It's working out well for the EU. Britain is paying them all the money they didn't get out of the brexit negotiations, and Bojo is getting praised by the right for it.
So... There was a study that yielded unhappy results for AstraZeneca. The WHO immediately jumped in to reassure everyone that everything was OK. The same WHO that has repeatedly lied to the public to protect people and organizations that do not have our best interests in mind.
Going off of the numbers as reported it is hard to know for sure. Let's say as of today, 46 million single dose vaccines have been given in the US. I literally can't find any real numbers about who is delivering where and how but with the knowledge that there are 2 major vaccines I'm gonna assume that the AZ vaccine is going to half. The vaccine requires 2 doses before side effects have been known to occur so we can divide that number in half again. Just spitballing, out of 11.5 million inidividuals, 42.6k had bad reactions. That means you have a 0.3% chance to have an adverse reaction and a 0.0008% chance to die from it. Now there is a ton of estimation in these numbers so take it with a grain of salt. But it sounds like a good report. I doubt they would report it if it was bad though.
"Adverse reaction" is weasel words, unfortunately.
It can be as high or as low as you want by massaging data. I got a tetanus vaccine once. Hurt like someone slugged me in the shoulder two days later, because part of tetanus' reaction is muscle contractions, which it was doing at the injection site. That is an adverse reaction (the ideal case is no symptoms, after all). But it's not like I reported to the doctor saying my arm hurt, so it was never recorded down. On the reverse side, if they really cared about adverse reactions and followed up on every patient, and I said my arm muscles were twitching weird and causing pain, and they wanted to lower the number of adverse reactions so their study would get corporate funding, they could say "that's unrelated to the shot, you probably just slept funny" and write it off.
If they define "adverse reaction" as "this study is making us millions of dollars, only the most extreme, obvious, and incontrovertible provably related side-effects will be counted", then "adverse reaction" likely means "immediate allergic reaction within a half hour of the shot", and MAYBE "cytokene storm within a day". Which means it likely is much more dangerous than that in reality because they're undercounting it.
If they define it as "anything weird happening for a week after getting the shot, screw corporate funding, we're going to be honest pariahs", so it includes every miscarriage, every random puking, every muscle spasm, then obviously the shot would be SAFER than the numbers suggest since they'd get a lot of false positives.
But good luck getting them to define it if it is the first one, since that would give away their game, and thus their massive funding.
This also is adverse reaction and deaths so far. There are no long-term studies that have been done so five to ten years from now, we'll have to reassess whether it is worth it.
Work out, stay fit, take Vitamin D, eat quality food. You'll survive diseases and be healthier without having to inject yourself with weird drugs or get plugged into machines
Because this worked really well since mankind's birth and up to mid 20th century...
The WHO backs AstraZeneca. Enough reason to mistrust it.
It's working out well for the EU. Britain is paying them all the money they didn't get out of the brexit negotiations, and Bojo is getting praised by the right for it.
They've gone out of their way to reassure everyone this one is oh so safe.
Did Studies with the Pfizer and Moderna-Stuff yield extremely discouraging results like the one in South Africa?
So... There was a study that yielded unhappy results for AstraZeneca. The WHO immediately jumped in to reassure everyone that everything was OK. The same WHO that has repeatedly lied to the public to protect people and organizations that do not have our best interests in mind.
Yeah, I'll stay sceptical.
Going off of the numbers as reported it is hard to know for sure. Let's say as of today, 46 million single dose vaccines have been given in the US. I literally can't find any real numbers about who is delivering where and how but with the knowledge that there are 2 major vaccines I'm gonna assume that the AZ vaccine is going to half. The vaccine requires 2 doses before side effects have been known to occur so we can divide that number in half again. Just spitballing, out of 11.5 million inidividuals, 42.6k had bad reactions. That means you have a 0.3% chance to have an adverse reaction and a 0.0008% chance to die from it. Now there is a ton of estimation in these numbers so take it with a grain of salt. But it sounds like a good report. I doubt they would report it if it was bad though.
Which puts it about on equal with the virus itself. Also Britain is being told that we actually need 3 doses, and then at least one every year.
If you're not 65+ or otherwise suffering from a major health condition the fatality rate is like 0.0003%
"Adverse reaction" is weasel words, unfortunately.
It can be as high or as low as you want by massaging data. I got a tetanus vaccine once. Hurt like someone slugged me in the shoulder two days later, because part of tetanus' reaction is muscle contractions, which it was doing at the injection site. That is an adverse reaction (the ideal case is no symptoms, after all). But it's not like I reported to the doctor saying my arm hurt, so it was never recorded down. On the reverse side, if they really cared about adverse reactions and followed up on every patient, and I said my arm muscles were twitching weird and causing pain, and they wanted to lower the number of adverse reactions so their study would get corporate funding, they could say "that's unrelated to the shot, you probably just slept funny" and write it off.
If they define "adverse reaction" as "this study is making us millions of dollars, only the most extreme, obvious, and incontrovertible provably related side-effects will be counted", then "adverse reaction" likely means "immediate allergic reaction within a half hour of the shot", and MAYBE "cytokene storm within a day". Which means it likely is much more dangerous than that in reality because they're undercounting it.
If they define it as "anything weird happening for a week after getting the shot, screw corporate funding, we're going to be honest pariahs", so it includes every miscarriage, every random puking, every muscle spasm, then obviously the shot would be SAFER than the numbers suggest since they'd get a lot of false positives.
But good luck getting them to define it if it is the first one, since that would give away their game, and thus their massive funding.
This also is adverse reaction and deaths so far. There are no long-term studies that have been done so five to ten years from now, we'll have to reassess whether it is worth it.
Because this worked really well since mankind's birth and up to mid 20th century...
post direct link and mirror