was NOT ever tested. Even to today, it has never been tested.
initial phase 3 clinical trials
It was not a REAL Phase 3 trial, because there was never a REAL Phase 1 or Phase 2. They lumped all of them together, due to "Warp Speed."
They tested safety and efficacy which is what the regulators wanted to know.
NO ... THEY DID NOT.
They NEVER tested safety.
They NEVER tested efficacy.
They ran a 100% fraudulent experiment.
They had participants self-describe any SYMPTOM of illness, such as headache, and for those who self-described, they gave a bogus PCR "test."
And they didn't even do that for all. They STOPPED giving even the bogus PCR "test" to the vaccinated group, likely due to results they did not want to see.
You take the efficacy from the tests and use a statistical method to calculate rates of transmission.
This is FRAUD. It is a surrogate of the real thing, and NOT the real thing.
There was NO efficacy results from the trial because the entire trial was based on two fraudulent concepts: (1) Self-described "symptoms of illness" and (2) PCR test that is NOT a diagnostic tool. They also stopping the PCR testing of the vaccinated but NOT the placebo group (problem #3).
Then after 3 months, they gave the jab to the placebo group AS WELL, thereby completely destroying any control group (problem #4). Yet 6 months later, they made claims about that control group.
The entire thing was a sham.
The higher the transmissibility of the virus
Tramissibility of THIS "virus" has NEVER been demonstrated clinically.
NEVER.
Therefore, ANY model based on ZERO real data is ... IRRELEVANT.
Again though, no one actually does a clinical trial to test herd immunity.
In THIS trial (Pfizer), they never tested for transmissibility, efficacy, OR safety.
What happened in the EU was that sound, established science was co-opted by corrupt, authoritarian politicians to attempt a massive power grab in hopes of establishing police state authorities for themselves.
There was NO "sound, established science" here. NONE.
The power grab was real, but it was based on fake, non-science.
The fault for that isn't Pfizer's.
Pfizer is most certainly at fault for FRAUD from the beginning.
Last thought: Is the science itself correct? Does the statistical model behind herd immunity work? Yes, and in hundreds of infectious diseases ...
No, the science is fraudulent.
It is ASSUMED that "infectious diseases" operate a certain way ... WITH ZERO RESEARCH TO PROVE IT ... and then models are created to arrive at conclusions. But those conclusions are not valid.
If you're vaccinated, you can't get the disease, so you can't spread the disease.
False. This has NEVER been proven CLINICALLY for ANY viral disease (possible for others, be we are talking about a supposedly viral disease here).
With the COVID vaccines, that assumption is false.
Correct.
Even with the vaccinations, you can get the disease and you can shed virus.
Not correct. The vaccines DO NOT WORK and CANNOT POSSIBLY work in the real world. FULL STOP.
There is NO shedding of a virus. FULL STOP.
It simply does NOT happen and has NEVER been PROVEN ... CLINICALLY.
NEVER.
Further, with COVID, we never established a threshold that accounts for natural immunity from exposure to the disease itself
That is because there is NO laboratory ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD ... that has a sample of SARS-CoV-2 virus. NOT ONE LAB.
Therefore, it COULD NOT be tested, and never was.
We took a good model, plugged garbage into it and got garbage out.
No, the model itself is garbage.
Again, it was the politicians who abused the science ...
No, it was the scientists who committed FRAUD, and the politicians swooped in to push tyranny, which was based on that fraud.
They do this with climate models all the time too: plug in garbage numbers, getting garbage results.
Actually, that is a good analogy. With so-called "climate models," they use a pre-determined set of ASSUMPTIONS, and then when they plug in numbers, they get results they want. Never mind that their prediction results NEVER come true. That is because their ASSUMPTIONS within their computer program are NOT VALID.
They use basically two variables (with many variations from there): (1) The direct effect, and the (2) feedback effect. It is the feedback effect that is ... ENTIRELY MADE UP WITH ZERO SCIENCE. Just a GUESS and ASSUMPTION that it somehow "must be valid." It is not, and it is why none of those models work.
Same is true for virology. They make ASSUMPTIONS and then base everything off of those assumptions. But the assumptions are NOT VALID, so none of their supposed results or models, etc. are valid, either.
I don't have time for debate of all the points here. So, I will leave you and others reading this with previous GAW posts where these ideas were discussed many months ago:
Pfizer's fraudulent study --
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJPv3MkS/
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jcvZXRBO/more-info-on-the-actual-pfizer-v/c/
Vaccines do not work (and never will) --
https://greatawakening.win/p/12kFGJhbXD/
The Covid "virus" is nothing but a scam and incompetence by "virologists" who do not understand what they are really looking at --
Not true.
The scientific basis for "it protects others" is not established with testing
Pfizer WAS pushing the idea that the "vaccine" would prevent TRANSMISSION. That was one of the big reasons for the push: Keep your family safe.
They did not study transmission at all, that is true, but they DID push it AS IF it had been studied.
