On 2024-06-29 12:41 a.m., Anonymous wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> On 6/5/24 8:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:48 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>    * *greatly* reduce your chance of getting gravely ill or dying
>>>>>> from it
>>>>>>      if you do contract it (this is beyond rational dispute)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For at least one of the shots, this was only the case for 60 days.
>>>>> Then,
>>>>> it made you MORE likely to be hospitalized.
>>>>
>>>> Utter bullshit. That's why you don't have a citation for it. You're
>>>> just spewing bullshit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
>>>
>>> See slide 25.
>>
>> Unfortunately for you, Slide 25 doesn't support what you're claiming
>> (nor do slides 26-28 either).
>>
>> Because you clearly missed some important elements:
>>
>> First, CoVid isn't just a single genetic version, so the slide lists
>> performance against three then-predominant subvariants on a single
>> chart, specifically BA.4/5, BQ.1, and XBB.1.5
>>
>> It goes on to show a clear vaccine benefit for two of three (BA.4/5 &
>> BQ.1), out to its maximum recorded time window of 89 days since dose.
>>
>> So you're 2/3rds shot down already.
>>
>> But do you have any hope for the third subvariant of XBB.1.5?
>>
>> Only if you can overcome two problems for even this niche case.
>>
>> The first problem you have is that it does show that there's no mean
>> benefit from the original vaccine formulation, but the measured Median
>> time since last dose isn't your claimed 60 days, but is at 464 days
>> (1.3 years):  over 7x times longer than your claim: Fail.
>>
>> Your second problem you have is that the other one which didn't
>> provide clear benefit ("Bivalent...90-179 days), you also didn't read
>> for comprehension:  its Median time since last dose also isn't your
>> claimed 60 days, but is 136 days: over 2x longer too:  fail.
>>
>> So you're now fully shot down on this one too.
>>
>> And that's before we even note that you failed to its footnote too:
>>
>>
>> "** These estimates are imprecise, which might be due to there being a
>> relatively small number of persons in each level of vaccination or
>> case status. This imprecision indicates that the actual VE could be
>> substantially different from the point estimate shown, and estimates
>> should therefore be interpreted with caution.
>> Additional data accrual could increase precision and allow more
>> precise interpretation."
>>
>> Now we should also note that maybe you got the page# wrong, for
>> there's more data on hospitalization reduction on slides 26-28, but
>> these charts all show clear vaccine benefit for all conditions for the
>> mean.
>>
>> Plus even if we look at the total error bars, there's only two
>> instances where it even crosses over the zero, which are both for the
>> original vaccine, and have Median times since last dose of 334 & 394
>> days (0.9 & 1.1 years) respectively: owhere near your claimed "60
>> days".  Fail.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> I posted the wrong link.
>
> But in any case, the COVID clot shots aren't vaccines. A vaccine is
> supposed
> to provide the same sterilizing immunity compared to natural infection and
> recovery on a PERMANENT basis.
>
> But since you seem to like the shots, enjoy your wrecked immune system and
> possible myocarditis, among other adverse effects.

+1. The moment they admitted that the "vaccine" doesn't actually contain
any part of the virus they were used against, it should have been clear
that they weren't going to be safe or effective. What we know for a fact
today is that the more of the "vaccine" one took, the worse their immune
system became against every other kind of virus including the imaginary one.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 08:27:57 -0400, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
<snip>
>+1. The moment they admitted that the "vaccine" doesn't actually contain
>any part of the virus they were used against, it should have been clear
>that they weren't going to be safe or effective. What we know for a fact
>today is that the more of the "vaccine" one took, the worse their immune
>system became against every other kind of virus including the imaginary one.

I hope you can cite that because I smell bullshit.

Swill
NP: Beatles - Dear Prudence

Governor Swill wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 08:27:57 -0400, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
> <snip>
>>+1. The moment they admitted that the "vaccine" doesn't actually contain
>>any part of the virus they were used against, it should have been clear
>>that they weren't going to be safe or effective. What we know for a fact
>>today is that the more of the "vaccine" one took, the worse their immune
>>system became against every other kind of virus including the imaginary one.
>
> I hope you can cite that because I smell bullshit.

He doesn't understand mRNA vaccines (developed during Obama's term :-D).

Also, all he wrote above is bullshit. He probably doesn't know RNA from DNA.

--
You will be audited by the Internal Revenue Service.

On Jun 29, 2024 at 12:41:09 AM EDT, "Anonymous" <anon@anon.net> wrote:

