"Infection" and "transmission" are not the same thing.

Be careful how you word things, because the idiots will try to use it against you.

They lied about effectiveness against infection ("95% effective" was a blatant lie), but never stated anything about transmission in their papers.

They DID claim it in all of their quasi-adverstisments. Note, they never DIRECTLY advertised the vaxx drug. Instead, they "sponsored" ads (and still are today) about getting a coof vaxx IN GENERAL (not specifically THEIR coof vaxx). They have been doing this to avoid the law that requires them to state ALL known adverse events. They seem to think that if they sponsor an ad about taking a coof vaxx in general, and not mention THEIR specific coof vaxx, that they are exempt from the law requiring full disclosure. In THOSE ads, they DO claim it will reduce transmission.

Plus, all their co-conpsirators in media and government have been claiming reduced transmission. So, there is a clear intent to promote the non-transmission lie, but the initial research papers did not make that claim. Just to be clear.

"Infection" and "transmission" are not the same thing.

Be careful how you word things, because the idiots will try to use it against you.