This is absolutely false. And the fact that this is your response makes me seriously question your other work.
Let's suppose country A is all 90 year olds and country B is all 15 year olds. The ages of these populations are NOT comparable. How does this being a time series "iron this out"? And unless the demographics changed significantly? What does this even mean?
Man, I appreciate the effort you put into all of this, I really do, but what you have posted here is irresponsible and not a valid method for any kind of inference
It means that (unchanged) demographics become an ceteris paribus factor if u focus on the TREND (apart from the -absolute- 3% statement that actually can only be made on the grounds of comparable demographics like age, obesity for that matter). According to your example: country A can still have a way higher average age and therefore death rate, maybe 3 times, maybe 5 times the one of B, doesn't matter. BUT, of country B has a way higher vaccination rate and this death rate ratio between the two countries remains (roughly) the same (as well as the demographics), then this shows that the vaccination didn't have any significant effect on morbidity (assuming there wasn't any other death desaster affecting one more than the other).
As I don't see a stark spread evolving between the death rates of the two countries, I think this is some strong indicator of the uselessness of these failed clot shots! It definitely shows how untrue the fake-fest of studies statistics, calculations and propaganda is claiming that Israel's medical system would have gone apocalyptic if it wasn't for the shots!
Ok, so I can see the potential for validity to your argument here (and thanks for completing my example with countries A and B, only in retrospect did I realize that I had finished that argument in my head but not on paper), but not even considering the volume of exogenous factors here, I'm not sure that I trust myself (or anybody else) to eyeball the ratio between these two groups.
Though I do have to disagree with your last point in that I continue to not believe that the evidence presented here is strong enough to draw the conclusion of uselessness. Or really, any conclusions at all. To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying that any of these conclusions are necessarily wrong, only that the data and methods provided have been deeply unsatisfactory. Too much has been left out, and the author is obviously not interested in considering any information that would refute his claims. That alone is sufficient to reject these conclusions on the merits of the arguments, and lest we continue to spiral into the hell that is Scientism, it is from the arguments alone that we must limit ourselves when drawing our conclusions. Anything else is dishonest to ourselves and to others
Age stratifying this data is important. Is there a source of Palestine deaths from/with COVID? I would be very interested to have it, as I have age-stratified data from Israel
THANK U SO MUCH: I was waiting for this comparison for quite some time now that really represents the last death nail in the clot shots' coffin. They obviously make no significant difference whatsoever (and obviously didn't save Israel's health system from being overwhelmed during the following waves)!
Still would b interesting to see the full 4th wave for the complete picture: was/will there b some delayed spike in Palestine surpassing the one in Israel?
I appreciate the efforts that you have put into your reporting, but you have entirely missed the ball on this one, and I think that this article should be retracted.
1. Here, you note that Palestine's first way is 2 months after Israel and almost 70% bigger. 70% bigger? Israel looks to be about 55 deaths per million (dpm), whereas Palestine is about 75. That is less than a 50% increase
2. Here you claim that Palestine's second wave was only about a month or so later than Israel and the same size. Wtf do you mean the same size? Same size as what? Israel's second wave was around 80 dpm, compared with Palestine's 60. This is the same absolute difference between the first waves, and still about a 30% difference between smaller and larger. Calling these about the same size is wrong.
3. Also not "pretty much the same size". 40 to 50 dpm is a 20% increase, and if anything, the fact that Israel's dpm is smaller leads evidence to the opposite of the claim you're making. They had higher vaccination and in this case, the death rate was smaller.