> -hh wrote:
>> On 6/5/24 8:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:48 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> * *greatly* reduce your chance of getting gravely ill or dying from it
>>>>>> if you do contract it (this is beyond rational dispute)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For at least one of the shots, this was only the case for 60 days. Then,
>>>>> it made you MORE likely to be hospitalized.
>>>>
>>>> Utter bullshit. That's why you don't have a citation for it. You're just
>>>> spewing bullshit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
>>>
>>> See slide 25.
>>
>> Unfortunately for you, Slide 25 doesn't support what you're claiming
>> (nor do slides 26-28 either).
>>
>> Because you clearly missed some important elements:
>>
>> First, CoVid isn't just a single genetic version, so the slide lists
>> performance
>> against three then-predominant subvariants on a single chart, specifically
>> BA.4/5, BQ.1, and XBB.1.5
>>
>> It goes on to show a clear vaccine benefit for two of three (BA.4/5 & BQ.1),
>> out
>> to its maximum recorded time window of 89 days since dose.
>>
>> So you're 2/3rds shot down already.
>>
>> But do you have any hope for the third subvariant of XBB.1.5?
>>
>> Only if you can overcome two problems for even this niche case.
>>
>> The first problem you have is that it does show that there's no mean benefit
>> from the original vaccine formulation, but the measured Median time since last
>> dose isn't your claimed 60 days, but is at 464 days (1.3 years): over 7x times
>> longer than your claim: Fail.
>>
>> Your second problem you have is that the other one which didn't provide clear
>> benefit ("Bivalent...90-179 days), you also didn't read for comprehension: its
>> Median time since last dose also isn't your claimed 60 days, but is 136 days:
>> over 2x longer too: fail.
>>
>> So you're now fully shot down on this one too.
>>
>> And that's before we even note that you failed to its footnote too:
>>
>>
>> "** These estimates are imprecise, which might be due to there being a
>> relatively small number of persons in each level of vaccination or case status.
>> This imprecision indicates that the actual VE could be substantially different
>> from the point estimate shown, and estimates should therefore be interpreted
>> with caution.
>> Additional data accrual could increase precision and allow more precise
>> interpretation."
>>
>> Now we should also note that maybe you got the page# wrong, for there's more
>> data on hospitalization reduction on slides 26-28, but these charts all show
>> clear vaccine benefit for all conditions for the mean.
>>
>> Plus even if we look at the total error bars, there's only two instances where
>> it even crosses over the zero, which are both for the original vaccine, and
>> have
>> Median times since last dose of 334 & 394 days (0.9 & 1.1 years) respectively:
>> owhere near your claimed "60 days". Fail.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> I posted the wrong link.

So where is the "correct" link?

> But in any case, the COVID clot shots aren't vaccines. A vaccine is supposed
> to provide the same sterilizing immunity compared to natural infection and
> recovery on a PERMANENT basis.

Covid did not work like that. There were lots of people who caught covid a
second time - without any shots - and it was worse the second time around. So
much for "natural infection and
recovery on a PERMANENT basis."

> But since you seem to like the shots, enjoy your wrecked immune system and
> possible myocarditis, among other adverse effects.

Do you have another "wrong link" that does not support THIS bullshit claim?
I could use another laugh. And my immune system is fine.

The primary difference between Fauci/BigPharma and BigCoal is:

Fauci is closer to Satan himself.

Relf wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> The primary difference between Fauci/BigPharma and BigCoal is:
>
> Fauci is closer to Satan himself.

Nah, Fauci is a diligent public servant that got caught between Scylla and
Charybdis.

"Why do you try to cheat? And trample people under your feet?
Don't you know it is wrong to cheat the trying man.
Don't you know it is wrong to cheat the trying man.
So you better stop, it is the wrong 'em boyo."
-- The Clash

Imagine Trump on your ass for countering his bullshit about bleach, sunlight,
and ivermectin.

--
Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear--not absence of fear.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"

On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 20:00:18 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:

>Relf wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> The primary difference between Fauci/BigPharma and BigCoal is:
>>
>> Fauci is closer to Satan himself.
>
>Nah, Fauci is a diligent public servant that got caught between Scylla and
>Charybdis.
>
> "Why do you try to cheat? And trample people under your feet?
> Don't you know it is wrong to cheat the trying man.
> Don't you know it is wrong to cheat the trying man.
> So you better stop, it is the wrong 'em boyo."
> -- The Clash
>
>Imagine Trump on your ass for countering his bullshit about bleach, sunlight,
>and ivermectin.

Or because electric airliners won't work on cloudy days. ROTFL!

