Fully-Vaxxed Healthy Emmy Winner Dies of CV at Age 53

a reply to: chr0naut

I used to be just a normal sort of super hero, after receiving a double dose of radioactive marker, prior to medical imaging. This was demonstrated when I survived falling into a volcano, and also when I crashed into a concrete power pylon in my car, chopping it down, and folding my car around me, yet I climbed out with only one tiny bruise (and walked around bemused, while the emergency people were still trying to cut me out of the car, LOL).

Now, I have added Magneto super powers, as I have been fully vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine.

But, as I draw all ferrous metals around me, I will gain sufficient mass to fall through the crust of the Earth, the friction of my passage melting the metals into a super-suit of molten metal, until at last I will reach and merge with the molten Iron core of the Earth, where, at that stage, I will be wearing the entire planet like a suit of super armor, and will become "Captain Terra"! (CIS gendered, male, for any of the "universe" franchises future movie efforts).

Ah yes, and fraudulent faucie is actually mother teresa's son, who aided her child traffic orphans for satanic adrenochrome.

a reply to: RickyD

For a statement like that I'd love to see a source. I don't think the whole covid thing is on the up and up by any means...but I also think a lot of crazy statements come from the other side of that coin as well. I prefer facts over opinions because I dislike being wrong when I speak.

The CDC has stated that the current PCR tests cannot distinguish between the virus variant (covid 19) and the flu virus. They have demanded the medical association create (and make available) an ACCURATE PCR test so as to detect whether one has the covid variant virus or another type of flu variant virus.

BOTH (and all their variants) are viruses. And we all know that the flu virus morphs continually. That is how virus organisms survive... they mutate.

Apparently, the covid virus variant is more damaging because it was deliberately altered within the wuhan labs, using human (aborted baby) cells, and perhaps cross-bred with bat dung. idk what all they did in the labs... or continue to do in the labs... but it is a Crime Against Humanity and they will be brought to justice.

But... according to the CDC... there IS no accurate PCR test to validate WHAT a patient has with symptoms or asymptamtically.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The film industry lost another great to the dreaded China Virus...as Emmy-winning hairdresser, Marc Pilcher, recently succumbed to CV.
In addition to recently winning his first Emmy for his work on the popular period drama, Bridgerton...Mr. Pilcher was a healthy 53 year old, two-time recipient of the CV "vaccine"...with no underlying health conditions.

Condolences have poured in to Mr. Pilcher's family from his many fans and stars he has worked with.

Irish actress Nicola Coughlan reacted to Pilcher’s death by encouraging people to get vaccinated.

“It’s a tragedy that he’s been taken so young when he had so much yet to do,” she wrote. “Please also use this as a reminder that Covid is still a very real and present danger, please get vaccinated and mask up to protect yourself and others.”

summit.news...

Ms. Coughlan, plays Penelope Featherington on the drama Bridgerton...and remains a staunch supporter of the "vaccine"...even after it completely failed to protect her fully-"vaccinated" close friend and coworker on the series.

We add our condolences to those of Ms. Coughlan's and the many others who knew and loved Mr. Pilcher.

nypost.com...

The vaccines are not 100% effective, there will be about 5% breakthrough cases and, unfortunately, some of those will die.

The vaccines are better than doing nothing, where around 95% more will die.

BS.

Person A is vaccinated ,can still get the virus and spread it.

Person B ,not vaccinated but should to protect person A who is vaccinated.

Person B gets vaccinated, Can still get the virus and infect person A who is already "vaccinated".


Accomplishment level - Zero.



That is not how a actual vaccine works. Never has never will.

a reply to: everyone

They say if you repeat a lie often enough, and for long enough, people will accept it as truth.

This constant refrain that the unvaccinated are a threat to the vaccinated, is being sung by almost every media pundit, government sycophant, by numerous internet influencers, and many of their brain glazed followers, non stop. It is the song that never ends.

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: chr0naut

Pfizer announced the 95% effectiveness number before vaccination of the general public was started in the USA.

PFIZER AND BIONTECH CONCLUDE PHASE 3 STUDY OF COVID-19 VACCINE CANDIDATE, MEETING ALL PRIMARY EFFICACY ENDPOINTS

It is a major conflict of interest when the manufacturers provide the claims of safety for their product.

Yes, those with no competency in science or medicine should do it.

Perhaps someone who has a loop-de-loo thread on social media would suffice? Perhaps a D.O, with a stethoscope in their bio piccy (what would a D.O. use a stethoscope for?). I mean, white coat, so doctor, right?

Here's the truth. Every manufacturer will try and sell the good features of their product, but when it comes to pharmecuticals, there is a process, and all sorts of approvals, and testing, that the company has no control over which has to happen before approvals are given.

Now sometimes they get things wrong, and sometimes there are emergency reasons to fast track things, but all in all, the process works better than just farming it out to idiots, because when it comes down to it, it is more about safety than political ideology.

Perhaps we need to have a test that is actually accurate instead of wrought with false positives.
And it seems that any ol' person can administer a FAULTY test upon the public.