4. This entire point doesn't even make sense. And in each previous case, Palestine saw massive increases in months *following* Israel. So to cut this chart off at Feb 04 and claim that Israel has this peak while Palestine does not is completely dishonest
5. I'm not sure where these numbers come from, as you provide no tables. On it's face, this point seems ridiculous.
Dude, I get it and I empathize with what you are trying to do. There is plenty of things out there clearly indicating that data is being manipulated and that what we are being told is not entirely representative of the truth. But what you have presented here as an alternative is junk science, and it's polluting one of the few spaces left where open conversation is allowed to happen. You have made up numbers (70% increase?) and failed to account for the most basic adjustment made when doing this type of analysis (demographic and age-adjsuted rates). People in the pro-vaccination camp would be able to cherry pick out what you have here and conclude that "anti-vaxxers" are engaging in disseminating misinformation. And in this particular case, they would be right.
"Israel looks to be about 55 deaths per million (dpm), whereas Palestine is about 75. That is less than a 50% increase" Um, dude, you're just looking at the peak rates for the respective waves. The relevant numbers to compare are not the peaks, but the total areas under the curves. Since that's what would be relevant, isn't it safe to assume that's what Joel was referring to, as opposed to the irrelevant numbers you've fixated on?
Sorry for looking at the portions of the plot that were enumerated? If he is talking about discrete events (wave), then it would seem to me that the relevant metrics for these events would also be discrete (peaks). If instead he was referring to cumulative deaths per million (total area under the curve), he would have plotted cumulative deaths.
So he either picked an entirely irrelevant plot for what he was discussing, or he picked the correct plot and happens to not be quite sure what he's talking about here. So no, dude, I don't think it's safe to assume that Joel was referring to something that he didn't include, and the "irrelevant numbers" that I am fixated on constitute almost the entirety of what was presented.
"Sorry for looking at the portions of the plot that were enumerated? If he is talking about discrete events (wave), then it would seem to me that the relevant metrics for these events would also be discrete (peaks)." No, that claim is completely gratuitous and obviously wrong.
80% of UK hospital deaths attributed to Covid are triple-vaccinated individuals. Of course the vax does not protect lives - it's a bio weapon designed to reduce world population.
Fortunately, the end is nigh for all of those behind, promoting & colluding with these Crimes Against Humanity.
"For a vaccine that is up to 95% effective in reducing mortality, I can’t work this out."
The vac pimps have NEVER claimed reduction in severity and death. That false 95% refers to the relative risk reduction of catching it. Their data did not and could support 95% RRR in spread since it is common knowledge that only a fraction of infection is symptomatic!
No! It was the other way round. The claim was never efficacy in reducing spread, only severity of illness and death. And I'm referring to the public health authorities, politicians and media. These are the ones making the duplicitous claims. So, yes, my point is entirely valid. Ceteris peribus, you should see a relative reduction of up to 95% for Israel in terms of death, or rather 5/8 given that Palestine is 1/3 as much vaccinated. Instead you get a relative increase of 3% since vaccination.
I’m not sure that is accurate either. I think it is a relative risk reduction of becoming seriously ill or hospitalized. Pfizer’s very own literature stated that they did not know if their shot would keep you from getting Covid.
Agreed. Transmission prevention was never an end point of Pfizer's study. The RRR was all about the disease - ie how badly the body is affected after infection, in terms of severity or death.
It was Fauci, Maddow and Walensky et al that (erroneously) suggested it prevented transmission ( as well as severe disease and death, which is / was correct for the most part).
Or Biden in July. “If you get the vaccine your not going to get Covid.”only the blind believed that at the time. By June I already knew several people who were fully vaccinated and had Covid, some pretty seriously.
I would not be surprised if Pfizer fooled Fauci et al, they are not the brightest bunch, as evidenced by PCR inventor dude's appraisal of Fauci's understanding of anything scientific.
I have seen many people tricked by the "prevents COVID-19" line from PFizer thinking they meant prevents infection / transmission. IT's a shame because they propagate that erroneous message and then we have to deal with people treating them as trusted sources, etc.
