| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 20:47 - Nov 2 with 981 views | Gwyn737 |
Totally agree with that article. Vaccines alone are not enough and the booster roll out is too slow. |  | |  |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 22:01 - Nov 2 with 965 views | Professor |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 19:41 - Nov 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
As usual you denigrate a great man.
"No doubt we will be told about eminent Nobel prize winner , 89-year old Luc Montaigner. Someone who also believes in homoeopathy and the lie that vaccines lead to autism."
500 million people use Homeopathy, apparently even the Queen's doctor is a a homeopathic physician. It is used in many countries including France & Germany.
As to vaccines not leading to autism, perhaps you can go one better than the US CDC who in court could not provide any clinical studies that proved that out of all the vaccines none have ever caused autism, they have even removed the statement from their website. |
Homeopathy is one of the biggest cons of pseudoscience and sorcery imaginable. Actually Montaigner is regarded as a bit of an A Hole in science. Winning the Nobel Prize is an achievement in its field, not making anyone great. At least he is not a misogynistic racist like James Watson.
If you believe in homeopathy that forgoes ANY right to discuss meaningful
Science | | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 22:02 - Nov 2 with 965 views | felixstowe_jack |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 20:47 - Nov 2 by Gwyn737 |
Totally agree with that article. Vaccines alone are not enough and the booster roll out is too slow. |
8 million already how is that too slow you can only have 6 months after you second jab. Well done all four governments for getting it done. | |
| |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 22:10 - Nov 2 with 958 views | Professor |
They are not paid you plank.
Lies, misinformation and out of context figures. I posted about the ticking off for Jenny Harris Yesterday. It actually shows higher vaccine efficacy.
You really are an absolute tool, these constant meaningless links.
Don’t forget some people here actually understand immunity | | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 22:16 - Nov 2 with 943 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 22:01 - Nov 2 by Professor |
Homeopathy is one of the biggest cons of pseudoscience and sorcery imaginable. Actually Montaigner is regarded as a bit of an A Hole in science. Winning the Nobel Prize is an achievement in its field, not making anyone great. At least he is not a misogynistic racist like James Watson.
If you believe in homeopathy that forgoes ANY right to discuss meaningful
Science |
Say's you.
Even though it is parcticed all over the world.
Me I couldn't give a toss either way, but when it is parcticed all over the world there are many that disagree with you as usual. | | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 22:21 - Nov 2 with 934 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 22:10 - Nov 2 by Professor |
They are not paid you plank.
Lies, misinformation and out of context figures. I posted about the ticking off for Jenny Harris Yesterday. It actually shows higher vaccine efficacy.
You really are an absolute tool, these constant meaningless links.
Don’t forget some people here actually understand immunity |
Yes of course that is why the the vaccinated are being infected at higher rates per 100,000, because I don't understand immunity, I only understand numbers.
You have seen the chart, so please explain to everybody how that works, seeing as we don't understand it. | | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 22:32 - Nov 2 with 932 views | majorraglan |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 22:02 - Nov 2 by felixstowe_jack |
8 million already how is that too slow you can only have 6 months after you second jab. Well done all four governments for getting it done. |
8 million is very good, but I think we could have been a little further down the track. If the JVCI guidance had came out a little earlier, the Health Boards could have finalised the detail of their vaccination programmes and had the arrangements in place sooner.
To maximise uptake and fill the slots our Health Board opened up the clinics to “drop ins” and once the word was out the uptake was phenomenal - centres were swamped to the extent that they had difficulty coping. There have also been a few issues down our way with appointment letters being sent with times but no dates and the booking phone lines have been inundated but it’s getting there and the people who need vaccinating are now getting them.
I know a few people who work in a vaccination centre and they are flat out, they literally don’t stop until it’s time to go home.
Edit- I am biased, but I think they do a great job. [Post edited 2 Nov 2021 22:52]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 07:32 - Nov 3 with 898 views | Scotia |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 16:53 - Nov 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
So you didn't bother to go to the links that I provided or you cannot understand the data.
I am not going to link to the UK Gov data again, if you can 't be bothered to read the data in the table and understand it.
But here is the data from table 2.