When people are symptomatic and dying of with symptoms of ARDS, and it spreads in clusters from the infected, it is fairly obvious that they have a real disease.

No measurement in the real world is without a margin f error. If someone were to submit a paper for scientific peer review and its measurements did not try and quantify experimental and measurement errors, it would be rejected.

Testing for the presence of a viral genomic sequence, or for antibodies, also has a margin of error, like all other measurements. This is known and has been quantified from the start. But the amount of measurement error is tiny, like it always is. It's presence does not mean that the measurements is a failure.

Not only that, but there are symptoms and retesting involved, which minimizes the uncertainty of an already small margin of error.

And the scientific protocols have NOT been followed with the covid vax because MONEY talks. We all know that.

You might think you know that, but you obviously have been reading the Qtarded lies.

There are lists of scientific papers and approval specifications that say exactly the opposite.

There has been great scientific rigor in the testing, and the evaluations for approvals of the vaccines, across authorities, and academia, and independent scientific, and medical organizations, in nearly every country in the world.

And now it seems big pharma has come out with ivermectin in little red pills. You know, the kind that cost $2,000.00 per instead of $17.00 because the NEW brand is not patented and the old brand makes no money. So all of a sudden, LICE pills can work after all, as long as they're making money for pharma.

Those little red pills aren't Ivermectin. They have an effect that was claimed for Ivermectin, but that does not exist in Ivermectin.

And, about Ivermectin, and HQC, and the FLCCC protocol packs, they now provably don't work and have caused a fair amount of liver damage as well, as the FDA, and CDC, and WHO, and numbers of various national health authorities across the globe had warned.

Brazil’s tragic ivermectin frenzy is a warning to the US, experts say

DGHS drops Ivermectin, Doxycycline from Covid-19 treatment; ICMR rules unchanged

... and then:

Why HCQ and Ivermectin were removed from India's Covid-19 treatment protocol

So the 'snake oil salesmen', who made a lot of press with their lies, are now exposed as frauds. In multiple instances and countries.

And the real statutory authorities, whose job is to advise and to protect public health, have been shown to have been doing exactly that.

MEANWHILE...
the vaccines are NOT time-tested, and are NOT safe and have KILLED THOUSANDS of humans across the globe. Pray, what is SAFE about that ?

Billions of doses of the vaccines have been administered, they have been tested in their current forms for more than a year, and most of the technologies behind them have been tested for decades.

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: chr0naut

I used to be just a normal sort of super hero, after receiving a double dose of radioactive marker, prior to medical imaging. This was demonstrated when I survived falling into a volcano, and also when I crashed into a concrete power pylon in my car, chopping it down, and folding my car around me, yet I climbed out with only one tiny bruise (and walked around bemused, while the emergency people were still trying to cut me out of the car, LOL).

Now, I have added Magneto super powers, as I have been fully vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine.

But, as I draw all ferrous metals around me, I will gain sufficient mass to fall through the crust of the Earth, the friction of my passage melting the metals into a super-suit of molten metal, until at last I will reach and merge with the molten Iron core of the Earth, where, at that stage, I will be wearing the entire planet like a suit of super armor, and will become "Captain Terra"! (CIS gendered, male, for any of the "universe" franchises future movie efforts).

Ah yes, and fraudulent faucie is actually mother teresa's son, who aided her child traffic orphans for satanic adrenochrome.

Ah, I see you are strong in the ways of the farce, young Qtard Ben Dover. The fecal transplant was successful.

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: chr0naut

The virus was isolated and the genome published back in January 2020.

Actually, I believe it was FUNDED by the unwitting American public tax dollars, overseen by dr fraudlie and created in a wujan lab before 2019.

Since then a whole slew of mutations have been isolated and their genomics published.

The insistence that they haven't isolated such a large virus, and then repeatedly genotyped and published each mutation, is clearly ignorant of numerous evidences.

Download SARS-CoV-2 genomes - NCBI

Not only that, but you can run sequence matches to compare, say HIV with the different strains, using BLAST, and that shows that other suggestions such that the SARS-CoV-2 genome supposedly having HIV sequences, were utter BS, too!

Identified in the laboratory as a virus variant… but somehow NOT identified in the PCR tests.

If you make the PCR test too specific, then every point mutation would appear to be a negative, rather than an instance of a strain of SARS-CoV-2.

THAT means… we have shut down the planet Earth for a faulty test that provides too many false positives.

What about all the people sick with and/or dying of the disease? Perhaps that was also part of the reason for all the disease mitigations in the first place? It was happening well before most countries had any sort of test.

So all this 'nothing tests for it' total BS, is actually irrelevant noise.

NO PCR test that has been used on the public can accurately identify the GENOMES of the covid 19 as opposed to the common flu.

NONE. NOT in use.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is not in the same family as the flu viruses, the differences can be seen under an electron microscope and SARS-CoV-2 is also quite a large virus. All very obvious to anyone who has a scientific or technical background.

The virus has been isolated, and genotyped, in all of its strains. Just has.

We have the tech, we've used it. It's done. It keeps being done to keep track of new strains.