Thank you! No, I didn't have that one. Clearly I don't understand how they achieve their numbers. Straight calculation, 97.04% in the BNT162b2 group and 96.85% in the Placebo arm not infected, so a difference of 0.19% in favor of the vaccines. (neg / pos / tot Pfizer - 17,841 / 545 / 18,386 and Placebo - 17,808 / 580 / 18,388) For calculating efficacy of 94.6% (Table 7), they choose 7 days past 2nd dose to give 9 cases in Pfizer arm with 169 in the placebo arm. Follow up from dose 2 was 50.6% >8 weeks, 91.6% >4 weeks. Don't forget to subtract the 7 days. (thought it was 14?). So half were only subject to 3 weeks of post follow up to check for infection? And was the placebo arm from day 1 of the trial? 95%? Not the way I look at the numbers. If I get a vaccine, I'd like to know the % chance of catching the disease and what seems more relevant now, all cause mortality for the period. A difference of 0.19%, the actual reduced chance of becoming infected if you are vaccinated, doesn't make for an effective product, in my mind. Someone can tell me where I'm wrong, please.
Now can you see why "studies" which cannot be reproduced are useless? I point to the "studies" of the vacc pimps to remind people that "studies" of themselves are meaningless.
As a secondary endpoint, Moderna was definitely talking about virus transmission. "To evaluate the efficacy of mRNA-1273 to prevent serologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19
Yes. The key words are "prevent" and "infection". Thus it is about infection and transmission. In summary, as I've been stating, based on reliable sources: that 95% hoax was a relative risk reduction pertaining to infection and transmission. People combine the two concepts for convenience; however, evidently infection and transmission are two distinct actions.
I deleted my previous post after I went and studied the link a little more carefully. You might be right in theory. Moderna's primary endpoint does state, "to prevent Covid-19" That primary endpoint is not defined. Does it mean to prevent testing positive? But I think the proof of the pudding is in the secondary endpoints:
- To prevent severe COVID
- To prevent infection regardless of severity of symptoms
- To prevent COVID-19 under a secondary definition of symptoms
- To prevent Death
- First dose efficacy
- To prevent asymptomatic infection
- to prevent COVID-19 in all study groups regardless of prior evidence of infection.
Is the primary endpoint a combination of all of the secondary end-points? On what end-point is their 92-98% efficacy claims based? It is highly improbable that it has much to do with merely preventing infection. And that has been proven in the last 6 months.
I will see if I can dig up the PFizer/FDA literature I referred to earlier. This is a dead giveaway that that these shots were never intended to invoke immunity nor even claimed it.
It is all irrelevant now that we have an abundance of real life data, not "studies". I will not accept any "studies" or "analysis" when I can see raw high-level data for myself.
I’m not referring to press clippings or Pfizer’s latest report, but the original claim as recommended by drug maker at EAU launch of the jab and mRNA jabs in general. I paraphrase, “this shot is 95% effective at preventing disease from Covid. We do not yet know if it will prevent you from getting Covid.” Having symptomatic disease and getting infected with virus are two different things which is one reason why vaccine mandates are so insane.
In tge very beginning doctors explained why and how this was never intended to be an immunity vaccine. It doesn’t prevent infection.
First of all, no one takes press clippings or claims seriously. Why not? Because they are not "data and science." [I could be a billionaire, for all you know...]
Show me their actual submissions to the health authorities and specific sections; and from the follow-up report by fizer - which I did scan the abstract. There was NO claim of severity and death reduction. [Yes, I have them somewhere in my unindexed collection.]
"arkmedic" MD PhD kept reminding people of that point.
“this shot is 95% effective at preventing disease from Covid. We do not yet know if it will prevent you from getting Covid.”
Those two sentences are contradictory. As I said, the authorities pimping to get people on them, they admitted that the vaccs did not prevent transmission and infection.
Again that infamous 95% press number was for preventing infection and transmission. That was the reason for priming people to get them. Show me press reports - TV or print - where that 95% referred to SEVERITY and DEATH REDUCTION.
Are you aware when pundits used public data they calculated for the risk of prevention, not severity reduction?