40 to 49 Vaxxed 1,151.2 cases per 100,000 Unvaxxed 787.1 cases per 100,000
50 to 59 Vaxxed 912.3 cases per 100,000 Unvaxxed 634.4 cases per 100,000
60 to 69 Vaxxed 661.2 cases per 100,000 Unvaxxed 432.1 cases per 100,000
70 to 79 Vaxxed 492.0 cases per 100,000 Unvaxxed 359.8 cases per 100,000
80+ Vaxxed 403.4 cases per 100,000 Unvaxxed 386.1 cases per 100,000
It shows some form of immune deficiency as those vaccinated are spreading and catching the virus more than the unvaccinated.
You obviously don't remember me quoting those doctors months ago and I am not going to bother going back through all our posts to find it. |
I'll ask again.
How does that data prove your statements.
1. Evidence that ALL groups over 40 are SPREADING covid faster than the unvaccinated.
2. Evidence that immunity "has gone negative" (whatever that means)
3. Evidence that this was exactly as forecast by anti vax Doctors and Virulogists (sic)
Don't just reply with data it is blatantly obvious that you don't understand.
Lets keep it simple.
How do you interpret this:-
40 to 49 Vaxxed 1,151.2 cases per 100,000 Unvaxxed 787.1 cases per 100,000
To equate to this:-
It shows some form of immune deficiency as those vaccinated are spreading and catching the virus more than the unvaccinated.
I will keep asking. | | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 08:39 - Nov 3 with 879 views | felixstowe_jack |
Professor Whitty once again urges all unvaccinated people to get vaccinated.
He points out that for all age groups the chances of dying from the virus are much higher for the unvaccinated than the vaccinated. | |
| |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 12:09 - Nov 3 with 856 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 07:32 - Nov 3 by Scotia |
I'll ask again.
How does that data prove your statements.
1. Evidence that ALL groups over 40 are SPREADING covid faster than the unvaccinated.
2. Evidence that immunity "has gone negative" (whatever that means)
3. Evidence that this was exactly as forecast by anti vax Doctors and Virulogists (sic)
Don't just reply with data it is blatantly obvious that you don't understand.
Lets keep it simple.
How do you interpret this:-
40 to 49 Vaxxed 1,151.2 cases per 100,000 Unvaxxed 787.1 cases per 100,000
To equate to this:-
It shows some form of immune deficiency as those vaccinated are spreading and catching the virus more than the unvaccinated.
I will keep asking. |
You really do have a problem understanding numbers don't you, like 6 is more than 3.
1,151.2 cases per 100,000 is greater than 787.1 cases per 100,000
If Immunity to infection was identical those numbers should be the same within a few percentage points, which by the way means the Efficacy of the Vaccine would equal zero.
However the Vaccinated cases per 100,000 are 46% higher than the Unvaccinated.
So what do you call it when the Efficacy of the Vaccines falls below Zero? | | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 12:35 - Nov 3 with 852 views | felixstowe_jack |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 12:09 - Nov 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
You really do have a problem understanding numbers don't you, like 6 is more than 3.
1,151.2 cases per 100,000 is greater than 787.1 cases per 100,000
If Immunity to infection was identical those numbers should be the same within a few percentage points, which by the way means the Efficacy of the Vaccine would equal zero.
However the Vaccinated cases per 100,000 are 46% higher than the Unvaccinated.
So what do you call it when the Efficacy of the Vaccines falls below Zero? |
Get vaccinated it saves lives. | |
| |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 13:56 - Nov 3 with 835 views | Professor |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 22:21 - Nov 2 by A_Fans_Dad |
Yes of course that is why the the vaccinated are being infected at higher rates per 100,000, because I don't understand immunity, I only understand numbers.
You have seen the chart, so please explain to everybody how that works, seeing as we don't understand it. |
But they are not are they.
There may be an anomaly in an age group, and as noted the unvaccinated population overestimated.
ONS data shows vaccinated, regardless of when reduces likelihood of infection by between two to eightfold. Reduction in mortality is 32-fold.
That's what the numbers say, not cherrypicking a group, but overall.
The clearest risk factors for being infected other than vaccination status are:
1. being in education
2. in work without distancing.
Again you pick a little point when the big picture shows your delusion and foolishness,
I'm intrigued over 2 things.
1. What is your hypothesis of any mechanism that could be causing immunosupression here, 'cos there's not one in the literature.