PCR testing works by duplication of genomic sequences repeatedly, until there is a lot of copies.

In living organisms, when DNA is replicated in the cells, the polymerase enzyme splits the double helix of the DNA molecule apart, and each helical 'side' of DNA is then complemented chemically, making two identical DNA strands out of the one. When the cell divides, each new cell gets a copy. Neato and natural.

Now with PCR testing, Kary Mullis figured out that you could take a tiny amount of genomic sequence and using the natural polymerase enzyme, keep duplicating the sequence, and duplicating it, over, and over again, until your test sample had pretty much only the genomic sequences in it, which, because they are now so abundant, can be chemically assayed easily. That duplication process is called PCR amplification, which is where PCR testing gets its name.

Now polymerase only works on DNA, so it can't duplicate anything that isn't DNA, like random chemicals that may be in the solution (and actually, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a single stranded RNA virus, so to duplicate it with PCR, they need to chemically complement it just like they did with each helix of DNA at cell division. This makes 'pseudo-DNA' strands out of the RNA strands).

PCR also cannot invent a new genomic sequence that isn't there in the original sample. It only makes exact copies of what's there. So a low abundance of the sequence, even after many cycles of amplification, is not a false positive, because the sequence IS actually there in the original sample. But this may not mean that someone has COVID-19, because an infection requires a certain volume of the viruses to be actual disease. If you have to run lots of amplifications to even see the sequence, then the abundance, or amount, of the sequence in the initial test sample may not be enough to indicate that someone actually has the disease.

That is why most labs only run about 28 cycles of amplification, because then you know that a positive test at that stage of cycles, really indicates the presence of 'disease' amounts of the sequence.

The other reason they don't run lots of cycles is that each cycle takes time, and in the case of testing for an epidemic disease, time is of the essence, and you won't get any better indication of the presence of the disease, than you did at lower cycles.

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes. You know its yes.

The CDC, NCBI, BMJ, WHO, and numbers of scientific, academic, and medical groups are publishing such documents all the time.

Jump back two posts for a linked example.

No… that is not accurate. The CDC states that the medical crew MUST create and put into use an ACCURATE PCR test by December 2021;…. BECAUSE

(are you ready?)… BECAUSE the CURRENT PCT tests can NOT differentiate between the covid and the flu.

No, that was what it said on Facebork. LOL.

What happened was that the first test kits, were based on PCR test kits that were available at that early stage, and were repurposed flu test kits, so they could be used for both flu and COVID tests. They still were able to differentiate between them with the tests. In fact the tests could test for SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A, and Influenza B at the same time. This didn't mean that there was any confusion between the specific disease detections.

At the early stage, it was a concern that perhaps the different respiratory viruses acted together, and so testing for the presence of all three made sense. When it was discovered that there was no real issue with Influenza and COVID together, it was determined that the newer tests which were faster and tested for COVID only, were preferable, and that labs should update to them.

CDC’s Diagnostic Test for COVID-19 Only and Supplies

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: SeaWorthy

I agree but I do think they have unleashed something on us. I don't think the jab will fix it I think it may actually do the opposite but overall they have some vicious plan they are pulling off!
Before most people had heard any symptoms of Covid I had the flu, I was telling my Family it was so weird I lost my sense of taste and smell which was not fun and after it came back it came and went and still does,

I heard many weeks later about this symptom and since my Daughter was very ill with flu and also has lost those two senses.

Yes, I believe that the "gain of function" lab-created virus variant (covid 19) was deliberately created as a bio weapon.

dr fraudlie is a despicable money-grabbing mutant who has defrauded humanity with a virus variant, using aborted baby tissues so as to deliberately alter one's DNA through allowing the RNA replicating process to enter the cells.

He is on record as WANTING to alter the common flu (respiratory) virus to SEE if a pandemic variant could be created. It was.

But I do not find it is the end all to human life. I do not see the homeless dying in the streets, and they are perhaps the most vulnerable to a virus, considering their unhealthy diet and living conditions. And YET... they are not dying.

Instead, the public who have taken one + vaccine doses are succumbing to virus variants, adverse reactions and death.

It is FRAUD in a bottle.

As a bioweapon, SARS-CoV-2 is fairly pathetic. Only fatal in about 2% of cases. If someone wanted to make a bioweapon, there are diseases that are deadlier and faster acting that we have had sitting around in labs for decades.

Also the lab in Wuhan was working with bats. SARS-CoV-2 doesn't even infect bats, it just happens to look a bit like a bat virus and so the evolutionists have said it has come from a bat. The thing is, that SARS-CoV-2 is a fully human adapted virus. It came from humans.

a reply to: chr0naut

The modified bio weapon was designed to be a weapon of chaos and disruption, just like what it's doing 😎

a reply to: IAMTAT

I think there is some rather useful information missing from your OP, perhaps also from the article you linked.

Would you care to try to figure out how long ago it was that he got his last shot of the vaccine and how much time there was between that and contracting the Corona virus?