Swill

Tyrone wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2024 at 12:41:09 AM EDT, "Anonymous" <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>
>> -hh wrote:
>>> On 6/5/24 8:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:48 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * *greatly* reduce your chance of getting gravely ill or dying from it
>>>>>>> if you do contract it (this is beyond rational dispute)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For at least one of the shots, this was only the case for 60 days. Then,
>>>>>> it made you MORE likely to be hospitalized.
>>>>>
>>>>> Utter bullshit. That's why you don't have a citation for it. You're just
>>>>> spewing bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
>>>>
>>>> See slide 25.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for you, Slide 25 doesn't support what you're claiming
>>> (nor do slides 26-28 either).
>>>
>>> Because you clearly missed some important elements:
>>>
>>> First, CoVid isn't just a single genetic version, so the slide lists
>>> performance
>>> against three then-predominant subvariants on a single chart, specifically
>>> BA.4/5, BQ.1, and XBB.1.5
>>>
>>> It goes on to show a clear vaccine benefit for two of three (BA.4/5 & BQ.1),
>>> out
>>> to its maximum recorded time window of 89 days since dose.
>>>
>>> So you're 2/3rds shot down already.
>>>
>>> But do you have any hope for the third subvariant of XBB.1.5?
>>>
>>> Only if you can overcome two problems for even this niche case.
>>>
>>> The first problem you have is that it does show that there's no mean benefit
>>> from the original vaccine formulation, but the measured Median time since last
>>> dose isn't your claimed 60 days, but is at 464 days (1.3 years): over 7x times
>>> longer than your claim: Fail.
>>>
>>> Your second problem you have is that the other one which didn't provide clear
>>> benefit ("Bivalent...90-179 days), you also didn't read for comprehension: its
>>> Median time since last dose also isn't your claimed 60 days, but is 136 days:
>>> over 2x longer too: fail.
>>>
>>> So you're now fully shot down on this one too.
>>>
>>> And that's before we even note that you failed to its footnote too:
>>>
>>>
>>> "** These estimates are imprecise, which might be due to there being a
>>> relatively small number of persons in each level of vaccination or case status.
>>> This imprecision indicates that the actual VE could be substantially different
>>> from the point estimate shown, and estimates should therefore be interpreted
>>> with caution.
>>> Additional data accrual could increase precision and allow more precise
>>> interpretation."
>>>
>>> Now we should also note that maybe you got the page# wrong, for there's more
>>> data on hospitalization reduction on slides 26-28, but these charts all show
>>> clear vaccine benefit for all conditions for the mean.
>>>
>>> Plus even if we look at the total error bars, there's only two instances where
>>> it even crosses over the zero, which are both for the original vaccine, and
>>> have
>>> Median times since last dose of 334 & 394 days (0.9 & 1.1 years) respectively:
>>> owhere near your claimed "60 days". Fail.
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> I posted the wrong link.
>
> So where is the "correct" link?
>
>> But in any case, the COVID clot shots aren't vaccines. A vaccine is supposed
>> to provide the same sterilizing immunity compared to natural infection and
>> recovery on a PERMANENT basis.
>
> Covid did not work like that.

Yes it did. Even the initial lab leak. If viruses and immune systems didn't
work like that, there would be no animal life on Earth.

Governor Swill wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 20:00:18 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>
>>Relf wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> The primary difference between Fauci/BigPharma and BigCoal is:
>>>
>>> Fauci is closer to Satan himself.
>>
>>Nah, Fauci is a diligent public servant that got caught between Scylla and
>>Charybdis.
>>
>> "Why do you try to cheat? And trample people under your feet?
>> Don't you know it is wrong to cheat the trying man.
>> Don't you know it is wrong to cheat the trying man.
>> So you better stop, it is the wrong 'em boyo."
>> -- The Clash
>>
>>Imagine Trump on your ass for countering his bullshit about bleach, sunlight,
>>and ivermectin.
>
> Or because electric airliners won't work on cloudy days. ROTFL!

Sharks versus boats sinking because of their batteries!
Nuke the hurricane! If that fails, use your Sharpie!
All hail Hannibal Lecter, wotta guy!
The radical left Democrat degenerates are aborting babies after they're born!
The windmill noise causes cancer!
George Washington never owned any slaves!
I am Tariff Man! My button is bigger than yours!
I aced the dementia screening! (So did a gorilla using sign-language).
Nice place, this Sioux Falls, Iowa.
Hit the body with light! Inject bleach! It'll go away in 2 weeks! A miracle!
Rake the leaves in the forests! The trees, after 18 months they explode!
Happy Mother’s Day to ALL, in particular the Mothers, Wives and Lovers of the
Radical Left Fascists, Marxists, and Communists ...
Happy Father’s Day to all, including the radical left degenerates ...
MAY THEY ROT IN HELL! MERRY CHRISTMAS!
I love the uneducated!

This <what Rex Tillerson said> has an actual chance to be President again.

--
There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
-- Mark Twain

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>Imagine Trump on your ass for countering his bullshit about bleach, sunlight,
>and ivermectin.

Fauci was worse. He's a doctor, so had no excuse for his idiocy and
lies.

--
"Why not show how Linux is superior? I know you can't but why not
give it a try?" - some thing

Governor Swill wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

On 7/2/24 3:56 PM, chrisv wrote:
> Governor Swill wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>

The question:
"...anybody and everybody who has power and influence should be indicted
for bad advice?"

Dodged.

Was that done because chrisv is a coward, or a hypocrite?
Of course, one can't logically exclude it being both. /s