If Pfizer say it prevents COVID-19, they mean the disease, not transmission of the virus. It's duplicitous, but it aligns with their study end points and is true based on the somewhat munged data they released with their clinical trial.
Because one can get infected and spread the virus without ever getting ill from it. This is true of most viruses. The vaccine does not infer immunity as it does not work that way. The theory is the spike protein incites the body to know how to deal with it and prevent serious disease from becoming infected. It was never intended to prevent intention.
Even Frauci stated back in March 2020 during a presser with Trump that in the history of viral pandemics, the asymptomatic had never been the drivers of the spread.
Have you seen real life data on asymptomatic spread?
"Theory"? Whatever happened to the "data and science"? People are poisoned, killed and damaged on a "theory"?
Dude. First of all I never read the actual press clippings from Fizer et al. I read reports of them by my reliable sources.
If you read you would have noticed from the beginning that the health authorities admitted that they didn't prevent infection and transmission; but reduced severity, hence hospitalisation. But that severity reduction was never claimed by the v pimps. I was reminded by this "arkmedic" a MD PhD. I've mentioned that to other informed pundits and MDs.
Of course, if you can send me their links and point to specific sections where they claimed severity reduction, then I would be glad to correct myself.
Look at the media parroting of that 95% - it was about prevention of infection and transmission.
Finally, I read that the purpose of any inoculation is PREVENTION, not severity reduction. Have you heard of the flu vaccination?
Are the ages of the populations comparable?
It's a time-series analysis so any confounding in that respect is ironed out. Unless the demographics changed significantly within the timeframe?
This is absolutely false. And the fact that this is your response makes me seriously question your other work.
Let's suppose country A is all 90 year olds and country B is all 15 year olds. The ages of these populations are NOT comparable. How does this being a time series "iron this out"? And unless the demographics changed significantly? What does this even mean?
Man, I appreciate the effort you put into all of this, I really do, but what you have posted here is irresponsible and not a valid method for any kind of inference
It means that (unchanged) demographics become an ceteris paribus factor if u focus on the TREND (apart from the -absolute- 3% statement that actually can only be made on the grounds of comparable demographics like age, obesity for that matter). According to your example: country A can still have a way higher average age and therefore death rate, maybe 3 times, maybe 5 times the one of B, doesn't matter. BUT, of country B has a way higher vaccination rate and this death rate ratio between the two countries remains (roughly) the same (as well as the demographics), then this shows that the vaccination didn't have any significant effect on morbidity (assuming there wasn't any other death desaster affecting one more than the other).
As I don't see a stark spread evolving between the death rates of the two countries, I think this is some strong indicator of the uselessness of these failed clot shots! It definitely shows how untrue the fake-fest of studies statistics, calculations and propaganda is claiming that Israel's medical system would have gone apocalyptic if it wasn't for the shots!
Ok, so I can see the potential for validity to your argument here (and thanks for completing my example with countries A and B, only in retrospect did I realize that I had finished that argument in my head but not on paper), but not even considering the volume of exogenous factors here, I'm not sure that I trust myself (or anybody else) to eyeball the ratio between these two groups.
Though I do have to disagree with your last point in that I continue to not believe that the evidence presented here is strong enough to draw the conclusion of uselessness. Or really, any conclusions at all. To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying that any of these conclusions are necessarily wrong, only that the data and methods provided have been deeply unsatisfactory. Too much has been left out, and the author is obviously not interested in considering any information that would refute his claims. That alone is sufficient to reject these conclusions on the merits of the arguments, and lest we continue to spiral into the hell that is Scientism, it is from the arguments alone that we must limit ourselves when drawing our conclusions. Anything else is dishonest to ourselves and to others
I'd be looking at a
Age,
Gender,
Comorbidities (general population health including some measure of stress - Israel has an iron dome, Palestine does not), as well as
Variant dominance.
Palestinians live as second class in their own territories, whereas Israelis do not.
Palestinians lack in basics compared to Israelis.
