And all the textbooks that define vaccine as granting immunity? Also written by people who were mistaken?
As for posting on the internet about the flu vaccine being a 'real' one -- I would have been if anybody was trying to mandate it!
And that's the real objection -- all the leaders were trying to pretend that this was an 'old' vaccine that WOULD stop transmission. That's what all the stupid mandates were designed to do. And when people like me were pointing out that the data showed this 'vaccine' NEVER stopped transmission, they CHANGED THE DEFINTION OF VACCINE.
Maybe that doesn't raise red flags in your world. You do you.
Edit: The receipts of experts claiming it would stop the spread (old definition)
Which textbooks? ... And also, now we're getting into the definition of "immunity," which is the ability of an organism to RESIST an infection. Which is absolutely what the Covid vaccine grants a person.
Also, the original data from the phase 3 trials absolutely indicated that the vaccine would prevent transmission, with 94% efficacy. That's huge. Unfortunately, immunity wanes over time, and new variants arrived that evaded immunity to varying degrees. But to the best of everybody's understanding at the time, being vaccinated absolutely did "stop the spread." And, at the time, it did.
It still does, now, albeit to a much smaller degree.
Walenski was literally forced to walk back her claim THE NEXT DAY because we knew she was lying. She said REAL WORLD DATA backed this up. SHE WAS LYING.
тАЬItтАЩs possible that some people who are fully vaccinated could get COVID-19,тАЭ a CDC spokesperson told the New York Times. тАЬThe evidence isnтАЩt clear whether they can spread the virus to others. We are continuing to evaluate the evidence.тАЭ
-------------------------
Pfizer admitted that they never tested transmission, so the claim that it would prevent transmission is completely unfounded. Phase 3 data only dealt with people who were actually sick enough to get counted as an actual case. Not even the liars are claiming what you claiming what you are claiming. Brix literally said she knew the jab wouldn't stop transmission.
Weird how everybody in these important jobs keeps being a moron!
It's FAUCIS theory that you can transmit the virus without symptoms, and the phase 3 data only dealt with people who were symptomatic.
So it was definitely their theory that you could indeed pass on a virus that the phase 3 data would not catch -- because they weren't even looking at people without symptoms.
What phase 3 trial are you referring to? The phase 3 trial used for EMA had no data or conclusions on whether or not the vaccine stopped transmission. Pfizer has officially admitted this:
"Our landmark phase 3 clinical trial (protocol published November 2020) was designed and powered to evaluate efficacy of BNT162b2 to prevent disease caused by SARS-CoV2, including severe disease,тАЭ the spokesperson said in an email. тАЬThe pivotal BNT162b2 clinical trial met two critical endpoints including the efficacy end-point which is prevention of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection and the secondary end-point was prevention of severe disease. The BNT162b2 trials were not designed to evaluate the vaccineтАЩs effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2.тАЭ
Yet the jab never once stopped you from getting the disease, as shown by literally all of the data we have. And these people KNEW it at the time but still pretended that this was a real vaccine that would grant immunity.
Of course it stopped people from getting the disease.
If your theory is that a bunch of vaccinated people caught asymptomatic Covid during the phase 3 trials and were thus not accounted for in the efficacy numbers, that's easily disproven by the J&J data on nucleocapsid antibodies.
I'll take that as an admission that this statement was fabricated:
"Also, the original data from the phase 3 trials absolutely indicated that the vaccine would prevent transmission,"
The endpoint goals of the trial were:
1) prevention of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection
2) prevention of severe disease
Those things aren't the same as not getting infected. No data in that trial gave information on how infectious mild and/or asymtompactic infections are when compared to sympotomatic and severe patients.
And yet we were told over and over to follow the science and that the spread stops with every vaccinated person. Lies, all of it.
Just because a study was not _explicitly designed_ to quantify transmission doesn't mean that the data from the study doesn't indicate reduced transmission.
Or do you think people can transmit a disease they don't have?
The guy is just doubling down on ignorant. No only is he unaware of the technical definition of a vaccine, he clearly doesn't know what "immunity" means either. He obviously thinks he's an expert, though.
And all the textbooks that define vaccine as granting immunity? Also written by people who were mistaken?
As for posting on the internet about the flu vaccine being a 'real' one -- I would have been if anybody was trying to mandate it!
And that's the real objection -- all the leaders were trying to pretend that this was an 'old' vaccine that WOULD stop transmission. That's what all the stupid mandates were designed to do. And when people like me were pointing out that the data showed this 'vaccine' NEVER stopped transmission, they CHANGED THE DEFINTION OF VACCINE.
Maybe that doesn't raise red flags in your world. You do you.
