Fourth Pfizer Dose Slashed Risk of Catching Omicron in Study

*33*

HR All-American
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
2,909
1,701
113
Kansas City

Bill Doak and 9 others

All-Conference
Jun 6, 2022
497
391
63
looks like even 2 doses protected quite well from severe disease ... thanks for the links, it appears vaccination is the best route for all to go
Reading comprehension 0/10
Trolling effort 2/10
Final grade 🤡🤡🤡/🤡🤡🤡

“...within half a year of vaccination, protection against symptomatic Omicron-variant coronavirus drops to zero.”
“...natural immunity derived from infection with coronavirus was still robust a year after infection”
“...after six months passed beyond vaccination, protection against symptomatic COVID was sometimes even negative”
“...following booster recipients for 20 weeks (five months) shows that protection against COVID by this point is negligible.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: your_master5

*33*

HR All-American
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
2,909
1,701
113
Kansas City
nReading comprehension 0/10
Trolling effort 2/10
Final grade 🤡🤡🤡/🤡🤡🤡

“...within half a year of vaccination, protection against symptomatic Omicron-variant coronavirus drops to zero.”
“...natural immunity derived from infection with coronavirus was still robust a year after infection”
“...after six months passed beyond vaccination, protection against symptomatic COVID was sometimes even negative”
“...following booster recipients for 20 weeks (five months) shows that protection against COVID by this point is negligible.”

Reading comphresion -10/10
Trolling effort 0/10
Final grade Dumbass

“...within half a year of vaccination, protection against symptomatic Omicron-variant coronavirus drops to zero.”
key word symptomatic..... in a retrospective chart review that is a huge bias ..... the best data from this would be severe disease

“...natural immunity derived from infection with coronavirus was still robust a year after infection”

so was 3 shots...but comparing infection immunity to vaccine immunity brings in a huge issue of survival bias

“...after six months passed beyond vaccination, protection against symptomatic COVID was sometimes even negative”

Only an idiot would think this could be true....so i guess you think its true...which of course means you are an idiot.

following booster recipients for 20 weeks (five months) shows that protection against COVID by this point is negligible.”

Effectiveness of prevention against severe, critical or fatal c19 due to ba2
Infection immunity 73.4%
2 shots 76.8
2 shots plus infection 97.8
3 shots 98.2
3 shots and infection 100%

Even with survival bias 2 shots continues to outperform infection
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,243
121,282
113
Reading comphresion -10/10
Trolling effort 0/10
Final grade Dumbass


key word symptomatic..... in a retrospective chart review that is a huge bias ..... the best data from this would be severe disease



so was 3 shots...but comparing infection immunity to vaccine immunity brings in a huge issue of survival bias



Only an idiot would think this could be true....so i guess you think its true...which of course means you are an idiot.



Effectiveness of prevention against severe, critical or fatal c19 due to ba2
Infection immunity 73.4%
2 shots 76.8
2 shots plus infection 97.8
3 shots 98.2
3 shots and infection 100%

Even with survival bias 2 shots continues to outperform infection

The two idiots you're responding to, keep dredging up random datasets and graphics where the populations of people who have had 3x and 4x shots are ALL 70+ years old. FEW <50 have that many doses.

This has been pointed out to them using the links to their own datasets, but they continue to ignore it. And the fact that the 70-100 yr olds with 3x-4x shots are all SURVIVING Covid now, when it'd be killing >25% of them, otherwise, or putting them in the hospital for months at a time...
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkMD and *33*

Bill Doak and 9 others

All-Conference
Jun 6, 2022
497
391
63
  • Like
Reactions: your_master5

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,243
121,282
113
Now THIS is how you do it (commit fraud, that is).


  1. they manipulated the rates by dividing the number of reports by all the doses hiding the fact that they had the system for 6 months and only one HMO (15 percent of population reported). This makes the denominator huge and the numerator small which masks the significance. https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/...?r=o0tiw&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

It's how you misrepresent information and spread false rumors.
 

Bill Doak and 9 others

All-Conference
Jun 6, 2022
497
391
63

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,621
1,886
113
It's how you misrepresent information and spread false rumors.
There are no false rumors about the video of the Israeli data on adverse events. It was recorded and will be posted here shortly. You just can't handle being wrong, which you are the majority of the time.
 

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,621
1,886
113
Your buddy didn't post direct data from the CDC site.
The chart is NOT attributed anywhere.