I guess Palestinians can handle stress better than Israelis. /s
Don't think the first 3 are relevant if u only look at the TREND in order to identify whether the clot shots made any difference
Age stratifying this data is important. Is there a source of Palestine deaths from/with COVID? I would be very interested to have it, as I have age-stratified data from Israel
For point #5, Is that "3x as many injections" raw or per-capita?
Per capita. Made the text explicit now.
If you have to look really hard, it's probably not there. Especially if the Vaxx is supposed to "save lives"
Kept referring to figure 1; you mean figure 2, right?
I did, thank you. It's fixed now.
THANK U SO MUCH: I was waiting for this comparison for quite some time now that really represents the last death nail in the clot shots' coffin. They obviously make no significant difference whatsoever (and obviously didn't save Israel's health system from being overwhelmed during the following waves)!
Still would b interesting to see the full 4th wave for the complete picture: was/will there b some delayed spike in Palestine surpassing the one in Israel?
I appreciate the efforts that you have put into your reporting, but you have entirely missed the ball on this one, and I think that this article should be retracted.
1. Here, you note that Palestine's first way is 2 months after Israel and almost 70% bigger. 70% bigger? Israel looks to be about 55 deaths per million (dpm), whereas Palestine is about 75. That is less than a 50% increase
2. Here you claim that Palestine's second wave was only about a month or so later than Israel and the same size. Wtf do you mean the same size? Same size as what? Israel's second wave was around 80 dpm, compared with Palestine's 60. This is the same absolute difference between the first waves, and still about a 30% difference between smaller and larger. Calling these about the same size is wrong.
3. Also not "pretty much the same size". 40 to 50 dpm is a 20% increase, and if anything, the fact that Israel's dpm is smaller leads evidence to the opposite of the claim you're making. They had higher vaccination and in this case, the death rate was smaller.
4. This entire point doesn't even make sense. And in each previous case, Palestine saw massive increases in months *following* Israel. So to cut this chart off at Feb 04 and claim that Israel has this peak while Palestine does not is completely dishonest
5. I'm not sure where these numbers come from, as you provide no tables. On it's face, this point seems ridiculous.
Dude, I get it and I empathize with what you are trying to do. There is plenty of things out there clearly indicating that data is being manipulated and that what we are being told is not entirely representative of the truth. But what you have presented here as an alternative is junk science, and it's polluting one of the few spaces left where open conversation is allowed to happen. You have made up numbers (70% increase?) and failed to account for the most basic adjustment made when doing this type of analysis (demographic and age-adjsuted rates). People in the pro-vaccination camp would be able to cherry pick out what you have here and conclude that "anti-vaxxers" are engaging in disseminating misinformation. And in this particular case, they would be right.
"Israel looks to be about 55 deaths per million (dpm), whereas Palestine is about 75. That is less than a 50% increase" Um, dude, you're just looking at the peak rates for the respective waves. The relevant numbers to compare are not the peaks, but the total areas under the curves. Since that's what would be relevant, isn't it safe to assume that's what Joel was referring to, as opposed to the irrelevant numbers you've fixated on?
Sorry for looking at the portions of the plot that were enumerated? If he is talking about discrete events (wave), then it would seem to me that the relevant metrics for these events would also be discrete (peaks). If instead he was referring to cumulative deaths per million (total area under the curve), he would have plotted cumulative deaths.
So he either picked an entirely irrelevant plot for what he was discussing, or he picked the correct plot and happens to not be quite sure what he's talking about here. So no, dude, I don't think it's safe to assume that Joel was referring to something that he didn't include, and the "irrelevant numbers" that I am fixated on constitute almost the entirety of what was presented.
"Sorry for looking at the portions of the plot that were enumerated? If he is talking about discrete events (wave), then it would seem to me that the relevant metrics for these events would also be discrete (peaks)." No, that claim is completely gratuitous and obviously wrong.
Does Israel count deaths with Covid as deaths of Covid? Do many Palestinians die at home and unrecorded?
