I know that everyday I wake up, there will NOT be mass casualties from the vaccine

I think we should include this in every vaccine discussion.
This is how they lied, to me this is unbelievable and explains why you would need to have had 5 shots to be considered vaccinated. The anti-vaccine group now includes 90% of our country.
Honestly, what did you think Fauci and others meant when he said 95% efficacy?
That was the Relative risk reduction which is only related to the trial participants.
The Absolute risk reduction is what the risk reduction would be for those of us outside the trials.


Although i like the video example, here a couple of written examples;

Say the absolute risk of developing a disease is 4 in 100 in non-smokers. Say the relative risk of the disease is increased by 50% in smokers. The 50% relates to the 4 - so the absolute increase in the risk is 50% of 4, which is 2. So, the absolute risk of smokers developing this disease is 6 in 100.

Say men have a 2 in 20 risk of developing a certain disease by the time they reach the age of 60. Then, say research shows that a new treatment reduces the relative risk of getting this disease by 50%. The 50% is the relative risk reduction, and is referring to the effect on the 2. 50% of 2 is 1. So this means that the absolute risk is reduced from from 2 in 20, to 1 in 20.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

I don't think the vaccine apologists understand or want to understand what relative risk reduction is and what absolute risk reduction is.

The absolute risk reduction when it comes to infections is 0.84% for the Pfizer pseudo-vaccines which means you need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one infection. With the pseudo-vaccines by Moderna you need to vaccinate around 81 people to prevent one infection.

You obviously know that Pfizer was moving ay the speed of science and as a result they forgot a few things and deceived the public as usual, fabricating data and make fraudulent claims.

From my other thread

ehlinelaw.com...

The US District Court of Texas ordered FDA to release documents of clinical trials of the Covid-19 shots after getting sued by attorneys at Siri & Glimstad. The documents revealed Pfizer classifying adverse events as non-related to the vaccine.

One of Pfizer's sins. But not the only one. Classifying adverse reactions from the vaccine as not related to the vaccines. Criminal deception in a few words. They must be dismantled as a company.

The rate of serious adverse reactions from the original clinical phase trials of both Pfizer and Moderna was at least 1 in 800.

The OP has performed magical calculations by dividing the number of reported cases registered in VAERS in the State of Florida to the total number of shots given worldwide....and he came up with a much different figure that the one above. Something like 1 in 100,000+ which is absolutely false.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

I don't think the vaccine apologists understand or want to understand what relative risk reduction is and what absolute risk reduction is.

The absolute risk reduction when it comes to infections is 0.84% for the Pfizer pseudo-vaccines which means you need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one infection. With the pseudo-vaccines by Moderna you need to vaccinate around 81 people to prevent one infection.

You obviously know that Pfizer was moving ay the speed of science and as a result they forgot a few things and deceived the public as usual, fabricating data and make fraudulent claims.

From my other thread

ehlinelaw.com...

The US District Court of Texas ordered FDA to release documents of clinical trials of the Covid-19 shots after getting sued by attorneys at Siri & Glimstad. The documents revealed Pfizer classifying adverse events as non-related to the vaccine.

One of Pfizer's sins. But not the only one. Classifying adverse reactions from the vaccine as not related to the vaccines. Criminal deception in a few words. They must be dismantled as a company.

The rate of serious adverse reactions from the original clinical phase trials of both Pfizer and Moderna was at least 1 in 800.

The OP by the way, who is a vaccine apologist, has performed a magical calculations by dividing the number of reported cases registered in VAERS in the State of Florida to the total number of shots given worldwide....and he came up with a much different figure that the one above. Something like 1 in 100,000+ which is absolutely false.

They also tried to hide that there were more deaths in the vaccine group than the placebo group.

Then they tried to hide the 1224 deaths in the next phase of trials.

And that Maddie de gray had stomach issues when she was actually paralyzed.

Then they tried to hide the trial results for 75 years.


Etc..

a reply to: underpass61

The virus, for all groups, is more deadly and dangerous than the vaccine. If your risk of serious illness from COVID is 0.01% that is still a higher risk than serious side effects from the vaccine.

You are the one lying. But, to yourself. About these vaccines.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

A law firm that exists solely to prosecute alleged cases of damage from the vaccine. This worse than ambulance chasers-ambulance chasers don't build a following and convince thousands of people to act against their own interests.

From the substack to the continual totally unsubstantiated claims, those seeking a paycheck forgot one thing: you will not be given a vaccine without your expressed consent. You are required to read an entire form stating the potential side effects, risks and such. You won't be given a shot unless you specifically acknowledge the risks.

