If you know how this shot worked you would know putting numbers on unvaccinated -vs- vaccinated is bullshit at its finest. They said from the beginning the vaccination has no live or dead virus so the person would HAVE to catch the virus to produce antibodies…same as the unvaxed.
So the goal all along wasn’t to stop the virus or prevent you from getting it, it was for someone to get the shot.
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by goalie
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by goalie
Actually read this "oh no, .gov is pissed at us" non-retraction retraction:
Now, let's ask the question: should we trust ANYTHING coming from the government health care machine if they are willing to "bully" one of the world's most prestigious health care providers into "recommending" what their own data days is an unnecessary treatment?
Add in that the treatment in question is new tech, potentially dangerous, in an EUA status in addition to being shown conclusively to be unnecessary.
I get that train of thought, an I have always been a skeptic. I am a skeptic both ways though. When someone posts a thread that says the vaccinated are killing the unvaccinated, I dig in and explore it. I don't think all things science and medical are thoroughly corrupted. With one exception the numbers in the OP seem to be consistent with a variety of sources. My best bicycling bud is an ER doctor and a pretty hardcore conservative. She gives me the inside scoop pretty regularly. The number I hold suspect is the one that shows the unvaccinated are 8 times more likely to get Delta than the vaccinated. I am not seeing that at all. I am seeing about 50/50. What I am seeing is that the vaccinated are faring much better than the unvaccinated when they get Delta.
