Xanlet

The vaccines were developed by "Operation Warp Speed", a Trump initiative. You have Donald Trump to thank for Covid vaccines. Also, the virus had much higher danger to people who are obese, so a country like the USA was always going to fare poorly.

“NHL uniforms are considered by many to be the best in sports, and the history, tradition and respect that goes with our NHL sweaters is paramount to both the NHL and Fanatics,” said NHL commissioner Gary Bettman. “Fanatics listened to our players and clubs and preserved the quality, performance, and design of our uniforms to serve our world-class athletes. We have a shared commitment with Fanatics to serving our players and fans, and we are proud of what Fanatics has delivered to our new uniforms.” This dude just cannot stop himself from constantly lying

I am genuinely curious whether you read these papers or not. Because this paper states: "Furthermore, previous studies have reported higher Ct values of RdRp, E, and N genes in vaccinated COVID-19 patients compared to those in unvaccinated patients, which is similar to the results of the present study [22, 23]. However, in these previous studies, potential confounders were not considered when comparing Ct values according to the vaccination status. In contrast, we compared the least square mean of Ct values after adjusting for age, sex, infection route, comorbidity, and nationality. Therefore, a less biased comparison of Ct values according to vaccination status was available in our study. In addition, we found that the vaccine was effective in preventing the highest viral load (Ct <15) in age groups younger than 40 years. However, in contrast to our findings, another study was reported that vaccination had no association with lower viral load [24]. Therefore, additional research is needed to establish the relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and viral load." This is how they arrive at the conclusion you reference, even though the data is as follows: "Additionally, higher Ct values for the RdRp gene were observed in the fully vaccinated group compared to those in the unvaccinated and partially vaccinated groups (p<0.01)." and "In post-hoc analysis, we found that the mean Ct value of RdRp gene in unvaccinated group was significantly lower than that in partially vaccinated group and fully vaccinate group." In other words, they found higher viral loads in fully vaccinated people, but they didn't like that, do they changed how they calculated the data to come up with a different result (choosing the "least square mean" and adjusting for other characteristics rather than simply presenting the total data. Doing this introduces the authors biases into the dataset). Also note the awkward and forced wording of "we found that the vaccine was effective in preventing the highest viral load (Ct <15) in age groups younger than 40 years." Basically they had to go looking for an outlier to focus on rather than taking the data as a whole which would be more accurate and less prone to error and bias. In short, they found HIGHER Ct values in vaccinated people, but to form their conclusions, they shuffled the data until it showed what they wanted. This one was conducted in China and funded by the CPP which leads to some hilarity such as the following direct quote from the paper: "The TV group showed a similar incubation period of SARS-CoV-2 as the NV and OV groups. However, the cycle threshold value of SARS-CoV-2 was higher in the TV group (32.4 ± 5.1) than in the NV (28.4 ± 5.7) and OV groups (29.4 ± 5.4, p < 0.01), and time to peak viral load were shorter in the TV group (3.5 ± 2.3 d) than in the NV (4.8 ± 2.8 d) and OV groups (4.8 ± 2.9 d, p = 0.03, Figure 2)." Followed by this graph (note the caption under the graph) "The TV (two vaccinated) group showed the lower viral load and shorter time to peak than NV (no vaccine) and OV (one vaccine) groups (p<0.05)" Whoopsie! Just a teeny tiny little fib there! The Two Vaccine group (red triangles) very clearly cluster higher up the Ct value scale, and they even acknowledge that when setting out the raw data earlier! The cycle threshold is higher among the two vaccinated but the peak time is shorter, but when they went to caption the graph, they just state that it is both shorter and lower! Wonder how that little error found its way in there! I hope we can all at least find a little mirth in a CCP funded paper trying to tell you that the above chart has the red triangles lower than either the the black dots or the green squares. There might be an amusing reference to whether you see 4 or 5 lights here, but let's just assume this is a small typo by the authors. In any case, this paper showed that vaccinated people have higher Ct values than unvaccinated people when you actually look at the data. Interesting to note that all of the findings in this paper were within the margin of error, and that for Omicron, fully vaccinated people were actually a tiny bit higher, and boosted a bit lower than unvaccinated people: What more is there to say than that this paper states that the amount of viral load reduction is so slight and short lived that it "is negligible" in a population wide average? Again, reference this paper: "Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/ If the vaccine prevented or slowed infection spread, then highly vaccinated areas should have fewer cases than lowly vaccinated areas, yet the data shows NO DIFFERENCE. You do not need control groups to assess macro data, either the effect is correlated to the supposed cause, or it is not. In this matter, there is no correlation in the macro data to suggest vaccination lowers case rates. In conclusion, the papers you linked recognize their flaws and limitations, and even the effect they wish to show is slight and within the margin or error (and in some cases the reverse of what they want to show!).

