Yeah. I'm scheduling a visit to my doctor to talk about the jab. She hasn't seen me in a while, so I'm not entirely sure if she's going to say anything specific about my questions, beyond just "take the jab". We'll see how it goes. Which one did you get? Pfizer?
Yeah, I'm getting Pfizer. I'm not really worried about side effects or dying of the vaccine in three years or bullshit like that, but I'm quite miffed that I was pushed towards getting a medication that is practically useless to me.
Here's a study on the efficacy of the Pfizer vaxx, I think:
Background BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against COVID-19 and is currently authorized for emergency use or conditional approval...
www.medrxiv.org
Some guy wrote a response to it, claiming that the study shows that the vaccine is practically useless. The response is in German, so I'll do my best to summarize it.
First of all, the study has good randomisation, but it is not properly blind; the doctors don't know who is vaccinated, but the patients do. Thus reporting of side effects might be flawed.
Second, the study is underpowered when it comes to the outcome "death".
Also, the study was deblinded in December, and participants who had the placebo could opt to get the proper vaccine then. This watered down the results further.
The main point of criticism seems to be that the study doesn't really touch on the important aspect, the absolute risk reduction of serious illness and death. The primary point of the study is the relative reduction of cold-like and influenza symptoms, death is not looked at.
The study then shows no difference between those who had a Coof infection and those who were vaccinated, which is to be expected.
However, the study only checks for antibodies, not T-cell immunity, and that critic claims that there's a significant background T-cell immunity in the population.
He claims the study shows mainly a risk reduction for mild illnesses, and the absolute reduction to get a serious case of the Coof in the SARS-CoV-2-naive population is 2.4 per mille, while the absolute risk to get the Coof among unvaccinated folks is 2.56 per mille. Apparently, that's basically the same risk as getting a rhino virus infection, with the same mortality of 0.5 per mille. Thus the study only shows a very miniscule absolute risk reduction for serious cases, but that's what the critic says is the important thing, and thus claims the study is worthless at showing the efficiency of the vaccine.
Furthermore he claims the study messed up studying the side effects because the duration was too short and allowing palcebo patients to get vaccinated ruined it all.
Here's the original article in German for those who want to check it out for themselves:
Zahlreiche Leser haben meine Aussagen zur Zulassungsstudie des Impfstoffs BNT162b2 kritisiert, weil ich der dort bescheinigten Wirksamkeit widersprochen habe. Warum ich das tat? Hier eine Antwort./ Foto: sophie & amp
www.achgut.com
/edit: I think that criticism should be taken with a few grains of salt, he tries to make it look worse than it is.
/edit2:
I'm wondering... I'm reading about leaked Pfizer documents (sorry if I'm late, I was on vacation and the great thing about southern Italy is that it's really fuckin' easy to forget the Coof is a thing because nobody there gives a shit) and how Pfizer is not responsible for any damages and stuff. If it turns out there's some serious long term damages going on, the governments pushing the vaccines would be in serious trouble. Maybe the push to get absolutely everyone vaccinated is to make it basically impossible to make a potential distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated if some odd long term effect appears, like some auto-immune bullshittery? I mean, that's just tinfoil hattery, the reality is most likely that politicians are just straight up stupid and dug themselves into a hole so they're just doubling down.
R but they never do. because those same rural and blue collar boys who sign up to serve their country will shut the fuck up and point a gun at the head of the neighbors dog and daughter if their officer commands them to.
