“Independent, ie CDC shill and vax advocate Katelyn Jetelina writing as “Your Local Epidemologist” shares this about Covid:
COVID-19 vaccine
What: The fall Covid-19 vaccines have an updated formula targeting JN.1 (Novavax) or KP.2 (Pfizer or Moderna). We don’t know their effectiveness in humans yet, but updated vaccines provided ~60% additional protection last fall.
This season is more complicated because there are two slightly different Covid-19 choices. There are pros and cons to each:
· mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) are more up-to-date, targeting the latest Omicron subvariants, and are presumably more effective against infection (in the short term). Both manufacturers made a JN.1 vaccine but found that the KP.2 was better in inducing antibody responses against current variants. The Pfizer vaccine is probably better than Moderna for those at higher risk of myocarditis (i.e., younger men).
· The traditional protein vaccine (Novavax) cannot be updated as quickly, so it had to go with the older subvariant version. Novavax’s data suggest that this is probably okay, as even this older variant version gave good responses against current variants. For some (including me!), the side effects of mRNA vaccines can be intense. I’ll be getting Novavax for this reason.
We don’t know if Novavax performs better (or worse) than mRNA vaccines. The very few studies we do have come to different conclusions.
Don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Risk dying of myocarditis to reduce my chances of catching a now-trivial disease by ~60%? Gee, I dunno. Intense side effects don’t seem like a danger signal to you, Katelyn? No mention of turbo cancers, infertility, etc. But you can’t cover every base.
In other exciting news she writes that “Flu vaccines reduce the risk of needing to go to the doctor by 40% to 60%.” And that optimistic figure is from a true believer. Moving on to “rsv vaccine for older adults” she writes that
“This season, there are three RSV vaccines: GSK, Pfizer, and Moderna. There are pros and cons to each. GSK and Pfizer use traditional biotechnology (protein-based), which was available last year, so we have lots of “real world” data confirming safety and effectiveness. There is a small (but real) risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome—the risk is about the same as with flu vaccines. Moderna will be out with an mRNA product later this year.
RSV is a recent invention. Used to be called a seasonal cold, but that designation would not sell a vaccine.
She concludes with a recap of all of the other vaccines available. But these topping the list sound so wonderful, who could ask for more? You simply have to read her blurb for yourself.
Graham
At this stage, all I really know for sure is that I know several people who have suffered serious side effects from the vaccine. That those people who I know have suffered repeated bouts of Covid are solely those who have had repeated vaccinations while no one I know who has avoided the vaccines has had a single bout of Covid. I have drawn my conclusions.
Oh no, that crazy female doctor is still going strong?
Actually, I think it would be better if someone good at math like Mr.Graham Seibert could explain this, but about the word "effectiveness rate" used by public health doctors, FDA, CDC, etc.
I think that the misleading term "effectiveness rate or efficacy" is one of the big problems.
Even with conventional vaccines, the effectiveness rate for most individuals is very low.
You can see this clearly by observing the Amish in the United States.
(Their average life expectancy is about 10 years longer than the general American population, and there are almost no children with ASD or ADHD)
There is a big problem with the effectiveness rate of vaccines =[the difference between the relative effectiveness rate RRR and the absolute effectiveness rate ARR].
Many doctors (and of course amateurs) do not know the difference between absolute effectiveness rate and relative effectiveness rate (effectiveness rate as referred to by FDA, CDC, and Pharmas).
For example, suppose there are 1 million people, all of whom are unvaccinated, and 1,000 of them become infected.
If all 1 million people are vaccinated and the number of infected people decreases to 100, the relative effectiveness rate RRR will be 90%.
However, even if everyone is not vaccinated, 999,000 people will not be infected in the first place, so the absolute effectiveness rate ARR is about 0.1%.
This is the effectiveness rate that is meaningful to individuals.
The ARR is the average probability that an individual will not become infected if vaccinated. It is never the RRR.
There is a definition formula in the basics of medicine or statistics.
RRR ≡ (number of people who developed symptoms in placebo - number of people who developed symptoms in vaccinated) / number of people who developed symptoms in placebo * 100 [%]
ARR ≡ [1 - {1 - people who developed symptoms in placebo / total number of placebos} / {1 - people who developed symptoms in vaccinated / total number of people vaccinated} ] * 100 [%]
In RCTs, the incidence rate of side effects is estimated by ultra-extrapolation,and it is known that even for phenomena related to physical laws, extrapolation estimates have large errors.
If there are 5 billion doses of BNT162b2, estimating the effect from 20,000 people in clinical trials is the same as estimating 1 by 0.000004, and the error is extremely large.
It seems to me that most doctors and medical scientists have no mathematical background.
In fact, when you read medical books, there are no equations, and not a single law that can be quantitatively, broadly, and deductively explained.
Reading immunology books is like reading a play script.
RCTs only tell you about the period of the clinical trial, so the FDA and Pfizer initially said that the results of the clinical trial would be announced 75 years later. = Their intention was to sell a lot and make a profit before the side effects were known.
Researchers say that the number of side effects reported in the clinical trial report, which was 1,291, has risen to approximately 10,000 by 2023.
In the case of vaccines, of course there are side effects, so if they are administered to many people who would not have been infected,even people who would not have been infected and would not have experienced side effects will suffer from side effects.
