Higher Number Of COVID Vax Received, Higher RISK Of COVID: Newly Peer Reviewed Study Implies

[The Oracle]

Higher Number Of COVID Vax Received, Higher RISK Of COVID: Newly Peer Reviewed Study Implies

This bombshell from the Cleveland Clinic no less.........The hits keep on coming for the vaccine commandos.

 

[Meesh]

Bombhshell. LMAO!

You keep insulating yourself under that tinfoil hat. You keep posting whacko stuff and it always seems to have already been debunked.

From Feb 2023:

"It does not say that the bivalent booster increases the risk of catching COVID. The top line results show that the bivalent booster reduced COVID infections by 30 per cent. This result is supported by a recent New England Journal of Medicine analysis that found the bivalent booster was better than the original vaccine and had an effectiveness of 59 per cent against hospitalization and 62 per cent against hospitalization or death.

The claim about vaccines making things worse stems from some of the secondary results and appears to fall victim to an epidemiological concept called the Table 2 fallacy. The name comes from the convention that Table 1 in most papers presents the characteristics of patients and Table 2 looks at the relationships between various factors and the end result being studied."

Christopher Labos: Vaccine study that has people worried is being misinterpreted

Cleveland Clinic paper does not say the bivalent booster increases the risk of catching COVID, but rather, that it reduced infections by 30 per cent.

montrealgazette.com

 

[squeezer]

Bombhshell. LMAO!

You keep insulating yourself under that tinfoil hat. You keep posting whacko stuff and it always seems to have already been debunked.

From Feb 2023:

"It does not say that the bivalent booster increases the risk of catching COVID. The top line results show that the bivalent booster reduced COVID infections by 30 per cent. This result is supported by a recent New England Journal of Medicine analysis that found the bivalent booster was better than the original vaccine and had an effectiveness of 59 per cent against hospitalization and 62 per cent against hospitalization or death.

The claim about vaccines making things worse stems from some of the secondary results and appears to fall victim to an epidemiological concept called the Table 2 fallacy. The name comes from the convention that Table 1 in most papers presents the characteristics of patients and Table 2 looks at the relationships between various factors and the end result being studied."

Christopher Labos: Vaccine study that has people worried is being misinterpreted

Cleveland Clinic paper does not say the bivalent booster increases the risk of catching COVID, but rather, that it reduced infections by 30 per cent.

montrealgazette.com

If the hat fits, there they sit tin foil hat and all. LMAO

 

[Resetset]

During the pandemic there were a core of members on this site vilifying the non vaccinated. Supported forced vaccinations. Posts dancing on the graves of the unvaccinated.

I think it would be poetic if the vaccine caused them an illness far worse than Sars Covid 2 ever would have- because fuck them.

 

[squeezer]

During the pandemic there were a core of members on this site vilifying the non vaccinated. Supported forced vaccinations. Posts dancing on the graves of the unvaccinated.

I think it would be poetic if the vaccine caused them an illness far worse than Sars Covid 2 ever would have- because fuck them.

Awwww, that's not nice. You are such an angry man. I only wanted to drop the unvaxxed on a shark-infested deserted island so they can live the rest of their lives in FRRRRRRREEEEEEDDDDDDUUUUUUM.

I've had 4 shots and it's been great. No more Viagra needed, more energy now than when I was in my 20's. I blame this energy/erection boost on the damn vaccine dammit!!!

 

[Meesh]

I've had 4 shots and it's been great. No more Viagra needed, more energy now than when I was in my 20's. I blame this energy/erection boost on the damn vaccine dammit!!!

I've had 6 shots. I have all the symptoms you mentioned, plus I'm able to pick up Sirius XM for free.

 

[squeezer]

I've had 6 shots. I have all the symptoms you mentioned, plus I'm able to pick up Sirius XM for free.

Ha, you've been ripped off. I point little Squeeze north and I can hear aliens chatting.

 

[dvous11]

6 shots omg

 

[Meesh]

Ha, you've been ripped off. I point little Squeeze north and I can hear aliens chatting.

Fair enough, but I'll still be the tunes are better on Sirius. I hate that crap the aliens play.