Of course Pfizer did not test the concept of herd immunity in their initial safety and efficacy tests.
Herd immunity is not the same thing as transmission, necessarily. They did not test "herd immunity," true, but they DID SAY that it would prevent transmission, and that was NOT ever tested. Even to today, it has never been tested.
initial phase 3 clinical trials
It was not a REAL Phase 3 trial, because there was never a REAL Phase 1 or Phase 2. They lumped all of them together, due to "Warp Speed."
They tested safety and efficacy which is what the regulators wanted to know.
NO ... THEY DID NOT.
They NEVER tested safety.
They NEVER tested efficacy.
They ran a 100% fraudulent experiment.
They had participants self-describe any SYMPTOM of illness, such as headache, and for those who self-described, they gave a bogus PCR "test."
And they didn't even do that for all. They STOPPED giving even the bogus PCR "test" to the vaccinated group, likely due to results they did not want to see.
You take the efficacy from the tests and use a statistical method to calculate rates of transmission.
This is FRAUD. It is a surrogate of the real thing, and NOT the real thing.
There was NO efficacy results from the trial because the entire trial was based on two fraudulent concepts: (1) Self-described "symptoms of illness" and (2) PCR test that is NOT a diagnostic tool. They also stopping the PCR testing of the vaccinated but NOT the placebo group (problem #3).
Then after 3 months, they gave the jab to the placebo group AS WELL, thereby completely destroying any control group (problem #4). Yet 6 months later, they made claims about that control group.
The entire thing was a sham.
The higher the transmissibility of the virus
Tramissibility of THIS "virus" has NEVER been demonstrated clinically.
NEVER.
Therefore, ANY models based on NO data is ... IRRELEVANT.
Again though, no one actually does a clinical trial to test herd immunity.
In THIS trial (Pfizer), they never tested for transmissibility, efficacy, OR safety.
What happened in the EU was that sound, established science was co-opted by corrupt, authoritarian politicians to attempt a massive power grab in hopes of establishing police state authorities for themselves.
There was NO "sound, established science" here. NONE.
The power grab was real, but it was based on fake, non-science.
The fault for that isn't Pfizer's.
Pfizer is most certainly at fault for FRAUD from the beginning.
Last thought: Is the science itself correct? Does the statistical model behind herd immunity work? Yes, and in hundreds of infectious diseases ...
No, the science is fraudulent.
It is ASSUMED that "infectious diseases" operate a certain way ... WITH ZERO RESEARCH TO PROVE IT ... and then models are created to arrive at conclusions. But those conclusions are not valid.
If you're vaccinated, you can't get the disease, so you can't spread the disease.
False. This has NEVER been proven CLINICALLY for ANY viral disease (possible for others, be we are talking about a supposedly viral disease here).
With the COVID vaccines, that assumption is false.
Correct.
Even with the vaccinations, you can get the disease and you can shed virus.
Not correct. The vaccines DO NOT WORK and CANNOT POSSIBLY work in the real world. FULL STOP.
There is NO shedding of a virus. FULL STOP.
It simply does NOT happen and has NEVER been PROVEN ... CLINICALLY.
NEVER.
Further, with COVID, we never established a threshold that accounts for natural immunity from exposure to the disease itself
That is because there is NO laboratory ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD ... that has a sample of SARS-CoV-2 virus. NOT ONE LAB.
Therefore, it COULD NOT be tested, and never was.
We took a good model, plugged garbage into it and got garbage out.
No, the model itself is garbage.
Again, it was the politicians who abused the science ...
No, it was the scientists who committed FRAUD, and the politicians swooped in to push tyranny, which was based on that fraud.
They do this with climate models all the time too: plug in garbage numbers, getting garbage results.
Actually, that is a good analogy. With so-called "climate models," they use a pre-determined set of ASSUMPTIONS, and then when they plug in numbers, they get results they want. Never mind that their prediction results NEVER come true. That is because their ASSUMPTIONS within their computer program are NOT VALID.
They use basically two variables (with many variations from there): (1) The direct effect, and the (2) feedback effect. It is the feedback effect that is ... ENTIRELY MADE UP WITH ZERO SCIENCE. Just a GUESS and ASSUMPTION that it somehow "must be valid." It is not, and it is why none of those models work.
Same is true for virology. They make ASSUMPTIONS and then base everything off of those assumptions. But the assumptions are NOT VALID, so none of their supposed results or models, etc. are valid, either.
I don't have time for debate of all the points here. So, I will leave you and others reading this with previous GAW posts where these ideas were discussed many months ago:
Pfizer's fraudulent study --
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJPv3MkS/
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jcvZXRBO/more-info-on-the-actual-pfizer-v/c/
Vaccines do not work (and never will) --
https://greatawakening.win/p/12kFGJhbXD/
The Covid "virus" is nothing but a scam and incompetence by "virologists" who do not understand what they are really looking at --
Not true.
The scientific basis for "it protects others" is not established with testing
Pfizer WAS pushing the idea that the "vaccine" would prevent TRANSMISSION. That was one of the big reasons for the push: Keep your family safe.