If there's data corresponding to his unattributed chart, then link it.
The Anti-vaxxers are NOTORIUS for pushing incorrect data, and data out of context.

One whopper I debunked YEARS ago, they used UK data to claim measles had already dropped BEFORE the vaccine was used in the US. But the US data clearly showed the opposite - only by LYING with data from another VACCINATED population could they push their tripe.
JFC go to the site and see the data and the model used. Until then shut the hell up!
 

Bill Doak and 9 others

All-Conference
Jun 6, 2022
497
391
63
TO PREVENT ONE ICU ADMISSION FROM COVID IN PREGNANCY WITH THE CURRENT VACCINES WOULD RISK 500 MISCARRIAGES
That’s right - 500 miscarriages.

We can already hear the clamour of objection from the OBGYN institutions, their minions on twitter and their "mutton crew” followers who descend in droves to anybody pushing back against the narrative, so we’ll make this offer:

Open the V-safe pregnancy registry datato public scrutiny without delay and if we are able to show that there is not at least a 5% increase in miscarriage risk I will correct this article with the updated figure, or remove it entirely.
In the meantime we reserve the right to “estimate” - just like the UKHSA have been doing for 2 years.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,243
121,282
113
That’s right - 500 miscarriages.

We can already hear the clamour of objection from the OBGYN institutions, their minions on twitter and their "mutton crew” followers who descend in droves to anybody pushing back against the narrative, so we’ll make this offer:


In the meantime we reserve the right to “estimate” - just like the UKHSA have been doing for 2 years
.
This is completely false.

The risks of Covid to pregnant women are MUCH HIGHER than the vaccines are.

Yes, studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective. The COVID-19 vaccines can prevent infection, severe illness, and death from COVID-19, including from new variants.

Before vaccines are given to the public, vaccines go through many layers of testing and reviews. The COVID-19 vaccines meet strict safety standards required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Millions of people in the United States have safely received COVID-19 vaccines.


 

Bill Doak and 9 others

All-Conference
Jun 6, 2022
497
391
63
This is completely false.

The risks of Covid to pregnant women are MUCH HIGHER than the vaccines are.

Yes, studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective. The COVID-19 vaccines can prevent infection, severe illness, and death from COVID-19, including from new variants.

Before vaccines are given to the public, vaccines go through many layers of testing and reviews. The COVID-19 vaccines meet strict safety standards required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Millions of people in the United States have safely received COVID-19 vaccines.


Available data on COMIRNATY administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,243
121,282
113
Available data on COMIRNATY administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.
Again: This is NOT what the main society for OB-GYNs states.

That may have been the case 1 year ago; it is not any longer, because the risks to pregnant women for pregnancy complications (unvaccinated) from Covid are well-established.

Folks, listen to what the doctors say, NOT what DORK-BOY posts from his conspiracy websites.







  • Are COVID-19 vaccines safe and effective?
    Yes, studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective.
    The COVID-19 vaccines can prevent infection, severe illness, and death from COVID-19, including from new variants.
    Before vaccines are given to the public, vaccines go through many layers of testing and reviews. The COVID-19 vaccines meet strict safety standards required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Millions of people in the United States have safely received COVID-19 vaccines.
    Should I get a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy?
    Yes, you should get a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. ACOG strongly recommends that all pregnant women be vaccinated against COVID-19. Getting a vaccine could help both you and your fetus. Remember that pregnant women have a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 than nonpregnant women. The vaccines are very effective at preventing infection, severe illness, and death from COVID-19.
    When you get vaccinated, the antibodies made by your body may be passed to your fetus. These antibodies may help protect your baby from the virus after birth. How much protection your antibodies may provide is not yet known.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,243
121,282
113
The Pfi$er/Comirnaty package insert is a conspiracy website

The Pfizer insert was created WHEN THE VACCINE WAS FIRST RELEASED.

The ACOG physicians are the ones who SEE pregnant Covid patients and KNOW how the vaccines have prevented illnesses (and READ the published literature on the topic).

If you pay attention - MOST drugs list the SAME warnings on their marketed literature, simply because they do not want the liability from nuisance lawsuits.
 

Bill Doak and 9 others

All-Conference
Jun 6, 2022
497
391
63
Again: This is NOT what the main society for OB-GYNs states.

That may have been the case 1 year ago; it is not any longer, because the risks to pregnant women for pregnancy complications (unvaccinated) from Covid are well-established.

Folks, listen to what the doctors say, NOT what DORK-BOY posts from his conspiracy websites.