Own up to your decisions. Do not blame others.

originally posted by: olaru12
When a new more virulent virus hits the streets, the anti vaxers will be standing in line for the jab.
Covid was just the beginning.....

COVID is the mechanism
Vax is the objective

originally posted by: BiffTannen

originally posted by: olaru12
When a new more virulent virus hits the streets, the anti vaxers will be standing in line for the jab.
Covid was just the beginning.....

COVID is the mechanism
Vax is the objective

We are under attack from the virus life on Earth and Earth is very unhealthy.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: underpass61

The virus, for all groups, is more deadly and dangerous than the vaccine. If your risk of serious illness from COVID is 0.01% that is still a higher risk than serious side effects from the vaccine.

You are the one lying. But, to yourself. About these vaccines.

If true (which it's not), at the very least it would make the vaccines unnecessary and pointless.

You're delusional

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: underpass61

The virus, for all groups, is more deadly and dangerous than the vaccine. If your risk of serious illness from COVID is 0.01% that is still a higher risk than serious side effects from the vaccine.

You are the one lying. But, to yourself. About these vaccines.

If true (which it's not), at the very least it would make the vaccines unnecessary and pointless.

You're delusional

So we are all learning at this point. No one set belief is right or wrong. Let's roll with the punches and see where this leads us, and don't close your mind to new information. We are all in this together.

a reply to: underpass61

Do you have actual data to support that claim? My statement is not controversial.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: underpass61

Do you have actual data to support that claim? My statement is not controversial.

You are hilarious JB asking that question.

a reply to: BiffTannen

To what end?

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

Honestly, what did you think Fauci and others meant when he said 95% efficacy?
That was the Relative risk reduction which is only related to the trial participants.

It's worse than that. It only relates to about 170 people out of the 44,000 in the trial (for Pfizer).

The real finding (if you're prepared to overlook the problems and accept the results) was that you would reduce your risk of developing mild covid symptoms by 0.84 % if you took two doses of their product (and waited an appropriate time after dose 2).

The NNT (number needed to treat) is probably a better metric. So for every 238 doses administered the treatment group would have one less person with mild covid symptoms (as defined by the WHO).

The 95% efficacy claims (100% if you listen to Bourla re South Africa) were misleading enough to be very dishonest.

The further claims when it was shown to be a failure, from doctors and even some scientists that it was only ever tested for its effect on severe disease was bizarre and amounts to propaganda.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

If you had a child would you line them up for a vaccine shot? You might but Bill Gates wouldn't. That's all anyone needs to know, yet this conversation is still dragging on for some unholy reason. Bill would rather use an experimental vaccine on somebody else's children because he does not want his own children put at risk.
Tedros of the WHO openly admits he hasn't taken it. The simple fact is that those in the know, have the information that it is too risky. But like everything else in life, it won't be their problem.
Because the economy is terminal, the only way to make money is from the public purse, and public health is a great way of doing it.

JB you've created a monster thread.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

Then they tried to hide the trial results for 75 years.

Originally it seems the FDA never had any intention of releasing the data...ever. Afaik the requested 75yrs, then 55yrs was in response to action to get them to release it.

The judge eventually gave them the same time it took them to grant emergency use authorization...108 days. Good on him for that.

Nothing says "safe and effective" quite like refusing to supply the actual data your claims are based on.

Speaking of doomsday predictions, soothsayers and the like...



www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: quintessentone

I had to try! 😁

originally posted by: quintessentone
JB you've created a monster thread.

I have been accused of worse! 😊 This stuff is getting out of control and some really are taking dissent personally. I had a feeling it would be controversial, and hoped maybe even stir up a debate. I don't hold any animosity toward these folks, most of them are high effort posters and bring alot to the table. But in the case of these vaccines, it is like all of that got switched off and no amount of rationalizing will break through that barrier

I was right there with them when it all started. There was so much unknown, the crazier stuff was easy to dismiss but I humored them and tested what I could. Thought I'd make a good lab rat have to stay useful somehow! But much to my surprise the vaccine didn't harm me, and I never got sick. After more than 2 years I argue my point with such passion because I know first hand so much of the anti side of the argument is based on fear, regret or just listening to bad faith actors

You've been trying your darnedest to put out good information. At the end of the day, this is still ATS and I need to believe the truth will rise above the sea of ignorance

To me the issue is that ordinary vaccines immunize you against the disease, it's undisputed fact these vaccines don't do that.
Instead the claim is it leads to milder symptoms, which doesn't necessarily have to be a result of the vaccine, since that could also be the normal development through the mutations of the virus.
So I would argue that it's possible with or without vaccine we would be exactly where we're at now, except without having spent billions and no adverse reactions to the vaccine at all.