They did not study transmission at all, but they DID push it as if it had been studied.
Of course Pfizer did not test the concept of herd immunity in their initial safety and efficacy tests.
Herd immunity is not the same thing as transmission, necessarily. They did not test "herd immunity," true, but they DID SAY that it would prevent transmission, and that was NOT ever tested. Even to today, it has never been tested.
initial phase 3 clinical trials
It was not a REAL Phase 3 trial, because there was never a REAL Phase 1 or Phase 2. They lumped all of them together, due to "Warp Speed."
They tested safety and efficacy which is what the regulators wanted to know.
NO ... THEY DID NOT.
They NEVER tested safety.
They NEVER tested efficacy.
They ran a 100% fraudulent experiment.
They had participants self-describe any SYMPTOM of illness, such as headache, and for those who self-described, they gave a bogus PCR "test."
And they didn't even do that for all. They STOPPED giving even the bogus PCR "test" to the vaccinated group, likely due to results they did not want to see.
You take the efficacy from the tests and use a statistical method to calculate rates of transmission.
This is FRAUD. It is a surrogate of the real thing, and NOT the real thing.
And there was NO efficacy results from the trial because the entire trial was based on two fraudulent concepts: (1) Self-described "symptoms of illness" and (2) PCR test that is NOT a diagnostic tool. They added in #3, which was stopping the PCR testing of the vaccinated but NOT the placebo group.
Then after 3 months, they gave the jab to the placebo group AS WELL, thereby completely destroying any control group, even though 6 months later they made claims about that control group.
The entire thing was a sham.
The higher the transmissibility of the virus
Tramissibility of THIS "virus" has NEVER been demonstrated clinically.
NEVER.
Therefore, ANY models based on NO data is ... IRRELEVANT.
Again though, no one actually does a clinical trial to test herd immunity.
In THIS trial (Pfizer), they never tested for transmissibility, efficacy, OR safety.
What happened in the EU was that sound, established science was co-opted by corrupt, authoritarian politicians to attempt a massive power grab in hopes of establishing police state authorities for themselves.
There was NO "sound, established science" here. NONE.
The power grab was real, but it was based on fake, non-science.
The fault for that isn't Pfizer's.
Pfizer is most certainly at fault for FRAUD from the beginning.
Last thought: Is the science itself correct? Does the statistical model behind herd immunity work? Yes, and in hundreds of infectious diseases ...
No, the science is fraudulent.
It is ASSUMED that "infectious diseases" operate a certain way ... WITH ZERO RESEARCH TO PROVE IT ... and then models are created to arrive at conclusions. But those conclusions are not valid.
If you're vaccinated, you can't get the disease, so you can't spread the disease.
False. This has NEVER been proven CLINICALLY for ANY viral disease (possible for others, be we are talking about a supposedly viral disease here).
With the COVID vaccines, that assumption is false.
Correct.
Even with the vaccinations, you can get the disease and you can shed virus.
Not correct. The vaccines DO NOT WORK and CANNOT POSSIBLY work in the real world. FULL STOP.
There is NO shedding of a virus. FULL STOP.
It simply does NOT happen and has NEVER been PROVEN ... CLINICALLY.
NEVER.
Further, with COVID, we never established a threshold that accounts for natural immunity from exposure to the disease itself
That is because there is NO laboratory ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD ... that has a sample of SARS-CoV-2 virus. NOT ONE LAB.
Therefore, it COULD NOT be tested, and never was.
We took a good model, plugged garbage into it and got garbage out.
No, the model itself is garbage.
Again, it was the politicians who abused the science ...
No, it was the scientists who committed FRAUD, and the politicians swooped in to push tyranny, which was based on that fraud.
They do this with climate models all the time too: plug in garbage numbers, getting garbage results.
Actually, that is a good analogy. With so-called "climate models," they use a pre-determined set of ASSUMPTIONS, and then when they plug in numbers, they get results they want. Never mind that their prediction results NEVER come true. That is because their ASSUMPTIONS within their computer program are NOT VALID.
They use basically two variables (with many variations from there): (1) The direct effect, and the (2) feedback effect. It is the feedback effect that is ... ENTIRELY MADE UP WITH ZERO SCIENCE. Just a GUESS and ASSUMPTION that it somehow "must be valid." It is not, and it is why none of those models work.
Same is true for virology. They make ASSUMPTIONS and then base everything off of those assumptions. But the assumptions are NOT VALID, so none of their supposed results or models, etc. are valid, either.
I don't have time for debate of all the points here. So, I will leave you and others reading this with previous GAW posts where these ideas were discussed many months ago:
Pfizer's fraudulent study --
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJPv3MkS/
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jcvZXRBO/more-info-on-the-actual-pfizer-v/c/
Vaccines do not work (and never will) --
https://greatawakening.win/p/12kFGJhbXD/
The Covid "virus" is nothing but a scam and incompetence by "virologists" who do not understand what they are really looking at --