2. Why you think you know more than trained experts, or why you are plain stupid to think it's all lies and a conspiracy? | | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 13:56 - Nov 3 with 835 views | Scotia |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 12:09 - Nov 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
You really do have a problem understanding numbers don't you, like 6 is more than 3.
1,151.2 cases per 100,000 is greater than 787.1 cases per 100,000
If Immunity to infection was identical those numbers should be the same within a few percentage points, which by the way means the Efficacy of the Vaccine would equal zero.
However the Vaccinated cases per 100,000 are 46% higher than the Unvaccinated.
So what do you call it when the Efficacy of the Vaccines falls below Zero? |
As I said. Don't reply with stats you don't understand. If you understand them interpret them in laymans terms.
I'm looking for an INTERPRETATION of these points you raised.
1. Evidence that ALL groups over 40 are SPREADING covid faster than the unvaccinated.
2. Evidence that immunity "has gone negative" (whatever that means)
3. Evidence that this was exactly as forecast by anti vax Doctors and Virulogists (sic)
I'm still waiting and will keep asking.
So far that means there are more people infected who have been vaccinated than not vaccinated. Excatly what you would expect when the vast majority of the population are vaccinated with very effective, but not infallible, vaccines.
Add another question to that list.
How can the efficay of a vaccine fall below zero?
I've realised. I think you've completely misunderstood the per 100,000 haven't you? [Post edited 3 Nov 2021 13:59]
| | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 16:06 - Nov 3 with 806 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 13:56 - Nov 3 by Scotia |
As I said. Don't reply with stats you don't understand. If you understand them interpret them in laymans terms.
I'm looking for an INTERPRETATION of these points you raised.
1. Evidence that ALL groups over 40 are SPREADING covid faster than the unvaccinated.
2. Evidence that immunity "has gone negative" (whatever that means)
3. Evidence that this was exactly as forecast by anti vax Doctors and Virulogists (sic)
I'm still waiting and will keep asking.
So far that means there are more people infected who have been vaccinated than not vaccinated. Excatly what you would expect when the vast majority of the population are vaccinated with very effective, but not infallible, vaccines.
Add another question to that list.
How can the efficay of a vaccine fall below zero?
I've realised. I think you've completely misunderstood the per 100,000 haven't you? [Post edited 3 Nov 2021 13:59]
|
Look stop making a fool of yourself, you just don't understand numbers, this is the last time I am going to try and explain it to you.
In all the groups over 40 the vaccinated have more cases than the unvaccinated.
I tried to explain it to you by quoting that when the numbers are equal it means zero efficacy from the vaccine.
Here is a quote for calculating Efficacy where N is the sample size and n is the number infected, we have the same sample sizes 100,000
"If the experiment designer chose N1 and N2 to be exactly equal to each other, then the efficacy rate formula is simplified as:
1-n1/n2
If n1 and n2 turn out to be equal to each other, then the above formula gives zero, indicating the vaccine has no efficacy."
end of quote
Using their Formula we have :-
For 40-49 we have 1-(1,151.2/787.1) = -0.46
So what do you call a number that goes below zero?
I will give you a hint here NEGATIVE.
So
50 to 59 1-(912.3/634.4 ) = -0.44
60 to 69 1-( 661.2/432.1) = -0.53
70 to 79 1-(492.0/359.8) = -0.37
80+ 1-(403.4/386.1) = -0.05
See how it works?
What does it mean, it means for some reason the Vaccines are now worse than ZERO Efficacy, how does it go below Zero you and prof tell me, you are the experts, I am just a retired engineer.
This is a classic from someone who does not understand numbers "Excatly what you would expect when the vast majority of the population are vaccinated with very effective, but not infallible, vaccines."
The numbers are cases for every 100,000 population, which means
IT ACCOUNTS FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN NUMBERS IN EACH GROUP.
Then you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that I am the one that does not understand the per 100,000, well OK Einstein you explain where I have gone wrong.
Item number 2 maybe you should look up "Immunodeficiency Disorders".
Item number 3, prof remembers when I said who they were, why can't you? [Post edited 3 Nov 2021 16:06]
| | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 16:09 - Nov 3 with 807 views | hobo |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 22:10 - Nov 2 by Professor |
They are not paid you plank.
