| Health
|
[
Health ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
11491 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 14:34:33
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: etc... |
URL: http://www.earthboppin.net/talkshop/health2/messages/11313.html |
|
below you said to Jim,
“And I also pointed out in an earlier post that your own
sources did not definitively say that vaccines do not prevent infection.”
http://www.earthboppin.net/talkshop/health2/messages/11429.html
Jim posted a source 3 days ago which said exactly that.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11495] [11493] [11516] [11496] [11501] [11504] [11499] [11517] [11507] [11528] [11513] [11530] [11509] [11532] [11514] [11533] [11547] [11553] [11559] [11560] [11567] [11587] [11603] [11502] [11506] [11529] [11568] [11588] [11505] [11508] [11510] [11521] [11522] [11548] [11512] [11515] [11511] |
|
11495 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 15:17:46
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: etc... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
11493 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 14:52:25
From: etc., [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: etc... |
|
|
And you are jumping in here now for why?
Jim and I ground all that away to dust and moved on to sterilizing
vaccines. That was interesting. I didn’t know that with new
technology they can’t really say the measles vaccine is a sterilizing
vaccine anymore. Check out those sources posted.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11516] [11496] [11501] [11504] [11499] [11517] [11507] [11528] [11513] [11530] [11509] [11532] [11514] [11533] [11547] [11553] [11559] [11560] [11567] [11587] [11603] [11502] [11506] [11529] [11568] [11588] [11505] [11508] [11510] [11521] [11522] [11548] [11512] [11515] [11511] |
|
11516 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 20:03:03
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: etc... |
URL: http://www.earthboppin.net/talkshop/health2/messages/11353.html |
|
Thanks, but no need. I posted about it 2 days ago. In fact, I think I might
have been the 1st person here to post anything describing and
distinguishing sterilizing immunity from the immunity the mRNA covid
vaccines offer.
Date: January 05, 2022 at 08:50:54
From: akira
Subject: Re: ??
URL: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/cdc-director-masks-better-than-
vaccines-at-stopping-coronavirus-2020-9
the point is that the CDC/gov never claimed to have a covid vaccine that
prevented covid 100%.
reposting from above:
excerpt:
2020
We’ll still need masks after a vaccine is authorised
"Immunogenicity is the term for a vaccine’s ability to provoke an immune
response against a virus. An ideal vaccine gives what’s called sterilizing
immunity, which means it reliably protects anyone who gets it from being
infected by a given pathogen.
In the case of the coronavirus, however, developers aren’t aiming for
sterilizing immunity, at least not at first. They’re mainly aiming to reduce
disease.
For instance, Moderna’s stage 3 vaccine trial — the candidate’s final large
human trial before it could receive emergency authorization — aims to
show the set of shots is at least 60% effective at preventing COVID-19.
However, the FDA has said it will grant authorization to a vaccine even less
effective than that: The candidate just has to be at least 50% more effective
than a placebo at preventing or reducing the severity of the disease."
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
11496 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 15:28:35
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that not accurate etc... |
|
|
Hi etc.
> Jim and I ground all that away to dust and moved on to
sterilizing vaccines.
That's not accurate. Sterilizing immunity is the
technical term for the type of immunity that prevents
infection. That is why I brought that phrase into our
conversation. And the COVID vaccines do not provide
sterilizing immunity which means they don't prevent
infection. I had hoped you had understood that. I'm
sorry, I would have clarified that if I had realized you
didn't understand that.
The best we can hope for with the COVID vaccines is
functional immunity or effective immunity which looked
pretty good this summer until the massive numbers of
fully vaccinated people became infected with COVID, were
hospitalized with COVID and died of COVID this fall. Now
we understand the vaccines effectiveness wanes quickly
and that protection is extremely limited.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11501] [11504] [11499] [11517] [11507] [11528] [11513] [11530] [11509] [11532] [11514] [11533] [11547] [11553] [11559] [11560] [11567] [11587] [11603] [11502] [11506] [11529] [11568] [11588] [11505] [11508] [11510] [11521] [11522] [11548] [11512] [11515] [11511] |
|
11501 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 16:08:33
From: etc., [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that not accurate etc... |
|
|
Condescending any? ;) It is possible to explain yourself without it.