  • Are COVID-19 vaccines safe and effective?
    Yes, studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective.
    The COVID-19 vaccines can prevent infection, severe illness, and death from COVID-19, including from new variants.
    Before vaccines are given to the public, vaccines go through many layers of testing and reviews. The COVID-19 vaccines meet strict safety standards required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Millions of people in the United States have safely received COVID-19 vaccines.
    Should I get a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy?
    Yes, you should get a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. ACOG strongly recommends that all pregnant women be vaccinated against COVID-19. Getting a vaccine could help both you and your fetus. Remember that pregnant women have a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 than nonpregnant women. The vaccines are very effective at preventing infection, severe illness, and death from COVID-19.
    When you get vaccinated, the antibodies made by your body may be passed to your fetus. These antibodies may help protect your baby from the virus after birth. How much protection your antibodies may provide is not yet known.
ACOG said “Before vaccines are given to the public, vaccines go through many layers of testing and review”. False. These jabs weren’t tested on pregnant women. And then the FDA tried to have the data suppressed for 75 freaking years.

All these clowns do is repeat Pharma talking points.

Oh, and vaccine manufacturers don’t have to worry about a thing when it comes to “nuisance lawsuits”. They’ve been given a hall pass, remember?
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,243
121,282
113
ACOG said “Before vaccines are given to the public, vaccines go through many layers of testing and review”. False.
TRUE

These jabs weren’t tested on pregnant women.

Pfizer did not conduct testing on pregnant women; Ergo, their labeling reflects this 100%.

3rd party hospitals and researchers DID test the vaccines on pregnant women - MANY OF WHOM got vaccines BEFORE they knew they were pregnant. By pooling THIS data AND conducting testing on pregnant women with consent, they PUBLISHED those studies and that is why ACOG recommends the vaccines.

Pfizer never conducted those studies, and has never submitted the data to FDA to update their labeling, which is how MOST of these things work. In fact, if you review ANY labeling from ANY vaccine, it's going to include the same labeling for pregnant women, because they don't want the liability. Those tests are performed AFTER a vaccine is made available to the public, and physicians/researchers conduct INDEPENDENT STUDIES with them.

You know....folks who DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY FROM PFIZER!!! 🙄
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,243
121,282
113
ACOG said “Before vaccines are given to the public, vaccines go through many layers of testing and review”. False. These jabs weren’t tested on pregnant women. And then the FDA tried to have the data suppressed for 75 freaking years.

All these clowns do is repeat Pharma talking points.

Oh, and vaccine manufacturers don’t have to worry about a thing when it comes to “nuisance lawsuits”. They’ve been given a hall pass, remember?


Pregnant individuals and newborns may face elevated risks of developing more severe cases of COVID-19 following SARS-CoV-2 infection, but research suggests that COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy can help protect both the person giving birth and the child.

A new study led by investigators at Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and published June 28 in Nature Communications examined how different COVID-19 vaccines and the timing of vaccination during pregnancy may impact the extent of this protection.
 

Bill Doak and 9 others

All-Conference
Jun 6, 2022
497
391
63
TRUE



Pfizer did not conduct testing on pregnant women; Ergo, their labeling reflects this 100%.

3rd party hospitals and researchers DID test the vaccines on pregnant women - MANY OF WHOM got vaccines BEFORE they knew they were pregnant. By pooling THIS data AND conducting testing on pregnant women with consent, they PUBLISHED those studies and that is why ACOG recommends the vaccines.

Pfizer never conducted those studies, and has never submitted the data to FDA to update their labeling, which is how MOST of these things work. In fact, if you review ANY labeling from ANY vaccine, it's going to include the same labeling for pregnant women, because they don't want the liability. Those tests are performed AFTER a vaccine is made available to the public, and physicians/researchers conduct INDEPENDENT STUDIES with them.

You know....folks who DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY FROM PFIZER!!! 🙄
They don’t have any liability, because the the republican and democrat whores in congress granted them immunity back in ‘86.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,243
121,282
113
They don’t have any liability
This is not the case with conducting clinical trials.

And it's why they exclude those groups when running initial trials.

Now that this has been explained to you, are you going to admit your ignorance on this issue? Will you refrain from posting intentional disinformation on these topics?

  • There ARE >2000 people who have been vaccinated in Phase II/III trials PRIOR TO the launch of the Omicron variants
  • There ARE studies that have analyzed vaccine safety for pregnant women, and the major medical societies UNEQUIVOCALLY recommend them to ALL women, including pregnant women.

