Scientifically speaking, vaccinees are fucked beyond all hope

Maybe we should use machine learning techniques to track all possible causes, and have people follow strict advice so the ML input has high enough precision to form detailed maps of the population.

>is as great as the distance
source: your ass

A german anon in a /misc/ thread said their MSM has started reporting on the vaccine deaths. He said the vids were seen by millions and comments are all anti vaccine. He posted the following links.

>https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-20200630.htm

>purely administrative label, not a single scientist outside of substack blogposts would call it a gene therapy

>fake checking
Get another booster vaxxie

This entire Covid hysteria will be seen as one of the biggest medical scams the world has ever seen. Numbers where doctored, the populace was abused, all over this ridiculous fear mongering and hysteria. As time passes, it may become more and more apparent that attitudes like yours are on the wrong side of history.

"The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.[3,6,57] We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence."

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/

Its pretty clear to anyone paying attention that this entire Covid narrative is full of holes, the dingy is sinking and there's far too much water in the boat. It is sinking now.

>the people who created and promoted the fake narrative are not to be trusted, while data clearly shows it’s all bullshit, but trust me it’s all real
wearing a tinmask deprives brain much needed oxygen

also social science
you sure you want to keep on digging that hole ?
you're really not going anywhere so far

>biology, anthropology and psychology, that march in lockstep with social sciences as part of the same israelite academia, are not intertwined with medicine
>they lied in every other field but they wouldn’t lie in medicine, no no no also muh big pharma
>no argument
>childish ad hominem
>ignores basic data regarding symptoms, vulnerable population, global mortality that is identical to a flu
>believes more people died of “covid” because the media reported deaths from complications as flu instead of said complications
you are a midwit npc, you will never have a soul, you are a vaxxed cattle and no amount of kvetching will change that

>false
>pic rel
>muh anecdotal evidence
Sure idiot, some people died from flu as always and this time they herd them all to one hospital in area while the rest are empty. Wanna talk about panicking people who got hooked to ventilators and died for no reason? Didn’t think so

>I would actually love to
No salty c**t, people were dying at such high rates early in fludemic that even mainstream trash reported vents were overused killing people. Once they stopped using it on everybody who panicked mortality rate dropped significantly.

Lol.
Go empty a bedpan b***h.
You talk like you spend all day working with women and you can sass your way out of a global depop wave.
Have fun next winter.

>so do you think they should have used BIPAP or CPAP then ?
They should have used nothing, just hydrate and supplement vitamins

>hint: it involved a positive PCR test and nothing else
that's false

>I-I SAW the doctors putting people into medical coma and hooking them up to a ventilator until they died and also ALL THE NURSES HAD TO WEAR N95 MASKS and you're telling me it's EXAGGERATED?
yes lol

5th year med-student bro 🙂
I wasn't forced to boost, I took it as soon as I could, it was necessary to attend our spring-break parties

>hypochondriac idiots being hypochondriac pains in the ass
Just like the covid hospitalizations?
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hospitalization-numbers-can-be-misleading/620062/

Unlike holohoax it’s also real but the death count has been similarly distorted

>>https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/medical/new-study-finds-that-long-covid-may-not-actually-exist/ar-AAXGFKS

Link doesn't work

Much harm has been done in the name of politicized Science the last two years. Disgraceful.

"Our analysis strongly suggests that mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policies have had damaging effects on public trust, vaccine confidence, political polarization, human rights, inequities and social wellbeing. We question the effectiveness and consequences of coercive vaccination policy in pandemic response and urge the research community and policymakers to return to non-discriminatory, trust-based public health approaches."

>https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/5/e008684

>only my facts are correct, if you can disprove them then it's fake news
projecting hard now aincha

my website points out exactly why your statement is wrong
read it instead of wasting my time homosexual

>appeals to vague "consensus"
>dismisses evidence to the contrary
>ad hominem
it's the shill trifecta

shitty evidence can be refuted with shitty proof, simple as
unless you're ready to pull out solid scientific research for your arguments, so far I've done a good enough job of showing why you're a bunch of vindictive clowns and nothing you say is of importance

legal =/= scientific, get that trough your thick fricking skull

>cardiologist
so nothing to do with infectious disease, intensive care or even pneumology
so basically incompetent
gotcha
you can dick-ride him all you want, if somebody is speaking out of their fields of expertise, and have to resort publishing in low impact factors journals, it's a good sign they're just ego-fueled grifters, and you're just a resource to be exploited in their narcissistic quest for recognition
good job on being a fathomless cretin

your own source is a steaming pile of manure, you can't argue in good faith that a cardiologist publishing in a random non-medical journal has anything relevant to say about covid
I've read his article, it's abhorrent, at that

>For our analysis of evidence of increased cancer risk in VAERS, we focused on two somewhat distinct approaches. One, represented by the results in Table 6, was to gather the counts for any terms that contained keywords clearly linked to cancer, namely, “cancer,” “lymphoma,” “leukaemia,” “metastasis,” “carcinoma,” and “neoplasm.” Overall, we found 1,474 entries linking these terms to COVID-19 vaccines, representing 96% of all the entries for any of these terms for any vaccine in that year.
that's not even methodologically flawed at this point, that's just sad sad comedy

you're only bringing him up because he strokes your contrarian ego and makes you feel like a powerful agent of truth
stupid and boring, you're a tool

>if somebody is speaking out of their fields of expertise

REALLY ?

LOL. Listen to Doctor Shill Gates then.

The idiocy is palpable even through the screen.

I don't listen to this narcisstic baboon
now what genius

Elsevier and a bunch of other greedy buttholes
I know you're trying to make a revolutionary point here, go on big boy, play that conspirational tune for us

>confusing social sciences with medical sciences
life must be so easy when you're this oblivious

Not to mention feminism dating way back is wholly based on a false axiom that male brain and psyche are identical to female’s, same with race and anthropology. Imagine being this oblivious to basic facts and yet make a mockery out of yourself on a public Mongolian basketweaving board.

>cOnSpIrAtOrIaL
it's not conspiracy you smug npc homosexual, it's financial incentive.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16060722/
We don't need to produce evidence that your shitty 100% effective no actually 90% effective we meant 80% effective, oh no omicron 50% effective looks like your immunity is waning it's only 30% effective time for a booster non-vaccine is dangerous, you need to produce better evidence that it's safe.

>why?
Not going to waste too much energy spoonfeeding you, frankly you're an idiot if you can't already see that covid was a massive boon for billionaires and technocrats salivating over the surveillance state. Also look into the 2019 reverse repo/liquidity crisis, covid allowed them to inject trillions into equities while completely flattening monetary velocity, which put the breaks on inflation for a couple years and tricked the plebs into giving them exit liquidity while they rotated into commodities. Perfect excuse for and distraction from the controlled demolition of the failing economic system, instead of facing down Occupy 2.0 (this time with guillotines and gallows) they have us arguing about whether it's reasonable to force 5 year olds to take novel vaccines with a 2-year "safety" history while they get richer and we get poorer than ever before in modern history, and are setting up movement controls and surveillance systems to defend against future unrest to the idiot applause of clapping seal homosexuals who "take the virus seriously"

meant for

>the guy who wrote that is actually a vetinarian, with a full 8 articles published to his name
>schizo ramblings
For the record, this is the guy:
>Geert Vanden Bossche received his DVM from the University of Ghent, Belgium, and his PhD degree in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany. He held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany. After his career in Academia, Geert joined several vaccine companies (GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals) to serve various roles in vaccine R&D as well as in late vaccine development.

>Geert then moved on to join the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle (USA) as Senior Program Officer; he then worked with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva as Senior Ebola Program Manager. At GAVI he tracked efforts to develop an Ebola vaccine. He also represented GAVI in fora with other partners, including WHO, to review progress on the fight against Ebola and to build plans for global pandemic preparedness.

>Back in 2015, Geert scrutinized and questioned the safety of the Ebola vaccine that was used in ring vaccination trials conducted by WHO in Guinea. His critical scientific analysis and report on the data published by WHO in the Lancet in 2015 was sent to all international health and regulatory authorities involved in the Ebola vaccination program. After working for GAVI, Geert joined the German Center for Infection Research in Cologne as Head of the Vaccine Development Office. He is at present primarily serving as a Biotech / Vaccine consultant while also conducting his own research on Natural Killer cell-based vaccines.
To sum it up, he worked for the Bill Gates foundation in a senior position, was head of the Vaccination Development Office in Germany and other positions.
>Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
He knows what's up, lol.

>vaccines were available everywhere in the world and everybody took them
answer your own stupid questions you fricking braindead b***h

>vaccine effectiveness against severe disease and hospitalization remains high
placebo effect, if any
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hospitalization-numbers-can-be-misleading/620062/

"severe disease" is very simple to solve, don't misdiagnose everything under the covid umbrella

your article doesn't contradict anything that I wrote you know

since you're happily moving goalposts around with no data to back up your claims, suck on my shlong and apply yourself
>you lack in the reading comprehension department
I don't, your article doesn't say anything against the vaccines preventing severe disease and hospitalizations, which it does

>they sound legit
>protection against omicron
So you would take a 50%* reduction of severity in case you get infected for a 400%** chance to get infected?
* pulled out of my ass
** real shit

Again, ALL the data worldwide clearly shows vaccinated people have fewer problems compared to unvaccinated for first infection. It also shows better and broader immunity post infection. Your article is just one long hilarious string of deliberately lying with numbers while asserting things not at all based on good sense, such as "a pandemic of the vaccinated". Obviously, if more people are vaccinated, the odds will be more people infected will be vaccinated. That does not imply "vaccines make you more likely to get the illness".

