@CDCgov Poke @wanderer_jasnah @K_G_Andersen @angie_rasmussen we have data showing XBB.1.5 specific 💉 are a pretty good match for circulating variants BUT they are not recommended at population level to dramatically reduce infections altogether?! We can ac
RT @CLestuzzi: @mapurevoimah @Doctor_Gio_2 @m_ccini @piliani_zaolo @LaBombetta76 @giusbrindisi @robygt77 smettiamo di dire sciocchezze, per…
Un gesto vale molto più di 1000 parole….tutto chiaro, non sapevo più dove aggrapparvi… https://t.co/hywVChNDCG
@mapurevoimah @Doctor_Gio_2 @m_ccini @piliani_zaolo @LaBombetta76 @giusbrindisi @robygt77 smettiamo di dire sciocchezze, per favore. Il vaccino limita il contagio! E' dimostrato dagli studi sul personale sanitario, sottoposto a test periodici https://t.co
@nicolasberrod What we tend to forget is that when vaccines match circulating strains better, they dramatically reduce infections. Example here with alpha (17 mutations on spike vs WT) : vaccine prevented up to 90% of infections. Yes infections. 4/
@GYamey That guy again ? He’s going to ruin our booster campaign. The true benefits of boosters are at population level. See what we can achieve when boosters match circulating strains. Vaccines prevented 90% of infections when alpha was dominant
@JRobertJohnson4 @ggreenwald this CDC study, published that same day (3/29/21): https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ She reported that it said: "Now we know that the vaccines work well enough, that virus STOPS with EVERY vaccinated person... It [the virus] cannot use
@plusevadvisor @michaelkvance @KingLibertarian @chrisvanderveen It's the study from the article you linked. Findings are 90% effective with a CI of 95% and range including 97% which was within the margin of error. I hope you understand some of those word
@csrevolution0 @LovemycountrySd @thevivafrei Oops, link to the study: https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ One example, the study didn't cover transmission from breakthrough cases. She's said "the virus stops with every vaccinated person, it cannot use a vaccinated per
@myriampalomba @THEVENONPierri1 @FabianAllanic C'est marrant, toutes les sources scientifiques disent le contraire. https://t.co/v6M920NIOq https://t.co/CkkFJsmVT7 https://t.co/tuE88LBhfZ https://t.co/fjPBbD1PM7 https://t.co/BhGUAOxxP7 https://t.co/4Nt9uX
@kev07jah @_AWorthington_ @maddow They mean when she reported that a study said: "A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus? The virus does not infect them" "The virus STOPS with every vaccinated person... It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to
@GoSpeedChaser @BuzbyGreg @_AWorthington_ @maddow Sources 3/29/21 - The CDC study Rachel was reporting on (which wasn't about transmission & only included mRNA, not J&J): https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ Rachel's report on ☝️: https://t.co/ePhms64Ioe CDC d
3/5 Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Health Care Personnel, First Responders, and Other Essential and Frontline Workers — https://t.co/xQQjQnzQWm
@Culturschock1 @helg0042 @skypromusic Die Impfung hatte gegen die Alpha Variante eine nachgewiese Wirksamkeit vor Erkrankung und Übertragung von >95 % das war damals richtig und ist heute auchnoch richtig: https://t.co/a5GYTCutsl Offenbar vergessen Sie
RT @Prebens: PÅSKEMIRAKLET KOM TIDLIG I ÅR. Studien viser 90 % beskyttelse av koronavaksinasjon mot infeksjon. Dermed kan de vaksinerte hel…
@walidgellad Why couldn't she just stick to the 90% relative risk reduction? even if the public doesn't know exactly what that means; it's misleading to speak in absolute terms the way she did. https://t.co/wHOAz9IxW1 https://t.co/wkK61YKUOT
@liberty_lyss @P_McCulloughMD Walensky’s comment was in response to this report https://t.co/QNQtlE7W5V In a MSNBC interview (transcript here) https://t.co/f4wSWEXsm4 Almost immediately clarified by the CDC here https://t.co/fYn5yQ6x4L But you still po
13/17 Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Health Care Personnel, First Responders, and Other Essential and Frontline Workers — https://t.co/xQQjQnzQWm
13/17 Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Health Care Personnel, First Responders, and Other Essential and Frontline Workers — https://t.co/xQQjQnzQWm
@dam_gev55215 @LockedFab @EricBillyFR Si si, 90% au premier semestre 2021. Factuel, avec études terrains. Quelles autres études montrent le contraire S1/2021 ? https://t.co/mJCGFHNmtI https://t.co/qXv7Ks2XmW https://t.co/RCPbFzkE9l https://t.co/CtSrvJ
@tjk_mla @SnowHimbo @ClintonAlden @BillVillayne I'll try to explain why Walensky was misleading. The study: https://t.co/kI4b7kkYbl It's on mRNA only. The 5 people who eventually got J&J were dropped. Her words: "Vaccinated people do not carry,the viru
@joaquinlife CDC's own study released in late March 2021 found 90% effectiveness against infection. I have no idea why they started claiming to be 100%. Completely bonkers. https://t.co/RGnP1KhoyD https://t.co/89cyTLDgCd https://t.co/huNUpcpYA6
