Vaccine

[Butcher Bob]

Is that what you call an alternative hypothesis?

No, I am simply pointing out why your hypothesis...

...the data strongly suggest that vaccines have been effective reducing transmission to near herd immunity.

...is incorrect.

An alternative hypothesis would be...
Whereas vaccination rates remained virtually unchanged throughout the Omicron variant wave, yet had a caseload (the peak) more than 3x greater than any other variant wave...that data would indicate the vaccines were ineffective at reducing transmission. However what that data would support, is that the natural immunity developed from such a large exposure is what brought us to current low levels of cases.

Do vaccines play a role in transmission?...maybe.
Did they effectively reduce transmission?...absolutely not.
Is the alternate hypothesis correct?...unknown, but given the data, it is far more likely.

[Munchy]

[Intrinsic]

."..is incorrect"
It is correct.

[Munchy]

[Intrinsic]

Thanks Bob.

Stephen Colbert had one too.

[roller24]

[rSin]

the verified numbers dont add up with facts as they emerge...

[roller24]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 152200206X

Food and Chemical Toxicology
Volume 164, June 2022, 113008
Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs
Author links open overlay panelStephanieSeneffaPeter A.McCulloughd
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.113008
Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons licenseOpen access
Highlights
•
mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

•
The spike protein is neurotoxic, and it impairs DNA repair mechanisms.

•
Suppression of type I interferon responses results in impaired innate immunity.

•
The mRNA vaccines potentially cause increased risk to infectious diseases and cancer.

•
Codon optimization results in G-rich mRNA that has unpredictable complex effects.

[Butcher Bob]

Is that what you call an alternative hypothesis?

No, I am simply pointing out why your hypothesis...

...the data strongly suggest that vaccines have been effective reducing transmission to near herd immunity.

...is incorrect.

."..is incorrect"
It is correct.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 152200206X

Thank you Roller. ...

16. Conclusions
There has been an unwavering message about the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 from the public health apparatus in the US and around the globe. The efficacy is increasingly in doubt, as shown in a recent letter to the Lancet Regional Health by Günter Kampf (2021b). Kampf provided data showing that the vaccinated are now as likely as the unvaccinated to spread disease. He concluded: “It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.” Moreover, the inadequacy of phase I, II, and III trials to evaluate mid-term and long-term side effects from mRNA genetic vaccines may have been misleading on their suppressive impact on the innate immunity of the vaccinees.

...as I've been maintaining all along.

[Intrinsic]

Reviewed the paper, I didn't find was any lab work, citations or experiments to verify thier hypothesis.
What we find in the actual publication is the only source of data is the CDC VARES raw data.
Conclusions based on known Unverified data. Holy shit! That's it, no experiments, no lab work, no verification, just vares. Holy shit batman.
Example

Table 4. Number of symptoms reported in VAERS,. restricted to the US population, for the year 2021, for various specific types of thrombosis, showing total counts for COVID-19 vaccines and for all vaccines. Pulmonary embolism, a highly related symptom, is also shown.

VARES is for reporting, anybody can report anything it's not verified it's not checked.
To use unverified data from vares, or anything, for evidence of anything is bullshit. I mean is not science


So what the fuc is going on here, using unverified data and trying to pawn it off a science??
Since there was no or peer review, in supposedly peer reviewed publication, I looked at the authors, first two and has been critique unfavorably for previous work outside their field.

One Has long been established and critiqued as a purveyor of misinformation. 3 are not qualified in cellular mechanics at all.
Kyriakopoulosc was the only one that had any qualifications for this type of paper on cellular mechanics.

This is not new. Charlatans been using VARES as scare tatics for awhile, this is just wrapped up in a pretty package.