2613
Comments (129)
sorted by:
67
ChynahIzAzzhole 67 points ago +74 / -7

Jabs are at an abortion rate for inside 20 weeks is at 75-80%. It proves its working.

37
ScipioAmericanus 37 points ago +38 / -1

I want to show this to someone, but I know the first thing they’ll say is “source?” If you have one please share it so that they shut up and look at the evidence. Thanks.

21
BobBlackwood 21 points ago +22 / -1

Came here to say this

16
MW23232 16 points ago +17 / -1

Here is a link . This link/site has been accumulating all the info it can on these vaxxes, deaths after vaxx, reactions, including spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and they get their info from the the VAERS site, which is a "system managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Food and Drug Administration, has been around since 1990, and existed in relative anonymity until 2021". IDK why anyone would need more proof than this. https://thecovidblog.com/2021/06/21/vaers-vaccine-reporting-system-has-recorded-more-than-500-spontaneous-abortions-after-experimental-covid-19-vaccines/

However, very oddly, the VAERS site it is not opening right now. Can't imagine why it was open all the time before and now it's open one day, not the next. Hasn't been updating every week, as it was before, either.

Take note of this other site, as well as above article. This is from the National Vaccine. Info Site. https://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2021/diy-vaccine-reaction-reporting.aspx#comments Both sites say vaxxes are under-reported by 99%, so do the math to get a better idea what's allegedly really going on.

Also, I saved the second link off VAERS site, and if/when it opens again, have a look. This was a 5 month old baby who allegedly drank his mom's breast milk after she got the vaxx at work, he got sick and died a couple of days later. https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1166062

5
Faraday27 5 points ago +5 / -0

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983

Check Table 4. The row showing loss of child at less than 20 weeks. They show 104 out of 827. However, a footnote at the base of the table shows 700 didn't get their first jab until the 3rd trimester which is well after 20 weeks. The actual numbers should be listed as 104 out of 127 list their child after their first jab at less than 20 weeks.

-1
NomadicKrow2 -1 points ago +23 / -24

It's from a mistakenly misread set of data that was posted here the other day. The real number is about 12%. Which is still 12% too much, but it isn't high enough to alarm anyone.

67
IntrepidBurger 67 points ago +68 / -1

It's not misread. The OP of that post correctly interpreted the data. They reported that only 104 out of 800 pregnant mothers had miscarriages in the first trimester after getting the jab. The article notes in tiny print that 700 mothers did not get the jab until the 3rd trimester. Of course they didn't miscarry in the first term because of it!

104 out 127 mothers who got the jab in the first trimester miscarried. That's what the article actually reports.

23
TrumpTrainForever 23 points ago +23 / -0

This^

Retards can’t read clinical studies and the media and “scientists” use that to their advantage all the time.

How many people on this site can tell you if the statistical analysis done in the study was appropriate or not?

My guess is very few.

Point being, the shot causes massive termination of pregnancy within first or second trimester.

It is also highly likely it is causing long term end organ damage to people as well. I have to say this, if you are on the fence DO NOT GET THE JAB

-13
Election_Quotes -13 points ago +1 / -14

You misunderstood it yourself. See my comment below.

7
TrumpTrainForever 7 points ago +7 / -0

No, it isn’t misinterpreted.

The chart literally tells you that in the data they used to calculate risk for spontaneous abortion (less than 20 weeks), that 700 out of 827 were vaccinated past 20 weeks.

If you take only cases that could have been terminated at 20 weeks or less it is 104/127, showing a potential huge risk to getting vaccinated in the first trimester/mid second trimester.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
15
Block_Helen 15 points ago +15 / -0

Thank you!

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
-12
Election_Quotes -12 points ago +2 / -14

Incorrect. There were 1100 first term pregnancies in the trial. But only 127 of them ‘completed pregnancies’ because the only way a pregnancy completes in the first term is death of the baby. The other ~1000 pregnancies didn’t complete before the study ended. See more in my comment below

16
IntrepidBurger 16 points ago +16 / -0

No, that's not true at all. From the article:

"Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a live birth in 712 (86.1%), in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%), in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%), and in other outcomes (induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy) in 10 (1.2%). A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation (Table 4), and 700 of 712 pregnancies that resulted in a live birth (98.3%)"

-14
Election_Quotes -14 points ago +2 / -16

This is DANGEROUSLY incorrect and I can only assume being peddled so hard here as disinformation to discredit us.

