My 2020 analysis of efficacy after the first trials said 75%, not 95%. Animal studies against Wuhan mRNA spike vaccines were not enough and ADE should have been studied again with new variants.
el gato malo's analogy of the foxhole and the bunker comes to mind. You have to include the danger of running across the field. The way they have been counting has attributed "crossing the field" deaths to "foxhole" deaths.
This is so important- any study that does not define “vaccinated” as someone who got jabbed with an active product is garbage. Unfortunately, its just about all of them. Norman Fenton shows with simple stats how a completely ineffective vax would look effective if you misclassify vax as unvax for 2-6 weeks. Even worse if vax causes increase in infection in first 2 weeks. Do any of the studies have sufficient data for us to do the recalculation?
Besides, those infected after first dose need further stratification because, those testing positive in the first 4 days , for example, might have been exposed to the virus before the first shot was administered.
Dropping patients from studies to hide the safety signal should be treated as criminal fraud and those responsible convicted of the resulting manslaughter.
But antibodies take awhile to be formed so the red line.... until they are (1 week? 2 week?) are more likely to be the innate system (killer cells interleukin etc) knocked down surely........ then the green is much lower as antibodies are ready to be deployed.
The results seem to show similar outcomes as the flu shots and the language in the analysis much the same . The reality is that dying people die !
With the flu shot phenomena we learned that choice behaviour played a significant role in the outcomes of the study . Those that were dying were most likely to decline vaccination , because they were dying and did not see the point in any further injection of stuff. While those that were in general good health took the recommended shot because they wanted to limit any malady . And thus the results indicate those that took the shots were most likely to have better outcomes
The non-Reader’s Digest version of ADE is found in a 2003 paper in Viral Immunology, entitled Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Virus Infection and Disease, which tells us “In general, virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection. The ADE of virus infection is a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies enhance the entry of virus, and in some cases the replication of virus, into monocytes/ macrophages and granulocytic cells through interaction with Fc and/or complement receptors. This phenomenon has been reported in vitro and in vivo for viruses representing numerous families and genera of public health and veterinary importance … For some viruses, ADE of infection has become a great concern to disease control by vaccination.” If ADE is an issue, the fall flu season may be an issue due to this immune reaction “pathogenic priming.”
As cited in NaturalHealth365, https://www.naturalhealth365.com/covid-jab-long-term-consequeces-3971.html a February 2021 article published in Frontiers in Immunology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researcher Darrell Ricke points to the plausibility of ADE when he notes that the “[d]evelopment of vaccines to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and other coronavirus has been difficult to create due to vaccine-induced enhanced disease responses in animal models.”
A September 2020 paper published in Nature echoes these sentiments, claiming that “human immunization strategies for SARS-CoV-2 that elicit high neutralizing antibody titers have a high chance of success with minimal risk of ADE,” but that the ADE observed, “in SARS, MERS and other human respiratory virus infections including RSV and measles … suggests a real risk of ADE for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and antibody-based interventions.” Finally, and in preprint with The Lancet from March 2020, Riske, along with Dr. Robert Malone – a key figure in the development of mRNA jab technology – again point out that “[p]rior studies involving vaccine candidates for [feline infectious coronavirus] and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) demonstrate vaccination-induced antibody-dependent enhancement of disease (ADE),” adding that “SARS and MERS vaccine ADE risks may foreshadow SARS-CoV-2
Some governments were calling people "unvaccinated" up to 2 weeks after their dose.
You can see how the stats would be skewed after the following from the part you quote:
“SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly more likely to occur in the first 13 days post-vaccine injection in those who received a single dose (48.9%) than two doses (27.4%, p< 10–3).”
I'm not seeing anything here. The red curve shooting up could just be healthy vaccinee effect wearing off. The red curve going down could just be vaccine efficacy kicking in. Also no control for disease prevalence. Way too many variables to say anything.
I just came across this yesterday--people are sicker the second time they get Covid, both vaxed and unvaxed. The vaccine would akin to getting an infection then.
So for diagnosis: Digging three papers deep from your post it appears that they used an envelope protein gene at Ct 35 or less to determine a positive diagnosis.
Then the time frame of the study spanned the initial Wuhan variant dispersion, the downslope of its Gompertz curve, the usual seasonal decline of Coronavirus infections, the onslaught of the injections, and transition to alpha and delta variants.
At least they didn't build their whole study on RT-PCR of Wuhan spike at Ct 40.
You could recalculate the efficacy, but a more meaningful assessment would be with the developers and perpetrators in a fair courtroom, if you could find one.
