Those newfangled COVID vaccines may not be as effective as advertised:
The 90%-95% numbers “measure” relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is completely different. In the Pfizer case, 99.57% of the unvaccinated people did not become infected, while 99.96% of the vaccinated people did not become infected. Therefore, the absolute risk reduction is 99.96% – 99.57% = 0.39%.
Source - https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2020/12/95-vaccine-efficacy-not-so-fast/
That doesn't sound like it's worth taking, does it?
But they might force us to take a vaccine anyway:
... there is legislative precedent dating back to a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1905 called Jacobson v. Massachusetts that allows the government to mandate vaccinations.
In that case, the Supreme Court said that states have under their police powers, which is under the Constitution, the authority to enact reasonable regulations as necessary to protect public health, public safety, and the common good. Vaccination mandates constitute exactly that kind of permissible state action to protect the public’s health. Even though it’s 115 years old, this continues to be the benchmark case on the state’s power to mandate vaccination.
Source - https://www.theorganicprepper.com/covid-vaccine/
One has to wonder - why did "our" government suppress an allegedly effective treatment (i.e., the HCQ-antibiotic-zinc cocktail) in favor of questionable new drugs (e.g., Remdesivir) and unproven, possibly ineffective vaccines?
What's really going on here?
No comments:
Post a Comment