Please state the criteria for which something is judged as "misinformation"

This is far from proven. In fact, evidence suggests the viral load is similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated people, as I have outlined in this thread but will reference again here: (1."In our study, mean viral loads as measured by Ct value were similar for large numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta variant surge, regardless of symptom status, at two distinct California testing sites." "There were no statistically significant differences in mean Ct values of vaccinated vs unvaccinated samples in either HYT (vaccinated 25.5 vs unvaccinated 25.4; P = .80) (Figure 1A) or UeS (vaccinated 23.1, unvaccinated 23.4; P = .54) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8992250/#CIT0012 (2."We observed no significant effect of vaccine status alone on Ct value, nor when controlling for vaccine product or sex" https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v7.full-text There are a number of different adverse events and many of them will have a risk each time a person takes the jab. For one, it has not been the common practice in North America to aspirate the needle during injection, which means each time a person injects you, there is a slight chance they inject into a blood vessel which will cause problems (aspiration is to pull back the plunger slightly to see if blood can be drawn, which indicates the needle is resting in a blood vessel and should be removed and injected in another place in the arm). Next, it has been observed that the spike protein is systemically distributed after vaccination, and that it potentially causes harm in some people (this is the conjectured mechanism for myocarditis). Thus, each time you are injected, and new spike protein is produced, you have another chance that it accumulates in the myocardium and causes damage. This graph shows that myocarditis in those under 40 is higher after a second dose than a first: (as a side note, this graph also shows that, in those under 40, two doses of Moderna were associated with higher rates of myocarditis than contracing the virus itself) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0 The vaccine companies themselves never tested the vaccine for third party benefit, they never tested it on how it effects transmission. Every claim I have heard about it's third party benefits seem completely baseless. In fact, if you just observe case data at a macro level and compare it to vaccine levels, there is no correlation at all in levels of case growth and levels of vaccination, suggesting the vaccines have no impace on spread at all. "Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/ So to recap: vaccination levels have no impact on case growth, and appear to have no impact on viral load when infected.

Again, when it comes to hospitalization and death, those at risk are 60 years of age and older, with 80+ having an EXTREME increase in risk, as this chart shows from the same source you postedNotice that in the unvaccinated category, 12 - 59 it is essentially a flat line at near 0 deaths and very few hospitalizations. Notice the line for 18 - 39 of unvaccinated cases (which skyrockets in unvaccinated but is actually higher in fully vacinated), yet the line does not budge off of near zero deaths and has the tiniest uptick in hospitalizations. This reinforced my point that the vaccines pose almost no benefit at all to those under 60 years of age. It's important to separate the data here, as the benefit is drastically more pronounced among 80+ category for vaccinated and unvaccinated in that age group, but for other age groups, vaccination has essentially no impact on death and very little on hospitalization. Also, the true number of adverse events is unknown. The vaccines have been linked to damage of the heart muscle, which is a condition which may remain subclinical (unknown to the person themselves) but may pose problems later in their life. Also, it seems many practitioners have been hesitant to attribute adverse reactions to the vaccine, which adds another variable of which we can't really know the effect. In regard to your point on surgery, I would definitely advocate that everyone avoid unnecessary surgery for the exact reason that every surgery has a significant risk of catastrophe. Remember, the vaccine has been relentlessly pushed on all Canadians regardless of risk profile or age group or anything, and pushed for Canadians to get it multiple times in perpetuity (I believe the guidelines still say for all Canadians to continue to get injections every 6 months) which increases the risk of adverse event with every jab. It's also interesting to note the very limited time frame for the above graph, as it is June 19, 2021 to January 1, 2022, about a 6 month period where vaccines were likely at their most effective, since after that, most individuals would have encountered the virus itself and gained natural immunity, making the difference between being unvaccinated with natural immunity and being vaccinated much less of a difference. Based on the available evidence, it does not appear favorable for younger age groups to take these vaccines.

