OF THE
TIMES
There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.. . . with satanic murderers emplaying all of the above and more besides, for 100s of years
I'm sure it makes you feel better to believe there is some sort of magic bullet. Unfortunately life and biology doesn't work like that. If something seems to good to be true, it very very likely is.OK, so what does work ?
If you do have any of these, or are over 50 you'd really really be silly not to get vaccinated.And how do you explain all this please: "Microbiologist explains COVID jab effects: Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi" at this [Link] wherein we can read:
How Effective Are the COVID Shots?
While the COVID injections have been characterized as being somewhere around 95% effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, this claim is the product of statistical obfuscation. In short, they've conflated relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is actually right around 1% for all currently available COVID shots.1
In "Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials"2 Ron Brown, Ph.D. calculates the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer's and Moderna's injections, based on their own clinical trial data, so that they can be compared to the relative risk reduction reported by these companies. Here's a summary of his findings:
Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 โ Relative risk reduction: 95.1%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.7%
Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 โ Relative risk reduction: 94.1%. Absolute risk reduction 1.1%
In a July 1, 2021, commentary in The Lancet Microbe,3 Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele and Michel Vaillant also argue for the use of absolute risk reduction when discussing vaccine efficacy with the public. They too went through the calculations, coming up with the following:
Pfizer/BioNTech โ Relative risk reduction: 95%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.84%
Moderna โ Relative risk reduction: 94%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%
Gamaleya (Sputnik V) โ Relative risk reduction: 91%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.93%
Johnson & Johnson โ Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%
AstraZeneca/Oxford โ Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.3%
The link between autism and vaccines is one of the most studied subjects in modern medicine, it has been thoroughly disproven,Not if you listen to RFK and have a look at the about 10yo mushroom cloud that is now the childhood autism stat and not if you listen to the many insider whistle blowers who've forward saying they knowingly fudged the stats.
If you think there are hundreds of decent studies that shows HCQ works, you don't know how to assess a study.By itself, HCQ is a non-starter, one needs Zn and an antibiotic, all of which has been well demonstrated and delineated by Zelenko very early on.
Where are you getting this stuff from?Well, there's this: "Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc vs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone: outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients" seen at this [Link] where the conclusion reads:
"Conclusion: This study provides the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19.=========
40-word summary: Zinc sulfate added to hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin may improve outcomes among hospitalized patients."
Why do you want an antibiotic in a viral infection that is so rarely associated with bacterial infection?To prevent the incredible amount of dead material in the lungs created by an immune system in overdrive from becoming infected.
Comment: The silence of the scam is being heard loud and clear - but not soon enough for up to 30k preventable deaths in the UK. Imagine the statistical obfuscation on the global scale!