How do we demand it?
el gato malo's analogy of the foxhole and the bunker comes to mind. You have to include the danger of running across the field. The way they have been counting has attributed "crossing the field" deaths to "foxhole" deaths.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/why-vaccinated-covid-deathshospitalizations
Must we keep up the fascists’ finest delusion that there is a vaccine?
Its bullshit, and you all are getting to know it.
Is that a typo in the heading? gin
Maybe those partially vaccinated changed their behavior after a single shot which led to higher infection rate. Maybe unvaccinated were more cautious?
Got a msg from you to text?
This is so important- any study that does not define “vaccinated” as someone who got jabbed with an active product is garbage. Unfortunately, its just about all of them. Norman Fenton shows with simple stats how a completely ineffective vax would look effective if you misclassify vax as unvax for 2-6 weeks. Even worse if vax causes increase in infection in first 2 weeks. Do any of the studies have sufficient data for us to do the recalculation?
Besides, those infected after first dose need further stratification because, those testing positive in the first 4 days , for example, might have been exposed to the virus before the first shot was administered.
Dropping patients from studies to hide the safety signal should be treated as criminal fraud and those responsible convicted of the resulting manslaughter.
But antibodies take awhile to be formed so the red line.... until they are (1 week? 2 week?) are more likely to be the innate system (killer cells interleukin etc) knocked down surely........ then the green is much lower as antibodies are ready to be deployed.
The results seem to show similar outcomes as the flu shots and the language in the analysis much the same . The reality is that dying people die !
With the flu shot phenomena we learned that choice behaviour played a significant role in the outcomes of the study . Those that were dying were most likely to decline vaccination , because they were dying and did not see the point in any further injection of stuff. While those that were in general good health took the recommended shot because they wanted to limit any malady . And thus the results indicate those that took the shots were most likely to have better outcomes
The non-Reader’s Digest version of ADE is found in a 2003 paper in Viral Immunology, entitled Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Virus Infection and Disease, which tells us “In general, virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection. The ADE of virus infection is a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies enhance the entry of virus, and in some cases the replication of virus, into monocytes/ macrophages and granulocytic cells through interaction with Fc and/or complement receptors. This phenomenon has been reported in vitro and in vivo for viruses representing numerous families and genera of public health and veterinary importance … For some viruses, ADE of infection has become a great concern to disease control by vaccination.” If ADE is an issue, the fall flu season may be an issue due to this immune reaction “pathogenic priming.”
As cited in NaturalHealth365, https://www.naturalhealth365.com/covid-jab-long-term-consequeces-3971.html a February 2021 article published in Frontiers in Immunology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researcher Darrell Ricke points to the plausibility of ADE when he notes that the “[d]evelopment of vaccines to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and other coronavirus has been difficult to create due to vaccine-induced enhanced disease responses in animal models.”
A September 2020 paper published in Nature echoes these sentiments, claiming that “human immunization strategies for SARS-CoV-2 that elicit high neutralizing antibody titers have a high chance of success with minimal risk of ADE,” but that the ADE observed, “in SARS, MERS and other human respiratory virus infections including RSV and measles … suggests a real risk of ADE for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and antibody-based interventions.” Finally, and in preprint with The Lancet from March 2020, Riske, along with Dr. Robert Malone – a key figure in the development of mRNA jab technology – again point out that “[p]rior studies involving vaccine candidates for [feline infectious coronavirus] and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) demonstrate vaccination-induced antibody-dependent enhancement of disease (ADE),” adding that “SARS and MERS vaccine ADE risks may foreshadow SARS-CoV-2
Thanks for covering the study.
Some governments were calling people "unvaccinated" up to 2 weeks after their dose.
You can see how the stats would be skewed after the following from the part you quote:
“SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly more likely to occur in the first 13 days post-vaccine injection in those who received a single dose (48.9%) than two doses (27.4%, p< 10–3).”
I'm not seeing anything here. The red curve shooting up could just be healthy vaccinee effect wearing off. The red curve going down could just be vaccine efficacy kicking in. Also no control for disease prevalence. Way too many variables to say anything.
I just came across this yesterday--people are sicker the second time they get Covid, both vaxed and unvaxed. The vaccine would akin to getting an infection then.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-02051-3
So for diagnosis: Digging three papers deep from your post it appears that they used an envelope protein gene at Ct 35 or less to determine a positive diagnosis.
Then the time frame of the study spanned the initial Wuhan variant dispersion, the downslope of its Gompertz curve, the usual seasonal decline of Coronavirus infections, the onslaught of the injections, and transition to alpha and delta variants.
At least they didn't build their whole study on RT-PCR of Wuhan spike at Ct 40.
You could recalculate the efficacy, but a more meaningful assessment would be with the developers and perpetrators in a fair courtroom, if you could find one.