 

[jcpro]

It would explain why quite a few of my vaccinated friends caught covid multiple times. I simply thought: bullshit "vaccine ". I never suspected that the shots would make people more susceptible to catching it. Interesting.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1663367576099999744

 

[Meesh]

It would explain why quite a few of my vaccinated friends caught covid multiple times. I simply thought: bullshit "vaccine ". I never suspected that the shots would make people more susceptible to catching it. Interesting.

You obviously didn't read the article debunking the allegation. But hey, don't let facts stand in your way.

 

[jcpro]

You obviously didn't read the article debunking the allegation. But hey, don't let facts stand in your way.

You didn't debunk anything. You posted an old article based on the preprint, nor did you look at the screen shot in the tweet. And of course there's this, also.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1663409258048917506

 

[basketcase]

During the pandemic there were a core of members on this site vilifying the non vaccinated. Supported forced vaccinations. Posts dancing on the graves of the unvaccinated.

I think it would be poetic if the vaccine caused them an illness far worse than Sars Covid 2 ever would have- because fuck them.

So you complain about people thinking it poetic that covid deniers got very sick from covid while essentially hoping for the same results?

 

[basketcase]

You didn't debunk anything. You posted an old article based on the preprint, nor did you look at the screen shot in the tweet. And of course there's this, also.
...

Twitter as a source again? How humorous.

 

[jcpro]

Twitter as a source again? How humorous.

It's called a medium.

 

[The Oracle]

It's called a medium.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1663649947437383682

The great Jimmy Dore...Man has he come along way.

 

[Jubee]

You obviously didn't read the article debunking the allegation. But hey, don't let facts stand in your way.

Any idea why Pfizer wanted to seal documents for, I think it was 75 years in regards to the jabs?
Thankfully they weren't allowed to do it.

Any reason why they were given a pass on liability and could not be held accountable if something happens to anyone that got the shot?

Doesn't make you stop to think?

 

[Butler1000]

So here is the thing.

The vulnerable ones who didn't get the shots only got it once and died. The vulnerable ones who did get boosters may have gotten mild cases but were fine.

In other words it ain't about if you get it, but how bad you do.

 

[DinkleMouse]

Any idea why Pfizer wanted to seal documents for, I think it was 75 years in regards to the jabs?
Thankfully they weren't allowed to do it.

Any reason why they were given a pass on liability and could not be held accountable if something happens to anyone that got the shot?

Doesn't make you stop to think?

Yes. But I'm critical of everything I hear or read and confirm the sources actually say what people claim they do.

Anytime humans hear something we don't want to believe, we set out looking for evidence that it's wrong. It's an excellent practice. The problem is the vast majority people don't do the same when they hear something they do want to believe.

The first thing I ask for is the source. If someone is claiming someone said something, I want to listen to or read what was actually said. Ideally with a couple of minutes on either side of the statement in question. Amazingly, many people either refuse to provide the source claiming "You wouldn't accept it anyway," which seems really disingenuous when I've never once rejected evidence because of the source (unless the source is anonymous or unsourced, but no one should accept that nonsense), or once they do they admit they never read it if it doesn't say what they thought it did.

I also try to act in good faith. So for example, I'll Google to see if the source is easy enough to find before I bug people. Because this isn't a formal debate and I'm not trying to "win" so I don't see any reason that the entire burden should fall in them. So when people refuse to provide a source, or admit they never dug into the sources to confirm it, I get annoyed. I'm open minded. Crazy thing: I've been wrong in my life. Like.... A few times! And you know what? I didn't die. I don't mind that I'm wrong sometimes, and I can admit when I am. So I get annoyed when people refuse to even try and show me the evidence of their claims.

So hopefully I don't get annoyed here, but do you have a source that Pfizer tried to seal records for 75 years? Because I fucking hate Pfizer. I think they're a horrendous corporation that preys on needy people. And despite the fact that their story has been around for a while, I've never found a source to corroborate it. I have found that the FDA tried to seal the records for 75 years and went to court. But I haven't seen any source that Pfizer did. Do you have one?

 

[basketcase]

It's called a medium.

At least for people unwilling or incapable of understanding the actual papers published on the topic.

Sorry but every one of these asinine tweets about covid studies gets ripped apart by people who actually read studies instead of simply seeing a headline mentioning it and pretending it supports their presuppositions.