The Pfizer vaccine is not even "95% effective" at making your symptoms milder. It's actually around 1% when you take their data and perform an absolute risk reduction. Pfizer's 162 'cases' in their control group of 18,325 participants and 8 'cases' in their vaccinated group of 18,198 participants. Reducing your symptoms from the control to the vaccinated group is analogous to (162/18,325 - 8/18,198)*100 = 0.84%
Pfizer's lie of 95% efficacy comes from a relative risk reduction analogous to 162 'cases' in the control over the total number of cases in both the control and vaccinated group or 170 'cases'. 162/170= 95.3%
Anybody with basis statistical analysis understanding will realize that reporting vaccine efficacy as relative risk reduction is meaningless because it ignores the sample size of both the control and vaccinated cohorts. Moderna follows the same methodology. Both are lies. Besides, no one would take a vaccine with 1% chance of reducing symptoms so they manipulate data.
It's not even "95% effective" at making your symptoms milder. It's actually around 1% when you take their data and perform an absolute risk reduction. Pfizer's 162 'cases' in their control group of 18,325 participants and 8 'cases' in their vaccinated group of 18,198 participants. Reducing your symptoms from the control to the vaccinated group is analogous to (162/18,325 - 8/18,198)*100 = 0.84%
Pfizer's lie of 95% efficacy comes from a relative risk reduction analogous to 162 'cases' in the control over the total number of cases in both the control and vaccinated group or 170 'cases'. 162/170= 95.3%
Anybody with basis statistical analysis understanding will realize that reporting vaccine efficacy as relative risk reduction is meaningless because it ignores the sample size of both the control and vaccinated cohorts. Moderna follows the same methodology. Both are lies. Besides, no one would take a vaccine with 1% chance of reducing symptoms so they manipulate data.
The efficacy rates they give us from the studies are a big lie anyways. They report relative risk reduction or the total number of cases in the control group over the total number of cases in both control and vaccinated groups. That ‘efficacy’ of 95% isn’t true efficacy. The real efficacy is the reduction of risk from taking the vaccine vs not taking it but they don’t report it that way. Besides, no one wants to take a vaccine that’s 1% effective. On top of that, the low Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR) means that your chance of catching and dying is significantly tiny.
Without the hijacked airplanes, we wouldn’t get a great reset on how we travel and surveillance. Furthermore, the primary argument for controlled demolition is near perfect building disintegration at terminal velocity. Mathematically speaking, even earthquakes cannot produce that effect on building akin to an avalanche gaining momentum as it accrues more mass.
The Antibody Dependent Enhancement is shown in all previous caronavirus vaccines in the past. These new ones, Pfizer’s & Moderna’s, under operation warp speed, have already been showing signs of ADE but it will take months to even years to see the full effects. If you’re vaccinated and encounter the virus in real life, then you’re chance of dying to it increases exponentially. Note the new ‘variants’ of the virus that are actually killing vaccinated young people that had a 99.98% survival right in the beginning.
The fertility problem associated with Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine have not been addressed. But the spike protein is in fact the same one in homologous form in the placenta.
I also believe, like @MediaMadeMe, people will die by the thousands and many more will become infertile.
The primary reason people will die is due to the pathogenic priming known as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), is when anti-COVID antibodies, created by a vaccine, instead of protecting the person, cause a more severe or lethal disease when the person is later exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the wild. The vaccine amplifies the infection rather than preventing damage. It may only be seen after months or years of use in populations around the world. This paradoxical reaction has been seen in other vaccines and animal trials. One well-documented example is with the Dengue fever vaccine, which resulted in avoidable deaths.
The reason women will become infertile is due to the vaccines effect on the placenta. Here is the scientific theory/explanation for the effect on the placenta (and possibly on sperm): the spike protein of Sars-Cov-2, against which teams are competing to develop a vaccine, is highly homologous with a human HERV protein, syncytin- 1. Syncytin-1, which is a HERV derived protein, causes fusion of cells in the trophoblast and has a role in placentation. The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
Lifelong infertility... Known studies of antibody dependent enhancement from caronavirus vaccines killing most, if not not, all the animals in the animal studies...What studies did Operation Warp Speed skip? Animal...This is definitely depopulation and eugenics rolled into one PsyOp.
My analysis of Moderna’s and the previous Pfizer vaccine efficacy data are correct insofar that I calculated absolute risk reduction from THIER data which projects around 1% vaccine efficacy. I agree that the data should be be reported better, but my contention is honesty of their conclusions. These companies report relative risk reduction because it suits them to get approved. True efficacy is measured in absolute risk reduction thus their study blatantly lies. Whether or not their data matches what actually happens outside their trials, is a question of scientific epistemology and how they conducted their experiment in the first place. The claim that only 0.5% out of the 8% would have only had COVID if they were all vaccinated needs to be validated. Otherwise, it is only an alleged claim. Explaining data in a reasonable way is not science. That is because science does not fully trust reason; it trusts predictions.
Climate projections cannot be validated Claudia Tibaldi and Reto Knutti (2007): “Skill and reliability are assessed by repeatedly comparing many independent realizations of the true system with the model predictions through some metric that quantifies agreement between model forecasts and observations (e.g. rank histograms). For projections of future climate change over decades or longer, there is no verification period, and in a strict sense there will never be any, even if we wait for a century...climate projections, decades or longer in the future by definition, cannot be validated directly through observed changes.”
“Most models agree reasonably well with observations of the present-day mean climate and simulate a realistic warming over the Twentieth Century (of course, the specific performance depends on each model/metric combination), yet their predictions diverge substantially for the Twenty-First century, even when forced with the same boundary conditions.” - Claudia Tobaldi and Reto Knutti
In other words, there is no scientific theory of a climate climate change because you cannot validate the model.
Climate change lacks the groundwork to be called scientific and many scientists have pointed this out.
Post-hoc generalizations have no functional meaning. If you can’t predict anything with your ‘theory’, how can you predict what the engineering or political actions would do?
Yes, as a former Pentecostal, the Orthodox Church is the True Church. I came to that conclusion years ago as well. It is the only Church who has any historical continuity to the apostles. Rome lost continuity when they added papal supremacy/infallibility and the filioque clause in the creed. All bishops were equal in the Church with no one above the other.