Both of those bullet points are FACTS.
 

Bill Doak and 9 others

All-Conference
Jun 6, 2022
497
391
63
This is not the case with conducting clinical trials.

And it's why they exclude those groups when running initial trials.

Now that this has been explained to you, are you going to admit your ignorance on this issue? Will you refrain from posting intentional disinformation on these topics?

  • There ARE >2000 people who have been vaccinated in Phase II/III trials PRIOR TO the launch of the Omicron variants
  • There ARE studies that have analyzed vaccine safety for pregnant women, and the major medical societies UNEQUIVOCALLY recommend them to ALL women, including pregnant women.

Both of those bullet points are FACTS.
Pregnant women are excluded from trials out of safety concerns/liability, then immediately encouraged to get the jabs after the EUA is granted? Sounds like criminal malfeasance to me.

In an Aug. 20 Substack article, Dr. Pierre Kory addressed other, “absolutely horrifying,” findings on miscarriages found in the Pfizer data dumps:

“… let’s do a dive on just one page of the many thousands. See below, Section 5.3.6, Page 12 of the document called ‘Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.’

table 6 description missing information


“Looking at the first bullet under the header: Pregnancy cases: 274 cases including:

“In this paragraph, at first read, it is just a list of adverse events and numbers, detailed in a way that is confusing at best, and obfuscating at worst. I think it is the latter because, if you do some simple arithmetic trying to parse that paragraph, you end up with this:

“270 pregnancies were reported in vaccinated women during the first 12 weeks of the vaccine campaign. In 238 of them, ‘no outcome was provided.’ So, they only knew the outcome of 32 pregnancies reported. What happened in those 32 pregnancies they followed up on?

“My hands are literally trembling as I write this, but here goes. In these 32 pregnancies, there were:

    • 23 spontaneous abortions
    • 2 spontaneous abortions with intra-uterine death
      • So, 25 of the 32 pregnancies with known outcomes resulted in a miscarriage, a rate of 78%. Note that miscarriage normally occurs in only 12-15% of pregnancies
    • 2 premature births with neonatal death
    • 1 spontaneous abortion with neonatal death
    • 1 normal outcome
“Note that this only adds up to 29 known outcomes, but then they note that ‘two different outcomes were reported for each twin’ and then they talk about ‘fetus/baby cases as separate from mother cases.’ I have no idea how to interpret this explanation of outcomes, so it may have been one or two less (or more) deaths then.

“So, of the 32 pregnancies they knew the outcome of, 87.5% resulted in the death of the fetus or neonate. Burying this data in the way and not alerting the world to what they found, is criminal activity …”
__________________________________

As for the trial on the >2,000 (non-mice) subjects....’nuff said.

But it's unclear how much protection the new booster shots will provide. The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cleared the shots without any data from clinical trials that are testing the reformulated doses in humans.
 

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,621
1,886
113
You won't link it because you cannot find it.
Oh I know where it is alright. Why would I post it if you've already come to the conclusion below, you know without actually seeing the information? Seems strange that you could do that if you haven't seen the information. You're an idiot.

Your buddy didn't post direct data from the CDC site.
The chart is NOT attributed anywhere.
 

Bill Doak and 9 others

All-Conference
Jun 6, 2022
497
391
63
No, it does not.
They’re losing ground daily in the PR battle.

The FDA’s failure to analyze the new boosters’ potential risks against their potential benefits for different age groups leaves Americans on their own, having to decide whom to trust. Officials have only themselves to blame when vaccine skeptics fill the vacuum of information.”
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,243
121,282
113
Pregnant women are excluded from trials out of safety concerns/liability, then immediately encouraged to get the jabs after the EUA is granted?

"immediately"?

Uh, no. IIRC, pregnant women were not recommended the vaccines until months later; specifically AFTER there were cases of women who did not know they were pregnant and got vaccinated, and did just fine.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,243
121,282
113
Pregnant women are excluded from trials out of safety concerns/liability, then immediately encouraged to get the jabs after the EUA is granted? Sounds like criminal malfeasance to me.