Lies, misinformation and out of context figures. I posted about the ticking off for Jenny Harris Yesterday. It actually shows higher vaccine efficacy.
You really are an absolute tool, these constant meaningless links.
Don’t forget some people here actually understand immunity |
Are you saying he's not received a penny since starting the role? |  | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 16:19 - Nov 3 with 802 views | Professor |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 16:09 - Nov 3 by hobo |
Are you saying he's not received a penny since starting the role? |
No. Not even expenses for SAGE. | | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 16:21 - Nov 3 with 797 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 16:09 - Nov 3 by hobo |
Are you saying he's not received a penny since starting the role? |
They get paid by their Employer, but the Employer gets compensated by the Government, so yes we end up paying them.
Quote
"In addition, an unprecedented burden has also been placed on universities — the employers of many SAGE participants — particularly during the academic year. To ease this, the government has secured funding in support of those universities most affected. This is a flat rate, lump sum, which will be used to provide cover for the academic’s duties such as teaching. The funding will enable the key SAGE participants with the most severe time and workload constraints to continue their work on SAGE until at least the end of March 2021 and ensure SAGE continues to benefit from their expertise." | | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 16:27 - Nov 3 with 798 views | Professor |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 16:06 - Nov 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Look stop making a fool of yourself, you just don't understand numbers, this is the last time I am going to try and explain it to you.
In all the groups over 40 the vaccinated have more cases than the unvaccinated.
I tried to explain it to you by quoting that when the numbers are equal it means zero efficacy from the vaccine.
Here is a quote for calculating Efficacy where N is the sample size and n is the number infected, we have the same sample sizes 100,000
"If the experiment designer chose N1 and N2 to be exactly equal to each other, then the efficacy rate formula is simplified as:
1-n1/n2
If n1 and n2 turn out to be equal to each other, then the above formula gives zero, indicating the vaccine has no efficacy."
end of quote
Using their Formula we have :-
For 40-49 we have 1-(1,151.2/787.1) = -0.46
So what do you call a number that goes below zero?
I will give you a hint here NEGATIVE.
So
50 to 59 1-(912.3/634.4 ) = -0.44
60 to 69 1-( 661.2/432.1) = -0.53
70 to 79 1-(492.0/359.8) = -0.37
80+ 1-(403.4/386.1) = -0.05
See how it works?
What does it mean, it means for some reason the Vaccines are now worse than ZERO Efficacy, how does it go below Zero you and prof tell me, you are the experts, I am just a retired engineer.
This is a classic from someone who does not understand numbers "Excatly what you would expect when the vast majority of the population are vaccinated with very effective, but not infallible, vaccines."
The numbers are cases for every 100,000 population, which means
IT ACCOUNTS FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN NUMBERS IN EACH GROUP.
Then you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that I am the one that does not understand the per 100,000, well OK Einstein you explain where I have gone wrong.
Item number 2 maybe you should look up "Immunodeficiency Disorders".
Item number 3, prof remembers when I said who they were, why can't you? [Post edited 3 Nov 2021 16:06]
|
Immunodeficiency disorders are usually genetic, post-cancer or from infection that depletes a cell population. The infection ones, expect in very naive (young) indivuals that can deplete a haemopoetic stem cell population, and in HIV tend to be transient.
I only know of one vaccine (a live attenuated one) that causes any loss of immune function, but since the virulent virus does this to an extreme, then its use is justifiable.
The problem you have is data are not on your side are they?
Not in the whole population. A temporal snapshot of a limited population is not representative.
That's why the ONS data shows vaccine efficacy that wanes, but is still at 40-70 % protection to infection and over 90% protection against death. It's not negative immunity, its reading something into a data snapshot. | | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 17:05 - Nov 3 with 781 views | felixstowe_jack |
Correct getting vaccinated saves unvaccinated from unnecessary deaths as well as reducing infection rates, reducing hospitalisation, reducing the needs for the unvaccinated to occupy ICU beds. | |
| |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 19:34 - Nov 3 with 764 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 16:27 - Nov 3 by Professor |
Immunodeficiency disorders are usually genetic, post-cancer or from infection that depletes a cell population. The infection ones, expect in very naive (young) indivuals that can deplete a haemopoetic stem cell population, and in HIV tend to be transient.