Yes it was accurate. You brought sterilizing vaccines into the
discussion and I continued with it, because when even the Measles
vaccine is no longer considered a sterilizing vaccine, the thought of
any Covid vaccine will thoroughly prevent infection is pretty mute at
that point. Fluidity continues from last year to this on Covid and it’s
various vaccines and beyond. And the discussion about Covid
vaccines not preventing infection is at its end. It was a failure of
understanding vaccines in general. It is good to remember that from
the beginning, none of the vaccines were promoted as 100%.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11504] |
|
11504 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 16:56:18
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that not accurate etc... |
|
|
Hi etc.,
I certainly don't mean to be condescending when I say
you still don't seem to understand and it is not
accurate to say our conversation on protection from
infection came to an end. Sterilizing immunity and
protection from infection are the same thing and that
was all part of the exact same discussion.
The experts say the COVID vaccines don't prevent
infection which means the experts say the COVID vaccines
don't provide sterilization immunity. So the bottom line
is that the COVID vaccines don't protect from infection,
they are to help prevent serious illness.
The Atlantic article which you posted was about why
sterilizing immunity is probably not achievable. And
there were many such articles written because the
science says the current COVID vaccines don't provide
sterilizing immunity, i.e. they don't protect from
infection. I was also slow to catch on to that point as
much as I've read about this subject.
And it is important to realize the COVID vaccines don't
protect from infection because a fully vaccinated person
could get infected with COVID and be extremely
contagious without being symptomatic. Research shows
that infected vaccinated people are just as contagious
as unvaccinated people, but for about 5 days versus the
7 days an unvaccinated person.
This is why I say it is dangerous to assume a vaccine
that doesn't protect from infection will protection from
infection. Not everyone who comes in contact with COVID
becomes infected.
Again, I'm sorry if I sound condescending, however it
feels like you are not understanding the subject we are
discussing.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
11499 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 15:53:18
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that not accurate etc... |
|
|
|
i don't agree with that assessment...but it's really just semantics...it is quite obvious that the vaccines did prevent infections for the most part for at least a year and a half...at least until the variants took over...that much is evident by the case numbers in 2020 and the first half of 2021...your bottom line is still false...or at least misrepresented...they don't wane that quickly (in my mind 6+ months is not that quickly), and their protection is really good...what mean we kemosabe?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11517] [11507] [11528] [11513] [11530] [11509] [11532] [11514] [11533] [11547] [11553] [11559] [11560] [11567] [11587] [11603] [11502] [11506] [11529] [11568] [11588] [11505] [11508] [11510] [11521] [11522] [11548] [11512] [11515] [11511] |
|
11517 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 20:11:50
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that not accurate etc... |
|
|
|
As I recall immunity from vaccines were disappearing after 6 months.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
11507 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 17:19:19
From: kay.so.or, [DNS_Address]
Subject: not a vaccine.... |
|
|
P and M are not vaccines, I posted that definition ryan right here...they are 'experiments', not approved by even the FDA yes for a reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11528] [11513] [11530] [11509] [11532] [11514] [11533] [11547] [11553] [11559] [11560] [11567] [11587] [11603] |
|
11528 |
|
|
Date: January 08, 2022 at 04:52:32
From: Dan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: That's crap and you know it |
|
|
Total semantic fiction......
People who believe your rhetoric and act on it put
themselves in deadly peril.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
11513 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 19:15:28
From: chatillon, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: not a vaccine.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11530] |
|
11530 |
|
|
Date: January 08, 2022 at 05:08:08
From: Dan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Wrong...anti vax talking point...people die believing it(NT) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
11509 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 17:46:30
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: not a vaccine.... |
|
|
👍👍👍👀🙌
and besides that --they don't take responsibility for
harming people.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11532] [11514] [11533] [11547] [11553] [11559] [11560] [11567] [11587] [11603] |
|
11532 |
|
|
Date: January 08, 2022 at 05:09:14
From: Dan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: not a vaccine.... |
|
|
Do you take responsibility for people dying because
you've convinced them not to get vaccinated?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
11514 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 19:16:20
From: chatillon, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: not a vaccine.... |
|
|
CORRECT!