@JacquesClouse17 @ker2015 @wagneregger @Renkatroussier2 https://t.co/QvpCHieo3Y (page 48) études terrain : https://t.co/mJCGFHNmtI https://t.co/qXv7Ks2XmW https://t.co/RCPbFzkE9l https://t.co/CtSrvJ6hSt https://t.co/gNpbeD2Cpb et tant d'autres...😉
@BenDelecto @prchovanec This: https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ is the study. What the study *did* show was 90% effective at preventing infection w/ mRNA. Which is great, but she said EVERY vaccinated person, the study DIDN'T look into transmission from people w/ b
@milanoIX @a_newsman @p_jeanne97 @robertwolf32 @johnnydollar01 @elonmusk @farzyness @elon Nah. Still wasn't accurate. She was covering this study: https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ that DIDN'T study transmission from vax'd people who got breakthrough infections. S
@PraetorSuecia @Lukewearechange https://t.co/FANdPuTROb On speed of rollout: its also from acceleration of regulatory process https://t.co/QOZCQJJ4Nn https://t.co/HflxHJAl1c
@b_agw1 @PSYKO_BAER @Olivierlanglad3 @nicolindsay9 @WarClandestine @SHPArkeus The source is you. This is from the picture you posted. https://t.co/jjCp5XXXVH I believe this is the report being referenced. https://t.co/JXFoS1KzxY
@Nfcanavan @andy_buksterlin @MSNBC @maddow In Rachel's case, some folks feel her/MSNBC's desire not to "air untruths" rings a tad hollow, given folks point out untruths re: medical advice she's given on air & they see nothing come of it. For example: T
@katm876 @TwistedOak @SchmittNYC @maddow I can't say she 'lied' (no proof), but I can't say that what she claimed was accurate. She was reporting a specific study about mRNA (key here to note J&J was not included). It studied frontline workers over a 3
RT @KelleyKga: @JoyJan15 The study she referred to on Rachel Maddow and defended today was the one below. But it was a short term study wit…
@JoyJan15 The study she referred to on Rachel Maddow and defended today was the one below. But it was a short term study with a wide confidence interval, and wasn't 100% like she implied with her statement on TV that "vaccinated people do not carry the vir
@techjudge She relies on this study: https://t.co/1VINVuAZGM
@CovidianCritic @PhilipAaaaaaaa @EgnerCarl @IanCopeland5 Really? Always? You're really bad at this. Like REALLY bad. I mean I take on misinformation on Twitter every day and you are one of the least intelligent people I've ever debated. It's amazing tha
@arthurblake0 @FRosenfal @stayscathed @neshast There's truth to what they're saying here. The CDC study said the *mRNA* (not J&J) vaccines were 90% effective at preventing infection over a ~3 month period. And that was it. https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ But f
@load_dependent @PerOveE @kaveh_rashidi «Dermed kan de vaksinerte heller ikke bidra til epidemiens spredning»
@Davundi @KrahenHexe @johnhawkinsrwn @mehdirhasan Yes, I did. Here's the full transcript: https://t.co/zi8UzqH3bW The study says mRNA specifically: https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ She says it's new data from the CDC released today (3/29/21), the same day the study
@contra_cult @johnhawkinsrwn @mehdirhasan There's more context here: - https://t.co/p5vr2WknGI - https://t.co/nE2wcC1o5Q
@KrahenHexe @johnhawkinsrwn @mehdirhasan https://t.co/80Zd1YFlp4 To save time (since this happens so often): "She was right at the time" Here's the data she misreported: https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ If anyone saying this can find where it studied transmis
@Su15100307 @cdngoodcitizen1 @shoshanahjacobs Of course. Efficacy must be proven before vaccines are approved. Here's a real world study. https://t.co/UNFbnSGuDn
@tigresseleanor @DrJBhattacharya Cet article se réfère à une étude du personnel de santé entre déc et mars 2021 qui compte tous les 14 jours post-injection des vaccinés en... Jours de Non vaccinés ?! Or durant ces 14 j, il y a eu un pic épidémique post vac
RT @Cuggummaru: .@RobertoBurioni SEI UN INFAME IMPOSTORE SERVO DI UNA BIG PHARMA PUTTANA. I VAXXATI SONO E SARANNO SEMPRE PIÙ CONTAGIOSI E…
@MelonDaYooooo >中和抗体の減衰を大きく想定してなかったから『感染予防効果』なんて言葉使ってた 違いますね😉 「発症予防」だけでなく「感染予防」も はCDC等のreport https://t.co/WYDftNUBlk 効果減衰や変異株影響は 接種直後から記事で世界の研究追ってます https://t.co/j0MfEFu55h https://t.co/MR9LUFqGvb https://t.co/hyXPIGyz8n
@bucktron2021 @jimmy_dore @pauljneill @Rep_Clyde I linked CDC's only real-world data to date, from that day 3/29/21 https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ Jimmy: "didn’t even test for it" In May she says transmission wasn't studied in clinical trials https://t.co/Jsiitp0
@Drakarys_now @G4300914234018G @Extradry5 Es lässt sich sehr gut belegen, dass die Impfungen sehr gut und gewirkt haben und extrem die Todesfallen und Hospitalisierungen gesenkt haben, ihre Aussagen hingegen ist totaler nonsense: https://t.co/a5GYTCutsl
RT @DebatenotH: @RepMTG She overstated the ability of the vaccine to stop transmissions, and later walked it back, but she was probably ref…