I only know of one vaccine (a live attenuated one) that causes any loss of immune function, but since the virulent virus does this to an extreme, then its use is justifiable.
The problem you have is data are not on your side are they?
Not in the whole population. A temporal snapshot of a limited population is not representative.
That's why the ONS data shows vaccine efficacy that wanes, but is still at 40-70 % protection to infection and over 90% protection against death. It's not negative immunity, its reading something into a data snapshot. |
How can it still be at 49-70% protection against infection?
What world are you living in, are you saying the the NEH data is wrong?
Because the ONS uses data from Jan 2021 to now it is totally unrepresentative of what is happening right now, anybody who has been watching the data has seen the swing from unvaccinated new cases to vaccinated new cases.
How can "A temporal snapshot of a limited population" not be representative of the current conditions?
What happened back in the spring has absolutely no bearing on what is happening now, the more people that have waning immunity from the vaccines the more will be open to infection over the coming months.
As to Immunodeficiency, you are totally ignoring all the Immune system Adverse Effects of the Vaccine being reported and they are only the very worst short term ones.
I forgot you don't beleive all those people are really ill do you?
Maybe you should read some of their accounts, perhaps you wouldn't be so blasé about them. | | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 07:48 - Nov 4 with 716 views | felixstowe_jack |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 19:34 - Nov 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
How can it still be at 49-70% protection against infection?
What world are you living in, are you saying the the NEH data is wrong?
Because the ONS uses data from Jan 2021 to now it is totally unrepresentative of what is happening right now, anybody who has been watching the data has seen the swing from unvaccinated new cases to vaccinated new cases.
How can "A temporal snapshot of a limited population" not be representative of the current conditions?
What happened back in the spring has absolutely no bearing on what is happening now, the more people that have waning immunity from the vaccines the more will be open to infection over the coming months.
As to Immunodeficiency, you are totally ignoring all the Immune system Adverse Effects of the Vaccine being reported and they are only the very worst short term ones.
I forgot you don't beleive all those people are really ill do you?
Maybe you should read some of their accounts, perhaps you wouldn't be so blasé about them. |
Another success for vaccines the HPV vaccines has cut cervical cancer by 90% since it was introduced in 2008. | |
| |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 07:58 - Nov 4 with 715 views | Scotia |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 16:06 - Nov 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Look stop making a fool of yourself, you just don't understand numbers, this is the last time I am going to try and explain it to you.
In all the groups over 40 the vaccinated have more cases than the unvaccinated.
I tried to explain it to you by quoting that when the numbers are equal it means zero efficacy from the vaccine.
Here is a quote for calculating Efficacy where N is the sample size and n is the number infected, we have the same sample sizes 100,000
"If the experiment designer chose N1 and N2 to be exactly equal to each other, then the efficacy rate formula is simplified as:
1-n1/n2
If n1 and n2 turn out to be equal to each other, then the above formula gives zero, indicating the vaccine has no efficacy."
end of quote
Using their Formula we have :-
For 40-49 we have 1-(1,151.2/787.1) = -0.46
So what do you call a number that goes below zero?
I will give you a hint here NEGATIVE.
So
50 to 59 1-(912.3/634.4 ) = -0.44
60 to 69 1-( 661.2/432.1) = -0.53
70 to 79 1-(492.0/359.8) = -0.37
80+ 1-(403.4/386.1) = -0.05
See how it works?
What does it mean, it means for some reason the Vaccines are now worse than ZERO Efficacy, how does it go below Zero you and prof tell me, you are the experts, I am just a retired engineer.
This is a classic from someone who does not understand numbers "Excatly what you would expect when the vast majority of the population are vaccinated with very effective, but not infallible, vaccines."
The numbers are cases for every 100,000 population, which means
IT ACCOUNTS FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN NUMBERS IN EACH GROUP.
Then you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that I am the one that does not understand the per 100,000, well OK Einstein you explain where I have gone wrong.
Item number 2 maybe you should look up "Immunodeficiency Disorders".
Item number 3, prof remembers when I said who they were, why can't you? [Post edited 3 Nov 2021 16:06]
|
That's exactly the sort of analysis I thought you would produce. Along with the "I don't understand numbers" jibes. It proves really that you shouldn't attempt to analyse and interpret data that you don't understand. Whilst the rudimentary maths may be correct, this isn't a 12 year olds maths class, it's the real world. Your interpretation is innaccurate, irrelevant and statistically insignificant.