Thank you, Pamela.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11533] [11547] [11553] [11559] [11560] [11567] [11587] [11603] |
|
11533 |
|
|
Date: January 08, 2022 at 05:10:04
From: Dan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Same question |
|
|
Do you take responsibility for people dying because
you've convinced them not to get vaccinated?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11547] [11553] [11559] [11560] [11567] [11587] [11603] |
|
11547 |
|
|
Date: January 08, 2022 at 10:26:48
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Same question/Dan |
|
|
No, I leave it up to each person to make the decision for
themselves Dan.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11553] [11559] [11560] [11567] [11587] [11603] |
|
11553 |
|
|
Date: January 08, 2022 at 13:18:15
From: Dan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Same question/Dan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11559] [11560] [11567] [11587] [11603] |
|
11559 |
|
|
Date: January 08, 2022 at 13:51:07
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Same question/Dan |
|
|
You disagree with what? I do not preach people take
vaxx's/or mRNa vaxx's, allopathic toxic medicines. I
show them what I have researched on these subjects just
as Kay points out. It is up to each person to decide if
its okay with their body/decisions for good health. So
far in my family according to their own
research/opinions/following allopathic doctors, only
one child decided to take the mrna vacc. She is now
suffering with side effects, symptoms. My youngest son
won't take them. Its all their decisions. A neighbor
thru coercion thru her in laws got the mrna vaccines
because she and her partner would not be allowed over
visit them if they did not. So she and partnr got the
mrna shots. I told her prior to this of my findings
what I had found and it did not matter to her, she and
parnter got the shots.
I support both some allopathic and osteopathic/natural
medicine. Surely you feel that Cayce was a good seer
and him having given hundreds of medical readings, for
all kinds of ailments proved it a succesful endeavor to
help people this way.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11560] [11567] [11587] [11603] |
|
11560 |
|
|
Date: January 08, 2022 at 14:22:57
From: Dan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Same question/Dan |
|
|
Really? You're invoking Cayce? Cayce was not anti vax.
Claiming that the vaccines are not vaccine is promoting
anti vax. Claiming that there is a conspiracy to hide
harmful side effects is also promoting anti vax.
You are not a medical expert of any kind, no matter how
much "research" you have done.
You are simply not being honest....neither is anyone who
uses your argument, in my opinion
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11567] [11587] [11603] |
|
11567 |
|
|
Date: January 08, 2022 at 16:13:49
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Same question/Dan |
|
|
I don't know if Cayce was anti-vax or not. Some of his
readings back in the day were treating people who'd had
adverse reactions to the Spanish flu vaccine though.
So no not INVOKING Cayce, my point is, there are two
types of medical treatments, and I wrote I am for some
Allopathic medicine and also know the benefits of natural
medicine.
Then I gave examples of what my daughter is going thru.
She's 46. Also gave example of what a neigbor did. Why
jump the gun, bud?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11587] [11603] |
|
11587 |
|
|
Date: January 09, 2022 at 05:34:59
From: Dan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Same question/Dan |
|
|
Actually many of Cayce's recommended treatments were
incorporated into modern medicine, for example putting
metal pins into shattered bones to mend them.
I'm sorry about the girl suffering extreme side effects.
They are, however very rare and most do not last an
extended period of time.
You didn't specify what those symptoms were.
The flip side is the symptoms from getting Covid can be
much worse. They can linger for long periods of time
causing permanent damage to the heart, nervous system,
and the lungs.
There is no homeopathic preventative. Anyone not getting
the vaccine is not only endangering their own health but
everyone they come in daily contact as well.
As far as your anecdotes go, anecdotes are not proof of
anything. But if they were, in my wide range of
contacts, I have heard no such stories as yours.
However, there are those who have not been vaccinated
who infected others who ended up with long Covid.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11603] |
|
11603 |
|
|
Date: January 09, 2022 at 10:57:59
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Same question/Dan |
|
|
"my point is, there are two
types of medical treatments, and I wrote I am for some
Allopathic medicine and also know the benefits of
natural
medicine."
My daughter is regaining her strength. She went back to
work yesterday. She is a very strong woman of faith.
She and her partner are involved in doing marathon's.
She's accomplised much this past year, winning medals
for her marthathon runs beside being a great mom and
partner to her guy.
And yes, I do know about Cayce's acceptance of both
Allopathic and Osteopathic/natural medicines. And yes
he did actually treat those with bad reactions to the
Spanish flu innoculations.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
11502 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 16:30:58
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that not accurate etc... |
|
|
Hi ryan,
I believe I've pointed out before we have no idea how
the vaccines would have held up to the original variant.
Delta rolled in as the dominant strain by June 2021 in
the midst of the main vaccine rollout in the US. And
Pfizer tested and determined their vaccine was effective
against Delta but that the effectiveness waned rather
quickly. So I don't get why you drone on about how the
vaccines did against the original strain.
As far as vaccines preventing infection with COVID, the
medical and scientific experts are saying the vaccines
don't prevent infection. There have been numerous
examples posted here. Do you have any reason for saying
a vaccine the experts say doesn't prevent COVID actually
did prevent COVID?
And the vaccines don't work for 6+ months. We've
discussed that over and over. They have actually lowered
the eligibility for booster shots to 5 months because
the vaccine effectiveness wanes so quickly.