-hh

On 6/30/24 12:34 AM, Anonymous wrote:
> Tyrone wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 2024 at 12:41:09 AM EDT, "Anonymous" <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> On 6/5/24 8:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:48 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     * *greatly* reduce your chance of getting gravely ill or
>>>>>>>> dying from it
>>>>>>>>       if you do contract it (this is beyond rational dispute)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For at least one of the shots, this was only the case for 60
>>>>>>> days. Then,
>>>>>>> it made you MORE likely to be hospitalized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Utter bullshit. That's why you don't have a citation for it.
>>>>>> You're just
>>>>>> spewing bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> See slide 25.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately for you, Slide 25 doesn't support what you're claiming
>>>> (nor do slides 26-28 either).
>>>>
>>>> Because you clearly missed some important elements:
>>>>
>>>> First, CoVid isn't just a single genetic version, so the slide lists
>>>> performance
>>>> against three then-predominant subvariants on a single chart,
>>>> specifically
>>>> BA.4/5, BQ.1, and XBB.1.5
>>>>
>>>> It goes on to show a clear vaccine benefit for two of three (BA.4/5
>>>> & BQ.1),
>>>> out
>>>> to its maximum recorded time window of 89 days since dose.
>>>>
>>>> So you're 2/3rds shot down already.
>>>>
>>>> But do you have any hope for the third subvariant of XBB.1.5?
>>>>
>>>> Only if you can overcome two problems for even this niche case.
>>>>
>>>> The first problem you have is that it does show that there's no mean
>>>> benefit
>>>> from the original vaccine formulation, but the measured Median time
>>>> since last
>>>> dose isn't your claimed 60 days, but is at 464 days (1.3 years):
>>>> over 7x times
>>>> longer than your claim: Fail.
>>>>
>>>> Your second problem you have is that the other one which didn't
>>>> provide clear
>>>> benefit ("Bivalent...90-179 days), you also didn't read for
>>>> comprehension:  its
>>>> Median time since last dose also isn't your claimed 60 days, but is
>>>> 136 days:
>>>> over 2x longer too:  fail.
>>>>
>>>> So you're now fully shot down on this one too.
>>>>
>>>> And that's before we even note that you failed to its footnote too:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "** These estimates are imprecise, which might be due to there being a
>>>> relatively small number of persons in each level of vaccination or
>>>> case status.
>>>> This imprecision indicates that the actual VE could be substantially
>>>> different
>>>> from the point estimate shown, and estimates should therefore be
>>>> interpreted
>>>> with caution.
>>>> Additional data accrual could increase precision and allow more precise
>>>> interpretation."
>>>>
>>>> Now we should also note that maybe you got the page# wrong, for
>>>> there's more
>>>> data on hospitalization reduction on slides 26-28, but these charts
>>>> all show
>>>> clear vaccine benefit for all conditions for the mean.
>>>>
>>>> Plus even if we look at the total error bars, there's only two
>>>> instances where
>>>> it even crosses over the zero, which are both for the original
>>>> vaccine, and
>>>> have
>>>> Median times since last dose of 334 & 394 days (0.9 & 1.1 years)
>>>> respectively:
>>>> owhere near your claimed "60 days".  Fail.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -hh
>>>
>>> I posted the wrong link.
>>
>> So where is the "correct" link?

Silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise! /s

>>> But in any case, the COVID clot shots aren't vaccines. A vaccine is
>>> supposed
>>> to provide the same sterilizing immunity compared to natural
>>> infection and
>>> recovery on a PERMANENT basis.

Oh, _really_?

Provide the medical citation that substantiates your claim that natural
infection & recovery provides "PERMANENT" (your word choice) protection.

Plus while you're at it, that vaccine & natural function only in this
mechanism of providing "sterilizing immunity" (again, your word choice).

>> Covid did not work like that.
>
> Yes it did. Even the initial lab leak. If viruses and immune systems didn't
> work like that, there would be no animal life on Earth.

Nah, you're merely demonstrating that you don't know much about either
viruses or immune system architecture & function. Suggest that you go
contract Measles so that you can reset your auto-immune system back to
an infant's 'zero', so that you can perhaps learn it correctly 2nd time.

-hh

On 6/29/24 2:16 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Governor Swill wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 08:27:57 -0400, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> +1. The moment they admitted that the "vaccine" doesn't actually contain
>>> any part of the virus they were used against, it should have been clear
>>> that they weren't going to be safe or effective. What we know for a fact
>>> today is that the more of the "vaccine" one took, the worse their immune
>>> system became against every other kind of virus including the imaginary one.
>>
>> I hope you can cite that because I smell bullshit.
>
> He doesn't understand mRNA vaccines (developed during Obama's term :-D).

Further than that: the early scientific papers were in the late 1980s,
and the first human clinical trials were in 2001 (Bush Jr).

The work that's notionally attributed to Obama started in 2008 (GWB)
with the founding of BioNTech, although the DARPA initiative proper
started in 2010 (Obama) by Dr Dan Wattendorf, largely due to recognition
of military-centric threats. It wasn't cancelled under Trump, so by
2019, the DARPA work was reaching a major milestone of a full-up test
run (funded) ... CoVid hit, and DARPA pivoted to "This is NOT a Drill".
We got damn lucky.

>
> Also, all he wrote above is bullshit. He probably doesn't know RNA from DNA.
>

Indeed, it is evidence that they are quite profoundly poorly informed on
biological sciences ... and much more, including HSR laws & procedures.

-hh

>
>'Fauci Admits He Made Up Tyrannical COVID Guidelines Including Child
>Masking and Social Distancing - Were Based on Mere Assumptions, Not
>Science'
>

Trump obeyed every order Fauci gave him becuause he was a weak President,
with a small brain. Let's hope this doesn't end with Fauci.

Trump must be held accountable for blindly following Fauci's orders and being
afraid to push back.

>> <https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/fauci-admits-he-made-up-tyrann
>> ical-covid-guidelines/>
>
>Yup, "Dr." Fauxci taught the whole world how NOT to handle an epidemic...

