Just because you say something, doesn't mean it's true. Can you point to studies showing the harm? And which shot(s) fell under the 50% infection prevention rate, which is what is needed for a vaccine to be considered effective? And, I'll show the data if requested, why is a reduction in hospitalization and death not considered an effective outcome for a vaccine? Why only measure infection prevention?
As I said...you are part of the less than 5% still pumping yourself and you kids with the thing. You should be advocating for Pfizer and Moderna to prove it is necessary. We gave them hundreds of billions of dollars for this. They have the money and the means. But you don't want the studies? All I can guess is that you know the answer. But cannot accept it.
Show me the studies! Prove your allegations! I'm happy to read them. But all you do is make medical statements and provide nothing to support your positions. Meanwhile, here's deaths back in 2021 comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated. And this article shows the 2024 COVID vaccine reduces hospitalization by half. Now, what evidence can you provide? Anything? Or are you just going to repeat the facts that the masses, who aren't medical experts, are who you trust?!?
You go get the hard data and not some made up graph that scared you. I have posted the hard data in the Covid thread from England because they actually provided it. Pretty sure it was June 2021 when it became 50/50 vaccinated/unvaccinated deaths. And from there on it was always more vaccinated deaths. Why. Because the disease kills old people. And old people by in large were vaccinated a super high rates. Shoot the news articles would screw up and show the vaccinated were dying at similar rates to the hard data out of England. But they had you. Provide the hard data! You can’t. Because the US did not provide it.
Yes, more vaccinated persons died. But there were also many more vaccinated, especially in older, more vulnerable ages. And total vaxxed versus unvaxxed deaths is a meaningless stat without knowing total populations in each category. For example, take a total population of 100. 90 are vaccinated, 10 are not. Say out of the 90 vaccinated, 9 die of the disease. Out of the 10 unvaccinated, 3 die. Which portion of the population is better off? You'd go spouting the vaccinated at 3X more deaths and claim the vaccine was failing! Which is what you did with the British data! But in reality, the vaccinated group did 3X better since only 10% of the population died versus 30% of the unvaccinated. This is what all the hard data in the world shows regarding the COVID vaccine. I implore you, if you have actual data that shows otherwise, post it.
Why would we fund clinical trials on a booster that has been given to millions worldwide for years? Complete waste of $. If you don't want to take it, fine. I'm ok with you choosing your own mortality. Its interesting how the right now doesn't like vaccines, although not surprising since they are usually inept at science. They won't take a vaccine but they will dip skoal and buy balance of nature with the foxnews discount and religiously believe that swallowing ground up veggie stalks and processing scraps is going to cure their gout.
Meh. Do they run a clinical trial on the flu vaccine every year? I’m pretty sure they do not. Part of it is getting it out fast enough to be useful. Flu vaccine is notoriously all over the map because they have to “guess” the upcoming year’s prevelant strain, and they sometimes guess wrong for that season. Clinical trial won’t help them guess new strains or get it out in timely fashion, it would only address if there were some reason for a new safety concern. Not sure there’s any legit safety concern from tweaking an existing vaccine to cover new strains, seems to be the usual suspects pushing fake concern which is probably aimed at intentionally disrupting these “seasonal” vaccines. Everything else is cutting red tape, EXCEPT this thing I don’t like needs more bureacracy!
I hope Trump fired all the previous employees in that feckless organization? Did they change the definition of what a vaccine is back to what it was 6 years ago? I know they changed it to suit their lies when Covid-19 was thing.
Glad you acknowledged you don't have the intelligence to understand what I wrote. The graph isn't a lie. You just don't understand ratios and statistics.
Yes it is. Your graph says far more unvaccinated were dying compared to vaccinated. That is a lie. You at least acknowledged that.
It's called ratios. I suggest this link for some remedial work for you. Let's try this again. Which group has a better survival rate. Group A, with 10 total people, 3 of whom die. Or group B, with 90 total and 9 deaths? Claiming group B is worse off is wrong. Their survival rate is 90%, whereas in group A, it's only 70%. Much better to be in group B, even though there are 3X more total dead in B than in A. There are also 9X more persons, and denominators matter.
