We reported earlier on data that indicates that COVID vaccine effectiveness rapidly wanes to 0% and even enters negative territory, meaning that one is more likely to contract COVID-19 if vaccinated.
I appreciated your overview article "Science summary" very much. The more solid and widely comprehensible pieces like this, the better. I personally also appreciate that you can link to your own work for essentially every claim you make. Other readers might be more convinced if you directly referenced outside sources, but I'm sure you have thought of this.
I think rather highly of the HART group's work in general, but this would constitute a rather controversial point in the Health Freedom Movement. Their arguments certainly sound credible. I currently haven't got the time to dig into it, that's why I'm asking.
Yes, thought it best to link to our own posts to provide clarity at the bits we're focussed on, while they also provide the direct sources - especially helpful for those long and technical journal articles that say virtually nothing we're interested in, but have highly suggestive data buried in the appendices! As for this HART piece, I am very sympathetic. With OTN I try to focus on what I can really say, with the sources available, holding back a bit on what I actually suspect or believe. So I generally give the benefit of the doubt. I think it must be a bit of both, that the vaccines initially had some beneficial effect (though likely outweighed by the harms), but that that effect was highly exaggerated because of this sort of data manipulation. There is also the issue of 'with COVID or from COVID'. There also is the issue of how many unjabbed there really are; likely undercounted, which makes it look like we're doing worse than we are. But therein lies the strength of my summary report. Even using the data as given, likely very biased and suspect in order to benefit the narrative as much as possible, it still looks like the jab was at best useless initially, and is certainly harmful now. It still looks like the unjabbed, despite all the persecution, are doing brilliantly (health-wise) compared with the jabbed. And ultimately, that's how we can finally figure this out. As the jabbed continue to do poorly, it has to become obvious. Right? Right? *insert Padme and Anakin meme*
Yes, thank you for clarifying. I find myself in full agreement with you*, especially when it comes to sticking to what we can say for sure in our published analysis.
That is what I did on the subject of murdering (sorry, I meant manslaughtering or some other legally more "benign" form of homicide) children with COVID jabs, as drastic as that sounds. And is.
* I would emphasise, though, that any initial jab benefit is especially dubious because of what I would ballpark as a 0.005-0.05% kill rate in the initial however many (between jabs) plus two (after second jab) weeks during which one is counted as unjabbed in most statistics
I appreciated your overview article "Science summary" very much. The more solid and widely comprehensible pieces like this, the better. I personally also appreciate that you can link to your own work for essentially every claim you make. Other readers might be more convinced if you directly referenced outside sources, but I'm sure you have thought of this.
What do you make of this though?
https://www.hartgroup.org/wheres-the-evidence-for-waning-vaccine-immunity/
I think rather highly of the HART group's work in general, but this would constitute a rather controversial point in the Health Freedom Movement. Their arguments certainly sound credible. I currently haven't got the time to dig into it, that's why I'm asking.
Yes, thought it best to link to our own posts to provide clarity at the bits we're focussed on, while they also provide the direct sources - especially helpful for those long and technical journal articles that say virtually nothing we're interested in, but have highly suggestive data buried in the appendices! As for this HART piece, I am very sympathetic. With OTN I try to focus on what I can really say, with the sources available, holding back a bit on what I actually suspect or believe. So I generally give the benefit of the doubt. I think it must be a bit of both, that the vaccines initially had some beneficial effect (though likely outweighed by the harms), but that that effect was highly exaggerated because of this sort of data manipulation. There is also the issue of 'with COVID or from COVID'. There also is the issue of how many unjabbed there really are; likely undercounted, which makes it look like we're doing worse than we are. But therein lies the strength of my summary report. Even using the data as given, likely very biased and suspect in order to benefit the narrative as much as possible, it still looks like the jab was at best useless initially, and is certainly harmful now. It still looks like the unjabbed, despite all the persecution, are doing brilliantly (health-wise) compared with the jabbed. And ultimately, that's how we can finally figure this out. As the jabbed continue to do poorly, it has to become obvious. Right? Right? *insert Padme and Anakin meme*
Yes, thank you for clarifying. I find myself in full agreement with you*, especially when it comes to sticking to what we can say for sure in our published analysis.
That is what I did on the subject of murdering (sorry, I meant manslaughtering or some other legally more "benign" form of homicide) children with COVID jabs, as drastic as that sounds. And is.
https://rome2ruins.substack.com/p/we-miserable-fools
* I would emphasise, though, that any initial jab benefit is especially dubious because of what I would ballpark as a 0.005-0.05% kill rate in the initial however many (between jabs) plus two (after second jab) weeks during which one is counted as unjabbed in most statistics
Oh yeah, I doubt there is any benefit now. Not even the right strain...