In fact, all the data worldwide contradicts that silly idea.

From 2021 CDC data: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html

From death rate comparisons in a study of over 6 million: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

And thousands of others from other nations such as this one https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/the-new-omicron-subvariant-is-more-contagious-but-vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-to-spread-it-study-finds.html

Or many antibody comparisons like these https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.abn8014

From the get-go, the thesis presented in your article is not only contradicted by the evidence but by ALL the evidence. Only pure ineptitude with statistics, or pure malice, could lead one to conclude otherwise.

>vaccinated people have fewer problems compared to unvaccinated for first infection
Yes, but they also get infected more often. Like 4x more often.

Yes they did. Every government lie and media spin used the words of scientists to justify itself.

>media spin used the words of scientists
Those people in the media aren't scientists.

>The unvaccinated are always worse off.
Even if this were true regarding covid infection, show stats for all-cause mortality.

>can't do basic math
lmao no u, look at the graph again you obstinate moron, 24% unvaccinated in the total population make up 16% of cases and 12.1% of deaths
>n-no j-just look at this CDC study with a garbage sample size from December 2020-July 2021, that totally explains

Weird! Long covid again!

Oh no, what's this? Well, this must be because the vaccinated are taking more risks because they feel safe again!

Whoops!

and

man this increase in excess death after vaccination rollouts sure is weird, I guess it was long covid?

Alright, I doubt it, but let's see your work then 🙂

>it's your homework!
No, it's a claim you're making. Produce data or frick off

>you're claiming "24% unvaccinated in the total population make up 16% of cases and 12.1% of deaths"
yes, that's the data, keep up the pathetic cope though

if you think you have a point to make, make it.

>c-cases and deaths are only higher in the vaccinated because they're probably older and at higher risk!

>can you break it down by age groupe please ?
we surely would be able to if the govs didn't refuse to release the raw data, so total deaths is the best we can do for now

https://nypost.com/2022/02/22/cdc-withholding-covid-data-over-fears-of-misinterpretation/
d.com/lung/news/20220222/report-cdc-not-publishing-large-amounts-of-covid-19-data
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1032885251/millions-of-people-are-missing-from-cdc-covid-data-as-states-fail-to-report-case
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cdc-hasnt-release-data-behind-mask-reversal

we really couldn't give less of a shit if you take it or not
we just enjoy proving you wrong

>I'm talking specifically about the scottish data you were so loud about
You were? I thought you linked a CDC study
>Among the data that has been collected but not made public is hospitalizations broken down by age, race and vaccination status over the last year and information on the effectiveness of booster shots.
>When the CDC released data on the effectiveness of boosters for adults younger than 65 two weeks ago, it did not include full numbers on those between 18 and 49.

btw the scots are doing the same thing

>Your dishonest image is not an actual rate comparison. Self evident from quoting your own source, hospitalizations among the vaccinated are lower.
Black person can you not read?
>compared to unvaccinated individuals or have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine

>tl;dr - you really are a gullible moron.
says whom?

>scotland
reminder for you moron
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19931745.covid-data-will-not-published-concerns-misrepresented-anti-vaxxers/
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/covid-data-stop-being-published-114056378.html

You need to be a serious believer in SCIENCE(TM) to fall for this bullshit

>https://www.thenational.scot/news/19931745.covid-data-will-not-published-concerns-misrepresented-anti-vaxxers/
>https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/covid-data-stop-being-published-114056378.html

seems like forging data and hiding data is how science(TM) is done

you did good brah ngl
hope you pop around in those threads from time to time and serve some righteous science-slapping

>They have both. On the link
prove it

>That you didn't click on
not giving your favourite vaccine company ad revenue

why are you scared of vaccines ?

>politics
so basically you're unable to understand medical science, and need to hide your fear behind a fake act of rebellion
that's super lame

>you did good brah ngl

Thanks I guess. I don't think it's all that hard when your opponents have to lie with numbers and fail to click links or read, though. It's really like arguing with creationists. You can sort of do it in your sleep.

Ultimately it always just devolves into "Buht where's your evidence" when you linked exactly what they're asking for. Their belief relies on denying evidence, so they can't let themselves go and actually read the evidence. Case in point.

>They have both. On the link
prove it

>That you didn't click on
not giving your favourite vaccine company ad revenue

I think anyone can manage idiots that transparently afraid of reading.

Well yeah other than trolls that's what you normally see with denialists.

You can link exactly what they want, a direct comparison with a whole nation or multiple nations, and they'll grab some asstard with a blog who just points at raw numbers and falsely claims the rate is higher.

...When the rate, if you do basic math, is actually lower.

I think it's narcissism frankly. A need to feel special.

The incompetence from captured regulatory agencies has been astounding. Most aren't aware of some of the colorful history that some of these agencies have. That alone is but one of the many issues with the mandates and coercion of the last two years.

>regulatory capture

FDA "Corruption" Letter Authenticated: Lawyers, Start Your Engines! https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fda-corruption-letter-authenticated-lawyers-start-your-engines/

Hidden conflicts? Pharma payments to FDA advisers after drug approvals spark ethical concerns https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/hidden-conflicts-pharma-payments-fda-advisers-after-drug-approvals-spark-ethical

Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/risky-drugs-why-fda-cannot-be-trusted

FDA conceals serious research misconduct–fraud, deception, even deaths https://ahrp.org/fda-conceals-collaborates-in-serious-research-misconduct-fraud-deception-adverse-events/

The Food and Drug Administration has a sordid history of scandals involving conflicts of interests, cover-ups, corruption and congressional investigations https://www.ennislaw.com/blog/essure-depicts-classic-examples-fda-conflicts-and-corruption/
Former FDA Official Pleads Guilty in Generic Drug Scandal https://apnews.com/article/4341009a667c3195829a79728d6774b3

Exposing the FDA https://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/10/business/exposing-the-fda.html

How Independent is the FDA? https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/hazard/independent.html

The Pharmaceutical Industry, Institutional Corruption, and Public Health https://ethics.harvard.edu/pharmaceutical-industry-institutional-corruption-and-public-health

Lies and Deception How the FDA Does Not Protect Your Best Interests https://smart-publications.com/articles/lies-and-deception-how-the-fda-does-not-protect-your-best-interests/

Cool a whole bunch of completely irrelevant links and nothing to do with all the individual data submitted. You're a schizo with a paranoid delusion.

I'm genuinely wondering if there's some psychological pathology at hand
for example he posted this
https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/covid-vaccine-lymph-node-breast-cancer
thinking it was an article about how the vaccine caused cancer
like seriously, there's some brain damage at play here

I mean, yeah, usually. If they're not trolling and making grand conspiracy claims, unsurprisingly you see a lot of schizophrenia. Hence the replies with a bunch of irrelevant nonsense.

Its detailed information which shows that the agency which approved the injections, has some skeletons in their closet. Its literally one of the root problems here. My God. I thought pol was bad. Sci is much worse when it comes to common sense.

A couple of FDA officials quit over the incompetency.

>https://nypost.com/2021/09/01/two-senior-fda-officials-resign-over-biden-administration-booster-shot-plan/

Im reality posting.

>Face the music.

[...]
>still refusing to address increase in excess deaths after mass vaccination
come on, just say it's long covid

The deflections continue. It's not surprising when reality doesn't align with your claims. It's just very evil of you all to lie when you've been so thoroughly corrected so many times.

>I just posted from your own source showing the unvaccinated have the highest risk load
no, you posted from my own source showing that the unvaccinated PLUS those vaccinated with one or two doses have a higher risk load than the boosted

Nope I quoted the basis for the scotland image. Obviously the risk load is highest in unvaccinated. If you're denying 1+1 = 2, explain why the booster is so much better than not being boosted, and how this would magically result in the unvaccinated being better off than the vaccinated.

Go on. Use your two neurons.

>explain why the booster is so much better than not being boosted, and how this would magically result in the unvaccinated being better off than the vaccinated.
Not that anon, but risk rises substantially in the two weeks after vaccination, Pfizer found around double the risk due to temporary immune suppression. So the vaccinated go down as unvaccinated, the boosted go down as double vaccinated, and the double boosted go down as boosted. Every preceding group looks worse than it should because they get hammered with the next group's cases.

>You're misremembering a clinical study on immunosuppressed populations with specific comorbidities.
No, that actually came from Pfizer's trial that gained them approval.

Yes yes. Safe.

More lies. Canada, UK, US, and so on, all show the same thing. Your failure to read and your failure to click links is your own fault. All you have are lies because you're a coward.

I did. I cited many. You people only have denial and refusal to read. You're cowards, just like creationists and flat earthers.

Lazy vaxcow

360* now

everything about this thread is shit, and so are you

Oh, so you just outright admit you didn't know what you were talking about. And you think I'd help you now because... ?