Nobody dies from covid at home.
80% of UK hospital deaths attributed to Covid are triple-vaccinated individuals. Of course the vax does not protect lives - it's a bio weapon designed to reduce world population.
Fortunately, the end is nigh for all of those behind, promoting & colluding with these Crimes Against Humanity.
https://johnscottconsciousness.com/do-or-die/
The 95% protection is ofcourse only relative risk reduction hence the small difference of only 3% between the countries….
With respect, you erred with the sentence below:
"For a vaccine that is up to 95% effective in reducing mortality, I can’t work this out."
The vac pimps have NEVER claimed reduction in severity and death. That false 95% refers to the relative risk reduction of catching it. Their data did not and could support 95% RRR in spread since it is common knowledge that only a fraction of infection is symptomatic!
No! It was the other way round. The claim was never efficacy in reducing spread, only severity of illness and death. And I'm referring to the public health authorities, politicians and media. These are the ones making the duplicitous claims. So, yes, my point is entirely valid. Ceteris peribus, you should see a relative reduction of up to 95% for Israel in terms of death, or rather 5/8 given that Palestine is 1/3 as much vaccinated. Instead you get a relative increase of 3% since vaccination.
Thanks to trafferazabu for the link.
It proves my point! It was about infection and transmission prevention!
ModernaTX, Inc. 20 Aug 2020
Protocol mRNA-1273-P301, Amendment 3 mRNA-1273
Confidential Page 6
Objectives:
Primary:
• To demonstrate the efficacy of mRNA-1273 to PREVENT [caps added]
COVID-19.
https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/mRNA-1273-P301-Protocol.pdf
Are you aware when pundits used public data they calculated for the risk of prevention, not severity reduction?
https://archive.fo/3UXVT
second last post by Arkmedic
https://t.me/FLU19/13004
https://t.me/FLU19/13004
Are you saying arkmedic was mistaken since he claimed repeatedly that 95% was about infection and transmission only on the bird?
https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/mRNA-1273-P301-Protocol.pdf
I’m not sure that is accurate either. I think it is a relative risk reduction of becoming seriously ill or hospitalized. Pfizer’s very own literature stated that they did not know if their shot would keep you from getting Covid.
Agreed. Transmission prevention was never an end point of Pfizer's study. The RRR was all about the disease - ie how badly the body is affected after infection, in terms of severity or death.
It was Fauci, Maddow and Walensky et al that (erroneously) suggested it prevented transmission ( as well as severe disease and death, which is / was correct for the most part).
Or Biden in July. “If you get the vaccine your not going to get Covid.”only the blind believed that at the time. By June I already knew several people who were fully vaccinated and had Covid, some pretty seriously.
I would not be surprised if Pfizer fooled Fauci et al, they are not the brightest bunch, as evidenced by PCR inventor dude's appraisal of Fauci's understanding of anything scientific.
I have seen many people tricked by the "prevents COVID-19" line from PFizer thinking they meant prevents infection / transmission. IT's a shame because they propagate that erroneous message and then we have to deal with people treating them as trusted sources, etc.
Does anyone know where I can find the Pfizer Phase III study? All I find our press releases. Moderna's linked below. They definitely had Sars-cov-2 infection as an endpoint, secondary, not just symptomatic disease. https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/mRNA-1273-P301-Protocol.pdf
This one that Rob sent?
https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download
Thank you! No, I didn't have that one. Clearly I don't understand how they achieve their numbers. Straight calculation, 97.04% in the BNT162b2 group and 96.85% in the Placebo arm not infected, so a difference of 0.19% in favor of the vaccines. (neg / pos / tot Pfizer - 17,841 / 545 / 18,386 and Placebo - 17,808 / 580 / 18,388) For calculating efficacy of 94.6% (Table 7), they choose 7 days past 2nd dose to give 9 cases in Pfizer arm with 169 in the placebo arm. Follow up from dose 2 was 50.6% >8 weeks, 91.6% >4 weeks. Don't forget to subtract the 7 days. (thought it was 14?). So half were only subject to 3 weeks of post follow up to check for infection? And was the placebo arm from day 1 of the trial? 95%? Not the way I look at the numbers. If I get a vaccine, I'd like to know the % chance of catching the disease and what seems more relevant now, all cause mortality for the period. A difference of 0.19%, the actual reduced chance of becoming infected if you are vaccinated, doesn't make for an effective product, in my mind. Someone can tell me where I'm wrong, please.
