Negative effectiveness. In other words, the Death Injections are maiming and killing people. And this is the slow kill program that will accelerate over time. Look for a far more troubling term than “negative effectiveness” in the near future, upcoming false flags and other distractions notwithstanding.
Imagine going to the butcher and he still has some turkey from last Christmas. The jabs are now like last year's turkeys ! They have expired and are now poisonous
imagine if last year's turkey was poisonous and so are this years....and they're rehashing these deadly birds to those that haven't keeled over, yet....
I just got messages from Organic Consumers Association and National Vaccine Information Center. Paypal refuses to take donations for them anymore. I suppose the Kennedy organisation is next. They try to oust the non conforming organisations.
I can assert that I'm the 2nd most Statistically Challenged Person in the World*, but I desperately want to understand this. My brain feels like it's been exposed to sandblasting on a windy day on the beach. One day I'm going to summons up the courage to try and understand what all those extra numbers in the brackets mean. For now I'm seeing 55.2% after primary (first two?), then a figure of 75.5% after booster. But the first seems to be a comparison to Delta (so is that 55% efficacy of the efficacy it was against Delta? Is this where the negative efficacy comes in?) and then the 2nd segues to a comparison with the unvaccinated (how do these comparisons work?! Why now suddenly compare to unvaccinated?). Then it seems to be saying it's a good thing to boost. I know that I'm seeing it exactly as the average dumb person is probably meant to be seeing it, so if you ever have the strength to give the statistically naive a crash course in this, I'll be keen to read a post on that!
*I allow for the possibility that 2nd may be too hopeful...
Ann, at least you read the abstract. There is NO mention of negative efficacy in the abstract and it clearly states that vaccine effectiveness is reestablished after a second vaccine. The title of this article is misleading and no - you should not just take their word for it. I challenge the self proclaimed 2nd smartest guy in the world not to remove this comment.
Gosh, heck no, CG. I even pressed on the little button that said "full text" at the time and looked at the pretty pictures and read things like "negative estimates". I also even went and looked at other people's analyses elsewhere and pondered their musings on such things as OAS and ADE. And that other similar anomalies were found with measles and RSV vaccines which were pulled. I even have the humility to admit my statistical limitations and I have absolutely no doubt that 2ndSGW is at least a tad bit smarter at this sort of stuff than I am, which I don't have a problem with saying. But gee wizz, I am even more resolved to figure things out now, CG. Because I can sniff gaslighting from a mile away. It's just something that us women have a knack for, you know?
Happy new year, CG. Go find someone else to pick on.
Imagine going to the butcher and he still has some turkey from last Christmas. The jabs are now like last year's turkeys ! They have expired and are now poisonous
imagine if last year's turkey was poisonous and so are this years....and they're rehashing these deadly birds to those that haven't keeled over, yet....
Yes, now this I CAN understand! 😂
That is a better comparison LOL
I just got messages from Organic Consumers Association and National Vaccine Information Center. Paypal refuses to take donations for them anymore. I suppose the Kennedy organisation is next. They try to oust the non conforming organisations.
I can assert that I'm the 2nd most Statistically Challenged Person in the World*, but I desperately want to understand this. My brain feels like it's been exposed to sandblasting on a windy day on the beach. One day I'm going to summons up the courage to try and understand what all those extra numbers in the brackets mean. For now I'm seeing 55.2% after primary (first two?), then a figure of 75.5% after booster. But the first seems to be a comparison to Delta (so is that 55% efficacy of the efficacy it was against Delta? Is this where the negative efficacy comes in?) and then the 2nd segues to a comparison with the unvaccinated (how do these comparisons work?! Why now suddenly compare to unvaccinated?). Then it seems to be saying it's a good thing to boost. I know that I'm seeing it exactly as the average dumb person is probably meant to be seeing it, so if you ever have the strength to give the statistically naive a crash course in this, I'll be keen to read a post on that!
*I allow for the possibility that 2nd may be too hopeful...
But for now, I'm more than happy to take your word for it! 😄
Ann, at least you read the abstract. There is NO mention of negative efficacy in the abstract and it clearly states that vaccine effectiveness is reestablished after a second vaccine. The title of this article is misleading and no - you should not just take their word for it. I challenge the self proclaimed 2nd smartest guy in the world not to remove this comment.
Gosh, heck no, CG. I even pressed on the little button that said "full text" at the time and looked at the pretty pictures and read things like "negative estimates". I also even went and looked at other people's analyses elsewhere and pondered their musings on such things as OAS and ADE. And that other similar anomalies were found with measles and RSV vaccines which were pulled. I even have the humility to admit my statistical limitations and I have absolutely no doubt that 2ndSGW is at least a tad bit smarter at this sort of stuff than I am, which I don't have a problem with saying. But gee wizz, I am even more resolved to figure things out now, CG. Because I can sniff gaslighting from a mile away. It's just something that us women have a knack for, you know?
Happy new year, CG. Go find someone else to pick on.