>...In the section talking about the immunocompromised.
Actually can't find that, but I did find this from the Danes. Neat how all of those cases would go down as unvaccinated.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.08.21252200v1.full.pdf

So earlier I mentioned this

>Can't do basic math

Okay, for the morons let's play a game of pretend to understand how this works. If 100% of a population is vaccinated, 100% of deaths will be among the vaccinated. That is why you can look up countries, like the united states, where large numbers of people were not vaccinated and compare them. The unvaccinated always do worse.

[...]
Are you illiterate? If you look in aggregate, not controlling for age, what I said will be true. It's called lying with numbers. When you control for age, so all the people age 80 who are vaccinated vs. age 80 who aren't, the vaccinated populations always do better. For small samples you also have to account for prior conditions (if you are dishonestly using a single hospital sample for example).

[...]
Are your fingers broken? Is your internet not working? Are your eyes not working, where I already posted this? Here it is again, you can pull up the same kind of data in just about every country: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm

[...]
I see that you're also gullible. See the first paragraph of this reply. I know it sucks to find out that you're mentally moronic, and gullible enough to buy swamp land for oil, but it helps to find out sooner rather than later.

dishonest thing people do with citing tiny samples in individual hospitals to make false claims about vaccine effectiveness.

Almost like I'm psychic.

Assuming you're just genuinely misinformed, you're cherrypicking whether you know it or not. Look at the ecological data for any country, again you have the CDC or the raw CDC-submitted data for the US, you have canada, you have the UK, and so on.

So you get one of two options: A vast mass conspiracy where all medical professionals are submitting false data in every country that reported on these comparisons, or you're cherrypicking. Guess which one makes the most sense.

you haven't looked into any data beyond what this thread required of you, stop lying

>I guess your fingers and google are broken for you too?
>Prospective cohorts of 3,950 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 13 consecutive weeks.

Oh, so you just outright admit you didn't know what you were talking about. And you think I'd help you now because... ?

[...]
So earlier I mentioned this [...] dishonest thing people do with citing tiny samples in individual hospitals to make false claims about vaccine effectiveness.

Almost like I'm psychic.

Assuming you're just genuinely misinformed, you're cherrypicking whether you know it or not. Look at the ecological data for any country, again you have the CDC or the raw CDC-submitted data for the US, you have canada, you have the UK, and so on.

So you get one of two options: A vast mass conspiracy where all medical professionals are submitting false data in every country that reported on these comparisons, or you're cherrypicking. Guess which one makes the most sense.

>So earlier I mentioned this

>Can't do basic math

Okay, for the morons let's play a game of pretend to understand how this works. If 100% of a population is vaccinated, 100% of deaths will be among the vaccinated. That is why you can look up countries, like the united states, where large numbers of people were not vaccinated and compare them. The unvaccinated always do worse.

[...]
Are you illiterate? If you look in aggregate, not controlling for age, what I said will be true. It's called lying with numbers. When you control for age, so all the people age 80 who are vaccinated vs. age 80 who aren't, the vaccinated populations always do better. For small samples you also have to account for prior conditions (if you are dishonestly using a single hospital sample for example).

[...]
Are your fingers broken? Is your internet not working? Are your eyes not working, where I already posted this? Here it is again, you can pull up the same kind of data in just about every country: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm

[...]
I see that you're also gullible. See the first paragraph of this reply. I know it sucks to find out that you're mentally moronic, and gullible enough to buy swamp land for oil, but it helps to find out sooner rather than later. dishonest thing people do with citing tiny samples in individual hospitals to make false claims about vaccine effectiveness.

the shill refutes himself

>All you had to do was search "two weeks covid vaccine effectiveness" or any iteration thereof. You can specify countries and so on. It really was that simple. You really are that inept. Whether genuinely or not, something to be aware of. It's that easy for you to get caught in an echo chamber because you're that unable to do basic searching.
So...I ask you for data which includes case rates in the two weeks immediately after vaccination, and you provide me with data that has specifically removed it. Thanks, real helpful bud. You're making my case here that they're hiding that data by lumping it in with the previous group.

is that really the only single thing you'll end up arguing about ?
infection rates immediately after vaccination ?
talk about grasping at straws ?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-30/s-africa-had-fifth-covid-wave-despite-97-antibody-protection
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1687679/v2

so natural immunity is shit basically ?

>so natural immunity is shit basically ?
Far above vaccine immunity based on NEJM. 🙂

>citing tiny samples
Cool. So you have data with larger samples which separates the two weeks post-vaccination so we can look at that? Please provide, because so far as I can tell, the data we've been getting from various countries doesn't do so.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n783/rr

>The REACT study of prevalence in January showed that the odds ratio of having a positive swab was 1.48 in healthcare and care home workers and 1.38 in other key workers (when compared to all workers).[7] It seems highly unlikely that behavioural change alone (in the over 80s) could account for an increase in the risk of infection of a similar magnitude to that assumed by being in high-risk employment.

>The ONS study quoted does show that over 40% of vaccinated over 80 year-olds met with someone outside of their household or bubble during some unspecified period after vaccination, but there was no data collection for behaviour prior to vaccination with which to compare that figure.[8] No specific dates were given for when the meetings had taken place. It is therefore impossible to conclude that there has been any change in behaviour, let alone one specifically related to the week or two after vaccination.

>The ONS has reported that the proportion of adults who had no contact at all with over 70 year-olds rose from 83% prior to vaccine rollout to 90% during vaccine rollout, from the beginning of December to 8th February.[9] By 8th February 90% of the over 70s had been vaccinated.[10] It is hard to reconcile fewer people visiting the over 70 year-olds prior to 8th February with more over 80 year-olds having contact with others.

Please, if you have data disproving me, then provide it. I'll gladly accept I'm wrong in that case. It sure seems like data that would provide these answers is being obfuscated by counting vaccination status as two weeks post-vaccination, and then lumping all cases into the previous groups without providing a way to delineate the data. Canada has gone so far as counting anyone who isn't at least double vaccinated as unvaccinated.

>in the face of a rapidly mutating virus, it's a reasonable stance
the vaccine is helping create the mutations though

Unvaccinated don't create the same kind of selection pressure.

Depends. Are the antibodies neutralizing?

>what's the difference with a virus mutating to get around antigens created specifically by natural immunity ?
It's mutating mostly in the spike portion, which is what people have been vaccinated against. Natural immunity includes antibodies against other proteins besides the spike, it wouldn't place selective pressure on just that one portion of the virus. Not to mention natural immunity is proving to be more robust that vaccine immunity.

>Our mission is to unveil and widely share the scientific truths concerning the detrimental health and social consequences of the ongoing COVID-19 mass vaccination campaigns.

Proponents of these campaigns largely underestimate the negative impact of widespread immune pressure on both the evolutionary capacity of the virus and the innate immune response.

Governments' concerted efforts worldwide to administer vaccines on a global scale will only prolong the pandemic and lead to catastrophic results - their methods of misinformation and coercion only deepen the magnitude of such a catastrophe and have been accompanied by an increasing erosion of individual rights and freedoms.

Only through a global awareness and understanding of these truths through transparency and open scientific debate, we can realize the futility of these vaccination campaigns and pursue a viable and scientifically rational strategy.

I'm sure those gentlemen are unbiased and eager to do some objective science

>what's the difference with a virus mutating to get around antigens created specifically by natural immunity ?
https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/second-call-to-who-please-dont-vaccinate-against-omicron

>Omicron has acquired a substantial level of resistance to the vaccinal antibodies, and that means that the vaccinal antibodies are less likely to outcompete the innate antibodies
>We also know that innate antibodies can be trained, and therefore they can even improve their recognition and protection against the virus. Innate antibodies can be trained just like other innate immune effectors can be trained, by repeated exposure to what we call pathogen-associated molecular patterns.
>This is, in fact, nicely shown by the data published by the UK Health Security Agency, previously Public Health England - where they have shown that basically with aging and also with more exposure to the pathogen, the number of cases in the unvaccinated people was dramatically reduced, and even to an extent such that vaccine efficacy, or we should say, in the population, vaccine effectiveness, would become negative.
>There is also increased evidence, or increasing evidence, that training of innate antibodies as a result of natural infection can enhance the abrogation of the infection, and that training of adaptive immunity – particularly the induction of T-cell memory, also as a result of natural infection – can enhance the abrogation of disease.
>Thanks to the increased resistance of Omicron to vaccinal antibodies, the innate antibodies are set free and can now enable the vaccinees to eliminate the virus, to control viral transmission, and to lead to a dramatic decrease in the viral infection rate, just like healthy unvaccinated people are doing

>If we are now going to vaccinate against Omicron, we are going to take away this window of opportunity for the population to generate herd immunity, thanks to freeing up our innate antibodies. And what we are going to do is in fact we would build against antibodies, against the spike protein of Omicron, and particularly against the receptor-binding domain of this Omicron spike protein
>We know that this receptor-binding domain has already undergone a number, or several, important mutations. So, if we put again full pressure on this domain, there is a high likelihood that we are now going to promote variants that will be able to use a receptor that is different from ACE-2 to enter into the cell. And we know that SARS-CoV-2 can do that because it has already been described that SARS-CoV-2 can use receptors other than ACE-2 to enter into the cell
>this would mean that basically we end up with a situation where we have antibodies that still strongly bind to the virus, to the receptor binding domain, but that can no longer neutralize the virus because the virus is now using another domain to enter into the cell, a domain which is different from the domain that is blocked by the antibodies
>Such a situation is in fact, a textbook example, for how you provoke antibody-dependent enhancement of the disease. So, this would mean that such a situation, the virus covered with strongly binding antibodies but not being able to neutralize the virus, would basically lead, or would be similar, to a situation where the virus has acquired a higher level of virulence. This would be - this situation would really, really, really be at risk of provoking the kind of disastrous consequences that I have been warning against at the beginning of this year. And we know that industry is already gearing up for mass vaccination against Omicron. And, as this, according to my humble opinion, could potentially be - with a high likelihood - a real disaster

