Comments by "" (@boghopper5463) on "Why Alberta's top doctor says it's safe to axe pandemic response amid fourth wave fears" video.

gnrforever 1978 quite right. which is why the jabs are not working anymore and the only difference between the jabbed unjabbed is that apparently, the jabbed have twice the viral load as determined with serological testing.
3
you mean keep testing with that pcr test that can’t differentiate between covid and flu, that same test that provides false positives 97% of the time with cycles at 35? (wasn’t alberta testing at 46 cycles?)
3
@RodneyWolfram good for you. stay strong. let’s hope this experiment works out well. please keep us posted.
1
try a search for this title: “Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS- COV-2 Isolation/Purification”
1
@peter12246 you might like to look for this essay FYI. Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95%effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data “There is a clear need for data to answer these questions, but Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine.” “Arough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be arelative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators.”
1
@peter12246 we both can acknowledge that Doshi’s investigation would be greatly assisted if he were to have access to the full dataset. regarding that 95% effective number you have referred to, again. you realize that is a relative risk reduction and by mandate by the FDA any vaccine trial must include the absolute risk reduction figures, which neither Pfizer or Moderna do. this would be 0.7% for Pfizer: you have to jab 140 people to see a reduction in symptoms in 1 person. have a look for this study for a good explanation. Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials "A critical appraisal of phase III clinical trial data for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 and Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 shows that absolute risk reduction measures are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Yet, the manufacturers failed to report absolute risk reduction measures in publicly released documents. As well, the U.S FDA Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) did not follow FDA published guidelines for communicating risks and benefits to the public, and the committee failed Medicina 2021, 57, 199 7 of 8 to report absolute risk reduction measures in authorizing the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines for emergency use. Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent."
1
@sugarfoot8053 yup. those same ones.
1