So, for a while I've been defending the vaccine. I do believe that it does some good for the elderly who are at risk of Covid-19, but I no longer believe that outweighs the damage it is doing to younger people.
If anyone's curious, I put the money into Realty Income Corp for now, which is now my largest holding.
Or just, you know, tumors.
I'm alive right now because of a treatment developed by Pfizer, it saved my life. And it's making lots of money for their stockholders too. These pharma companies can and do get it right from time to time.
Pfizer's also paid out billions in lawsuits, and were found to be bribing doctors to push their drugs.
There's a reason why you complete a trial, and one with scientific rigor before injecting billions of people. Trial end date for Pfizer is 2023. When they started injecting the public, they publicly stated they didn't know how long it would last, that the only severe adverse events were fatigue and headache. Their claim of 95% efficacy was based on 170 people. They also failed to keep the study blind, as researchers discussed with patients how the trial was going, and both participants and researchers were communicating online about how to identify if you received the vaccine.
I saw a release about this the other day.
Vaccine trial with 17000 patients at the very start of the pandemic and 99% of patients in both arms of the trial weren't even exposed to COVID. Again proving how redundant and absurd this whole exercise is.
Was it a safety or an effectiveness test?
Feb 2021 paper on COVID Absolute vs Relative Risk Reduction
This isn't the original article I came across, but it's a paper discussing the same concept.
The original press releases from Pfizer and Moderna claimed "95% effectiveness at reducing serious symptoms of COVID". Which is technically true and represents "Relative Risk Reduction" - ie That the vaccine did reduce symptomatic cases of COVID in the vaccine arm by 95% compared to the control arm.
The dishonest part though is that they failed to mention or account in their statistics that less than 1% of participants in either study arm actually acquired COVID.
So 99% of people in the study didn't benefit from the vaccine because they didn't need it. So real world effectiveness over the course of the study, "Absolute Risk Reduction" was closer to 1%. The vaccine did decrease cases of COVID by 95% in the 1% fraction that were exposed in the control arm, but in the big picture it didn't make any difference to the 99% of people who wouldn't have been exposed anyway and received no benefit.
There's a devil's advocate argument that the 99% of people in the study get ongoing protection from the study after it concludes. But it also shows how absurd all of this is when your landmark study in the midst of a pandemic that destroyed the world for two years can only demonstrate a 1% disease prevalence in your control arm that you offered no intervention to (ie 99% of people would have been fine anyway.
Efficacy test I'm pretty sure. It's from the original landmark Pfizer study first reported as "95% effective" back in November.
That's fair, but the vaccine is greatly harming people who have literally nothing wrong with them. I can't in good conscience continue to be invested in Pfizer while they continue to recommend vaccines to under 30s.
I barely can handle being invested in Microsoft, but I need at least one tech stock.
Good for you man, it's a token gesture but if it helps you sleep at night.
I don't think we're obligated to take a moral high ground. Whatever tactics work, we should use.
I wish this community was bigger, I have so many ideas to fight back but there's not enough people to make them work.
I manage my own portfolio instead of using indexes or ETFs, so I try to pick companies that are at least not openly in opposition to me.
Never been pro-vaccine for anyone until alts like Ivermectin, etc., are neutrally ruled out at the very least.
Well... yeah. It's still statistically beneficial to the elderly, but it always had questionable benefit to the young.
Also, Women. ARGGGH!
It brings down the chances of older people dying from 10% to close to 0%. What supposed damage to younger people outweighs that? Or are the mostly woke 'younger people' worth more than older people who have actually contributed to society?
The myocarditis.
Do a few cases really outweigh the benefit that it does for older people?
So does Ivermectin, apparently, and it has a half century of data to evaluate its risks and costs (effectively) nothing to administer.
You're not wrong, and it's criminal that they have been censoring any and all talk about Ivermectin. That said, compared to nothing I'd still say that the vaccine is quite a god bargain for those who are older. Even perhaps compared to Ivermectin.