>Our mission is to unveil and widely share the scientific truths concerning the detrimental health and social consequences of the ongoing COVID-19 mass vaccination campaigns. Proponents of these campaigns largely underestimate the negative impact of widespread immune pressure on both the evolutionary capacity of the virus and the innate immune response. Governments' concerted efforts worldwide to administer vaccines on a global scale will only prolong the pandemic and lead to catastrophic results - their methods of misinformation and coercion only deepen the magnitude of such a catastrophe and have been accompanied by an increasing erosion of individual rights and freedoms. Only through a global awareness and understanding of these truths through transparency and open scientific debate, we can realize the futility of these vaccination campaigns and pursue a viable and scientifically rational strategy.
schizo shit
passed

> the vaccine is making you more likely to get the chink flu
to quote you

>vaccine shows undeniable protection against infection past two-weeks
for 13 weeks (i.e. 3 months and 1 week), in that study. Good luck jabbing yourself 4 times a year to keep yourself protected from a flu

vaccine shows undeniable protection against infection past two-weeks
for 13 weeks
so no, it really does make it less likely for you to become infect
you can't refute it at this point, you already admitted

depends on prior infection or vaccines

stop posting shitty memes

>it really does make it less likely for you to become infect
what happens, though, after those 13 weeks?

>vaccine shows undeniable protection
mate not even the authors were as moronic as you to claim such a thing

>The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, vaccine effectiveness point estimates should be interpreted with caution given the moderately wide CIs attributable in part to the limited number of postimmunization PCR-confirmed infections observed. Second, this also precluded making product-specific vaccine effectiveness estimates and limited the ability to adjust for potential confounders; however, effects were largely unchanged when study site was included in an adjusted vaccine effectiveness model and when adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, and occupation separately in sensitivity analyses. Finally, self-collection of specimens and delays in shipments could reduce sensitivity of virus detection by PCR (10); if this disproportionately affected those who received the vaccine (e.g., because of possible vaccine attenuation of virus shedding), vaccine effectiveness would be overestimated.

same thing that happens after infection
immunity slowly wanes

>same thing that happens after infection
>immunity slowly wanes
"immunity" doesn't "wane", antibodies do, because there isn't an infection there.

it's curious how the vaccinated keep needing more shots to activate their immune system thought while natural immunity seems to be working as it should (memory defense)

>so what if you need four boosters a year to maintain protection?
Good question. Boosters are showing less and less efficacy, that doesn't seem like a great approach.

>it's perfectly safe
So long as you're not a young male, they're somewhat safe. You don't think there's a reason many countries are restricting the mRNA vaccines and stopping at one dose?

>mortality is way worse for the unvaccinated

Except for all those extra people who die from the natural infection. Galaxy brain.

>Except for all those extra people who die from the natural infection. Galaxy brain.
yeah, those "deaths" from (with) "covid"

>so when you die of pneumonia with a positive covid PCR
it's been almost 2 years already and I'm fine without a clot shot, but just "2 more weeks" right?

>you die 'with' covid according to your twisted logic ?
yes. you dided of pneumonia, a very common cause of death. Interestingly respiratory illnesses decreased dramatically (almost disappeared even) when covid showed up

>and that's how I know you're just a keyboard warrior who's never set foot in a hospital
i mean, we tried, but they didn't like it when their emptiness was recorded
https://www.hsj.co.uk/stevens-condemns-videoing-of-empty-hospitals/7029270.article

You're going to face a winter of illness and death...I mean, wait, winter is over. Well next winter, definitely!

>More people die who are unvaccinated than prior to covid, WITH COVID, yes. More people are dying. You're a moron.
This assertion lacks evidence

as opposed to the claim that covid death certificate were falsified, which is prefectly credible

Comparing vaccine without infection to natural infection without vaccine. Vaccine with infection lasts longer than just not being vaccinated with infection.

All you can do is dodge, deflect, lie. You coyly drop inconvenient parts of the same data you cite. You're no better than CNN.

being infected with vaccination lessens your symptoms, their length, and your risk of hospitalization
sounds like a rather good deal all in all

>I don't believe
>Every person I know
you weren't salvageable to begin with

>preferentially vaccinated
>no data
more power to you I guess

>being infected with vaccination lessens your symptoms, their length, and your risk of hospitalization
But for how long??
[...]
FOR HOW LONG???

depends on former infection and vaccines

>Unproven
>Studies with millions of people
>Unproven
>"I have an anecdote"

Just admit you're lying to make yourself feel better already. It's so obvious. The hallmark of every idiotic denialism is always epistemic double standards. You deny national data and then accept anecdotes.

You basically lost.

>being infected with vaccination lessens your symptoms, their length, and your risk of hospitalization
But for how long??

>Unproven
>Studies with millions of people
>Unproven
>"I have an anecdote"

Just admit you're lying to make yourself feel better already. It's so obvious. The hallmark of every idiotic denialism is always epistemic double standards. You deny national data and then accept anecdotes.

You basically lost.

FOR HOW LONG???

Website doesn't work for me because of my schizo extensions.
So how long does it last?

Is that one of the things you're not allowed to talk about because it makes it obvious the vaccines are shit?

>so what does it change exactly ? you're still getting at least one dose of vaccine..
A 50% difference in protection at 6-8 months, that's what.

Sure, getting vaccinated before getting infected is so effective that your protection is lower than if you were never vaccinated at all.

You're still going to get clots and heart failure, but your immune system won't be fricked forever.

Yes, do it homosexual.

it's an amazing vaccine
mRNA technology is genius shit, we've witnessed how vaccines went from steam-engine to fusion reactor in our lifetime, it's pretty cool

>so what does it change exactly ?
It means vaccine induced aids

if you're okay to get sued by somebody who caught covid from you and ended up in the hospital
then sure, I'm okay to get sued as well

good luck proving he ended up in hospital because of the vaccine 🙂

>if you're okay to get sued by somebody who caught covid from you and ended up in the hospital
I'm unvaccinated and got covid from a boosted person who came to work sick. Should I sue them? What about my dozens of other coworkers who spread it around during outbreaks?

sure, sue them, whatever floats your boat

just like any other antibodies like anti-SSA or anti-GBM, those can be present without actual clinical relevance
nice try

Sing it with me children, "correlation is not causation". All studies on the fraction of a fraction of a % of associated myocarditis, ASSOCIATED, are correlational. Not causal. There remains, to date, no causation evidenced. All studies alleging correlation, to date, report correlations well within the rate of false negative testing and other reporting mistakes.

So what's more likely? Missing a covid infection or a vaccine nobody can establish a causal test for causing a 0.001% increase in myocarditis... something covid causes too? HMMM...

Ecological correlations are not the same as randomized controlled trials, moron.

Why do you keep lumping hybrid together, as though there aren't two distinct hybrid groups? And you have the nerve of accusing others of lying. Not to mention, your charts on page 9 are visual representations of the numbers I posted. But better to be a lying piece of shit, right?

The chart on page 9 is a more advanced analysis than raw rate differences, which you'd know if you read your own source.

Give it a rest liar. You trimmed off hybrid cases in your first image and kept trying to avoid posting page 9 because you knew you'd have some explaining to do, which you can't do.

Pathetic children.

[...]
It says you're samegayging

The fricking desperation. Go ahead bud show it. Unless he hacked my wifi in the same house and is living in my attic, no, he isn't me. But if you can prove he IS in my attic I'd like to know.

>Give it a rest liar. You trimmed off hybrid cases in your first image and kept trying to avoid posting page 9 because you knew you'd have some explaining to do, which you can't do.
I just wanted you to know that you're a piece of shit. 🙂 Here's your image again, with the relevant information circled. You're either a liar or stupid, I'm embarrassed for you either way.

Why...why the frick are you posting a bar chart of the numbers I just provided? Look at the 6-8 month numbers.

Unvaccinated - 14 per 100k
Recovered, one dose - 11.6 per 100k
One dose, recovered - 16.2 per 100k

BTW, I hope you looked at your image carefully to see that they fricked with the times. Each bar in each chart does not cover the same amount of time. Unvaccinated spans to over 12 months, hybrid and vaccinated immunity stop at 8 months and they front load the short bars with times of o to 2 months, and 2 to 4 months. It's purposeful deception on their part. I've circled the bars that are actually comparable.