Possibly that information is not in the article (because they didn't need that information to make their case or present the picture that they wanted to present), so you may have to dig a little deeper. But since you find the subject interesting enough to start a thread about it you might be willing to dig that up for all of us. Or perhaps you already mentioned it somewhere in the thread, in which case, you may want to do a quick repeat if it's not too bothersome.

The information might be useful to others here as well. But at least I'm quite curious about it. I like to make informed decisions that are as informed as possible and not missing too much information that may have a bearing on my decisions. The media is usually not that useful for that purpose I have learned (and they're not the only ones). I've also found that usually time is a big constraint in the accumulation of this type of information, which could be improved upon if we all help eachother out a bit (which is why I don't really want to waste my time reading the article if there's a chance that the information I'm seeking isn't in there).

“By clever and persevering use of propaganda even heaven can be represented as hell to the people, and conversely the most wretched life as paradise.”—ADOLF HITLER, MEIN KAMPF.

AS MEANS of communicating have expanded—from printing to the telephone, radio, television, and the Internet—the flow of persuasive messages has dramatically accelerated. This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

...

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

That's the page that precedes the page linked in my signature, which has some useful tips:

“A fool will believe anything.”—PROVERBS 14:15, TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION.

THERE is a difference—a big difference—between education and propaganda. Education shows you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think. Good educators present all sides of an issue and encourage discussion. Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.

...

Ask questions: As we have seen, there are many today who would like to ‘delude us with persuasive arguments.’ (Colossians 2:4) Therefore, when we are presented with persuasive arguments, we should ask questions.

First, examine whether there is bias. What is the motive for the message? If the message is rife with name-calling and loaded words, why is that? Loaded language aside, what are the merits of the message itself? Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking. Are they known to speak the truth? If “authorities” are used, who or what are they? Why should you regard this person—or organization or publication—as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question? If you sense some appeal to emotions, ask yourself, ‘When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the message?’

Do not just follow the crowd: ...

originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: chr0naut

Do you not require a new flu shot every season?

NO. I have NEVER taken a flu shot.

Also, no-one with any credibility is talking about actually having perpetual 6 month boosters. They are still trying to decide if a third vaccination will be official policy. It probably will be.

The polio vaccine requires 4 vaccinations, three of them two months apart, for full effectiveness.

Polio Vaccination - CDC

And the point is the suppression of the disease, not avoidance of the medicine - it will take what it takes.

I have NEVER had the polio vaccine. I do not believe that one should breathe toxins, drink toxins, eat toxins and certainly not inject toxins.

I was raised to take responsibility for my health and behaviors. We did not run to take drugs when we ate too much sugar, or other 'false foods' that we all love so much.

The Yin Yang requires that one needs to find the balance between healthy foods versus junk foods. And WHEN we abuse our bodies with too much of a 'good thing', we are allowed to pay the price.

I just don't believe that we should add insult to injury and give alcohol to an alcoholic or give toxins to a person who is or MAY experience toxic conditions.

Where's the yin/yang balance when you are completely avoiding one side of things?

LOL.

Has it ever occurred to you that 100% of those 'super healthy' people all die of something? Some die quite young.

Like that guy who popularized running for fitness, who died of a heart attack - while running.

Fate has a sick sense of humor.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

The modified bio weapon was designed to be a weapon of chaos and disruption, just like what it's doing 😎

Nah, that is down to the manipulation of social media. Nothing to do with an illness.

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The film industry lost another great to the dreaded China Virus...as Emmy-winning hairdresser, Marc Pilcher, recently succumbed to CV.
In addition to recently winning his first Emmy for his work on the popular period drama, Bridgerton...Mr. Pilcher was a healthy 53 year old, two-time recipient of the CV "vaccine"...with no underlying health conditions.

Condolences have poured in to Mr. Pilcher's family from his many fans and stars he has worked with.

Irish actress Nicola Coughlan reacted to Pilcher’s death by encouraging people to get vaccinated.

“It’s a tragedy that he’s been taken so young when he had so much yet to do,” she wrote. “Please also use this as a reminder that Covid is still a very real and present danger, please get vaccinated and mask up to protect yourself and others.”

summit.news...

Ms. Coughlan, plays Penelope Featherington on the drama Bridgerton...and remains a staunch supporter of the "vaccine"...even after it completely failed to protect her fully-"vaccinated" close friend and coworker on the series.

We add our condolences to those of Ms. Coughlan's and the many others who knew and loved Mr. Pilcher.

nypost.com...

The vaccines are not 100% effective, there will be about 5% breakthrough cases and, unfortunately, some of those will die.

The vaccines are better than doing nothing, where around 95% more will die.

BS.

Person A is vaccinated ,can still get the virus and spread it.

Person B ,not vaccinated but should to protect person A who is vaccinated.

Person B gets vaccinated, Can still get the virus and infect person A who is already "vaccinated".

Accomplishment level - Zero.

That is not how a actual vaccine works. Never has never will.

All vaccines work by promoting an immune reaction. It is also how our bodies fight disease.

Just because we have an immune reaction, it doesn't magically make the disease go away.