Gateway pundit knows the science. If you want to avoid becoming an enemy of
the state, don't disagree with them because Jim Hofe is way smarter than
you'll ever be.

On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:56:54 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 15:16:24 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Governor Swill wrote:
>>
>>>>Fauci was worse. He's a doctor, so had no excuse for his idiocy and
>>>>lies.
>>>
>>>Only Fauci doesn't set policy or run the country.
>>
>>He had power and influence. Sheesh.
>
>So, anybody and everybody who has power and influence should be indicted for bad advice?
>
>Swill
>NP: Tyler Hubbard - '73 Beetle

>> (snipped, unread)

Why?

Swill

-hh wrote:
> On 6/30/24 12:34 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>> Tyrone wrote:
>>> On Jun 29, 2024 at 12:41:09 AM EDT, "Anonymous" <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>> On 6/5/24 8:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:48 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     * *greatly* reduce your chance of getting gravely ill or dying from it
>>>>>>>>>       if you do contract it (this is beyond rational dispute)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For at least one of the shots, this was only the case for 60 days. Then,
>>>>>>>> it made you MORE likely to be hospitalized.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Utter bullshit. That's why you don't have a citation for it. You're just
>>>>>>> spewing bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See slide 25.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately for you, Slide 25 doesn't support what you're claiming
>>>>> (nor do slides 26-28 either).
>>>>>
>>>>> Because you clearly missed some important elements:
>>>>>
>>>>> First, CoVid isn't just a single genetic version, so the slide lists
>>>>> performance
>>>>> against three then-predominant subvariants on a single chart, specifically
>>>>> BA.4/5, BQ.1, and XBB.1.5
>>>>>
>>>>> It goes on to show a clear vaccine benefit for two of three (BA.4/5 & BQ.1),
>>>>> out
>>>>> to its maximum recorded time window of 89 days since dose.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're 2/3rds shot down already.
>>>>>
>>>>> But do you have any hope for the third subvariant of XBB.1.5?
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if you can overcome two problems for even this niche case.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first problem you have is that it does show that there's no mean benefit
>>>>> from the original vaccine formulation, but the measured Median time since last
>>>>> dose isn't your claimed 60 days, but is at 464 days (1.3 years): over 7x times
>>>>> longer than your claim: Fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your second problem you have is that the other one which didn't provide clear
>>>>> benefit ("Bivalent...90-179 days), you also didn't read for comprehension:
>>>>> its
>>>>> Median time since last dose also isn't your claimed 60 days, but is 136 days:
>>>>> over 2x longer too:  fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're now fully shot down on this one too.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's before we even note that you failed to its footnote too:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "** These estimates are imprecise, which might be due to there being a
>>>>> relatively small number of persons in each level of vaccination or case
>>>>> status.
>>>>> This imprecision indicates that the actual VE could be substantially different
>>>>> from the point estimate shown, and estimates should therefore be interpreted
>>>>> with caution.
>>>>> Additional data accrual could increase precision and allow more precise
>>>>> interpretation."
>>>>>
>>>>> Now we should also note that maybe you got the page# wrong, for there's more
>>>>> data on hospitalization reduction on slides 26-28, but these charts all show
>>>>> clear vaccine benefit for all conditions for the mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plus even if we look at the total error bars, there's only two instances where
>>>>> it even crosses over the zero, which are both for the original vaccine, and
>>>>> have
>>>>> Median times since last dose of 334 & 394 days (0.9 & 1.1 years) respectively:
>>>>> owhere near your claimed "60 days".  Fail.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -hh
>>>>
>>>> I posted the wrong link.
>>>
>>> So where is the "correct" link?
>
> Silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s
>
>
>>>> But in any case, the COVID clot shots aren't vaccines. A vaccine is supposed
>>>> to provide the same sterilizing immunity compared to natural infection and
>>>> recovery on a PERMANENT basis.
>
> Oh, _really_?

Before the CDC redefined it.

> Provide the medical citation that substantiates your claim that natural
> infection & recovery provides "PERMANENT" (your word choice) protection.
>
> Plus while you're at it, that vaccine & natural function only in this mechanism
> of providing "sterilizing immunity" (again, your word choice).
>
>
>
>>> Covid did not work like that.
>>
>> Yes it did. Even the initial lab leak. If viruses and immune systems didn't
>> work like that, there would be no animal life on Earth.
>
>
> Nah, you're merely demonstrating that you don't know much about either viruses
> or immune system architecture & function.  Suggest that you go contract Measles
> so that you can reset your auto-immune system back to an infant's 'zero', so
> that you can perhaps learn it correctly 2nd time.

Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.