>Ecological correlations are not the same as randomized controlled trials correlations because... they just aren't goy

>words on books are the truth because... they just are you silly goy

>Two large European pharmacoepidemiological studies have estimated the excess risk in younger males following the second dose of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. One study showed that in a period of 7 days after the second dose there were about 0.265 (95% CI 0.255 - 0.275) extra cases of myocarditis in 12-29 year old males per 10,000 compared to unexposed persons. In another study, in a period of 28 days after the second dose there were 0.57 [95% CI 0.39 – 0.75] extra cases of myocarditis in 16-24 year old males per 10,000 compared to unexposed persons.

between 20% and 50% increase
sounds like a nothingburger

>All studies alleging correlation, to date, report correlations well within the rate of false negative testing and other reporting mistakes
>so uh yeah that pain you felt in your chest, your tiredness and trouble with breathing are just... false positive, you have nothing little guy, go home and play
>*drops dead a week later from heart failure*
>another covid death i guess

>if you're okay to get sued by somebody who caught covid from you and ended up in the hospital
I'm unvaccinated and got covid from a boosted person who came to work sick. Should I sue them? What about my dozens of other coworkers who spread it around during outbreaks?

>it really does make it less likely for you to become infect
what happens, though, after those 13 weeks?

>vaccine shows undeniable protection
mate not even the authors were as moronic as you to claim such a thing

>The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, vaccine effectiveness point estimates should be interpreted with caution given the moderately wide CIs attributable in part to the limited number of postimmunization PCR-confirmed infections observed. Second, this also precluded making product-specific vaccine effectiveness estimates and limited the ability to adjust for potential confounders; however, effects were largely unchanged when study site was included in an adjusted vaccine effectiveness model and when adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, and occupation separately in sensitivity analyses. Finally, self-collection of specimens and delays in shipments could reduce sensitivity of virus detection by PCR (10); if this disproportionately affected those who received the vaccine (e.g., because of possible vaccine attenuation of virus shedding), vaccine effectiveness would be overestimated.

>what happens, though, after those 13 weeks?
duh, then it's time for your booster.
dumb schizo chud. trust science.

>antibodies mean nothing if ADE or original antigenic sin is happening
ADE is the result of antigenic sin, but yes.

>too many mutations to make
why did it mutate twice before vaccines were even a thing then ?

quite interesting that there were barely a few thousand people in the trials, compared to the millions that got infect at the same time, for sure
>Omicron was either driven by vaccine immunity allowing it an opening or it was a lab leak.
and you've got solid evidence for both of these claims obviously

>driving factor for those variants to come from those countries
you just suck at stats I guess
there were many countries participating in the trial, including the US who had the most participants
no variant
the first country to have the widest vaccine coverage was Israel
no variant
India, terrible vaccine coverage
one of the most infecitous and lethal variant
stop making up garbage with no basis in reality
>vaccinated cases per capita far exceed unvaccinated cases
and you have no idea why, because you've never taken a single epidemiology class in your life
sucks to be you, but that's meaningless speculations

>0,3% mortality
>USA : 1%
looks like they did pretty ok

UK and India had two of the largest trials prior to Dec 2020, and we were welcomed with Alpha and Delta. California had a subvariant of Alpha that seemed to develop separately.

>and you have no idea why
The semantics really don't matter, we can deduce that natural immunity is superior, that much is clear. 🙂

>Except for all those extra people who die from the natural infection.
I had it in January, slight fever for a couple of days. Sure, vaccinate the vulnerable, but it's stupid to be vaccinating the young and healthy and impairing their chance to build proper immunity.

>lung fibrosis
from masks and micrplastics

>and chronic inflammation
caused by high PUFA diet and fear mongering, that much is obvious
https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2021/21_0123.htm

>explaining the causes is whataboutism

>what is selection pressure?
lmao

>Please, if you have data disproving me, then provide it. I'll gladly accept I'm wrong in that case. It sure seems like data that would provide these answers is being obfuscated by counting vaccination status as two weeks post-vaccination, and then lumping all cases into the previous groups without providing a way to delineate the data. Canada has gone so far as counting anyone who isn't at least double vaccinated as unvaccinated.

That has a lot more to do with how unreliable assessments of unvaccinated populations are, AND the fact single dose vaccination efficacy wanes to virtually zero over the course of a year or two. Last I checked anyway, and that probably depends on the vaccine manufacturer.

They're not "trying to hide" or "obfuscate" it, it's just irrelevant for the vast majority of uses because you've a single paranoid hangup. The data the CDC uses is publicly available, you can download it yourself, you can see for yourself if you're willing to put up the effort to learn how.

>I guess your fingers and google are broken for you too?
>Prospective cohorts of 3,950 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 13 consecutive weeks.
[...]
>So earlier I mentioned this [...] dishonest thing people do with citing tiny samples in individual hospitals to make false claims about vaccine effectiveness.

the shill refutes himself

You see how in that one it isn't isolated to a single facility? You know, proper wide scale sampling? God you're desperate.

>So...I ask you for data which includes case rates in the two weeks immediately after vaccination, and you provide me with data that has specifically removed it. Thanks, real helpful bud. You're making my case here that they're hiding that data by lumping it in with the previous group.

Um, no. They were tested for 13 consecutive weeks. Vaccine effectiveness greater than or equal to 14 days was 90%. That is literally impossible if the vaccine made it MORE LIKELY to get sick within those two weeks.

Your failure to understand is not my fault. You just didn't get it. So I've explained it again. What you would effectively be claiming now is "somehow they all got it worse and more often but also this magically reversed on day 14". Do you see how stupid that sounds?

>Um, no. They were tested for 13 consecutive weeks. Vaccine effectiveness greater than or equal to 14 days was 90%. That is literally impossible if the vaccine made it MORE LIKELY to get sick within those two weeks.
I'm not sure what you're not getting here. They cut out the two weeks post-vaccination, and then tracked them for 13 weeks. I want to see what happened in those first two weeks.

>That is literally impossible if the vaccine made it MORE LIKELY to get sick within those two weeks.
It's not impossible because they simply said "here's what happened starting at 14-days post vaccination."

Let me try to be more clear.

Unvaccinated + Two weeks post-vaccination = Unvaccinated. This is one data set.

One injection + Two weeks-post second injection = One injection. This is one data set.

Two injections + Two weeks-post booster = Two injections. This is one data set.

I've found no way to separate the data in a way that allows me to see if cases go up in those two weeks after each dose, because they're lumped into one giant data pool. Based on the few studies that did delineate the data, the risk is anywhere from 50% greater to more than doubled of being infected in the next two weeks following an injection.

And let's not even get into all of the suspected cases that were never even tested in Pfizer's study.

>...In the section talking about the immunocompromised.
Found it. Can you point me to where it mentions they were immunocompromised? You'd think they would have tested these suspected cases, but that may have hurt the study's results.

https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download

1816 placebo infections to 1594 vaccine infections creates a very different picture when we were being told about 90% efficacy at preventing symptomatic COVID-19. That's more like 14%, back when the vaccines actually did seem to prevent cases. And there were 409 cases in the first week after vaccination compared to 287 in the placebo, which they could put down as adverse reactions since they didn't test.

Take this as an example.

Placebo Vaccinated
Week 1 8 cases 14 cases
Week 2 9 cases 17 cases
Week 3 7 cases 2 cases
Week 4 8 cases 3 cases
32 cases 36 cases

Now here's how that would be counted. Those first two weeks would become unvaccinated cases. Now it's 63 unvaccinated cases, compared to 5 vaccinated cases. Not only are you essentially increasing the unvaccinated time frame (four weeks for the unvaccinated, plus the first two weeks of the vaccinated), it's also absorbing the additional risk period of those first two weeks. Limited data suggests that's exactly what's happening. Not being able to separate the data to know for sure is a serious issue.

>no it's not a serious issue
Dude, what they're doing would be like doing a study, and saying those infections should count as part of the placebo group because the vaccines couldn't work yet. Even worse, they're not making the data available.

>not how it works
>I know it's a different study, but you don't get to switch patients from one groupe to another
Correct, in an actual study, that's not how it works, yet in the real world, that's how it's working. You're not vaccinated until two weeks after your injection, prior to that you get counted in the previous group (whether that's unvaccinated, or single vaccinated, etc). Canada went so far as to say that if you're not double vaccinated, you're an unvaccinated case.

>vaccine shows undeniable protection against infection past two-weeks
for 13 weeks (i.e. 3 months and 1 week), in that study. Good luck jabbing yourself 4 times a year to keep yourself protected from a flu

My dude, seriously, slap yourself and get some coffee and focus on what's going on. You're not paying attention. Focus, please, and we'll go over this again.

My example citation, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm , shows that 14 days after the first dose the efficacy was 80%.

You said "They cut out the two weeks post-vaccination". This is false. They tracked them 14 days following first vaccination, and the vaccine was 80% effective.

Now follow me closely: It is impossible without reality time-bending black magic for the vaccine to be WORSE than not being vaccinated when it's 80% effective relative to not being vaccinated.

> I've found no way to separate the data in a way that allows me to see if cases go up in those two weeks after each dose

This is exactly what "effectiveness 14 days later" tells you. It tells you that in those 14 days those people had fewer infections and fewer problems. It is impossible for them to have had MORE cases and simultaneously fewer cases.

>It's not impossible because they simply said "here's what happened starting at 14-days post vaccination."

No, they're saying "here's what happened in those 14 days". You aren't paying attention. Focus. Pfizer does the same thing. You literally are just not comprehending what is written.

>And let's not even get into all of the suspected cases that were never even tested in Pfizer's study.

Having a separate data set of "symptom reported" showing something opposite confirmed cases is not at all surprising. Nor is it a fault in the study. You can't put people in jail for the doctor. Some people just did not get tested in spite of reporting symptoms.