The reason it doesn’t work is simple: 127 ‘completed pregnancies’ is because of the 1100 or so first term pregnancies as part of the study, the rest weren’t ‘complete’ yet. ie the women were still pregnant. The only way a first term pregnancy ‘completes’ is via death of the baby. So they took all the ones were the baby died - a spontaneous abortion - and counted 127. The other thousand or so first term pregnancies weren’t complete, but continued on past the study window. So 127/1100 is about on par with the number of first term pregnancies that miscarry anyway.

TL;DR The study shows no major impact on numbers of miscarriages, but people misunderstood it or are deliberately misrepresenting it to make us look like idiots. Signed, someone who won’t be taking the vax and thinks there WILL be long term consequences on fertility

18
IntrepidBurger 18 points ago +18 / -0

No, that is flat out false. From the article itself

"Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a live birth in 712 (86.1%), in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%), in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%), and in other outcomes (induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy) in 10 (1.2%). A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation (Table 4), and 700 of 712 pregnancies that resulted in a live birth (98.3%) "

1
Election_Quotes 1 point ago +2 / -1

The rest of the first termers DIDNT HAVE A COMPLETED PREGNANCY- because they were still pregnant when the study concluded. A baby takes 9 months to be born. The study didn’t want until all first term study participants had got to full term before closing the study. But it does tell us they had ~1000 first term study participants, and only 96 of those had a completed pregnancy within the study window because they miscarried. The number is 96/~1000 first term pregnancies.

Make sense?

1
IntrepidBurger 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, that is specifically not what that line says. It says that 712 resulted in a live birth. Read the exact line, it's right there.

-3
kernel -3 points ago +3 / -6

His point is that it is 96 out of ... I don't know - why the fuck did the "study" not mention it right - 1100 ? or should it be 1100 - (827 - 712) or ... ?

4
IntrepidBurger 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's out of 827. That's how many participated in the study until completion. Completion as they define it is either terminated pregnancy or successful live birth.

3
Brucesky420 3 points ago +3 / -0

Are you a part of a stock trading community by any chance? A guy with your same username helped me a little over a year ago plan my investment into oil and it made me MASSIVE returns.

So if you're that guy, just wanted to say thanks. If you're not that guy, thanks anyway

4
M16A4 4 points ago +4 / -0

Back to Reddit bozo

0
kernel 0 points ago +2 / -2

Obviously the original study is bullshit and they should have waited for all the pregnanices to "complete" and only then release the numbers.

They were cooking the numbers but I agree that the initial rebuttal was cooking the numbers too to make it all too sensational.

22
2fat2queerious 22 points ago +22 / -0

The 12% number includes late term vaccines in a seemingly deliberate attempt to obfuscate the early term death rates. You're the one misinterpreting it

An honest study would show it as an extraordinarily elevated miscarriage rate early term, relatively normal late term.

11
Badstate 11 points ago +11 / -0

I thought the same thing as you. They hid the number by including all pregnancies, most of which were vaxed in third trimester. You can't have a miscarriage in the third trimester.

3
Brucesky420 3 points ago +3 / -0

but it isn't high enough to alarm anyone.

It should be, but the media does a good job convincing people it totally isn't alarming

2
NomadicKrow2 2 points ago +2 / -0

It should be. I tried editing my post to add that, but edits don't stick for some reason.

-4
Election_Quotes -4 points ago +1 / -5

Thank you, you actually understand how it works

23
TrudopesEyebrow 23 points ago +23 / -0

March- Dec 2020: Remember how in 2020 no one under 35 yrs old was getting hospitalized or even developing covid symptoms?

Jan-March 2021: the young and healthy are told to get mass vaxxed.

April 2021: “A new variant is blamed for making the young and healthy sick and sending healthy teens to the hospital and the morgue”

12
TrumpTrainForever 12 points ago +12 / -0

Vaccine is the virus

4
kernel 4 points ago +4 / -0

The cure is the disease ... yet again

3
KS-76- 3 points ago +3 / -0

Just got an email from the location schedule board saying they are now offering the vaccine at the schools for ages 12 and up. This is pure evil being done by all who are pushing think poison on to kids.

15
ThoughtCrimeConvict 15 points ago +15 / -0

They have potential as a novel abortion shot. Just as we got Viagra from cardiovascular studies.

