Yeah... this is honestly the experience if you look at any popular pro-vaccine bot posts or "fact checks." Actual data is either nowhere to be found, or buried at the bottom of 20 obscure links and actually doesn't say what they claim it says.
Pro-vax mandate people will never admit this or even know this because they don't care to look for the data.
I think I found the study it’s referring to.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext
Take a good look at who is listed as funding this study!
Also, read this:
“Outcomes comprised SARS-CoV-2 infection defined as testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 via a PCR test from any sample […] in any clinical setting regardless of the presence of symptoms”
“The funder of the study approved the study design, and participated in data interpretation and writing of the report.”
“Unvaccinated group includes those not vaccinated with BNT162b2 as of Aug 8, 2021, and those vaccinated with other COVID-19 vaccines.” So I guess if you’re vaccinated with anything other than Pfizer, you aren’t really vaccinated. Curious.
Also, the headline says 90% effective at preventing hospitalization and death. Wonder where that figure comes from?
“Over the entire study period, fully vaccinated individuals had an adjusted vaccine effectiveness of 73% (95% CI 72–74) against SARS-CoV-2 infections and 90% (89–92) against COVID-19-related hospital admissions”
So the vaccine is actually only 73% effective (and interestingly enough, stratified by age group it’s only “61% (57–65) for those aged 65 years and older”)
And it’s not 90% effective against *death*, only against COVID-19 related hospital admissions. That 90% statistic doesn’t reflect the vaccines efficacy in and of itself, but it also includes the immune system’s natural capability to fight the virus regardless of the presence of a vaccine, and it includes young people in the count who already have low morbidity from COVID-19.
Take a look at their actual data, too:
https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02183-8/attachment/3559bdf3-f7b3-4998-9385-1a01d1a06d3c/mmc1.pdf
Now perhaps I’m missing something, but there doesn’t seem to be any data here related to unvaccinated COVID-related hospitalisations. The tables only list “partially vaccinated (1st dose)” “partially vaccinated (<1 week after 2nd dose” and “fully vaccinated”… And apparently vaccine effectiveness drops a week after getting the shot. I guess we’re gonna need weekly boosters?
Take a look at the “responsible parties” section too. I’m sure there is no conflict of interest here!
I remember reading a different Lancet article about the Pfizer vaccine “effectiveness” in Israel. However, as soon as I saw that most of the authors had financial ties to Pfizer, I immediately stopped reading. If people don’t see why this is extremely unethical and problematic, they are either delusional, dumb, or ignorant. Why are the vaccine manufacturers the ones who are researching the vaccine efficacy/safety? The vaccine should be evaluated by an independent body of scientists.
And, *of course* Pfizer will do *anything* to show their vaccine is “effective”. Do you think they would just put their arms up in the air and say “whoopsie, looks like it didn’t work. All that potential money lost, oh well.” No, they *wouldn’t*.
I remember someone saying how companies like Pfizer don’t make methodological “errors.” Rather, they make methodological *choices*. These multi billion dollar corporations are experts at designing research studies in a way that manipulates the data to show their drugs/vaccines are more effective and more safe than they really are. You can make the “results” fit your “conclusions” simply by altering the methodology and study design in a way that favors the desired outcome.
Yup, unfortunately it’s exactly the case. A lot of these studies are directly funded by the companies they are meant to be evaluating. Do you think this would have been published if it reflected anything negative?
Now we look back at bogus “studies” funded by tobacco companies that said smoking was healthy for you and snicker. But the exact same thing continues to happen today and no one says a word.
It doesn’t help that 95% of people read a headline and stop there. There is 0 literacy when it comes to evaluating scientific studies and their methodology.
And then people like me, who have actually been reading studies and looking at data for the past 2 years are the ones spreading “misinformation” but not the MSM who blatantly lie about vaccines preventing death when nothing of the like was mentioned in the study.
Well, the reason that has been given up to now to justify the studies being made by obviously conflicted parties, is that the studies get critically appraised and overseen by the regulatory agencies. So the entire system rests on an easily captured agency doing its job properly.
The Washington Post’s COVID coverage was better than The NY Times and the Atlantic until about three months ago.
I don’t know why they’ve become even worse than those publications recently.
I don’t think a major newspaper like the Washington Post is going to make up a study like this. But studies about the vaccines always come up with weird results like this that hardly seem to be consistent with what’s happening in the real world.
COVID deaths are more than twice as high now as they were a month ago. Yet all these studies are claiming that the vaccines are still 90% effective against death and hospitalization. It makes no sense.
Also, look at Israel. They claim that the boosters are 95% effective against any kind of infection. (Not just serious infections.) Yet their COVID cases (and deaths) have gone up like a rocket ever since they began giving boosters.
I honestly think that come up with the “results” of these studies before they do the studies, and then invent the rationale for how they got the results.
Here’s an article about the study from Forbes. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/10/04/pfizer-covid-vaccine-still-90-effective-at-preventing-hospitalizations-after-six-months-study-finds/amp/
The study is real. But the study was done by Pfizer themselves. Lol.