I think you might be stupid.

>Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%.
Do you see those greater than or equal to signs? They cut out the first two weeks after the first dose. I showed here that the first dose has the highest risk for infection

>...In the section talking about the immunocompromised.
Actually can't find that, but I did find this from the Danes. Neat how all of those cases would go down as unvaccinated.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.08.21252200v1.full.pdf

.

>This is exactly what "effectiveness 14 days later" tells you.
No, it's showing effectiveness starting after 14 days. That's bullshit. If the vaccine increases risk initially, that should count as a vaccinated case.

>Hazard ratios of unvaccinated person-days to partial immunization person-days (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose)
Dude, are you a fricking troll? It literally says, RIGHT THERE, that they're only counting 14 days post-injection up to the second dose. Where's the 14 days after the first injection? It's not in that paper.

>Hazard ratios of unvaccinated person-days to partial immunization person-days (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose)
Dude, are you a fricking troll? It literally says, RIGHT THERE, that they're only counting 14 days post-injection up to the second dose. Where's the 14 days after the first injection? It's not in that paper.

I will apologize, should, for not realizing exactly which part you were hung up on until then. I'd thought it obvious you should look for the number of excluded, but in hindsight that probably is not obvious if you aren't used to reading literature.

I am sorry for that. But the numbers are all there, just add on those 33 additional infections and do basic division for those 13 days. Anything else?

> ≥14 days after first dose
> ≥14 days after second dose

>Literally, they have them both. They're listed, calculated, separately.
You're a fact checking journalist aren't you? No one can be this stupid in middle school maths, it's basic intervals. They registered cases starting at 14 days after the first shot, and 14 days after the second shot.

>Sorry to say, you're the stupid one here.
You brain dead Black person, your superiors will fire you tomorrow for comiting such a bad shilling, good luck writing another click bait to pay for food and don't forget that booster you took to keep waging

>Hazard ratios of unvaccinated person-days to partial immunization person-days (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose)
Dude, are you a fricking troll? It literally says, RIGHT THERE, that they're only counting 14 days post-injection up to the second dose. Where's the 14 days after the first injection? It's not in that paper.

>Dude, are you a fricking troll? It literally says, RIGHT THERE, that they're only counting 14 days post-injection up to the second dose. Where's the 14 days after the first injection? It's not in that paper.
They skipped counting the cases before the 14 days after the second shot too if you read it closely.

This means if a vaxxtard got a second shot months later, the immune supression wouldn't be noticed if it happened within 14 days of the second shot too

this homosexual must be getting paid to run cover for shitty, sketchy data, he's pushed this thread to what must be close to a IQfy reply record with his evasive and belabored posts, the way he's posted a few studies, exaggerated their scope, and then continued to act like he's in possession of overwhelmingly high quality data and ad-hominem'd everyone else the whole time is almost professional-tier. if he didn't make at least $10 for his work in this thread I'm disappointed

>You said "They cut out the two weeks post-vaccination". This is false.
dude you're lying

>They tracked them 14 days following first vaccination, and the vaccine was 80% effective.
They tracked the cases STARTING at 14 days AFTER the first vaccine.
>vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%.

What were the cases 5 days after the first vaccination? 2 days? 3 days? 7 days?

>Oh, so you just outright admit you didn't know what you were talking about. And you think I'd help you now because... ?
you're posting on a board with no ID's and you think you have some magical power to identify posters? anyways good to know you don't actually have any sources. cya 🙂

>...In the section talking about the immunocompromised.
Found it. Can you point me to where it mentions they were immunocompromised? You'd think they would have tested these suspected cases, but that may have hurt the study's results.

https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download

I'm not confused by anything. It's not my fault they didn't test the people who were symptomatic, and with good reason, because the vaccine wouldn't have reached the minimum threshold of 50% efficacy. But I'm sure you're okay with a study which gained the vaccine EUA when it only bothered testing less than 10% of the suspected covid cases?

>hypothesis: vaccination confers a brief period of immunity before it wanes into the negative

Which is contradicted by the very same evidence. You can use CDC data, you can use Canada's data, you can use the UK's national data, in every single country with good records and a large enough unvaccinated population for comparison you see the same thing.

Your "hypothesis" is falsified, but you'd rather deny reality to preserve your faith.

he already proved it 15 times in this thread asshat
can't you open your eyes and read ?

It may not be this year or next year, but eventually the abuses of the last two years will have to be rectified in a court of law. The many lies told over the last two years all for control and domination have been absolutely repugnant and inhumane.

Try being smarter and learning to read, and maybe, just maybe, you may get some common sense one day.

>a direct comparison with a whole nation
You gave CDC data, the problems with which were extensively addressed (and you did not respond to the withold of data btw)

>and they'll grab some asstard with a blog who just points at raw numbers and falsely claims the rate is higher.
>...When the rate, if you do basic math, is actually lower.
In your dreams maybe

>You just have a conspiracy theory
Conspiracy facts you mean, satan
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/

>using any random fricking source he superficially read in 20 seconds, which is usually pre-prints, or random clickbait non-science websites

There's now more than a thousand scientific papers on issues with the injections. Thats a bit much.

>https://nzdsos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Peer-review-papers-papers-on-Vaccine-AE.pdf

>December 14, 2020–July 31, 2021
LOL

Thanks for conceding.

>It's so transparent how desperate you people are to lie for your feelings.
At this point I'm just fricking with you because you're a glowBlack person.

Thanks for admitting you have no argument.

>the data ITSELF is used by many other researchers with no affiliation. It is simply data submitted.
and "just data" showed itself to be a clear show of science's pristine ethics didn't it?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/04/lancet-retracts-major-covid-19-paper-that-raised-safety-concerns-about-malaria-drugs/
https://www.motherjones.com/coronavirus-updates/2020/06/hydroxychloroquine-study-covid-lancet-retracted/

I get it, you have nothing to show so you're deflecting. Thanks for conceding.

Jab doesn't produce sterilizing immunity. Not preventing the transmission or infection of covid renders protection from goyvid symptoms moot.
> Unvaccinated comparison group included unvaccinated persons and COVID-19 vaccine recipients before COVID-19 vaccination. The assignment of index dates allowed COVID-19 vaccinees to contribute unvaccinated person-time before vaccination, thus avoiding immortal time bias.
hahaha unjabbed includes the fricking immediate term effects of the jabs holy oh fricking shit. hahahahahaha

Read is again.
>included unvaccinated persons and COVID-19 vaccine recipients before COVID-19 vaccination.
hahahah you are so fricking moronic. Shill not getting apdi today.

>Boy there's a lot of moronation here.
Then why so desperate?

that sweet incel rage finally coming out

"u mad"?

Meant for you:

You're projecting.

>oh, so they are not comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated. weird, our shill friend told us that wasn't necessary

>"compared to unvaccinated individuals OR have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine"

They have both. On the link. That you didn't click on and you refuse to read. Hence "OR". There are comparisons for unvaccinated, one or two dose to three, etc. You know, available through the link. That was posted. That you didn't click.

Can't make this up. People are genuinely this stupid.

>Your dishonest image is not an actual rate comparison. Self evident from quoting your own source, hospitalizations among the vaccinated are lower.
Black person can you not read?
>compared to unvaccinated individuals or have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine

>tl;dr - you really are a gullible moron.
says whom?

>scotland
reminder for you moron
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19931745.covid-data-will-not-published-concerns-misrepresented-anti-vaxxers/
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/covid-data-stop-being-published-114056378.html

You need to be a serious believer in SCIENCE(TM) to fall for this bullshit

we're not done here

Whoops!

can you give us the breakdown of age groups for this graph you used as evidence ? 🙂

>May 2021
No one cares about your outdated data.

Extremely weak shilling, you're embarrassing yourself. Just get your janny friend to delete the thread.

>chinese ESL moment

>You mean the outdated ones? Or the new one they've been testing that's even worse than the old one?

Yep. Still do better than never vaccinated and never infected. Also does better with prior infection, so having a prior infection isn't a reason to avoid it either.

The real problem is people who just "don't wanna" inventing excuses when the reason is just "don't wanna".

>over 6 million people
>"Garbage sample size"

Well you're clearly trolling. Also there's larger ones, this one assesses 30 million https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-shows-fewer-people-die-from-covid-19-in-better-vaccinated-communities/

>WTF does that even say??
dark blue is non vaccinated
light blue is vaccinated but no info on doses
dark orange is partially vaccinated
light orange is fully vaccinated

[...]
>Shows graph with huge deaths for the unvaccinated
>Uhhh... okay?
On 13th of May 2021 there were 865registered deaths for non-vaccinated

Combining partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated and vaccinated with no doses info, 362 deaths were registered for the vaccinated

on that date, 18% of the population had gotten vaccinated

being 18% of the population, the vaccinated accounted for 29.5% of deaths. The unvaccinated, being 82% of the population, accounted for 70.5% of deaths

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Graph 4.10
https://zerobias.info/

I can be the same discrepancy can be seen everywhere in the world

So instead of looking at large age controlled studies with tens of millions of people, demonstrably showing vaccinated vs unvaccinated, you want to focus on... Less than 1300 deaths. Because it confirms what you already want to believe.