Now can you see why "studies" which cannot be reproduced are useless? I point to the "studies" of the vacc pimps to remind people that "studies" of themselves are meaningless.
Many thanks. That proves my point! It was about infection and transmission prevention!
ModernaTX, Inc. 20 Aug 2020
Protocol mRNA-1273-P301, Amendment 3 mRNA-1273
Confidential Page 6
1. PROTOCOL SUMMARY
1.1. Synopsis
Protocol Number: mRNA-1273-P301
Title: A Phase 3, Randomized, Stratified, Observer-Blind, PlaceboControlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy, Safety, and
Immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Adults
Aged 18 Years and Older.
Study Phase: 3
Objectives: Primary:
• To demonstrate the efficacy of mRNA-1273 to PREVENT [caps added]
COVID-19.
As a secondary endpoint, Moderna was definitely talking about virus transmission. "To evaluate the efficacy of mRNA-1273 to prevent serologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19
regardless of symptomatology or severity."
Exactly: "evaluate", not "demonstrate".
Yes. The key words are "prevent" and "infection". Thus it is about infection and transmission. In summary, as I've been stating, based on reliable sources: that 95% hoax was a relative risk reduction pertaining to infection and transmission. People combine the two concepts for convenience; however, evidently infection and transmission are two distinct actions.
I deleted my previous post after I went and studied the link a little more carefully. You might be right in theory. Moderna's primary endpoint does state, "to prevent Covid-19" That primary endpoint is not defined. Does it mean to prevent testing positive? But I think the proof of the pudding is in the secondary endpoints:
- To prevent severe COVID
- To prevent infection regardless of severity of symptoms
- To prevent COVID-19 under a secondary definition of symptoms
- To prevent Death
- First dose efficacy
- To prevent asymptomatic infection
- to prevent COVID-19 in all study groups regardless of prior evidence of infection.
Is the primary endpoint a combination of all of the secondary end-points? On what end-point is their 92-98% efficacy claims based? It is highly improbable that it has much to do with merely preventing infection. And that has been proven in the last 6 months.
I will see if I can dig up the PFizer/FDA literature I referred to earlier. This is a dead giveaway that that these shots were never intended to invoke immunity nor even claimed it.
It is all irrelevant now that we have an abundance of real life data, not "studies". I will not accept any "studies" or "analysis" when I can see raw high-level data for myself.
It is the opposite.
Thanks to trafferazabu for the link.
It proves my point! It was about infection and transmission prevention!
ModernaTX, Inc. 20 Aug 2020
page 6
Objectives:
Primary:
• To demonstrate the efficacy of mRNA-1273 to PREVENT [caps added]
COVID-19.
https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/mRNA-1273-P301-Protocol.pdf
You again! Where are your links? How does get a viral disease without being infected?
Thanks to trafferazabu:
"To evaluate the efficacy of mRNA-1273 to prevent serologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 regardless of symptomatology or severity."
Well? Notice those two key words "prevent" and "infection".
I will delete any replies from you without some links and specific pages.
The key word being "evaluate", as opposed to "demonstrate".
Delete away. I double dare you.
This is not a matter of opinion.
Re-read the original press clippings and the last follow-up report by fizer.
I’m not referring to press clippings or Pfizer’s latest report, but the original claim as recommended by drug maker at EAU launch of the jab and mRNA jabs in general. I paraphrase, “this shot is 95% effective at preventing disease from Covid. We do not yet know if it will prevent you from getting Covid.” Having symptomatic disease and getting infected with virus are two different things which is one reason why vaccine mandates are so insane.