Sometimes, people still get sick from the disease. Sometimes people die of the disease. This is true of vaccinated and unvaccinated immune systems.

Your 'reasoning' does not look particularly well reasoned - or original - admit it, you read it off a social media post.

a reply to: chr0naut

The published article linked in this news report, as published by those who are promoting the use of vaccins, has a table showing the 'efficacy' (see commentary and caveats at the end of this comment regarding this term, and in particular what it says on the y-axis instead of "efficacy"*) they claim for various vaccins per age group in the Delta-dominant period, over time from second dose. It starts with "14 days after second dose". The age groups compared are 18-34 years and 35-64 years. The graph is in figure 2, page 20 (remember, not in the news article, but in the published paper; can't seem to link the paper directly, oh wait, I can, well, then I'll link both). *: for the sake of expediency, in this comment I've used the term "efficacy" instead of what it says on the y-axis (which is more accurate but not entirely accurate anyway).

News article: RACGP - COVID-19 vaccine efficacy fades over time: Study
Paper: Impact of Delta on viral burden and vaccine effectiveness against new SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UK

When looking at Mr. Pilcher's age group, I can see that the efficacy for the Pfizer vaccine (assuming that's the one you were thinking off with your idea of 95%) starts at an average of about 77% with an upper range (which would count for younger people, not really Mr. Pilcher at 53) of 85% and lower range (closer to Mr. Pilcher's 53 compared to 64) of about 69%. Remember, it starts after 14 days after the 2nd shot. So for Mr. Pilcher I'm guessing (just based on age, cause in that graph you can see that the younger people are tested positive less, making the vaccine appear more effective in this particular type of calculation for that age group, even though the reality is the opposite but cannot be determined exactly because of a crucial missing factor mentioned in the rest of the article, although not the way I just said it which is not favorable if you want to make them appear more effective without anyone noticing) it's 75% (trust me, I know my math, remember the calculation is based on age, with 69% at 64 years old and 85% at 35 years old, so then you can calculate what the number is for someone of 53 years old, if you base everything on age).

After 90 days (so that's 104 days after the 2nd shot) it's 44% for 64 year olds. 69% for 35 year olds. 0.3793103448 (the 11 years out of 64-35 = 29; 11/29) * 25 (the number of percentages range: 69-44) = 9.48% removed from the lower range (64-53 = 11; sorry for not explaining the 11 earlier). So for Mr. Pilcher after 90 days (104 days after 2nd shot) it's 44 + 9.48 = 53.48% effectiveness. According to the marketing pitch that is, the marketing pitch of those promoting the vaccine as being highly effective in combating the Corona pandemic (which is what the publishers of this article are doing, as one of the clients of their research company is no doubt either Pfizer or the government, i.e. their company either gets money from the government or Pfizer and other pharmaceutical interests or parties or companies connected to them or the medical industry in general, their revenue stream with which they pay out the salaries is coming from somewhere, some place where they are also getting a piece of the pie, not necessarily directly related to this study or even another Corona study, but no doubt they're getting a piece of the rather large pie named "Corona-pie" for doing something related to it).

Doesn't really sound as impressive as the number the media likes to report on regarding Pfizer (95%, as if that's the only number of relevance) now does it?

It goes further down for Mr. Pilcher after 90 (104) days. If I knew what that number was regarding this event, I could calculate what it was at the time he contracted the virus, or make an educated guess (cause it's hard to tell exactly what day that was, hospital admission or positive test is easier; actually come to think of it now, these numbers are based on the day for a positive test, minor caveat, which I'm not going to change now, it doesn't change the number, just my wording here at the end and perhaps once or twice before).

Let's just guess it at 50% effectiveness for now (assuming he was tested positive slightly over 104 days after the 2nd shot, since he's 53 he probably got the vaccine fairly early). A flip of the coin.

Keep in mind that these numbers are based on getting tested positive, and young people don't get tested as often if they contract Corona, because of having no symptoms or less severe symptoms. So all these supposed efficacy numbers as the article refers to them in the title ("effectiveness"), are heavily influenced by that (making it easier for some people to pick the higher numbers if they want to report on something that is favorable to vaccines, such as those who use the 95% number, i.e. the media mostly). Picking the lowest number in that graph, which is Oxford-AstraZeneca at 90 (104) days = 22% (chance of avoiding a positive test compared to unvaccinated getting a positive test in the same age group*, referred to as "efficacy" in the paper, or "effectiveness" in the title of the paper, figure 2 has a more accurate description). *: I hope they didn't fiddle around with that one (like picking unvaccinated from a higher age group, or including those). They call it "odds of testing positive vs unvaccinated" on the y-axis (which of course doesn't consider what they do mention in the rest of the article, that vaccinated people get tested less because of less motivation to do so, which would naturally keep these odds numbers lower than the unvaccinated because they simply don't get tested, that doesn't exactly make these odds higher or very comparable to the unvaccinated who get tested more; a phenomenon which in turn will lower any efficacy number for vaccines derived from these statistics to get closer to the reality/truth of the matter, if this unknown factor is considered somehow, at least with an estimate; if unvaccinated people are twice more inclined to get tested than vaccinated people, all 'efficacy' or 'odds' numbers in this comment need to be lowered by 50%, including the highest ones, I think, haven't really thought it through yet because they don't do that anyway).