I'm not even comparing what the two studies did. I just want you to admit how dishonest you are. You disregard samples of 30 million or more because you found something to superficially agree with your prior belief. https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-shows-fewer-people-die-from-covid-19-in-better-vaccinated-communities/

...Yes? You want sample data that includes people being killed in traffic accidents or dying from cancer? Because.... ?

The virus mutates, glowBlack person.

Great reason to keep up to date on your shots, yes.

>A woman is Iowa is speaking out about an unexpected benefit of the COVID-19 vaccine: Getting the shot resulted in a stage 2 breast cancer diagnosis.
have you even read your article ?
you're embarassing yourself at this point..

> Moseley's vaccine didn't cause the lump in her breast, it started a train of thought that motivated her to check herself for signs of cancer. This, Dr. Adalja points out, was a "good coincidence."

Moseley noted that she had a routine mammogram scheduled in July. But if she hadn't been vaccinated in April and discovered the swollen lymph node, her cancer could have grown before it was detected. "The COVID-19 shot, I'm gonna say-as much as COVID sucked-it saved me," she told the Des Moines Register.

have you no self-respect ?
for real man

>...Yes? You want sample data that includes people being killed in traffic accidents or dying from cancer? Because.... ?
because mortality from the target disease isn't the only measure of vaccine safety...?

>I'm not even comparing what the two studies did. I just want you to admit how dishonest you are. You disregard samples of 30 million or more because you found something to superficially agree with your prior belief. https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-shows-fewer-people-die-from-covid-19-in-better-vaccinated-communities/

>lower rates of population level covid-19 mortality and incidence
Notice it doesn't say all-cause mortality, I wonder why

Because I don't need to rely on small sample clinical trial results when we have whole-nation data of millions.

You people are something special. First, you whine about sample sizes allegedly being too small. Now you're whining that the sample size is too big?

It's so transparent how desperate you people are to lie for your feelings.

>Also does better with prior infection, so having a prior infection isn't a reason to avoid it either.
https://nationalpost.com/health/natural-immunity-provides-strong-protection-from-covid-reinfection-but-vaccination-still-safer

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natural-immunity-is-more-effective-then-vaccine-immunity/ar-AAMX3sM

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-226857/v1

https://www.theblaze.com/news/johns-hopkins-professor-ignore-cdc-natural-immunity-works

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/92836

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/05/anti-vaxxers-have-a-dangerous-theory-called-natural-immunity-now-its-going-mainstream/

So ignoring your blogspam let's focus on the research.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

This is a comparison of vaccinated-never-infected to the prior infected. What this doesn't tell you is the risk from being never infected OR never vaccinated.

Guess what, moron? Being vaccinated is better than not being vaccinated. You're so desperate you can't even read.

that sweet incel rage finally coming out

>Blogspam? You don't trust the experts now?
>Literally went on to discuss the research paper you linked instead of the blogspam

Boy there's a lot of illiteracy here.

>pre-print... le bad

>still waiting for the age groups from your scottish covid stats
I'm still waiting too, go complain with the scottish government for not releasing data

By the way, you seemed to have completely ignored the CDC data hiding too

>can you break it down by age groupe please ?
we surely would be able to if the govs didn't refuse to release the raw data, so total deaths is the best we can do for now

https://nypost.com/2022/02/22/cdc-withholding-covid-data-over-fears-of-misinterpretation/
d.com/lung/news/20220222/report-cdc-not-publishing-large-amounts-of-covid-19-data
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1032885251/millions-of-people-are-missing-from-cdc-covid-data-as-states-fail-to-report-case
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cdc-hasnt-release-data-behind-mask-reversal

>why are you using data you know to be fake or incomplete then ?
who says I am? you are the one linking to scottish government studies you dirty Black person

https://publichealthscotland.scot/publications/covid-19-statistical-report/covid-19-statistical-report-16-february-2022/

>In the most recent four weeks, from 15 January 2022 to 11 February 2022, the age-standardised rate of hospital admissions per 100,000 were 3.0 to 3.7 times lower in individuals with their third dose or booster dose of vaccine compared to unvaccinated individuals or have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine

https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/vital-events/general-publications/weekly-and-monthly-data-on-births-and-deaths/deaths-involving-coronavirus-covid-19-in-scotland

Your dishonest image is not an actual rate comparison. Self evident from quoting your own source, hospitalizations among the vaccinated are lower.

tl;dr - you really are a gullible moron.

[...]
Okay, this is ridiculous. I literally posted that. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm

>After excluding COVID-19–associated deaths, overall SMRs after dose 1 were 0.42 and 0.37 per 100 person-years for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, respectively, and were 0.35 and 0.34, respectively, after dose 2 (Table 2). These rates were lower than the rate of 1.11 per 100 person-years among the unvaccinated mRNA vaccine comparison group (p <0.001).

Special concerns for immunocompromised people are all the more concerning given coronavirus has over tenfold higher risk of associated clot. "Clot shot"? So you're really paranoid about coronavirus then, right? Given the risk ratio is so much higher? Or are you just being dishonest?

I'm not him, gay.

>>lmao no u, look at the graph again you obstinate moron, 24% unvaccinated in the total population make up 16% of cases and 12.1% of deaths
>that was you b***h
>so, anything to say ?
And 70% vaccinated make up 90% of the deaths.

I already told you I'm not your Black person. The source is in the image.

>what's preventing you from furter elaborating on your source ?
Don't have time, looking for images to post.
I checked the data from RKI in March personally and they were showing similar things for all age groups.

alright, that's the data indeed
isn't there something obvious about it ?

don't the unvaccinated look awfully young ?

> so how does this explain higher rate of infection in the vaccinated, exactly?

Basic math. You're just schizoposting without thinking it through. Example, If 90 out of 100 are vaccinated, and a vaccine only provides ~70% coverage the rate of infection of 90 will exceed the 10 unvaccinated because a vaccine only provides n% reduction in a population.

...Which is irrelevant anyway and you're goalpost hopping to "infection rates" to avoid the fact your own source shows lower death rates and hospital admissions for the vaccinated.

>In the most recent four weeks, from 15 January 2022 to 11 February 2022, the age-
standardised rate of hospital admissions per 100,000 were 3.0 to 3.7 times lower in
individuals with their third dose or booster dose of vaccine compared to unvaccinated
individuals or have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

>In the four weeks from 08 January 2022 to 04 February 2022, in an age-
standardised population, the death rate in individuals that received a booster or 3rd
dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 4.6 and 9.5 times lower than individuals
who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19
vaccine.

He didn't elaborate because his source contradicts what he wants to believe. That's why he jumped to "but muh infection rates" and suddenly dropped claims of deaths or hospitalizations.

>keep acting like this is a comparison of unvaccinated to vaccinated and not cherrypicking booster data in the small window before immunity wanes

Now you move the goalpost to "but muh immunity wanes"? I just posted from your own source showing the unvaccinated have the highest risk load. The thing you've been denying the entire time.

You're so desperate it's hilarious.

he ended up elaborating, which is actually fairly honorable
but yeah, his stats don't say what he thinks they say, I've been baiting him to get into the details and so far it's working, let's see where this leads us

what would you say about the vaccination rates in the different age groups ?

you're just trying to muddy the waters you dumb gay here's your data (1 of 2)

>Doesn't understand how rates work.

Listen moron, when most of a population is vaccinated most deaths will be "with vaccinated" by definition. Holy shit you're stupid.

>The deflections continue.
You derailed the thread first. This whole discussion is deflection.

I'm the only motherfricker who posted explaining why the PDF in OP was wrong because it ignored all the worldwide ecological data you mouth breathing moron.

Induction. So far the best off group has had prior vaccinations and infection. There are also very large scale virology studies I linked on the same basis showing that, so far, they have the best and longest lasting immunity.

There's no basis for your BS other than denying reality.

tl;dr

Ah, right, I think the RKI reports do say that, too.

>Listen moron, when most of a population is vaccinated most deaths will be "with vaccinated" by definition. Holy shit you're stupid.
hurr listen moron when most of a population is vaccinated OF COURSE excess death rates will significantly exceed the last several years!
frick you're moronic, those graphs aren't about vaccination status, that wasn't my question, I'm asking you to explain why (non covid) excess deaths were so much higher in 2021 than in previous years

>claiming that the weaker strain of covid started killing even more people after mass vaccinations
extremely weak hypothesis

Long Covid indeed.

"189 persons with laboratory-documented COVID-19 (12% of whom were hospitalized during acute illness) and 120 antibody-negative control participants were enrolled. At enrollment, symptoms consistent with PASC (postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection) were reported by 55% of the COVID-19 cohort and 13% of control participants. Increased risk for PASC was noted in women and those with a history of anxiety disorder. Participants with findings meeting the definition of PASC reported lower quality of life on standardized testing. Abnormal findings on physical examination and diagnostic testing were uncommon. Neutralizing antibody levels to spike protein were negative in 27% of the unvaccinated COVID-19 cohort and none of the vaccinated COVID-19 cohort. Exploratory studies found no evidence of persistent viral infection, autoimmunity, or abnormal immune activation in participants with PASC."

>https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-4905

>https://archive.md/E5rPj

Nicely archived good Sir. They actually took the article down lol. We really are in Bozo Carnival world.