Edit: The receipts of experts claiming it would stop the spread (old definition)
https://vimeo.com/709694678
Which textbooks? ... And also, now we're getting into the definition of "immunity," which is the ability of an organism to RESIST an infection. Which is absolutely what the Covid vaccine grants a person.
Also, the original data from the phase 3 trials absolutely indicated that the vaccine would prevent transmission, with 94% efficacy. That's huge. Unfortunately, immunity wanes over time, and new variants arrived that evaded immunity to varying degrees. But to the best of everybody's understanding at the time, being vaccinated absolutely did "stop the spread." And, at the time, it did.
It still does, now, albeit to a much smaller degree.
The original data were based on tests that were done on EIGHT (8) mice.
The long-term tests on humans is being done now, on the world's population.
What in god's name are you talking about? What "original data"? For what?
Walenski was literally forced to walk back her claim THE NEXT DAY because we knew she was lying. She said REAL WORLD DATA backed this up. SHE WAS LYING.
https://nypost.com/2021/04/02/cdc-walks-back-claim-that-vaccinated-people-cant-carry-covid/
тАЬItтАЩs possible that some people who are fully vaccinated could get COVID-19,тАЭ a CDC spokesperson told the New York Times. тАЬThe evidence isnтАЩt clear whether they can spread the virus to others. We are continuing to evaluate the evidence.тАЭ
-------------------------
Pfizer admitted that they never tested transmission, so the claim that it would prevent transmission is completely unfounded. Phase 3 data only dealt with people who were actually sick enough to get counted as an actual case. Not even the liars are claiming what you claiming what you are claiming. Brix literally said she knew the jab wouldn't stop transmission.
So a moron said something wrong, what's your point?
As for preventing transmission... is your theory that a person can transmit a disease they don't have?
Weird how everybody in these important jobs keeps being a moron!
It's FAUCIS theory that you can transmit the virus without symptoms, and the phase 3 data only dealt with people who were symptomatic.
So it was definitely their theory that you could indeed pass on a virus that the phase 3 data would not catch -- because they weren't even looking at people without symptoms.
"Weird how everybody in these important jobs keeps being a moron!" This is probably a reflection of that highly desired common ground most of us have.
"Weird how everybody in these important jobs keeps being a moron!"
Uhh, ok. Who gives a s**t.
Seriously.
Why do you care what those people say?
What phase 3 trial are you referring to? The phase 3 trial used for EMA had no data or conclusions on whether or not the vaccine stopped transmission. Pfizer has officially admitted this:
"Our landmark phase 3 clinical trial (protocol published November 2020) was designed and powered to evaluate efficacy of BNT162b2 to prevent disease caused by SARS-CoV2, including severe disease,тАЭ the spokesperson said in an email. тАЬThe pivotal BNT162b2 clinical trial met two critical endpoints including the efficacy end-point which is prevention of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection and the secondary end-point was prevention of severe disease. The BNT162b2 trials were not designed to evaluate the vaccineтАЩs effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2.тАЭ
If you don't get a disease, you can't transmit it.
Yet the jab never once stopped you from getting the disease, as shown by literally all of the data we have. And these people KNEW it at the time but still pretended that this was a real vaccine that would grant immunity.
Of course it stopped people from getting the disease.
If your theory is that a bunch of vaccinated people caught asymptomatic Covid during the phase 3 trials and were thus not accounted for in the efficacy numbers, that's easily disproven by the J&J data on nucleocapsid antibodies.
You know, it's said that it's easier to lie to a person than to tell him that he's been lied to.
You are living proof of that statement. Keep on hanging on to your faith that the system is your friend. They like that.
I'll take that as an admission that this statement was fabricated:
"Also, the original data from the phase 3 trials absolutely indicated that the vaccine would prevent transmission,"
The endpoint goals of the trial were:
1) prevention of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection
2) prevention of severe disease
Those things aren't the same as not getting infected. No data in that trial gave information on how infectious mild and/or asymtompactic infections are when compared to sympotomatic and severe patients.
And yet we were told over and over to follow the science and that the spread stops with every vaccinated person. Lies, all of it.
The f**k you will.
Just because a study was not _explicitly designed_ to quantify transmission doesn't mean that the data from the study doesn't indicate reduced transmission.
Or do you think people can transmit a disease they don't have?
If the data indicated otherwise then why doesn't Pfizer say so?
They only counted people who were sick enough to show symptoms, while also telling us that you could transmit the virus without symptoms......
"...And all the textbooks that define vaccine as granting immunity? Also written by people who were mistaken?"
"This definitely constitutes "screaming into the void." Atop a milk crate. Wrapped in a sandwich board.
The guy is just doubling down on ignorant. No only is he unaware of the technical definition of a vaccine, he clearly doesn't know what "immunity" means either. He obviously thinks he's an expert, though.