What's the best observational data (preferably prospective; test-negative case control studies absolutely do not count) that COVID vaccines reduce COVID hospitalizations MORE than they reduce total COVID incidence?
The pooled data in this meta-analysis don't look good at all.
87% against infection, 89% against hospitalization, virtually identical.
So far all the meta-analyses on pubmed seem to just have RCTs. The only RCT that vaguely supports this idea is the J&J trial, which itself is rather weird as it had almost no mild cases. Moderna is conceivably hiding a small difference due to underpowering.
This paper is supportive. In users of the COVID-19 Symptom Tracking App, 7.4% of unvaccinated went to hospital after positive test, 2.2% of fully vaccinated.
The vaccine spike protein is radically different from the natural spike protein, in ways that are likely to cause major differences in 3-dimensional structure, with emphasis on G-quadruplex formations.
By substituting G and C for other nucleotides (and this all apart from substituting pseudouridine for all the U) to make "synonymous" codons (produce the same amino acid, even though this is not the same and can be the difference between health and disease)...
The GC content of Pfizer is 53%, of Moderna is 61%, while natural is only 36%.
Apart from natural only making it inside your body in severe disease rather than being guaranteed by the injection, this makes the spike produced at orders of magnitude higher quantity...
The burden of evidence for any institution’s claim is on the institution.
The burden of skepticism is on the public.
It is the public’s civic duty to be skeptical of any institutional claim, as this is the only enforcing power held against the institution.
For example, if all the governments of the world tell us the mortality rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations but do not tell us the mortality rate of the 79% of hospitalizations for total COVID-like illness that test negative for COVID, we have a civic duty to distrust them.
We have a civic duty to assume they are hiding this with malicious intent and to treat them as such.
Why? Because they can reverse this perception instantaneously by revealing the data.
Absolutely stunning watching @AmeshAA spend practically 10-20 minutes trying to explain how getting a vaccine on the CDC schedule triggers a liability shield without ever admitting the liability shield exists.
It comes up twice during his segment, and he basically bends over backwards to explain how the vaccine court is a special court that incentivizes companies to make vaccines, without actually admitting they cannot be sued for damages.
He lists all kinds of supposed benefits of the vaccine court like access to experts and streamlining, as if experts can’t testify in regular court. He won’t just come out and say the difference is the taxpayers pay for it instead of the companies.
Now that conspiracy theorists have single-handedly taken down Perry’s NYS concentration camp bill, through spreading entirely correct “misinformation” online and through engaging in intellectually honest and highly adept conspiracy theorizing,
we now know that honest conspiracy theorizing is an extremely effective and honorable means of political action.
We must now take down our next target!
The CDC “green zones” or “shielding approach” is an open discussion of the implementation of C-word concentration camps in the United States.
This bill would allow the indefinite suspension of anyone so much as *suspected* of being an infectious disease case in the *opinion* of the governor or anyone the governor delegates.
Three of the most surprising things I uncovered in this interview:
There remain on the books thousands of patents for naturally occurring human genes, even though they aren't enforceable because of the 2013 Supreme Court decision.
The C-word virus would have had its genome patented if not for the 2013 Supreme Court decision.