Of course the calculation for proper HCQ prophylaxis (+zinc + vit C + D3; at the very least) and early HCQ treatment (+zinc+azithromycin or doxycycline+vit C + D3 and perhaps some melatonin for a good night sleep, no intubation, at most an oxygen breather and a possible escalation with prednisone if all else fails, i.e. quality care, Dr. Ban-style) is much easier to do, since in both cases it's 100% in preventing death and hospitalization (especially if you supply them with oxygen at home). And if the level of HCQ is maintained at a steady and the correct level either during prophylaxis or treatment, it remains at 100% indefinitely (in preventing death and hospitalization, you'll actually want to catch Corona and build up some natural long-lasting immunity because your immune system can learn how to deal with the problem). Too bad this option is not available to me and most other patients in this world because everyone who's getting a decent chunk of the Corona-pie doesn't want people to use such an effective substance (and extras), it just works too well.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: chr0naut

The published article linked in this news report, as published by those who are promoting the use of vaccins, has a table showing the 'efficacy' (see commentary and caveats at the end of this comment regarding this term, and in particular what it says on the y-axis instead of "efficacy"*) they claim for various vaccins per age group in the Delta-dominant period, over time from second dose. It starts with "14 days after second dose". The age groups compared are 18-34 years and 35-64 years. The graph is in figure 2, page 20 (remember, not in the news article, but in the published paper; can't seem to link the paper directly, oh wait, I can, well, then I'll link both). *: for the sake of expediency, in this comment I've used the term "efficacy" instead of what it says on the y-axis (which is more accurate but not entirely accurate anyway).

News article: RACGP - COVID-19 vaccine efficacy fades over time: Study
Paper: Impact of Delta on viral burden and vaccine effectiveness against new SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UK

When looking at Mr. Pilcher's age group, I can see that the efficacy for the Pfizer vaccine (assuming that's the one you were thinking off with your idea of 95%) starts at an average of about 77% with an upper range (which would count for younger people, not really Mr. Pilcher at 53) of 85% and lower range (closer to Mr. Pilcher's 53 compared to 64) of about 69%. Remember, it starts after 14 days after the 2nd shot. So for Mr. Pilcher I'm guessing (just based on age, cause in that graph you can see that the younger people are tested positive less, making the vaccine appear more effective in this particular type of calculation for that age group, even though the reality is the opposite but cannot be determined exactly because of a crucial missing factor mentioned in the rest of the article, although not the way I just said it which is not favorable if you want to make them appear more effective without anyone noticing) it's 75% (trust me, I know my math, remember the calculation is based on age, with 69% at 64 years old and 85% at 35 years old, so then you can calculate what the number is for someone of 53 years old, if you base everything on age).

After 90 days (so that's 104 days after the 2nd shot) it's 44% for 64 year olds. 69% for 35 year olds. 0.3793103448 (the 11 years out of 64-35 = 29; 11/29) * 25 (the number of percentages range: 69-44) = 9.48% removed from the lower range (64-53 = 11; sorry for not explaining the 11 earlier). So for Mr. Pilcher after 90 days (104 days after 2nd shot) it's 44 + 9.48 = 53.48% effectiveness. According to the marketing pitch that is, the marketing pitch of those promoting the vaccine as being highly effective in combating the Corona pandemic (which is what the publishers of this article are doing, as one of the clients of their research company is no doubt either Pfizer or the government, i.e. their company either gets money from the government or Pfizer and other pharmaceutical interests or parties or companies connected to them or the medical industry in general, their revenue stream with which they pay out the salaries is coming from somewhere, some place where they are also getting a piece of the pie, not necessarily directly related to this study or even another Corona study, but no doubt they're getting a piece of the rather large pie named "Corona-pie" for doing something related to it).

Doesn't really sound as impressive as the number the media likes to report on regarding Pfizer (95%, as if that's the only number of relevance) now does it?

It goes further down for Mr. Pilcher after 90 (104) days. If I knew what that number was regarding this event, I could calculate what it was at the time he contracted the virus, or make an educated guess (cause it's hard to tell exactly what day that was, hospital admission or positive test is easier; actually come to think of it now, these numbers are based on the day for a positive test, minor caveat, which I'm not going to change now, it doesn't change the number, just my wording here at the end and perhaps once or twice before).

