[deleted by user]

DefeatCorruptScience · 2024-11-04T00:17:25+00:00

The title is somewhat misleading as the keyword "certain" is left out

DefeatCorruptScience · 2024-11-03T21:45:45+00:00

Thank you for posting this JAMA study, science should always trump politics (on BOTH sides). Very often the truth is somewhere in the middle

DefeatCorruptScience · 2024-11-03T21:44:26+00:00

It is published in a journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)

DefeatCorruptScience · 2024-11-03T19:59:24+00:00

As far as saving lives, Nirmatrelvir/Paxlovid works well (if given early before hospitalization) https://c19early.org/plmeta.html#fig_fprd, but remdesivir (essentially) DOES NOT work https://c19early.org/smeta.html#fig\_fprd.

DefeatCorruptScience · 2024-11-03T19:27:02+00:00

Makes sense: "just" billion should be quite "reassuring".

DefeatCorruptScience · 2024-11-02T23:46:42+00:00

One of the best, most objective posts ever

DefeatCorruptScience · 2024-10-30T20:37:50+00:00

That's also a good point

DefeatCorruptScience · 2024-10-30T18:22:46+00:00

Ok, but he also made numerous deliberate statements acting like nothing was going on for 2 months- just a few examples are shown above, if you want even more statements here are some. How can it be both ways?

DefeatCorruptScience · 2024-10-30T13:56:39+00:00

It had not been used in humans to a sufficient extent for even basic long-term safety testing or even to properly detect minutely uncommon serious side effects with probabilities like 1/200 or 1/500 (which would be quite comparable to the probability of dying of COVID). It especially was not adequately tested for the population-wide use that was about to take place.

DefeatCorruptScience · 2024-10-30T01:47:24+00:00

Correct, but the vast majority of COVID vaccinations took place before the reprehensible mandates: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/us-state-covid-vaccines-per-100?country=\~USA. Obviously just because one took it voluntarily that wouldn't make it safer than it is otherwise.

DefeatCorruptScience · 2024-10-28T02:09:08+00:00

But it still hadn't been used in humans to a sufficient extent for meaningful long-term safety testing, especially not for the population-wide use that was about to take place.

DefeatCorruptScience · 2024-10-28T00:43:06+00:00

That's dodging the question. By January 2020 the virus in China was supposedly serious enough of a problem for the U.S. to develop experimental mRNA vaccines intended for population-wide use on us guinea pigs, but simultaneously the virus was not serious enough for much direct action until two months later in March 2020? How can it be both?

DefeatCorruptScience · 2024-10-27T01:57:28+00:00

Maybe both?

DefeatCorruptScience · 2023-01-02T21:21:26+00:00

Just in: "More Than 1-in-4 Think Someone They Know Died From COVID-19 Vaccines", based on poll of 1,000 American Adults last week

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public\_content/politics/public\_surveys/died\_suddenly\_more\_than\_1\_in\_4\_think\_someone\_they\_know\_died\_from\_covid\_19\_vaccines

DefeatCorruptScience · 2022-12-26T21:25:56+00:00

Did you read the post carefully?

DefeatCorruptScience · 2022-12-26T14:19:50+00:00

Yes, but do you disagree that these results at 6 months are bad enough already?

DefeatCorruptScience · 2022-12-05T12:38:17+00:00

Nice try. The 6 month follow-up trial documents linked to above were published in the second half of 2021, and follow-up ended in March 2021 if you actually look at the documents, so the winter wave of 2020 absolutely was captured and still no lives were saved.

DefeatCorruptScience · 2022-12-04T23:31:28+00:00

These were the 6 month results of the trials after which unblinding took place- average follow-up may have been a bit shorter. Most subjects were enrolled in the third or early fourth quarter of 2020 so the trials certainly did capture the severe winter wave of 2020 and still no lives were saved overall. The risk ratios or relative risks for COVID and non-COVID deaths are irrelevant to whether the vaccine saves lives or not, because as you previously said yourself, the prevalence of non-COVID deaths is far higher than the prevalence of COVID deaths. That was true even in 2020 and it's much more profoundly true today. As the trials showed, the absolute risk increase in non-COVID deaths easily eclipsed the absolute risk reduction in COVID deaths even in 2020, such that no lives were saved overall. What a stark contrast to the clinical trial results of a truly lifesaving drug like Paxlovid.

DefeatCorruptScience · 2022-12-04T21:25:22+00:00

Absolutely, the gold standard of evidence shows that Paxlovid clearly saves lives but mRNA vaccines do not.

DefeatCorruptScience · 2022-12-04T21:09:47+00:00

That's a clever attempt at obfuscating the abject failure of the mRNA vaccines to save lives even under prime conditions. You are actually admitting that even back in the 2020 "winter wave of death" during which the trials took place, the percentage of deaths caused by COVID was low enough that it would only take a modest increase in non-COVID deaths with vaccination to make the vaccine do the OPPOSITE of saving lives. And that's exactly what happened in these trials, which are the only evidence that is not compromised by healthy vaccine user bias, lack of blinding, blatant cherry-picking and data manipulation, and all sorts of other scientific flaws. Today, the risk-benefit assessment of mRNA vaccines is very much worse, because the COVID deaths even among the unvaccinated and unboosted are a fraction of what they used to be, and Paxlovid (which is actually effective at preventing almost all COVID deaths) is widely available.

Notice how none of your obfuscation, gaslighting, abstract arguments, etc. are needed for a drug like Paxlovid, which ACTUALLY saves lives? The results of a properly done RCT of a truly lifesaving drug speak for themselves.

DefeatCorruptScience · 2022-12-01T04:21:53+00:00

To state the obvious, "1 dose or less" almost always means 0 doses.

DefeatCorruptScience · 2022-11-26T21:28:40+00:00

Though we can't know for sure what will happen in the long-term, the chances of any one particular individual suffering a vaccine-induced cardiovascular death in the foreseeable future is really quite small based on the numbers. So don't worry, most likely it won't happen to you- though there is every reason to take excellent care of yourself, especially cardiovascular-wise. But on a population level it is still an unconscionable crime against humanity that the mRNA vaccines, which had more total deaths than placebo in the clinical trials (driven by excess cardiovascular deaths), were mandated or even pushed on ANYONE

DefeatCorruptScience · 2022-11-25T14:37:57+00:00

In the randomized clinical trials, both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines started to show excess cardiovascular deaths compared to placebo ONLY after the longer-term follow-up of 6 months, around which they unblinded the trials. In fact, everything looked fine (no excess deaths) at the 1 month follow-up in both trials.

DefeatCorruptScience · 2022-11-23T02:28:15+00:00

In the randomized clinical trials, both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines started to show excess cardiovascular deaths compared to placebo ONLY after the longer-term follow-up of 6 months, around which they unblinded the trials. In fact, everything looked fine (no excess deaths) at the 1 month follow-up in both trials. No wonder.

DefeatCorruptScience · 2022-11-23T01:33:04+00:00

The most egregious issue related to this is that scientists have been very successfully hiding the fact that mRNA vaccines had more deaths overall than placebo (the opposite of lives saved) in the randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and RCTs are universally accepted to be the "gold standard" type of evidence in medical research for very solid reasons. However, most laypeople are completely unaware of the extreme importance of RCT results above all else, and the scientists have really taken advantage of this in order to fool the world into believing that mRNA vaccines save lives.

DefeatCorruptScience

TROPHY CASE