The UK population is about 66 million. About 50% of those are over the age of 40 (the groups you refer to), so about 33 million people. About 90% of those are vaccinated, that's about 30 million people. That leaves 3 million people in the group that you are trying to extrapolate derived data across 66 million people for. Unfortunately that is not statistically significant.
Especially when compared to the other group, the vaccinated. Extrpolating the data for 30 million people across the entire population is statisically significant.
Notwithstanding the other many variables of course that you havent recognised.
Which of course is something that you need to consider and not just this statement.
"The numbers are cases for every 100,000 population, which means
IT ACCOUNTS FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN NUMBERS IN EACH GROUP."
Of course we also need to consider the efficay of the vaccine versus within the sample size, let us say that is 70% (against infection) .
That still leaves a sample size 3 times that of the vaccinated group, so the measurement per population of 100,000 doesn't account for the difference in numbers in each group because the numbers are not comparable. Of course this considers the highest levels of efficacy and doesn't account for waning immunity. So I'm throwing you a bone here.
Would you accept the findings of an Oxford Uni run clinical trial in which one group was at least three times larger than the other?
And that is just one of the many variables.
I have never claimed to be an expert in vaccines. I do know though, that using that calculation to claim what appears to be a completely fabricated term of "negative efficacy" is utter nonsense.
Of course the entire calculation is based on people coming forward to be tested, if you consider the ONS data for all infections by age. The impact of the vaccines are clear, even up to yesterday.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditio
Please stop trying to analyse data that impacts your and others lives, you can't do it.
2 - I think prof has covered that far better than I, I was after your interpretaion though.
3 - I can remember them. A host of Charlatans, liars and people who don't actually exist. | | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 09:21 - Nov 4 with 700 views | Flynnidine_Zidownes |
Not sure if it’s been mentioned on here yet that the HPV “clot shot” has lowered the risk of cervical cancer by 90%. Well done to the scientists who have carried out Bill Gates and Israel’s evil scheme to control everyone with this cancer stopping jab. | | | |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 09:32 - Nov 4 with 699 views | Professor |
| If you have any doubts about vaccination…. on 19:34 - Nov 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
How can it still be at 49-70% protection against infection?
What world are you living in, are you saying the the NEH data is wrong?
Because the ONS uses data from Jan 2021 to now it is totally unrepresentative of what is happening right now, anybody who has been watching the data has seen the swing from unvaccinated new cases to vaccinated new cases.
How can "A temporal snapshot of a limited population" not be representative of the current conditions?
What happened back in the spring has absolutely no bearing on what is happening now, the more people that have waning immunity from the vaccines the more will be open to infection over the coming months.
As to Immunodeficiency, you are totally ignoring all the Immune system Adverse Effects of the Vaccine being reported and they are only the very worst short term ones.
I forgot you don't beleive all those people are really ill do you?
Maybe you should read some of their accounts, perhaps you wouldn't be so blasé about them. |
What immune adverse effects-other than inflammation/stimulation of the innate system (which is actually needed to kick start the adaptive response) and allergic responses (which happen to ALL vaccines in some people) , the effects have been on thrombotic pathways and myocardium(muscle) not the immune system.
The ONS data is not January either. It shows longitudinal data. It shows the decline in protection for all vaccines, but also that even after 150 days there is significant protection. Now if that means three doses to get decent immunity and an annual booster so be it. I had five doses to get HepB protection.
It also shows you are basic your arguments on unreliable secondary and tertiary sources. You have clearly not looked at the ONS updates and in fact base your arguments around non UK data in the main. Your current argument is based on a cross sectional analysis of data. These data have a flaw (the unvaccinated population is overestimated) and in a specific age group where there is likely to be transmission from children of secondary school age (parents) which is causing a temporal skew.
You also seem to forget this has been my life for the last 35 years. I do actually have a bit of an idea about immunology and infection.
I'm not blasé about adverse events, they happen. Though not the frequency you suggest.
You seem to ignore the fact that vaccination has save close to 150,000 lives in the UK. And don't come back with Ivermectin. Prevention of disease is always is better than treatment, espciecally one unproven with increasing doubt over any evidence of efficacy. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