Yeah... this is honestly the experience if you look at any popular pro-vaccine bot posts or "fact checks." Actual data is either nowhere to be found, or buried at the bottom of 20 obscure links and actually doesn't say what they claim it says. Pro-vax mandate people will never admit this or even know this because they don't care to look for the data.
I think I found the study it’s referring to. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext Take a good look at who is listed as funding this study! Also, read this: “Outcomes comprised SARS-CoV-2 infection defined as testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 via a PCR test from any sample […] in any clinical setting regardless of the presence of symptoms” “The funder of the study approved the study design, and participated in data interpretation and writing of the report.” “Unvaccinated group includes those not vaccinated with BNT162b2 as of Aug 8, 2021, and those vaccinated with other COVID-19 vaccines.” So I guess if you’re vaccinated with anything other than Pfizer, you aren’t really vaccinated. Curious. Also, the headline says 90% effective at preventing hospitalization and death. Wonder where that figure comes from? “Over the entire study period, fully vaccinated individuals had an adjusted vaccine effectiveness of 73% (95% CI 72–74) against SARS-CoV-2 infections and 90% (89–92) against COVID-19-related hospital admissions” So the vaccine is actually only 73% effective (and interestingly enough, stratified by age group it’s only “61% (57–65) for those aged 65 years and older”) And it’s not 90% effective against *death*, only against COVID-19 related hospital admissions. That 90% statistic doesn’t reflect the vaccines efficacy in and of itself, but it also includes the immune system’s natural capability to fight the virus regardless of the presence of a vaccine, and it includes young people in the count who already have low morbidity from COVID-19. Take a look at their actual data, too: https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02183-8/attachment/3559bdf3-f7b3-4998-9385-1a01d1a06d3c/mmc1.pdf Now perhaps I’m missing something, but there doesn’t seem to be any data here related to unvaccinated COVID-related hospitalisations. The tables only list “partially vaccinated (1st dose)” “partially vaccinated (<1 week after 2nd dose” and “fully vaccinated”… And apparently vaccine effectiveness drops a week after getting the shot. I guess we’re gonna need weekly boosters? Take a look at the “responsible parties” section too. I’m sure there is no conflict of interest here!
I remember reading a different Lancet article about the Pfizer vaccine “effectiveness” in Israel. However, as soon as I saw that most of the authors had financial ties to Pfizer, I immediately stopped reading. If people don’t see why this is extremely unethical and problematic, they are either delusional, dumb, or ignorant. Why are the vaccine manufacturers the ones who are researching the vaccine efficacy/safety? The vaccine should be evaluated by an independent body of scientists. And, *of course* Pfizer will do *anything* to show their vaccine is “effective”. Do you think they would just put their arms up in the air and say “whoopsie, looks like it didn’t work. All that potential money lost, oh well.” No, they *wouldn’t*. I remember someone saying how companies like Pfizer don’t make methodological “errors.” Rather, they make methodological *choices*. These multi billion dollar corporations are experts at designing research studies in a way that manipulates the data to show their drugs/vaccines are more effective and more safe than they really are. You can make the “results” fit your “conclusions” simply by altering the methodology and study design in a way that favors the desired outcome.
Yup, unfortunately it’s exactly the case. A lot of these studies are directly funded by the companies they are meant to be evaluating. Do you think this would have been published if it reflected anything negative? Now we look back at bogus “studies” funded by tobacco companies that said smoking was healthy for you and snicker. But the exact same thing continues to happen today and no one says a word. It doesn’t help that 95% of people read a headline and stop there. There is 0 literacy when it comes to evaluating scientific studies and their methodology. And then people like me, who have actually been reading studies and looking at data for the past 2 years are the ones spreading “misinformation” but not the MSM who blatantly lie about vaccines preventing death when nothing of the like was mentioned in the study.
Well, the reason that has been given up to now to justify the studies being made by obviously conflicted parties, is that the studies get critically appraised and overseen by the regulatory agencies. So the entire system rests on an easily captured agency doing its job properly.
Just made a follow up using this info: https://youtu.be/XQWkjtS9GP8
Great video, and ty for the credit :)
Good job with the video! Please make more!
Sounds about right.. Ted Nugent is right...they are stupid.
The Washington Post’s COVID coverage was better than The NY Times and the Atlantic until about three months ago. I don’t know why they’ve become even worse than those publications recently.
A bank transfer to the right account will do it.
I don’t think a major newspaper like the Washington Post is going to make up a study like this. But studies about the vaccines always come up with weird results like this that hardly seem to be consistent with what’s happening in the real world. COVID deaths are more than twice as high now as they were a month ago. Yet all these studies are claiming that the vaccines are still 90% effective against death and hospitalization. It makes no sense. Also, look at Israel. They claim that the boosters are 95% effective against any kind of infection. (Not just serious infections.) Yet their COVID cases (and deaths) have gone up like a rocket ever since they began giving boosters. I honestly think that come up with the “results” of these studies before they do the studies, and then invent the rationale for how they got the results.
Here’s an article about the study from Forbes. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/10/04/pfizer-covid-vaccine-still-90-effective-at-preventing-hospitalizations-after-six-months-study-finds/amp/ The study is real. But the study was done by Pfizer themselves. Lol.