7
GeoG85 7 points ago +7 / -0

People are reported with enlarged hearts and fluid around the area too.

Between the jabs and the DNA protein spike shedding, I dunno - sounds like some horror movie shit.

5
14DaysToFlatten 5 points ago +5 / -0

Wrong

41
Dutch_Christian 41 points ago +41 / -0

64% is probably the number they can get away with. Something like "64% of patients now self report they have less severe symptoms than expected"

38
I-am-Orlando 38 points ago +40 / -2

Actually, an often ignored study by the Lancet shows the efficacy for these vaccines is around 1%. Yes, one percent based on ARR (the standard) and not RRR (the unrealistic number given)! Here's the study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666524721000690?via%3Dihub

16
Yam_nation 16 points ago +16 / -0

That relative risk ratio is the lie every medication uses. It's disgusting and misleading.

12
Centipedealicious 12 points ago +12 / -0

Please explain how you see the efficacy is around 1%. I don't see that.

14
ADAM_SCHITT 14 points ago +14 / -0

Absolute risk reduction is about 1%. It basically means your risk of catching the virus goes from something like 1.5% unvaccinated to 0.5% vaccinated.

6
hotdogsforsale 6 points ago +6 / -0

^^^This this this always this^^^

They lie, they lie ALL the time with numbers.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

-Mark Twain

1
yukondave 1 point ago +1 / -0

And that is why you must always look at the numbers that make up the statistic. The math dont lie.

Example: the county of Los Angeles had 5 children under 18 die of Covid of which 3 were fighting cancer. They hide the child death numbers. Go ahead and look for them in your state. Ask a doctor and you get vague statements.

Fact 5 in LA county died. Thats it. Why on earth would you give all of them a vaccine?

6
Centipedealicious 6 points ago +6 / -0

Thanks!

3
Continue 3 points ago +3 / -0

Over what period of time though - just the time the study was conducted, right? Hypothetically, if we actually believe the 90-95% relative reduction number over the time of the trial period, wouldn't we expect that difference (say 1.1% to .1%) to increase at least somewhat over time after the trial collection period is over? So that 1.1 vs .1% may become 3% vs .5% or something after a few additional months?

Just seems like either way of looking at the data may not be complete. Still not worth getting a crazy, new type of vaccine without long term data for a disease with a .1% fatality rate (generally among those near to death's door to begin with). But it's good to have a clear idea of the real data available - well, if we can even trust that data to begin with.

9
I-am-Orlando 9 points ago +11 / -2

From the article: "ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines."

ARRs are the correct statistical approach to report, but big pharma used RRR to get the high numbers. The way I read the study, the vaccines are no better than a placebo.

6
Watermelons 6 points ago +6 / -0

Second paragraph.

Absolute risk reduction 1-3%, etc .

4
Centipedealicious 4 points ago +4 / -0

Thanks.

2
Brucesky420 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think they're confusing efficacy with death rate (or maybe I have it wrong). Efficacy deals with just getting the virus, or am I wrong?

It basically doesn't help you survive because the survival rate is already high

3
DrSourRaspberries 3 points ago +3 / -0

Correct me if I'm wrong but the vaccines aren't supposed to prevent people from getting the virus, they're only supposed to help people fight the virus.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
Continue 3 points ago +3 / -0

If you take the coronavirus vaccine you just might win the lottery!

6
Controlgroup 6 points ago +6 / -0

The stupid thing is 100% of the People have less symptoms but not because of the vaccine!

35
_Sully_ 35 points ago +35 / -0

Well their 95% effective number never really said what it was effective at. Tell me how something is 95% effective at maybe working. That's doublespeak nonsense. It's literally the same as saying 60% of the time is works every time or rather 60% of the time it works 40% of the time.

23
Truth_Cipher 23 points ago +23 / -0

Sounds like the Sex Panther cologne from Anchorman.

8
info_warrior 8 points ago +8 / -0

Kek. I smell a meme being born.

4
Watermelons 4 points ago +4 / -0

Smells like Bigfoot's dick!

11
MadAssShitAmerican 11 points ago +11 / -0

It's like when they say a 50% chance of rain, it's not 50% change it may or may not, but 50% of the area will get rain...

8
Kek_Johnson 8 points ago +8 / -0

If the weatherman says there's a 0.04% change of rain I'm not going to walk around all day under an umbrella that says it doesn't work on the package it came in

3
Watermelons 3 points ago +3 / -0

It means, given the same conditions on a very large number of different days, it is expected to rain on half of those days.