They will not reply to this

>Uhhh... what? They're not. I posted some example links.
You didn't

WTF does that even say??

>Can't do basic math

Okay, for the morons let's play a game of pretend to understand how this works. If 100% of a population is vaccinated, 100% of deaths will be among the vaccinated. That is why you can look up countries, like the united states, where large numbers of people were not vaccinated and compare them. The unvaccinated always do worse.

[...]
Are you illiterate? If you look in aggregate, not controlling for age, what I said will be true. It's called lying with numbers. When you control for age, so all the people age 80 who are vaccinated vs. age 80 who aren't, the vaccinated populations always do better. For small samples you also have to account for prior conditions (if you are dishonestly using a single hospital sample for example).

[...]
Are your fingers broken? Is your internet not working? Are your eyes not working, where I already posted this? Here it is again, you can pull up the same kind of data in just about every country: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm

[...]
I see that you're also gullible. See the first paragraph of this reply. I know it sucks to find out that you're mentally moronic, and gullible enough to buy swamp land for oil, but it helps to find out sooner rather than later.

>Okay, for the morons let's play a game of pretend to understand how this works
It's per capita you stupid gorilla israelite glowBlack person. Not even reading the rest of your shit.

12.1% of all deaths are from the unvaccinated, while making up 24% of the population. Meanwhile 76% are vaccinated, but 87.9% of all deaths are them. Who is more likely to die?

>WTF does that even say??
dark blue is non vaccinated
light blue is vaccinated but no info on doses
dark orange is partially vaccinated
light orange is fully vaccinated

>Says I'm wrong
>Shows graph with huge deaths for the unvaccinated

Uhhh... okay?

>Shows graph with huge deaths for the unvaccinated
>Uhhh... okay?
On 13th of May 2021 there were 865registered deaths for non-vaccinated

Combining partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated and vaccinated with no doses info, 362 deaths were registered for the vaccinated

on that date, 18% of the population had gotten vaccinated

being 18% of the population, the vaccinated accounted for 29.5% of deaths. The unvaccinated, being 82% of the population, accounted for 70.5% of deaths

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Graph 4.10
https://zerobias.info/

I can be the same discrepancy can be seen everywhere in the world

I wasn't aware people un-die once they die. Lol. It's like you heard this criticism once and it's all you have to dismiss things that make you have to question your gullibility.

>No one cares about your outdated data.
Outdated? Would it be better to use data that already had time to be verified? I picked that date beause it is the peak of deaths for the unvaccinated

It's interesting to note there were 0 unvaccinated deaths between september 14 and october 17

>over 6 million people
>"Garbage sample size"

Well you're clearly trolling. Also there's larger ones, this one assesses 30 million https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-shows-fewer-people-die-from-covid-19-in-better-vaccinated-communities/

[...]
So instead of looking at large age controlled studies with tens of millions of people, demonstrably showing vaccinated vs unvaccinated, you want to focus on... Less than 1300 deaths. Because it confirms what you already want to believe.

I'm not even comparing what the two studies did. I just want you to admit how dishonest you are. You disregard samples of 30 million or more because you found something to superficially agree with your prior belief. https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-shows-fewer-people-die-from-covid-19-in-better-vaccinated-communities/

>So instead of looking at large age controlled studies with tens of millions of people
which studies are those?

>demonstrably showing vaccinated vs unvaccinated
You mean the CDC ones?

>the data ITSELF is used by many other researchers with no affiliation. It is simply data submitted.
and "just data" showed itself to be a clear show of science's pristine ethics didn't it?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/04/lancet-retracts-major-covid-19-paper-that-raised-safety-concerns-about-malaria-drugs/
https://www.motherjones.com/coronavirus-updates/2020/06/hydroxychloroquine-study-covid-lancet-retracted/

>Do you not see how there were far more deaths for the unvaccinated?
Using absolute numbers is fine when it suits your agenda motherfricker? The study you linked used the same proportional reasoning you fricking chump

>Meaning a chart that ONLY SHOWS vaccination WITHOUT explicitly comparing rate between vaccinated vs unvaccinated does not show what you're stupidly believing it shows.
That's exactly what I did here you Black personbrain

>WTF does that even say??
dark blue is non vaccinated
light blue is vaccinated but no info on doses
dark orange is partially vaccinated
light orange is fully vaccinated

[...]
>Shows graph with huge deaths for the unvaccinated
>Uhhh... okay?
On 13th of May 2021 there were 865registered deaths for non-vaccinated

Combining partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated and vaccinated with no doses info, 362 deaths were registered for the vaccinated

on that date, 18% of the population had gotten vaccinated

being 18% of the population, the vaccinated accounted for 29.5% of deaths. The unvaccinated, being 82% of the population, accounted for 70.5% of deaths

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Graph 4.10
https://zerobias.info/

I can be the same discrepancy can be seen everywhere in the world

>on that date, 18% of the population had gotten vaccinated
>being 18% of the population, the vaccinated accounted for 29.5% of deaths. The unvaccinated, being 82% of the population, accounted for 70.5% of deaths
>https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

>So you're either moronic, and that's fine, or you're malicious. Pick one.
You are both, and are projecting

>Says I'm wrong
>Shows graph with huge deaths for the unvaccinated

Uhhh... okay?

Yes they are. Scientists are amoral monsters.

Scientists have written thousands of papers on the pandemic, most of which have been used to justify authoritarian measures. Scientists are evil.

I was answering anon's question of why the pandemic was exaggerated, which obviously has no basis in science or medicine. Please explain what was exaggerated.

Follow the comment chain and read more carefully this time

>appeals to vague "consensus"
>dismisses evidence to the contrary
>ad hominem
it's the shill trifecta

>and have to resort publishing in low impact factors journals
Why that matters though?
https://knowledgeisgood.net/2020/06/01/lancetgate/

Yes they did. Every government lie and media spin used the words of scientists to justify itself.

>False assumption of poorer immune response in a general population of vaccinated individuals
you mean exactly what's happening?
https://expose-news.com/2022/02/08/uk-gov-data-suggests-fully-vaccinated-have-developed-vaids/

>vaccinated people have fewer problems compared to unvaccinated for first infection
vaccinated? what is that? 4 doses? 3 doses? 2 doses? 1 dose? 2 weeks after the first dose?

> if more people are vaccinated, the odds will be more people infected will be vaccinated
why would they die at higher rates though (per 100,000)?

>irrelevant, antibodies are supposed to be low when there isn't an active infection, this criteria is moronic

The study involves more than just antibody measurements. Thanks for confirming you're too scared to read real science. You couldn't even read past the title of ONE of the papers I cited as an example, and there are tens of thousands more using a wide variety of methods.

Your personal ignorance is not some failure of vaccines. It's a personal failing. You're just being narcissistic, and thinking you can know things without doing any work at all.

>argue
>realize you're wrong
>"heh actually I don't care and this is off topic"
lmao you shouldn't have replied in the first place, then, STEMcel

>your political points are exaggerated!
>"explain"
>shut up you're stupid I don't care!

>still can't answer how they were exaggerated
just shut up and move on if you're so triggered by economic and social factors

That makes no sense at all. What leaded paint are you huffing? That isn't even true. All vaccinated populations, again in samples of tens of millions, do better prior to and after infection. Fewer deaths, better immunity, and broader immunity.

>don't listen to the virology PHD who worked in vaccine R&D and then at the Gates Foundation and GAVI, listen to me, the expert posting on an anonymous anime board

>all doses of mRNA vaccines
but why? why would 1 or 2 doses would be worse than 0 doses? why the need to move the goalpost to 2 doses plus booster (and now moving to 3 doses)?

>if most people in a country are vaccinated and most of those are in the sickest demographics (the elderly), the vaccinated who die with covid will have more deaths
what? but the experts said the exact opposite of you, the elderly were the first to supposedly get reduced deaths because the vaccine supposedly works

>lol

It literally is not what we saw. See this post:

Again, ALL the data worldwide clearly shows vaccinated people have fewer problems compared to unvaccinated for first infection. It also shows better and broader immunity post infection. Your article is just one long hilarious string of deliberately lying with numbers while asserting things not at all based on good sense, such as "a pandemic of the vaccinated". Obviously, if more people are vaccinated, the odds will be more people infected will be vaccinated. That does not imply "vaccines make you more likely to get the illness".

In fact, all the data worldwide contradicts that silly idea.

From 2021 CDC data: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html

From death rate comparisons in a study of over 6 million: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

And thousands of others from other nations such as this one https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/the-new-omicron-subvariant-is-more-contagious-but-vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-to-spread-it-study-finds.html

Or many antibody comparisons like these https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.abn8014

From the get-go, the thesis presented in your article is not only contradicted by the evidence but by ALL the evidence. Only pure ineptitude with statistics, or pure malice, could lead one to conclude otherwise.

You can pull up similar data for many countries worldwide. Unvaccinated populations do worse in every way when you control for age and prior conditions. Often just controlling for age is enough to show this.

Basically, you people all believe a lie. A lie you could've dispelled with a single search, a single paper, and you somehow think it's funny you're this gullible?

Remains true today. Your internet and fingers are both working. Too scared to google it?

>Really???? Alright there.

Yes, there were other transport mechanisms tried. Inflammation from injections at injection site are common for all kinds of reasons. Others were just worse. As I wrote. So you can't read either?