On 7/3/24 1:22 AM, Anonymous wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> On 6/30/24 12:34 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>> On Jun 29, 2024 at 12:41:09 AM EDT, "Anonymous" <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/5/24 8:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:48 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     * *greatly* reduce your chance of getting gravely ill or
>>>>>>>>>> dying from it
>>>>>>>>>>       if you do contract it (this is beyond rational dispute)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For at least one of the shots, this was only the case for 60
>>>>>>>>> days. Then,
>>>>>>>>> it made you MORE likely to be hospitalized.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Utter bullshit. That's why you don't have a citation for it.
>>>>>>>> You're just
>>>>>>>> spewing bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See slide 25.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, Slide 25 doesn't support what you're claiming
>>>>>> (nor do slides 26-28 either).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you clearly missed some important elements:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, CoVid isn't just a single genetic version, so the slide lists
>>>>>> performance
>>>>>> against three then-predominant subvariants on a single chart,
>>>>>> specifically
>>>>>> BA.4/5, BQ.1, and XBB.1.5
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It goes on to show a clear vaccine benefit for two of three
>>>>>> (BA.4/5 & BQ.1),
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> to its maximum recorded time window of 89 days since dose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're 2/3rds shot down already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But do you have any hope for the third subvariant of XBB.1.5?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if you can overcome two problems for even this niche case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first problem you have is that it does show that there's no
>>>>>> mean benefit
>>>>>> from the original vaccine formulation, but the measured Median
>>>>>> time since last
>>>>>> dose isn't your claimed 60 days, but is at 464 days (1.3 years):
>>>>>> over 7x times
>>>>>> longer than your claim: Fail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your second problem you have is that the other one which didn't
>>>>>> provide clear
>>>>>> benefit ("Bivalent...90-179 days), you also didn't read for
>>>>>> comprehension: its
>>>>>> Median time since last dose also isn't your claimed 60 days, but
>>>>>> is 136 days:
>>>>>> over 2x longer too:  fail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're now fully shot down on this one too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's before we even note that you failed to its footnote too:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "** These estimates are imprecise, which might be due to there
>>>>>> being a
>>>>>> relatively small number of persons in each level of vaccination or
>>>>>> case status.
>>>>>> This imprecision indicates that the actual VE could be
>>>>>> substantially different
>>>>>> from the point estimate shown, and estimates should therefore be
>>>>>> interpreted
>>>>>> with caution.
>>>>>> Additional data accrual could increase precision and allow more
>>>>>> precise
>>>>>> interpretation."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now we should also note that maybe you got the page# wrong, for
>>>>>> there's more
>>>>>> data on hospitalization reduction on slides 26-28, but these
>>>>>> charts all show
>>>>>> clear vaccine benefit for all conditions for the mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plus even if we look at the total error bars, there's only two
>>>>>> instances where
>>>>>> it even crosses over the zero, which are both for the original
>>>>>> vaccine, and
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> Median times since last dose of 334 & 394 days (0.9 & 1.1 years)
>>>>>> respectively:
>>>>>> owhere near your claimed "60 days".  Fail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>
>>>>> I posted the wrong link.
>>>>
>>>> So where is the "correct" link?
>>
>> Silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s

More silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise! /s

>>
>>
>>>>> But in any case, the COVID clot shots aren't vaccines. A vaccine is
>>>>> supposed
>>>>> to provide the same sterilizing immunity compared to natural
>>>>> infection and
>>>>> recovery on a PERMANENT basis.
>>
>> Oh, _really_?
>
> Before the CDC redefined it.

Got cite?

Wayback Machine will have the CDC's old (pre-"redefined") webpages, so
you have no excuse for not clearly substantiating your claim.

>> Provide the medical citation that substantiates your claim that
>> natural infection & recovery provides "PERMANENT" (your word choice)
>> protection.
>>
>> Plus while you're at it, that vaccine & natural function only in this
>> mechanism of providing "sterilizing immunity" (again, your word choice).
>>

Once again, silence on substantiation...shocking! /s

>>>> Covid did not work like that.
>>>
>>> Yes it did. Even the initial lab leak. If viruses and immune systems
>>> didn't
>>> work like that, there would be no animal life on Earth.
>>
>>
>> Nah, you're merely demonstrating that you don't know much about either
>> viruses or immune system architecture & function.  Suggest that you go
>> contract Measles so that you can reset your auto-immune system back to
>> an infant's 'zero', so that you can perhaps learn it correctly 2nd time.
>
> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.

Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots. Plus
I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided
"100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006.
My Meningococcal & Typhoid expired in 2021, but Tetanus & Yellow Fever
vaccinations don't need to be renewed before 2026.

-hh

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:

>
>>
>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>
> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots. Plus
> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided
> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006.

Some of us are old enough to remember
the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
We were terrified of it. And when the
vaccine came out parents lined their
children up for blocks at our local school
to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
1979 they put aside their religious
convictions and got vaccinated.

On Wed, 03 Jul 2024 13:54:48 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> wrote:

>-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>
>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots. Plus
>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided
>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006.
>
>
>
> Some of us are old enough to remember
>the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
>swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
>We were terrified of it. And when the
>vaccine came out parents lined their
>children up for blocks at our local school
>to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
>we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
>Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
>1979 they put aside their religious
>convictions and got vaccinated.

Make vaccinations entirely optional. Go ahead. I dare you. A couple generations from
now parents will be BEGGING to get their kids vaccinated.