In some cases, people who would not have been infected and would not have died will die from side effects.
In fact, even Pfizer's 2020 Phase I clinical trial report, which has been exposed by researchers around the world and found to be full of fraud, states that the Sarscov2 non-infection rate is 99.962% for vaccinated people and 99.246% for unvaccinated people, meaning that the difference in infection due to vaccination is only 7 people per 1,000. This means that 993 to 999 people out of 1,000 will not be infected whether they are vaccinated or not. It also shows that even if everyone is unvaccinated, the infection rate is just under 8 people per 1,000. Furthermore, even if infected, the mortality rate of even the Wuhan strain of Sarscov2 was the same as that of the influenza pandemic. In 2021, when vaccinations began, the mortality rate changed to α and β strains and was the same as that of ordinary influenza. In 2022 the omicron strain was even lower than that of influenza. However, doctors appearing on TV, public health authorities, and the Minister of Health and Welfare only promote the relative effectiveness rate (RRR), and continue to mislead people into thinking that the probability that an individual can avoid infection is RRR. The only reasons for this can be either that they are ignorant, or that they are making profits directly or indirectly from pharmaceutical companies and intentionally selling the vaccine in large quantities.
For the sake of our own safety and that of our families, let's take a little time to at least find and read the clinical trial documents.
I read the Pfizer clinical trial document before getting vaccinated, and had doubts, so I decided not to get vaccinated.
Below are the results of my numerical calculations based on several clinical trial documents.
Pfizer's BNT162b2 ARR = 0.716%, RRR = 95% (However, this is clearly a gene therapy drug
Considering that doctors and scholars around the world later uncovered the fake parts, the ARR and RRR are even lower)
SK-Zooster (Shingrix) (shingles) ARR = 0.9%, RRR 94.2%
Meiji Replicon (Sarscov2) ARR = 0.5%, RRR = 95.5% (This is a very dangerous gene therapy drug)
Sequirus Flucelvax® Quad (for infulenzaA,B) ARR = 17.5%, RRR = 51.9%
However, Placebo was administered with meningococcal ACWY-vax instead of saline
In short, it was a fraudulent clinical trial, and all we can say is that for viral diseases Flucelvax is slightly more effective against influenza than for bacterial diseases ACWY-vax.
Even the RRR was low, suggesting that a comparison was made between completely different pathogens.
GSK's Arexvy (RSV) ARR = 0.26%, RRR = 82.5%
Moderna's mRNA-1345 (RSV) ARR = 0.53%, RRR = 68.4% (also a gene therapy drug)
Many doctors write that RSV is mild and can be treated with a nebulizer.
Gardasil: HPV uninfected: ARR = 0.7%, RRR ≒ 50%
Gardasil: HPV already infected: ARR = 3.07%, RRR ≒ 70%
Girdasil contains the neurotoxin ALuminum at 416±75μg/dose
I haven't done the calculations, but billions to tens of billions of aluminum compound molecules enter the body. The basic principle of chemistry is that the toxicity of metal atoms is essentially the same even in compounds.
https://www.corvelva.it/speciale-corvelva/vaccinegate-en/metal-analysis-by-icp-ms.html
However, it is known that administering a vaccine for a disease when you are infected can actually be harmful.
Any good doctor would check your physical condition before administering the vaccine.
In the case of Gardasil, blood tests should be done before vaccination to check whether the patient is already infected or not.
Vaccination while infected is highly carcinogenic, so regular testing and early surgery are recommended.
However, the authorities have not made this mandatory, and I feel that the authorities are being malicious.
I recently learned.
RCTs have not even been conducted on conventional vaccines for a long time.
=The effects and side effects on humans have not been confirmed.
https://icandecide.org/no-placebo/
The above is worth looking at.
It has been approved for a long time without actual clinical trials, RCTs, and only based on the increase in antibody titers in a small number of people or amimals, but as you know, RNA viruses mutate one after another, so antibodies are less effective against actual mutated RNA viruses.
In some cases, if you already have slightly different antibodies, you may become more susceptible to infection due to the original antigen sin (also known as immune imprinting) effect.
For example, with the HepB (hepatitis B) vaccine, which is taken in large quantities, only antibody titers are measured, no RCTs are conducted, and only side effect progress reports are made instead of observations of about one month, and no long-term reports are taken at all (Merck example).
Unlike vaccines, RCTs for drugs for immediate life-threatening diseases usually involve splitting a small sample of patients from the entire patients, so it's a different story.
ARR≒RRR.
The target of the drug is also limited to patients.
Honjo Tasuku, who received the Novel Prize for elucidating the relationship between PD-1 on immune T cells and PD-L1 on cancer cells and developed Opdivo, said,
"The efficacy rate is about half, and we still don't know why the other half doesn't work."
In other words, even Novel Prize-winning scientists don't know how the immune system works.
But, it's worth trying if ARR≒RRR＝50%, which means they can live a little longer than dying immediately.
My conclusion is that for infectious diseases that don't require a cure, leave it to natural immunity (take vitamin D, Zn, etc.).
For infectious diseases that have a cure, go to the doctor and cure them early.
Only for infectious diseases that have no cure and are dangerous, if there are few side effects, vaccines should be considered.
For example, if you are traveling or working in a hot, humid area.