Here is an article on research which showed by 6 months
the vaccines effectiveness was half that of when given.
Other studies have shown a dramatic reduction in
effectiveness in just 2 months.
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-11-04/study-
shows-dramatic-decline-in-effectiveness-of-covid-19-
vaccines
Please be careful not to give anyone the false
impression that these vaccines are effective for 6+
months as such a false claim is dangerous.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11506] [11529] [11568] [11588] [11505] [11508] [11510] [11521] [11522] [11548] [11512] [11515] [11511] |
|
11506 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 17:03:01
From: chaskuchar@stcharlesmo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: i agree with that assessment of the vaccines. |
|
|
now today they say this year a fourth booster will be
needed. and then? the vaccines effect is only
temporary and now i see them as useless. my opinion
only.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11529] [11568] [11588] |
|
11529 |
|
|
Date: January 08, 2022 at 04:55:14
From: Dan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: i agree with that assessment of the vaccines. |
|
|
Many changes are because of the different variants
charles.
"now i see them as useless"
Medical scientists do not agree with you
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11568] [11588] |
|
11568 |
|
|
Date: January 08, 2022 at 16:15:32
From: chaskuchar@stcharlesmo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: that's their opinion. |
|
|
facts are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. this
vaccine for the covid is crap. it's a man-made virus
and we won't be able to create a vaccine to cure it.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11588] |
|
11588 |
|
|
Date: January 09, 2022 at 05:52:28
From: Dan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: That would be their Expert opinion. |
|
|
You are not an expert. The vaccine works. You ignore all
of the enormous amount of data that shows this.
"facts are not facts" is not a valid argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
11505 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 16:59:19
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that not accurate etc... |
|
|
alright mr wizard...perhaps you can explain this...in the first year and a half of vaccines, over 90% of the cases, hospitalizations and deaths occurred in the unvaccinated...so it seems quite obvious that indeed, the vaccines did prevent infection...awaiting your toplike response...
i drone on about it because it is relevant...the vaccines were designed to protect against the original strain of covid...it is not surprising that they are not as effective against the variants...for you to go on and on about the ineffectiveness of the vaccines is disingenuous and outright dangerous imo...
the vaccines were effective for 6+ moths against the original strain...longer effectively in preventing hospitalizations and deaths...your article is addressing current conditions with the variants and is not relevant...please stop spreading disinformation...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11508] [11510] [11521] [11522] [11548] [11512] [11515] [11511] |
|
11508 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 17:41:24
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that not accurate etc... |
|
|
Hi ryan,
> alright mr wizard...perhaps you can explain this...in
the first year and a half of vaccines, over 90% of the
cases, hospitalizations and deaths occurred in the
unvaccinated...
The vaccines were only approved in December 2020, 13
months ago so we haven't had the vaccines for a year and
a half yet. And rollout started with medical personnel
and first responders, then the elderly. The vaccines
weren't even available to most adults until March and
April 2020. We are now only 9 months from widespread
availability to adults in the US.
So basically your timeline is wrong. You feel they
worked great for a while when a closer look at the
timeline shows that isn't true. In the first half of
2020 the vast majority of cases, hospitalizations and
deaths were among the unvaccinated because the year
started with just a few % of the population vaccinated
and by the end of May it was only 57%. Most of them
having a fresh vaccination which means the peak
protection.
But as larger and larger numbers of people were
vaccinated the percentage of cases among the fully
vaccinated began to rise. In mid November based only a
limited number of states it was found there had been
1.89 million breakthrough cases, 72k breakthrough
hospitalizations and 20k breakthrough deaths. You know
there is a lag so let's say these numbers probably
reflect up to about mid October. There were that many
breakthrough cases, hospitalizations and deaths within 6
months of US adults having availability to the vaccines.
With the correct time period you should realize that
there was no long period where people were protected
from infection. This is why we should listen to what the
experts say and in this case the experts say the
vaccines don't protect from infection.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11510] [11521] [11522] [11548] [11512] [11515] [11511] |
|
11510 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 17:59:52
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that not accurate etc... |
|
|
okay, my timeline was bad...memory slip...but not any way meaningful...
other than that, your argument to bolster your position fails miserably...and still, the great majority of cases, hospitalizations and deaths are among the unvaccinated...to me the data shows there was a fairly long period that the vaccinated were well protected...6-8 moths at least ...you know, until the variants took over which the vaccines were not developed for...sure, pfizer didn't want to go through the testing protocols again for a new vaccine, so they pushed the fact that their vaccine was somewhat effective against the variants, as it was...didn't want to stop the cash flow...but you know what they say, one man's floor is another man's ceiling...
so let's just agree to disagree...hopefully you will stop putting out bad and misleading information about vaccines, and i will be able to stop calling out your bullshit...sure there is a bit of truth to what you say, but the way you present it is to diminish vaccines and their effectiveness, when they obviously are quite effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths...remember, they are vaccinations, not immunizations...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11521] [11522] [11548] [11512] [11515] [11511] |
|
11521 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 20:44:17
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that not accurate etc... |
URL: Pfizer Vaccine Protection Wanes After 6 Months Study Finds |
|
There's a lot of truth to what he's saying. There are plenty of sources
available. Here are 2.