Swill

Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:m67b8jha34ib27ab6l1789mlggo6p5i7d5@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 03 Jul 2024 13:54:48 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>
>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots.
>>> Plus I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never
>>> provided "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for
>>> Polio in 2006.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some of us are old enough to remember
>>the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
>>swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
>>We were terrified of it. And when the
>>vaccine came out parents lined their
>>children up for blocks at our local school
>>to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
>>we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
>>Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
>>1979 they put aside their religious
>>convictions and got vaccinated.
>
> Make vaccinations entirely optional. Go ahead. I dare you. A couple
> generations from now parents will be BEGGING to get their kids
> vaccinated.

Sadly there are parents who are
willing to sacrifice their children's
lives over their principles.

Faith-Healing Parents Letting Their Kids Die
February 24, 2015

Over the past three years, twelve children in Idaho
have died from completely preventable causes like
pneumonia and food poisoning. Why? Because their
parents, primarily members of a faith-healing sect
called the Followers of Christ have refused to get
them medical attention.

Idaho is one of six states in the country that allow
religious exemptions in cases of negligent homicide,
manslaughter and capital murder. It is one of 32 that
allow religious exemptions in child endangerment cases.
Due to laws fought for in the 1970s by Christian
Scientists, parents in a plurality of states have the
right to refuse medical care for their children on
religious grounds.

Some people in Idaho want something done about that.
State Rep. John Gannon (D-Boise) has proposed a law
that will hold parents accountable if refusing to
provide medical care for their children leads to that
child�s death or permanent disability.

Opposing the law is Rep. Christy Perry, who believes
that parents should have the right to let their kids
die of preventable diseases.

"They do not look to the government to help them at
all," said Perry, speaking about Followers of Christ.
"They�re very self-sufficient and know how to take
care of themselves. In Canyon County, people hunt to
feed their families. They fish. They grow their own
food."

Faith healers, she said, are not uncaring parents. They
simply trust God above doctors and have faith that God
will do what�s right.

"They are comforted by the fact that they know their
child is in heaven," Perry said. "If I want to let my
child be with God, why is that wrong?"

Furthermore, she said, she�s unsure of the motives of
those who want to see faith-healing protections removed.

"Is it really because these children are dying more so
than other children? Or is this really about an attack
on a religion you don�t agree with?"

http://tinyurl.com/q5mg8va

-hh wrote:
> On 7/3/24 1:22 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> On 6/30/24 12:34 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 29, 2024 at 12:41:09 AM EDT, "Anonymous" <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 8:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:48 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     * *greatly* reduce your chance of getting gravely ill or dying
>>>>>>>>>>> from it
>>>>>>>>>>>       if you do contract it (this is beyond rational dispute)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For at least one of the shots, this was only the case for 60 days. Then,
>>>>>>>>>> it made you MORE likely to be hospitalized.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Utter bullshit. That's why you don't have a citation for it. You're just
>>>>>>>>> spewing bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See slide 25.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, Slide 25 doesn't support what you're claiming
>>>>>>> (nor do slides 26-28 either).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because you clearly missed some important elements:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, CoVid isn't just a single genetic version, so the slide lists
>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>> against three then-predominant subvariants on a single chart, specifically
>>>>>>> BA.4/5, BQ.1, and XBB.1.5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It goes on to show a clear vaccine benefit for two of three (BA.4/5 & BQ.1),
>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>> to its maximum recorded time window of 89 days since dose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you're 2/3rds shot down already.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But do you have any hope for the third subvariant of XBB.1.5?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if you can overcome two problems for even this niche case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first problem you have is that it does show that there's no mean benefit
>>>>>>> from the original vaccine formulation, but the measured Median time since
>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>> dose isn't your claimed 60 days, but is at 464 days (1.3 years): over 7x
>>>>>>> times
>>>>>>> longer than your claim: Fail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your second problem you have is that the other one which didn't provide
>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>> benefit ("Bivalent...90-179 days), you also didn't read for
>>>>>>> comprehension: its
>>>>>>> Median time since last dose also isn't your claimed 60 days, but is 136
>>>>>>> days:
>>>>>>> over 2x longer too:  fail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you're now fully shot down on this one too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that's before we even note that you failed to its footnote too:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "** These estimates are imprecise, which might be due to there being a
>>>>>>> relatively small number of persons in each level of vaccination or case
>>>>>>> status.
>>>>>>> This imprecision indicates that the actual VE could be substantially
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> from the point estimate shown, and estimates should therefore be interpreted
>>>>>>> with caution.
>>>>>>> Additional data accrual could increase precision and allow more precise
>>>>>>> interpretation."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now we should also note that maybe you got the page# wrong, for there's more
>>>>>>> data on hospitalization reduction on slides 26-28, but these charts all show
>>>>>>> clear vaccine benefit for all conditions for the mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plus even if we look at the total error bars, there's only two instances
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> it even crosses over the zero, which are both for the original vaccine, and
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> Median times since last dose of 334 & 394 days (0.9 & 1.1 years)
>>>>>>> respectively:
>>>>>>> owhere near your claimed "60 days".  Fail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I posted the wrong link.
>>>>>
>>>>> So where is the "correct" link?
>>>
>>> Silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s
>
> More silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> But in any case, the COVID clot shots aren't vaccines. A vaccine is supposed
>>>>>> to provide the same sterilizing immunity compared to natural infection and
>>>>>> recovery on a PERMANENT basis.
>>>
>>> Oh, _really_?
>>
>> Before the CDC redefined it.
>
> Got cite?
>
> Wayback Machine will have the CDC's old (pre-"redefined") webpages, so you have
> no excuse for not clearly substantiating your claim.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

