Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Vaccine trial whistle blower" video.

@annaredding Yes, and only 170 positive cases. So the data we have on efficacy hinges on those 170 people. That's the issue. Stop being purposefully dense and manufacturing consent for these hucksters.
6
@angrytedtalks "the goal of the vaccine was to keep people alive by boosting immunity" - Then why the restrictions? "Natural immunity from having the virus alongside with the immunity from the vaccine is giving us herd immunity" - There's no herd immunity if you can still get it and spread. "Transmissibity is not the issue if you wear masks and minimise social contact" - Okay, but then why can't the unvaccinated do everything the vaccinated can and simply wear a mask? Why the mandates? Why are people losing their jobs and being denied the right to travel?
3
@angrytedtalks "evidenced by the results of a billion or more people" - A billion people weren't infected. You really should not misuse the word "evidenced" and then present no evidence. It would be unethical to infect a billion people to see if it works.
2
@faikerdogan2802 You're linking a piece of propaganda and a simplified video. Meanwhile you could read actual statistics that debunk your 95% number. Public Health England has a pretty good weekly report.
2
@annaredding Millions of people didn't have a choice and got it in late 2019-2020. If that was such a big issue, the fearmongering media would be reporting on it non-stop.
2
@MMG-q1v I'm afraid you don't know how the sausage is made. You're adding a ton of people who aren't required to know about the scam. These secrets have been kept for years. You're telling me that the tobacco industry didn't keep things under wraps? Or DuPont? Or Enron? Theranos?
2
@Truenorth747 The numbers of people who went untested could change the final outcomes. The safety data might remain unchanged, but effectiveness isn't.
1
@timtreefrog9646 "the high numbers in the Pfizer trials disguise the effects that these extra cases may have" - No, they don't. "Whether 170 or 170+477 (out of the 43,000 in participants) got COVID, the efficacy is still decent." - Are you out of your mind? "Using crude maths and 647 positive participants, this would take the efficacy down to 85%" - You're out of your mind. This is a joke, right? You have no clue how trials work, do you? The 43k people WERE NOT INFECTED to measure efficacy. This means that they DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS EFFECTIVENESS BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE EXPOSED. Think. Please, for the love of everything, THINK. The effectiveness data is relative risk reduction. This means that 8 vaccinated people getting it and 170 unvaccinated people getting it gives you the much touted 95% effectiveness. If we divide 470 by two and put 235 positive cases in the vaccinated group and another 235 positive cases in the unvaccinated... You get over 240 positive cases in the vaccinated group and 405 positive cases in the unvaccinated group. The relative risk reduction formula is (CER-EER)/CER which gives (405-240)/405 ~= roughly 40%. And I've placed half the unswabbed on the unvaccinated as a token of good faith. If all the unswabbed were in the vaccine group and they were meant to be positive... Oh boy...
1
@faikerdogan2802 "But with such an easy fix like getting a couple jabs the society as a whole can prevent a shit ton" - In Israel the "easy fix" was 4 jabs, and even then the numbers were most likely going down because they went over the peak and the curve was bound to collapse at some point. The couple jabs didn't allow society as a whole to get out of this.
1
@ofdrumsandchords "If you vaccine only 50 or 60% of a population, you run the risk of seeing the emergence of variants resistant to the vaccine" - First, due to logistics you'll always have a great percentage of the population that doesn't have the up to date vaccine as it is distributed to the elderly and vulnerable first, then emergency services and medical staff, etc. so by your own logic you cannot get rid of that risk. Second, the genetic testing in the SF Bay Area shows that the vaccinated are overwhelmingly carrying antibody resistant strains while the unvaccinated have approximately a 45-55 split. If anything, the vaccinated are a reservoir for prior strains while the vaccinated are the selective breeding ground for resistant strains.
1
@ofdrumsandchords Again, I just told you that the unvaccinated have a greater incidence of older strains, while the vaccinated are spreading the new strains with antibody resistance.
1
 @faikerdogan2802 Portugal has hit 1300 new daily cases sooner than they expected. They're essentially in for a rude awakening.
1
@ofdrumsandchords What?
1
@faikerdogan2802 No, they aren't. They're behind Israel. What's happening in Portugal started in Israel months ago. It's you who's fooling yourself. Their cases are already rising, and it's going to happen in the winter.
1
@faikerdogan2802 Israel had a peak during the summer. It's not normal for a working vaccine to let cases rise. If it worked, there would be no rise. Thanks for admitting it doesn't work. They're not doing much better than 2020. To do way better you have to do better than yourself, not better than other countries with different conditions.
1
@faikerdogan2802 Yeah, you got no argument so all you have is jokes and emojis. Your data is outdated and includes people who were in the ICU before the vaccine was distributed. The doctors and experts are constantly going on TV "baffled" that the measures are not working. They're the flat earthers who fell for the religious dogma and now were caught blindsided. More restrictions Christmas! Portugal is distributing the third shot now! Worked so well, they need an extra dose!
1
@faikerdogan2802 Define science class. The last science class called "science" I had 5/5 in middle school. The last science subject I had in highschool was geology and I had 17/20. If we count computer science as a science, I had 18/20 in a programming class in college. Before that it was a class on composites engineering the year prior to my programming class, I had 16/20. All the experts aren't advocating it. Only the ones with a voice. Doctors who go against the government guidelines may get their license suspended where I live. I mean, that's just an argument from authority. I already got you "on tape" saying that cases will rise in the winter, aka an admission that goes against what your precious experts are saying. They're still whispering in your ear that everything will be okay, even though you already told me you know it's not true. So why are you appealing to the experts? The ones who denied that there was human to human transmission? The ones who then admitted there was human to human transmission but said it wasn't airborne?
1
@MMG-q1v Harmful substances are regulated. Smoking is harmful. Tobacco companies hid the fact that it was harmful so they could fly under the radar. Please do not insult my intelligence. So it would be impossible for tobacco companies to hide evidence of the health effects of their product if computers existed? Then please explain how Syngenta was able to discredit studies done on Atrazine by coming up with the manual of practices to follow during studies in the 2000s and had lawsuits through the 2010s. Computers existed. What's your excuse now? I've seen people so incompetent they wanted to go ahead with studies using expired drugs never lose their position, and they go on TV and get praise for their work when they don't work worth a damn. Cafeteria worker my ass. These people have been failing upwards for decades. I've seen the sausage get made and it wasn't pretty. Seems like you need to take the blinders off. Maybe you'll get in trouble. Maybe you'll lose your job. You're not one of them. They'll trample over you and get a promotion. Should have made more friends at the top, I guess.
1