3
Brucesky420 3 points ago +3 / -0

Pretty sure you're wrong about that. From my experience 50% chance of rain actually means 5% chance of rain. Shit is terrible, last week weatherunderground said we would get a total of about 4 inches of rain throughout the week

We got .1 inches the entire week. Their models suck, hence why the world isn't on fire yet

2
Watermelons 2 points ago +2 / -0

Look up the definition of probability in a textbook covering probability and statistics. What I said is correct.

However, most all weather sites over predict precipitation. The one that is correct on average is weather.gov. There was a writeup about it around 2013.

7
juan_m3 7 points ago +7 / -0

They did. It was public info in the EUA application. If I recall, there was like 20k people in control group, 20k in vaccine group. They monitored those people as they went about their lives. In that 20k control group, there was like less than 500 cases, of which some number were severe cases. Then in the vaccine group, there was a lesser number of cases, and lesser still were severe cases. I forgot the numbers, but if you compared the severe cases, the vaccine group did have 95% less.

9
deleted 9 points ago +10 / -1
5
redgreenyellowblu 5 points ago +5 / -0

Ignoring all the bullshit going on with testing and how cases that might have been flu or pneumonia are classified as covid, I think its good to know both numbers. They are different because, for the average person, the risk of caching covid is so low. But what if you were living in or working in a convalescent hospital? Now the risk is much higher. In a veterans' home in my city, basically everybody living there caught it. So the 95% RRR would be more realistic.

For me, living in a rural area that has few cases, the 1% reduction is what matters. It's probably half that or even less because we have such a small risk compared to other places.

Either way, I'm not getting the gene therapy.

5
_Sully_ 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yeah but that’s not what they are selling the people on. Also you don’t force it on people with a bullshit metric like that. At the same time they were also lying about how many actually caught it and died of it. It’s a total lie and their 95% effective doesn’t mean you have a 95% chance of not catching or even you have 95% chance of not going to the hospital or dying. It literally does not mean that. In reality it reduces your chance of dying of Covid by 0.1% so your survivability is now 99.998%.

0
ImportantPerson 0 points ago +1 / -1

I'm also assuming that the tweet from above was talking about the variants which isn't that far off of the early reporting. The early reporting on the variants showed about a 70% effectiveness against a form of the virus that the vaccine wasn't designed for. It's actually pretty normal to have vaccines be effective against variants out of the box.

24
B1ueCo11ar 24 points ago +25 / -1

For some reason people can't understand words anymore. EXPERIMENTAL. Means that if you get it. Your the test group. Of course the stats are fluid. The trial isn't complete.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-2
ImportantPerson -2 points ago +4 / -6

How many people need to get it before it's not experimental? This is what I don't understand about your position. There's more people who have gotten this vaccine than many that have been approved by the FDA.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
-1
ImportantPerson -1 points ago +2 / -3

COMBINED! COMBINED! Ok, here's a thought, but what exactly is represented by the FOR ALL OTHER VACCINES COMBINED!

It's literally nearly nothing to start with.

I hate that there are a handful of people here that are buying into the fearmongering by the media around the vaccine. It's stupid and it's just as bad as the liberals bullying people into getting the vaccine.

Get it. Don't get it. Do whatever, but don't peddle the same bullshit failed logic that liberals are using.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
-2
ImportantPerson -2 points ago +2 / -4

Sorry, not part of the antivaxx cult. I think you are just as bad as the liberals bullying people into getting the vaccine.

Republicans and conservatives are about personal choice and making a decision for yourself. Antivaxxers are trying to bully people into not getting the vaccine. It's just like the liberals and demcrats.

They backed off of vaccine passports because conservatives and republicans lashed out against government tyranny. This was happening from the first days of the vaccines, well before any of the big antivaxxer movement. Don't know why you are trying to rewrite history here.

There's no suggestion right now that we would need 4x a year vaccine. You are literally making that up to feed into your antivaxx narrative. There was discussion about a booster shot, but all signs show to lasting immunity to COVID from the vaccine.

Have you been anal swabbed? Then shut the fuck up.

And our forefathers would be embarrassed by the antivaxxers. Nothing about the message you are sending is about freedom. In fact, it's the opposite where you are trying to force your decision on everyone else and bully them into it.