>>> Provide the medical citation that substantiates your claim that natural
>>> infection & recovery provides "PERMANENT" (your word choice) protection.
>>>
>>> Plus while you're at it, that vaccine & natural function only in this
>>> mechanism of providing "sterilizing immunity" (again, your word choice).
>>>
>
> Once again, silence on substantiation...shocking!  /s
>
>
>>>>> Covid did not work like that.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it did. Even the initial lab leak. If viruses and immune systems didn't
>>>> work like that, there would be no animal life on Earth.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nah, you're merely demonstrating that you don't know much about either
>>> viruses or immune system architecture & function.  Suggest that you go
>>> contract Measles so that you can reset your auto-immune system back to an
>>> infant's 'zero', so that you can perhaps learn it correctly 2nd time.
>>
>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>
> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots.  Plus I've
> boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided "100% permanent
> sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006. My Meningococcal &
> Typhoid expired in 2021, but Tetanus & Yellow Fever vaccinations don't need to
> be renewed before 2026.

I'm enjoying my far superior natural immunity to Covid. I got the virus
years ago, before the shot was released, and I haven't had it since. If
I do get sick with it again, it likely will NOT be anywhere NEAR as bad
as it was.

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
> news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>
>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots. Plus
>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided
>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006.
>
>
>
> Some of us are old enough to remember
> the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
> swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
> We were terrified of it. And when the
> vaccine came out parents lined their
> children up for blocks at our local school
> to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
> we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
> Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
> 1979 they put aside their religious
> convictions and got vaccinated.
>
>
>

I'm not against ALL vaccines or even ALL prophylaxes, provided people tell
the truth about them.

"Byker" wrote:
> On 7/2/2024 10:22 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> On 6/30/24 12:34 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 29, 2024 at 12:41:09 AM EDT, "Anonymous" <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 8:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:48 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     * *greatly* reduce your chance of getting gravely ill or dying
>>>>>>>>>>> from it
>>>>>>>>>>>       if you do contract it (this is beyond rational dispute)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For at least one of the shots, this was only the case for 60 days. Then,
>>>>>>>>>> it made you MORE likely to be hospitalized.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Utter bullshit. That's why you don't have a citation for it. You're just
>>>>>>>>> spewing bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See slide 25.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, Slide 25 doesn't support what you're claiming
>>>>>>> (nor do slides 26-28 either).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because you clearly missed some important elements:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, CoVid isn't just a single genetic version, so the slide lists
>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>> against three then-predominant subvariants on a single chart, specifically
>>>>>>> BA.4/5, BQ.1, and XBB.1.5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It goes on to show a clear vaccine benefit for two of three (BA.4/5 & BQ.1),
>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>> to its maximum recorded time window of 89 days since dose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you're 2/3rds shot down already.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But do you have any hope for the third subvariant of XBB.1.5?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if you can overcome two problems for even this niche case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first problem you have is that it does show that there's no mean benefit
>>>>>>> from the original vaccine formulation, but the measured Median time since
>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>> dose isn't your claimed 60 days, but is at 464 days (1.3 years): over 7x
>>>>>>> times
>>>>>>> longer than your claim: Fail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your second problem you have is that the other one which didn't provide
>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>> benefit ("Bivalent...90-179 days), you also didn't read for
>>>>>>> comprehension: its
>>>>>>> Median time since last dose also isn't your claimed 60 days, but is 136
>>>>>>> days:
>>>>>>> over 2x longer too:  fail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you're now fully shot down on this one too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that's before we even note that you failed to its footnote too:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "** These estimates are imprecise, which might be due to there being a
>>>>>>> relatively small number of persons in each level of vaccination or case
>>>>>>> status.
>>>>>>> This imprecision indicates that the actual VE could be substantially
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> from the point estimate shown, and estimates should therefore be interpreted
>>>>>>> with caution.
>>>>>>> Additional data accrual could increase precision and allow more precise
>>>>>>> interpretation."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now we should also note that maybe you got the page# wrong, for there's more
>>>>>>> data on hospitalization reduction on slides 26-28, but these charts all show
>>>>>>> clear vaccine benefit for all conditions for the mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plus even if we look at the total error bars, there's only two instances
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> it even crosses over the zero, which are both for the original vaccine, and
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> Median times since last dose of 334 & 394 days (0.9 & 1.1 years)
>>>>>>> respectively:
>>>>>>> owhere near your claimed "60 days".  Fail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I posted the wrong link.
>>>>>
>>>>> So where is the "correct" link?
>>>
>>> Silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> But in any case, the COVID clot shots aren't vaccines. A vaccine is supposed
>>>>>> to provide the same sterilizing immunity compared to natural infection and
>>>>>> recovery on a PERMANENT basis.
>>>
>>> Oh, _really_?
>>
>> Before the CDC redefined it.
>
> The CDC didn't do that, cuntflaps.

Yes they did, Jonathan David Ball.