In tge very beginning doctors explained why and how this was never intended to be an immunity vaccine. It doesn’t prevent infection.
First of all, no one takes press clippings or claims seriously. Why not? Because they are not "data and science." [I could be a billionaire, for all you know...]
Show me their actual submissions to the health authorities and specific sections; and from the follow-up report by fizer - which I did scan the abstract. There was NO claim of severity and death reduction. [Yes, I have them somewhere in my unindexed collection.]
"arkmedic" MD PhD kept reminding people of that point.
“this shot is 95% effective at preventing disease from Covid. We do not yet know if it will prevent you from getting Covid.”
Those two sentences are contradictory. As I said, the authorities pimping to get people on them, they admitted that the vaccs did not prevent transmission and infection.
Again that infamous 95% press number was for preventing infection and transmission. That was the reason for priming people to get them. Show me press reports - TV or print - where that 95% referred to SEVERITY and DEATH REDUCTION.
Are you aware when pundits used public data they calculated for the risk of prevention, not severity reduction?
https://archive.fo/3UXVT
second last post by Arkmedic
https://t.me/FLU19/13004
https://t.me/FLU19/13004
Finally, the purpose of any inoculation is infection prevention.
[“this shot is 95% effective at preventing disease from Covid. We do not yet know if it will prevent you from getting Covid.”
Those two sentences are contradictory.]
No, they are not contradictory.
At least now the reason for the confusion is clear.
Disease caused by COVID the virus is different from being infected by COVID the virus.
Until you can get your head around that (and you already admitted you do not understand this stuff) any further interaction is pointless.
Where are your links and specific paras?
There is no need to send me the data as there are an abundance of them.
Did you read the links I sent to Rob?
Don't bother to reply without links and specific paras as requested.
This is why I prefer to engage only with pundits.
You need to reread it again, carefully.
SARS-CoV-2 is the virus.
COVID-19 is the disease.
If Pfizer say it prevents COVID-19, they mean the disease, not transmission of the virus. It's duplicitous, but it aligns with their study end points and is true based on the somewhat munged data they released with their clinical trial.
R U for real?
How does get covid if one is not infected???
Just show me their links and specific paragraphs.
Now wonder they have won.
Because one can get infected and spread the virus without ever getting ill from it. This is true of most viruses. The vaccine does not infer immunity as it does not work that way. The theory is the spike protein incites the body to know how to deal with it and prevent serious disease from becoming infected. It was never intended to prevent intention.
"Can"? Of course anything "can". But so what?
Even Frauci stated back in March 2020 during a presser with Trump that in the history of viral pandemics, the asymptomatic had never been the drivers of the spread.
Have you seen real life data on asymptomatic spread?
"Theory"? Whatever happened to the "data and science"? People are poisoned, killed and damaged on a "theory"?
Dude. First of all I never read the actual press clippings from Fizer et al. I read reports of them by my reliable sources.
If you read you would have noticed from the beginning that the health authorities admitted that they didn't prevent infection and transmission; but reduced severity, hence hospitalisation. But that severity reduction was never claimed by the v pimps. I was reminded by this "arkmedic" a MD PhD. I've mentioned that to other informed pundits and MDs.
Of course, if you can send me their links and point to specific sections where they claimed severity reduction, then I would be glad to correct myself.
Look at the media parroting of that 95% - it was about prevention of infection and transmission.
Finally, I read that the purpose of any inoculation is PREVENTION, not severity reduction. Have you heard of the flu vaccination?
You: "Re-read the original press clippings and the last follow-up report by fizer."
Also you: "I never read the actual press clippings from Fizer et al."
I think we're done here.
Where are your links and specific paras?
LOL. What about my next sentence?
You know that if you don't understand or trust something, you go to those you can rely on.
Where are your links and specific paras?