Here's a free history lesson for you, our forefathers, specifically Washington, forced the continental army to get inoculated against smallpox. It probably singlehandedly allowed the US to win the war. Now, this only applied to the soldiers, but it's probably not a great argument to refer to the forefathers in this instance.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
-1
ImportantPerson -1 points ago +1 / -2

Well, my message was for you because you're a fucking moron. You are literally trying to claim a tweet is the same thing as a scientific study. This isn't a tweet linking to a study. This isn't coming from some reputable source. It's literally some guy who looked at the numbers and tried to force through a correlation without understanding a single thing about it.

If you would have spent 30 seconds looking at other data sets, like the US, you would see that his argument doesn't hold any water at all because we're not seeing it at all in the US.

So, what next? What are you going to do next after your little narrative gets shattered again? You going to keep acting like a liberal? You going to vomit out more garbage?

hope you and your wife have all the kids you wanted already, i really do.

"Wear a mask or you are killing grandma!" - Liberals

You're doing the same shitty, pathetic thing that liberals are doing. Are you really that stupid that you don't see it?

I'm ready for you fucking moron antivaxxers to get the fuck out of here. Run back to whatever moronic echo chamber you came from because you don't belong here.

4
Nancys_drooping_eye 4 points ago +4 / -0

approved by the FDA.

It hasn't been. It was granted an Emergency Use Authorization. It is still in fact experimental.

-3
ImportantPerson -3 points ago +1 / -4

Try reading my comment again and this time pay attention to the part where I compared to FDA approved vaccines. Just to stupid it down for the antivaxxers who have infected this forum, that means I didn't say it was FDA approved.

4
Libertas_Vel_Mors [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

I don't believe it's just a question of how many, but a question of how many over what period of time.

A statistical 100% efficacy can be recorded within 24 hours of getting the jab. The numbers tend to go down over time, and it's only been a handful of months, so there's no accurate count of efficacy yet.

(this is why most vaccine trials can take up to 5 years or more.)

-5
ImportantPerson -5 points ago +1 / -6

Vaccine trials take years because most vaccines struggle to find enough participants to field a quality study. Long term effects of vaccines are assumed to happen within 4 months of vaccination. There's actually no requirement for tests beyond a 4 month trial.

I don't believe it's just a question of how many, but a question of how many over what period of time.

Then where do you move the goal posts? Let's be clear here, my comment wasn't asking for an actual number. My comment was to point out just how irrational it is to still be pushing the narrative that it's "experimental". It's no longer experimental by literally any stretch of the definition once you've administered it to hundreds of millions of people.

13
strictly1957 13 points ago +13 / -0

Buyer's remorse in, 3,2,1.

10
zooty 10 points ago +10 / -0

The best probably has to be those who got tattoos after their "vaccinations" then got the coof anyway.

24
ScipioAmericanus 24 points ago +25 / -1

Schadenfreude is a guilty pleasure. On that note, don’t get tattoos, especially in areas that are visible where just having them will cost you employment. Downvote me for my unpopular opinion but they’re eyesores and just take away from the beauty God naturally gave you.

13
Shield 13 points ago +13 / -0

No they are definitely all just a bunch of disgusting eyesores. On a man it's less of a big deal because sometimes you make yourself look ugly in order to look tough. But on a woman, especially a beautiful woman, it's like putting prison graffiti on a renaissance painting.

6
Gabbs1212 6 points ago +6 / -0

I was in Vegas last week, and sat down for breakfast at the Peppermill. A guy sat next to me at the bar, to fill out an application. During is on site at the seat interview, he got asked about working the front with a rose hand tattoo, and LOVE on his knuckles. While she conducted the rest of the interview, it was clear after the first 30 seconds that his quest was futile. She didn't even touch on the compass tattoo on the side of his neck.

As a person with a number of tattoos, even in my young and dumb days, i never thought of putting one anywhere that wasn't easily concealable.

People reform, but the decisions you made when you put tats on your hands and neck will follow you forever!

4
LibertarianXian 4 points ago +4 / -0

"Do you want to get tats?"

'Ever see a bumper sticker on a Maserati?'

4
Gabbs1212 4 points ago +4 / -0

This is especially funny, as I ordered a Maserati while at the Peppermill. I guess i didn't read it well enough. When it arrived, i said "Holy shit!"

The guy looked at me, and said "yeah. Its a 10 egg omelette"

Bro!