@RepMTG She overstated the ability of the vaccine to stop transmissions, and later walked it back, but she was probably referring to this study: https://t.co/o2Ln1ypplk This was before the Delta and Omicron variants became dominant. Science changed as the
@CollinRugg This was the study she was referring to. https://t.co/TVKn2H4m8B
@kevinnbass Evidence did exist before Delta that risk of infection was reduced by 90% after 2nd shot. If people don’t get the infection, they can’t pass the virus on. https://t.co/zTPk59Fh0a The enthusiasm was premature however with the unexpected quick
@Wahlnutt @imjdsharp @xYuKnw @charliekirk11 CDC Study - 3/29/21 https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ Press Release https://t.co/ErkNwAaURi Full Segment - 3/29/21 https://t.co/ReIKNeVddl
@bucktron2021 @jimmy_dore @pauljneill Study https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ It said 90% effective @ preventing infection (12/14/20-3/13/21), But didn't include J&J & didn't study transmission w/ breakthrough cases. She told the committee it was before Alph
@RobbieJay @Doctor_Eric_B @DrCanuckMD For just one example among many, from April 2021: https://t.co/AgHdcJ5ZFM
@RHimesCT @unhealthytruth Citation The CDC study (3/29/21): https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ CDC press release: https://t.co/ErkNwAaURi The full segment (3/29/21) - from MSNBC's official YouTube channel: https://t.co/ReIKNeVddl "A piece of information we have nee
@daniels_do6289 @thejackhopkins She was reporting this study published the same day https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ Problem? Study actually said: - 90% effective against infection, not 100% - Was only mRNA. J&J not included - Didn't study transmission w/ br
@AntifemiHosyu @tosikuni_japan1 @Sachiko_Nikke この中身見るのがいいかと
@bernielomax @ryansmith198328 @HartsanFIN @marymcnamara @P_Kallioniemi Sorry to interject, but I have a very strong idea that when she made that claim, it referred to this study that was published the same day of her comment: https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ Afaik,
@Sherry097344271 @michaelpsenger Maybe this, I'm thinking: https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ They published it the same day that she went on Rachel' show & said "our data from the CDC today..." https://t.co/GhPBKTFUFU 5 people got J&J, but were excluded. So
@Ergoat @warrbo @MuseWendi Yes, Walesnski, a minion of the "get back to work" faction, overstated a study. WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH NOT MASKING WHEN WE KNOW N95S BLOCK COVID? https://t.co/g0zRIRBdVd
@sgillern @alexandrosM I believe it's this. May or may not have been edited since, It seems consistent. Either way They used this to sell the no infection if vaccinated - lie.https://t.co/Z3FPnHVyE6
@Kayh10 @Moon_Digger73 @ggreenwald Link to the CDC study she's citing: https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ Can we in good faith say it's truth? It may not be lying; but is it true? If the study didn't include J&J (it didn't), would "the virus stops w/ ~every~ vax'
@holdstillbro @scfm69 @johnforchione @CleverMaxName @park24hrs @krassenstein The study: https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ What it did report was the CDC saw 👉90%👈 effectiveness against ~infection~. On a broader scale, this *reduces* (but doesn't stop) transmission
@goaloa @Ian_W_Weigand @park24hrs @CleverMaxName @krassenstein Hi Laura, I've been sharing this with some people since I think it can help flesh out why, if interested: https://t.co/gpDJkXqei7
@RxRegA And here's the MMWR that came out March 29 that she was discussing when she went on Maddow's show and made those claims. https://t.co/KuEXNgagTn
@bastage0 @CleverMaxName @park24hrs @krassenstein https://t.co/rKP1eHDEDO It was picked up by other outlets, fwiw. I'm unaware of a retraction on Maddow's show itself, however. If anyone has a source related to that, please feel welcome to share it (don't
@park24hrs @CleverMaxName @krassenstein The TL;DR version. The CDC study (3/29/21): https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ Her claims of what this study concluded (3/29/21): https://t.co/ReIKNeVddl Why it's inaccurate: - The study didn't include J&J - Said 90% effect
@park24hrs @CleverMaxName @krassenstein Hi Michael. Hope you're doing well. As it happens, I just had an amicable discussion with someone regarding this topic today. Links and context included. Hope this helps @park24hrs https://t.co/TzrLfYAgBU
@lbum_ @Tom332238239622 @MaryJaneRule6 @DewaltJackson @imjdsharp @krassenstein the data of the study) https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ Be fair: Does the phrasing she's using honestly sound to you like "You do realize there were many studies ongoing at the time"? Do
@DrDavidNL @Els__nadine Ook leuk : https://t.co/lTIMc29uBG Nee idd geen enkel probleem met de corona vaccines. Gelukkig...dacht dat er iets aan de hand was.