Pfizer protection drops after 5 months, study finds
New research, financed by Pfizer and published in The Lancet, finds that
while the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was 88 percent effective at preventing
infection during the first month after a second dose — it was only 47
percent effective at preventing infection 5 months later.
Researchers also found that the Pfizer vaccine was highly effective against
the Delta variant, and was still more than 90 percent effective against it for
around 4 months, after which it dropped to just 53 percent effectiveness at
about 5 months after vaccination.
However, the vaccine’s protectiveness against hospitalizations remained
high overall, providing 93 percent protection up to 6 months after being
administered.
The study analyzed electronic health records of more than 3 million
members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California from when the vaccine
was made available in December 2020 to August 2021.
The findings suggest that waning immunity was due to the time that passed
after someone received the second dose — and not exposure to the Delta
variant.
“Our results provide support for high effectiveness of BNT162b2 against
hospital admissions up until around 6 months after being fully vaccinated,”
the study authors wrote. “Even in the face of widespread dissemination of
the Delta variant.”
Moderna maintained efficacy up to 5 months
A recent study by Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) researchers
concluded that the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was 93 percent effective at
preventing illness, and more than 98 percent effective for preventing severe
illness even 5 months after a second dose.
The vaccine trial included 30,415 participants, with 15,209 receiving
Moderna’s vaccine and 15,206 given a placebo.
According to researchers, the Moderna vaccine showed continued
effectiveness at preventing COVID-19 and severe illness even after 5
months, while maintaining an acceptable safety profile and protection
against asymptomatic infection.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/what-we-know-about-how-long-
the-pfizer-and-moderna-covid-19-vaccines-work#Pfizer-protection-drops-
after-5-months,-study-finds
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11522] [11548] |
|
11522 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 21:00:24
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that not accurate etc... |
|
|
lotta truth in what i said too..
"However, the vaccine’s protectiveness against hospitalizations remained high overall, providing 93 percent protection up to 6 months after being
administered."
and the article "...financed by Pfizer and published in The Lancet, finds that while the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was 88 percent effective at preventing infection during the first month after a second dose"
so they are saying it did prevent infection, something that jim claims is not true...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11548] |
|
11548 |
|
|
Date: January 08, 2022 at 10:48:43
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that not accurate etc... |
URL: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf |
|
Hi ryan,
This is interesting the article says that. I went back
to the actual paper (link above) and they do not say the
vaccines prevent infection. In fact the paper says:
"Data presented here do not address whether
vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection, but
evaluation of that question is ongoing in this study,
and real-world data suggest that BNT162b2 prevents
asymptomatic infection."
It seems that this study was looking at symptomatic
infection. What they found was that 99% of the
vaccinated group didn't get COVID while 96% of he
placebo group didn't get COVID.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
11512 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 18:50:21
From: Nevada, [DNS_Address]
Subject: so let's just agree to disagree... couldn't agree more ryan! |
|
|
Covid is a very real and large problem for the entire
world...
...fighting politically charged wars over it does no one
any good.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[11515] |
|
11515 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 19:19:14
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: so let's just agree to disagree... couldn't agree more ryan! |
|
|
Hi Lee,
That jumped out at me when I got down to the last
paragraph too. Unfortunately everything after that was
the same juvenile insults ryan always makes when he
realizes what I'm saying is correct so it's not quite the
adult behavior as it appeared.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
11511 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2022 at 18:21:06
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that not accurate etc... |
|
|
Hi ryan,
> okay, my timeline was bad...memory slip...but not any
way meaningful...
Not meaningful? Your position was based on a year and a
half with 90% of ..... oh nevermind.
COVID vaccines don't protect from infection and the
protection they do provide wanes quickly. I don't know
why you want to make these claims about what the data
looks like to you when you don't look at the data.
Please consider refraining from making bold
pronouncements about such an important subject as COVID
and the vaccines if you aren't willing to look at what
the science says.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Health ] [ Main Menu ] |