Keep in mind that these numbers are based on getting tested positive, and young people don't get tested as often if they contract Corona, because of having no symptoms or less severe symptoms. So all these supposed efficacy numbers as the article refers to them, are heavily influenced by that (making it easier for some people to pick the higher numbers if they want to report on something that is favorable to vaccines, such as those who use the 95% number, i.e. the media mostly). Picking the lowest number in that graph, which is Oxford-
AstraZeneca at 90 (104) days = 22% (chance of avoiding a positive test compared to unvaccinated getting a positive test in the same age group*, referred to as "efficacy" in the paper, or "effectiveness" in the title of the paper, figure 2 has a more accurate description). *: I hope they didn't fiddle around with that one (like picking unvaccinated from a higher age group, or including those). They call it "odds of testing positive vs unvaccinated" on the y-axis (which of course doesn't consider what they do mention in the rest of the article, that vaccinated people get tested less because of less motivation to do so, which would naturally keep these odds numbers lower than the unvaccinated because they simply don't get tested, that doesn't exactly make these odds higher or very comparable to the unvaccinated who get tested more; a phenomenon which in turn will lower any efficacy number for vaccines derived from these statistics to get closer to the reality/truth of the matter).

I'm not sure I see great difference between "the odds of testing positive vs unvaccinated" and "effectiveness" in this situation. I think the word "odds" however may imply chance in some peoples minds, rather than the aggregate statistical results.

Also, when the original effectiveness numbers were done for the Pfizer vaccine, they used an absolute best case value, which was allowable under the approval guidelines. Since then the roll-off in effectiveness had been noted, and the roll-off in naturally acquired resistance too, and this prompted the suggestion of a booster, and now, further down the track of a third vaccination for best effectiveness.

The truth is that these are all measurements of a biological nature, and there are individual differences, as there are changes over time, as there are mutational changes expected in the pathogen. We are still acquiring data, but have 'come down the road' a fair bit now.

And ultimately, people can quibble about effectiveness or measurement errors or all manner of possible uncertainties, but ultimately, they have no better solution to offer.

What remains is that if we do nothing, nothing will be done. People will die of something that was mostly preventable, so we have to accept whatever is the best tool we have.

And the Zpack and other FLCCC type protocol kits have proven ineffective, and occasionally dangerous, in both Brazil and India, as expected. They aren't the solution.

originally posted by: chr0naut
...
Also, when the original effectiveness numbers were done for the Pfizer vaccine, they used an absolute best case value, which was allowable under the approval guidelines. Since then the roll-off in effectiveness had been noted, and the roll-off in naturally acquired resistance too, and this prompted the suggestion of a booster, and now, further down the track of a third vaccination for best effectiveness.

The truth is that these are all measurements of a biological nature, and there are individual differences, as there are changes over time, as there are mutational changes expected in the pathogen. We are still acquiring data, but have 'come down the road' a fair bit now.

I think those media people and scientists who gave people who were thinking about getting the vaccine the impression that all people who were thinking about getting the Pfizer vaccine would get 95% efficacy (as per the impression demonstrated in your comment that I was responding to which was made recently and not "when the original effectiveness numbers were done for the Pfizer vaccine", with no indication that you considered it to be different now, showing that in your mind you are still thinking of this number, even though now that I have pointed you at some different numbers you are giving the impression that you do not think Pfizer is 95% for all age groups and all situations), or anywhere close to that number, should save those kind of obvious points for the Day of Judgement, cause God can look straight into their hearts to see their motives for widely publishing that specific number and I can't, neither is that up to me. He's watching right now. Also note that the numbers I started with are not concerning the drop-off caused by the amount of days since the 2nd shot (so the topic of booster shots not being relevant to those numbers of "an average of about 77% with an upper range of 85% and lower range of about 69%. Remember, it starts after 14 days after the 2nd shot." (at which point they consider the odds of avoiding a positive test at its highest for that age group of 35 - 64 for Pfizer, the best of the 2 vaccines compared in that diagram, check it out, those numbers are the easiest to read off the diagram).

And ultimately, people can quibble about effectiveness or measurement errors or all manner of possible uncertainties, but ultimately, they have no better solution to offer.

What remains is that if we do nothing, nothing will be done. People will die of something that was mostly preventable, so we have to accept whatever is the best tool we have.

Just thinking someone has not offered a "better solution" based on your impression of sales pitches and marketing reports posing as scientific studies concerning HCQ, is a bit biased, naive, and still doesn't demonstrate your implication or thought/idea that "no better solution" has been offered by anyone. You can't lower HCQ's (+ extras) effectiveness with these sort of reports or being impressed with them in reality. Perhaps you should also check out the articles in the Awake! magazine about scientific fraud, conflicts of interest and the materialistic love of money of human beings in this world and in particular the medical industry or anyone taking a significant chunk from the Corona-pie. I linked them in this comment.

Btw, the highest number in that graph (Pfizer for 18-34 year olds) is still 93% (for "the Delta-dominant period"). If they picked the highest number before in the most ideal circumstances with the oft repeated claim of 95% efficacy in the media (with no other number being mentioned and most often no caveats given regarding this number, nor in the way you just described it), then apparently they don't seem to consider there to be a huge "roll-off" because of "the Delta-dominant period", to use your and their words. Actually, the news article still goes with "92% effective at stopping people from developing a high viral load 14 days after the second dose" as a starting point. As reported "in the medical journal Nature", as they say there. Doesn't seem like a particular useful or representative number to use in my opinion given the graph for different age-groups and the average for the best age group (90%) or the average of both age groups (83.5%), somehow the overall graph has 85% (guess that has to do with one group being bigger, which would then be the younger group to get a higher number in that graph not specified by age, even though I would imagine that older people get tested positive more often, the graph "By age" suggests as much, guess they weren't counted as much in these statistics to get a higher number there). All numbers for Pfizer.