@DrDavidNL @Els__nadine Je bedoelt deze real world data study waarin oa .covid herstelden uitgesloten werden ? https://t.co/lTIMc29uBG En met gegoochel met getallen ongevaccineerden, die in de timeframe 4 keer langer werkten , zogenaamd 4 keer hogere ka
@lbum_ @Tom332238239622 @MaryJaneRule6 @DewaltJackson @imjdsharp @krassenstein There's more context. The full video: https://t.co/80Zd1YFlp4 The study she said had those findings: https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ Her statements "the virus stops w/ *every* vaccinat
@BackupQuayle @ukjohn55 @KnudsenAndy @CalltoActivism I'm inclined to respectfully disagree. I have zero against Rache, but this particular report wasn't based on available info at the time. It was a report on one specific study: https://t.co/Uzx91ory8o Ke
@Cheap_Knockoff @TheCryptoKennel @doogerasgurd @krassenstein I don't know of any evidence that this was disinformation. It was certainly misinformation the very moment it happened, however. Rachel was actually *mis*reporting the science at the time. We'd
@BRQuick @TheCryptoKennel @JoAnnBroyles2 @krassenstein Hear me out, please. I don't watch Fox News. Here's the entire segment (aired 3/29/21) direct from MSNBC's official YouTube channel: https://t.co/HtA5UeLW9w Here's the CDC study (published 3/29/21) t
@BreezerGalway @Mr_Magoo5 @TheGammon3 @KuikenAndrew This is the study she was talking about when she (erroneously) stated "Vaccinated people do not carry the virus" (implying 100%): https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ The study said 90% effective against >infectio
@mikelotus @Stmckay04 @JuneBug1925 @john_sipher Well, there's actually more context here. Dr. Walensky (on TV) told the public that this study: https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ = "vaccinated people don't carry the virus, don't get sick." CDC walked back her claim
Ren løgn.
RT @NLHF2022: Throwback til 2021. Hva tenker folk om dette nå? Vitenskapen as! #påskemirakel
@jrakoci @dallenMT4 @Amer_icanbadass @JackPosobiec @JohnHeilemann @maddow Can't prove it was intentional but it was def misinfo. Reason is she oversold the data. One of a # of reasons is the J&J vax (she got) wasn't even part of the study she was repor
@brent_shavnore @LiraLoudmouth @breeadail @russelltalbot @elonmusk Here's a few that appeared to indicate that- https://t.co/aUgEiPpbo3 https://t.co/HIzjefzfay https://t.co/Si457HxfvQ
@mikey_wa @Jimni38 @tomselliott @jheil @rustyrockets @VICENews Source (Rachel Maddow Show, aired March 29, 2021): https://t.co/NlpgyiPlNO The data in question (published March 29, 2021): https://t.co/Uzx91or0iQ Note that her wording refers to what she's ab
RT @NLHF2022: Throwback til 2021. Hva tenker folk om dette nå? Vitenskapen as! #påskemirakel
RT @NLHF2022: Throwback til 2021. Hva tenker folk om dette nå? Vitenskapen as! #påskemirakel
Denne ble ikke gammel, @Prebens 😂
@terrence711 @Amer_icanbadass @JoJoFromJerz @maddow Source: https://t.co/ReIKNeVddl Many say "It was true at the time" but not sure how that can be if her segment presents it as new fundings based on new data. Also, it didn't match the CDC director's clai
RT @NLHF2022: Throwback til 2021. Hva tenker folk om dette nå? Vitenskapen as! #påskemirakel
RT @NLHF2022: Throwback til 2021. Hva tenker folk om dette nå? Vitenskapen as! #påskemirakel