1
LibertarianXian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hah! I could eat 10 eggs but a fully loaded 10-egg omelette... might need to take a break or two!

3
zentoco 3 points ago +3 / -0

I only have two, first at 18, American bald eagle on my ankle, easily hidden. And then in my 40s on chest about my kids, again, easily hidden. Dumb enough to get tats, but smart enough to be able to hide them. :)

2
Continue 2 points ago +2 / -0

On that note, don’t get tattoos, especially in areas that are visible where just having them will cost you employment. Downvote me for my unpopular opinion

I'm pretty sure that's the popular opinion around here.

10
ShittersFull 10 points ago +10 / -0

It's gonna be weird being one of the only ones left alive

9
CynicalTwit22 9 points ago +9 / -0

If it didn't kill everyone who took it then it's not 100% effective. Hence the need for boosters...

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
7
nocomply55 7 points ago +7 / -0

FRENZ! The truth is that they are even much less effective than that. They pulled a little switcheroo by using absolute risk reduction instead of relative risk reduction, the latter of which is usually used for vaccines. Cheg it: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext

6
1
ImportantPerson 1 point ago +5 / -4

Yeah, the tweet is really misleading. It's still 95%+ effective at the most common strains of COVID. The delta variant is mostly just fearmongering coming from the media though. 70% effective against a vastly weaker form of the virus is still good results, barring any other side effects.

5
Leave_The_Kids_Alone 5 points ago +5 / -0

It's not cool to laugh at people weaker than you. Most people are just simply not aware of the reality around them.

3
DebbieinDallas 3 points ago +4 / -1

Yes but when you try to explain it to them they still prefer to believe the mainstream media.

3
Leave_The_Kids_Alone 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's true, but it's like telling someone we live in the Matrix. Their minds are not capable of understanding things outside accepted boundaries. The human race has been conditioned to be barnyard animals.

2
LibertarianXian 2 points ago +3 / -1

Very true and needs to be said with all the internet tough guys and glowies around here. Patience is a virtue.

5
LesboPregnancyScare 5 points ago +5 / -0

so is the 64% the ARR or the RRR? It has to be the RRR right? Otherwise its worse than your own natural immunity, meaning getting "the jab" makes you more susceptible to contracting the Wuflu.

4
g-money1 4 points ago +4 / -0

If anyone cares, vaccine effectiveness is calculated as 1 minus the incidence rate ratio (IRR).

A vaccine can be 90% "effective" when .001% of vaccinated people get covid, and .010% of normal people get covid. Whether or not you get the vaccine, you'll have almost exactly the same risk of getting the disease.

Like Josh Sugarmann's infamous quote about machine guns, epidemiologists deceive the public by taking advantage of their ignorance about statistics.

Laypeople have wildly different interpretations of "90% effectiveness" and they're almost always wrong and favoring unnecessary medical treatment.

4
brundlefly777 4 points ago +4 / -0

OOPS

3
ccpshill 3 points ago +3 / -0

Jab is too positive of a word 'get the jab' is their catchphrase. Get the stab

3
LtAmerica1 3 points ago +3 / -0

But does it still come with debilitating side effects, up to and including death?

A little chlorine for the gene pool.

3
M16A4 3 points ago +3 / -0

Anybody with a half functioning brain knew 94% efficiency but no you can't see the self proclaimed stay was a load of bullshit

Seriously, that efficient we would be talking about a medical marvel. I can only hope one day all those responsible for the lies and seeding of fear are brought to justice. But again, we live in the moment and forgot quicker than we learn.

3
OhioRed87 3 points ago +3 / -0

But but but 2 weeks ago they said it was highly effective against the delta!!!

2
KS-76- 2 points ago +2 / -0

2 weeks is a long-term in the world of missing and obfuscation. They're trying to keep this scam going as long as possible.

3
Dev404 3 points ago +3 / -0

64% effective for those already dead.

3
AmericanJawa 3 points ago +3 / -0

My workplace offered to let people stop wearing face coverings if you got vaccinated.

Facial coverings are temporary and can be removed.

The shot is forever.

1
yukondave 1 point ago +1 / -0

Does anyone have the sauce to support his claim they lowered the effective rate?

2
Libertas_Vel_Mors [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

I posted it a few times already in this post.

1
vongregormench 1 point ago +1 / -0

Literally who on Twitter. What’s he talking about?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0