According to the Government of Canada, 11,702 reports of serious adverse events have been recorded following vaccination and a further 47,010 non-serious adverse events have been recorded. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/ In terms of success, we know that obesity is an extreme risk factor for negative outcomes, thus a country like the USA would always have had worse outcomes than Canada. It's also important to remember that the average age of passing from Covid in 2020 was 83.8 years of age in Canada. In other words, the risk was vanishingly small for younger Canadians, and the risk of adverse events from vaccination does exist. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91f0015m/91f0015m2021002-eng.htm Based on this information, it seems clear that the risk/benefit analysis is not favorable for younger Canadians to have taken these vaccines. Much less so for healthy, fit, young, Canadians.

.

The state of Kansas is suing Pfizer over misrepresenting their Covid vaccine to the public. In this video, the Attorney General for the state of Kansas accuses Pfizer of telling the public their vaccine was safe for pregnant women while in the possession of evidence that it was associated with a TEN PERCENT miscarriage rate when administered to pregnant women. They also had information going all the way back to mice trials with still-born offspring, loss of litters, and infertility following vaccination. The lawsuit also details false statements about the effectiveness of the vaccines against new variants and its ability to prevent transmission. This is along with Pfizer's denial that their vaccine is associated with increased rates of myocarditis and pericarditis, despite many governments finding that it is. These are all statements made by the Attorney General of Kansas. Will be interesting to watch if other states join in on this one. There needs to be a reckoning on this. Whether you believe the vaccines or some of the vaccines were beneficial, misleading the public should not be tolerated. Hopefully the courts can get to the truth of the matter.

Tons of people, (in the millions in African countries for example), had zero shots. Some people had 6+ some people had 0. The risk factor doesn't change, it is 1 serious adverse reaction per 22,116 shots based on the numbers you provided. It's not risk per person vaccinated, it's risk per shot. Not sure why this is hard to grasp.

The data records total shots and total adverse reactions. What are you even suggesting? That the first shot has all the danger and that taking a second shot does not increase your risk that it will give you an adverse reaction? Even if you suggest that all the risk is in the first shot, you'd then have to divide the total adverse reactions by the number of people with at least single shot and the 1 in 22,116 would change to be a way higher risk because you've ruled out subsequent risks (in other words, to suggest the risk is concentrated in the first shot means the first shot must be riskier than my calculation to account for all the adverse reactions). It doesn't matter if you assume the risk is either in the first few shots or subsequent shots or evenly across all shots, it won't change the total risk factor across all the shots. The basic calculation is 1 adverse reaction per 22,116 shots. Not per person who had a shot, since that is not the 14 billion number, but across the shots themselves.

So if you got 6 shots you'd have a 6 in 22,116 chance that one of them would give you a serious adverse reaction. Simplify the equation by dividing both sides by 6 gives you a 1 in 3,686. Again, basic math.

This is across the entire pandemic. I think you just proved my point.

1 in 22,116 is the risk PER SHOT. If you get six, you multiple your risk by 6, so per person with 6 shots it becomes 1 in 3686.

Refer to this chart: The excess deaths for people under 45 is literally a completely flat line for the whole of 2020. There was simply no risk to young people of death from the virus. Match that against the very clear and present risk from the vaccine and the calculation is clear.