They did work
Original Covid strain no longer circulates.
They simply were not "100%" effective.
9 out of 10 COVID deaths are among the fully vaccinated in the UK
- Thread starter KFsdisciple
- Start date
They did work
Original Covid strain no longer circulates.
They simply were not "100%" effective.
Fauci Birx and Joey are the 3 blind mice so maybe they’re on to something
Plenty in clinical trials got one.
They were never commercialized, because the "market" for them dried up.
Seems to be happening here too, think I heard only like half the people who got doubled jabbed have gone back for round 3 and those eligible for round 4 have done so about the same rate… and whatever % of people who declined to get the initial rounds to this point aren’t changing their minds now.
i never download the first iOS update, I always wait for a .1 or .2 so they can work out the bugs. The people who rushed out and got 2 jabs of beta are the human trials. Apple tests new iOS and beta testing happens, but there is always issues once it gets rolled out to the masses. But we’re supposed to believe with the vaccines being mass produced and mass issued to the entire world has no issues and is completely safe and effective.
Last edited:
Shorter:
"I don't understand how vaccines are developed, manufactured, or tested."
I remember these vaccines had to be kept at special subzero temps required special freezers… ever asked your pharmacist to see their special COVID freezers? How did these get mass produced and circulated throughout the world? Who made them? Ever had a cold COVID shot? Just wondering?
Shorter:
"I also do not understand basic elements of Quality Systems and ISO:13485."
I agree. You do not.
Go find out what an ISO:13485 Quality System is. See if that addresses your "supply chain" questions on vaccine distribution.
Shortened again: I’m too naive to ask questions. I just shut up and take it in the arm like a good little lab rat
That's not "shortened".
That was much more accurate and concise.
There’s no ‘market’ for a respiratory disease with a CFR of 35%? Sounds to me like they haven’t solved the ADE mystery.
Do you even know what MERS is?
This is the level of ignorance we are dealing with here.
MERS-related coronavirus - Wikipedia
Middle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus (MERS-CoV),[1]or EMC/2012 (HCoV-EMC/2012), is the virus that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).[2][3] It is a species of coronavirus which infects humans, bats, and camels.[4]The infecting virus is an enveloped, positive-sense, single-stranded RNA virus which enters its host cell by binding to the DPP4 receptor.[5] The species is a member of the genus Betacoronavirus and subgenus Merbecovirus.[6][4]
Initially called simply novel coronavirus or nCoV, it was first reported in June 2012 after genome sequencing of a virus isolated from sputum samples from a person who fell ill in a 2012 outbreak of a new flu-like respiratory illness. By July 2015, MERS-CoV cases had been reported in over 21 countries, in Europe, North America and Asia as well as the Middle East. MERS-CoV is one of several viruses identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a likely cause of a future epidemic. They list it for urgent research and development.[7][8]
SARS - Wikipedia
SARS
Severe acute respiratory syndrome(SARS) is a viral respiratory diseaseof zoonotic origin caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-1), the first identified strain of the SARS coronavirus species severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV). The first known cases occurred in November 2002, and the syndrome caused the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak. In the 2010s, Chinese scientists traced the virus through the intermediary of Asian palm civets to cave-dwelling horseshoe bats in Xiyang Yi Ethnic Township, Yunnan.[3]
No they did not and you're an idiot to think the wild type doesn't exist because of them. There's a new one.
Ohh yes please educate us on the sample size needed to detect a difference
Yes most hospitals already have -70 freezers. They also were shipped in special containers that would be kept cold for a long time. Or you can also keep then in refrigerator temp for 4 wks..or you know room temp for 12hrs .... you know to inject you idiot
You aren't asking question just stating stupidity
Well, the same size should be relative to dispersement. A drug that targets thousands probably needs a hundred sample size… but billions… that probably needs quite a few more and years of monitoring for long term effects.
That's not how you determine sample size... Google power calculation for trials and error associated with meeting/not meeting power
Well since nothing about this pandemic has made any sense whatsoever I suppose this falls right in line
Ohh why don't you please educate us all instead of asking 7,000 questions. Oh look you still can't answer mine. Idiot.
It's more fun watching you dig... if you want help you should put the shovel down first.
What was your question again...hard to pick out in your idiotic ramblings
No, thanks. It will be more fun for you to explain in detail how that study was a proper sample size. I mean one only has to read the researchers own notes that it was underpowered and imbalance, but here we are again with your appeal to authority.
You can't figure out the question that was asked twice already, I will assume you don't have a good answer because you're a moron. But many already know that.
🤣🤣🤣
Love it... by the way you talk, should only need 2 pts on remdesivir to detect a difference... #dunningkruger
How much does the market compensate you for your ID and trial design knowledge?
But for the fun of it... we can calculate an incidence of 50% in control group ... and by the way you talk we will put incidence of 90% in the treatment group. Alpha we will set to 0.05 and power at 80%. That gives us a needed sample size of 38 to detect a difference
you are arguing with someone who is a glutton for punishment and has a 72 IQ.
Results
Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI –23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI −3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).Discussion
The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.
Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults
In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potentia…
Not when the disease "disappears" entirely before they can get the vaccine out.
The risks of actual Covid (to the unvaccinated) are at least 10x higher.Results
Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI –23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI −3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).
Discussion
The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.
Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults
In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potentia…www.sciencedirect.com
Demand is dropping quickly. They’re going to have to come up with some fresh ideas from the marketing dept; Pharma HATES warehouses (whoops! I mean -70 freezers) full of product that they can’t even give away.
Most sane people are already vaccinated.
I'm waiting for the Omicron one to come out, and waiting the recommended time from my last booster.
People have grown tired of the fear mongering and the empty promises and the moving of goal posts.
They’re over it.
They’re over it.