The lowest numbers in those graphs for Pfizer (per graph)

Overall: 79 or 78%
By Age (35-64): 69% (I'm guessing based on the distance from the average to the upper range, using the same distance to the other side, cause there are some overlapping colors here making it hard to see, the upper range I can see)
By long-term health conditions (lthc): 72%
By prior infection status (no prior infection): 79% (this seems like an important number to mention, along with the lowest number for 35-64 year olds, 69%, and of course in comparison with averages; of course, mostly for my own personal situation, but I recon my situation is pretty common, although I'm not sure if I had a prior infection, I don't think so)
By dosing interval: 78%

Oh, and you really don't have the quote my whole comment* in response to me, lol, it's already so long (*: before my last edit that is).

originally posted by: chr0naut

The vaccines are not 100% effective, there will be about 5% breakthrough cases and, unfortunately, some of those will die.

The vaccines are better than doing nothing, where around 95% more will die.

I don't think that talking, thinking about or assuming 95% effectiveness for the Pfizer vaccine (as advertized for that vaccine) is all that useful for anyone above 18 years old (especially those many years beyond that age, the ones who were first in line for vaccinations). Or those who also never had a prior infection before getting vaccinated (which starts at 89% in the graph I was referring to in my previous comment for those under the most ideal conditions, like being 18 years old and no long term health condition, not the ones first in line for getting vaccinations; and then drops off from there to 79%, and 69%* in the by age graph, for those first in line for vaccinations at the time when the first media publications rolled out about the number 95%; a number that hasn't changed much in publications such as the one quoted in the news article in Nature, with 92%, with little further specification regarding this number in the news article and no caveats). *: possibly 67% having another close look (I explained before why this one is really hard to tell, overlapping colored bands, with 2 indistinguishable colors)

As if those publishing the nr. 95% (or the new number from Nature, 92%) don't know any better regarding the target group for selling or marketing vaccinations to at first, or even now. Most of which are beyond the age of 64, so the reality would be closer to below 67%, even with marketing spin and spinning numbers. I'm guessing about 50% for 75 year olds, dropping to about 10% after 90(104) days, substracting a few percentage for marketing bias in the graphs from the published from what has already proven to me to be an unreliable source.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: chr0naut

The vaccines are not 100% effective, there will be about 5% breakthrough cases and, unfortunately, some of those will die.

The vaccines are better than doing nothing, where around 95% more will die.

I don't think that talking, thinking about or assuming 95% effectiveness for the Pfizer vaccine (as advertized for that vaccine) is all that useful for anyone above 18 years old (especially those many years beyond that age, the ones who were first in line for vaccinations). Or those who also never had a prior infection before getting vaccinated (which starts at 89% in the graph I was referring to in my previous comment for those under the most ideal conditions, like being 18 years old and no long term health condition, not the ones first in line for getting vaccinations; and then drops off from there to 79% for those first in line for vaccinations at the time when the first media publications rolled out about the number 95%; a number that hasn't changed much in publications such as the one quoted in the news article in Nature, with 92%, with little further specification regarding this number in the news article and no caveats).

As if those publishing the nr. 95% (or the new number from Nature, 92%) don't know any better regarding the target group for selling or marketing vaccinations to at first, or even now.

I think in Israel, they rated the Pfizer as 93% effective against Delta strain, but it is very variable. All the 'official' stats show are aggregated values and it really depends on how you divvy-up your sample population.

I think most use the highest repeatable value as their published efficiency. Really, biology is all over the place.

If you think about it, there are breakthrough cases that, in their specific case, show 0% effectiveness.

[excuse]
I didn't try and explain things in great depth because it gets overly wordy, and people just skim what they read anyway, and will ignore what doesn't fit their 'filter'. I find a snappy, but incomplete answer, seems to get through on ATS better - and the forum does have a limit on post length that already seems to well exceed people's cognitive 'buffer size'.
[/end_excuse]



... aaand back on topic, What does 95% COVID-19 vaccine efficacy really mean? - The Lancet.

a reply to: chr0naut

There's no need to justify anything in your commentary to me.

How is that for a short and snappy comment avoiding being overly wordy?

P.S. I've already decided to get my 2nd Pfizer shot in a couple of days, I'm not allowed access to HCQ anyway in my country, not even when I'm on death's door and they are trying to get my consent to be intubated in the hospital with all the tricks of the trade. And while remembering a top level highly paid virulogist mentioning before the arrival of Corona in my country he had a nice healthy supply of either CQ or HCQ in his cabinet at home just for this situation. I have a feeling he still has it, even though publically arguing or staying quiet about those who argue that it doesn't work, and even more ridiculous, that's it's superdangerous and causes heart rythm problems, or even cardiac arrests. But of course, not for the Rheuma and Q fever patients, they have special hearts that are indestructible.