In an Aug. 20 Substack article, Dr. Pierre Kory addressed other, “absolutely horrifying,” findings on miscarriages found in the Pfizer data dumps:

“… let’s do a dive on just one page of the many thousands. See below, Section 5.3.6, Page 12 of the document called ‘Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.’

table 6 description missing information


“Looking at the first bullet under the header: Pregnancy cases: 274 cases including:

“In this paragraph, at first read, it is just a list of adverse events and numbers, detailed in a way that is confusing at best, and obfuscating at worst. I think it is the latter because, if you do some simple arithmetic trying to parse that paragraph, you end up with this:

“270 pregnancies were reported in vaccinated women during the first 12 weeks of the vaccine campaign. In 238 of them, ‘no outcome was provided.’ So, they only knew the outcome of 32 pregnancies reported. What happened in those 32 pregnancies they followed up on?

“My hands are literally trembling as I write this, but here goes. In these 32 pregnancies, there were:

    • 23 spontaneous abortions
    • 2 spontaneous abortions with intra-uterine death
      • So, 25 of the 32 pregnancies with known outcomes resulted in a miscarriage, a rate of 78%. Note that miscarriage normally occurs in only 12-15% of pregnancies
    • 2 premature births with neonatal death
    • 1 spontaneous abortion with neonatal death
    • 1 normal outcome
“Note that this only adds up to 29 known outcomes, but then they note that ‘two different outcomes were reported for each twin’ and then they talk about ‘fetus/baby cases as separate from mother cases.’ I have no idea how to interpret this explanation of outcomes, so it may have been one or two less (or more) deaths then.

“So, of the 32 pregnancies they knew the outcome of, 87.5% resulted in the death of the fetus or neonate. Burying this data in the way and not alerting the world to what they found, is criminal activity …”
__________________________________

As for the trial on the >2,000 (non-mice) subjects....’nuff said.

But it's unclear how much protection the new booster shots will provide. The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cleared the shots without any data from clinical trials that are testing the reformulated doses in humans.

238 didn't report, because they were fine.

Miscarriage rates among vaccinated are no different from historical numbers.

If you disagree with that, then post the data/study that shows it.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,243
121,282
113
Pregnant women are excluded from trials out of safety concerns/liability, then immediately encouraged to get the jabs after the EUA is granted? Sounds like criminal malfeasance to me.

In an Aug. 20 Substack article, Dr. Pierre Kory addressed other, “absolutely horrifying,” findings on miscarriages found in the Pfizer data dumps:

“… let’s do a dive on just one page of the many thousands. See below, Section 5.3.6, Page 12 of the document called ‘Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.’

table 6 description missing information


“Looking at the first bullet under the header: Pregnancy cases: 274 cases including:

“In this paragraph, at first read, it is just a list of adverse events and numbers, detailed in a way that is confusing at best, and obfuscating at worst. I think it is the latter because, if you do some simple arithmetic trying to parse that paragraph, you end up with this:

“270 pregnancies were reported in vaccinated women during the first 12 weeks of the vaccine campaign. In 238 of them, ‘no outcome was provided.’ So, they only knew the outcome of 32 pregnancies reported. What happened in those 32 pregnancies they followed up on?

“My hands are literally trembling as I write this, but here goes. In these 32 pregnancies, there were:

    • 23 spontaneous abortions
    • 2 spontaneous abortions with intra-uterine death
      • So, 25 of the 32 pregnancies with known outcomes resulted in a miscarriage, a rate of 78%. Note that miscarriage normally occurs in only 12-15% of pregnancies
    • 2 premature births with neonatal death
    • 1 spontaneous abortion with neonatal death
    • 1 normal outcome
“Note that this only adds up to 29 known outcomes, but then they note that ‘two different outcomes were reported for each twin’ and then they talk about ‘fetus/baby cases as separate from mother cases.’ I have no idea how to interpret this explanation of outcomes, so it may have been one or two less (or more) deaths then.

“So, of the 32 pregnancies they knew the outcome of, 87.5% resulted in the death of the fetus or neonate. Burying this data in the way and not alerting the world to what they found, is criminal activity …”
__________________________________

As for the trial on the >2,000 (non-mice) subjects....’nuff said.

But it's unclear how much protection the new booster shots will provide. The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cleared the shots without any data from clinical trials that are testing the reformulated doses in humans.

It's 28 out of ~240

Actually a lot lower than historic norms.
 

BanjoSaysWoof

HR MVP
Dec 2, 2017
1,591
3,165
113
While In subacute rehab, my 77 year old fully vaccinated/boosted father with Parkinson’s who was recovering from a slip and fall head injury was covid positive, given remdesivir, and recovered with no symptoms.

get the f’ing jabs.