RT @mph_for_doctors: ワクチンで感染が減るかどうかは、接種者と非接種者を比較した研究で確認し、国同士の比較は不適切です。 今はオミクロン前の議論ですので、下記の研究などがあります。 個人レベルでの因果関係は国レベルでは測ることができず、それを疫学用語で生…
RT @mph_for_doctors: ワクチンで感染が減るかどうかは、接種者と非接種者を比較した研究で確認し、国同士の比較は不適切です。 今はオミクロン前の議論ですので、下記の研究などがあります。 個人レベルでの因果関係は国レベルでは測ることができず、それを疫学用語で生…
RT @mph_for_doctors: ワクチンで感染が減るかどうかは、接種者と非接種者を比較した研究で確認し、国同士の比較は不適切です。 今はオミクロン前の議論ですので、下記の研究などがあります。 個人レベルでの因果関係は国レベルでは測ることができず、それを疫学用語で生…
RT @mph_for_doctors: ワクチンで感染が減るかどうかは、接種者と非接種者を比較した研究で確認し、国同士の比較は不適切です。 今はオミクロン前の議論ですので、下記の研究などがあります。 個人レベルでの因果関係は国レベルでは測ることができず、それを疫学用語で生…
RT @mph_for_doctors: ワクチンで感染が減るかどうかは、接種者と非接種者を比較した研究で確認し、国同士の比較は不適切です。 今はオミクロン前の議論ですので、下記の研究などがあります。 個人レベルでの因果関係は国レベルでは測ることができず、それを疫学用語で生…
RT @mph_for_doctors: ワクチンで感染が減るかどうかは、接種者と非接種者を比較した研究で確認し、国同士の比較は不適切です。 今はオミクロン前の議論ですので、下記の研究などがあります。 個人レベルでの因果関係は国レベルでは測ることができず、それを疫学用語で生…
RT @mph_for_doctors: ワクチンで感染が減るかどうかは、接種者と非接種者を比較した研究で確認し、国同士の比較は不適切です。 今はオミクロン前の議論ですので、下記の研究などがあります。 個人レベルでの因果関係は国レベルでは測ることができず、それを疫学用語で生…
RT @mph_for_doctors: ワクチンで感染が減るかどうかは、接種者と非接種者を比較した研究で確認し、国同士の比較は不適切です。 今はオミクロン前の議論ですので、下記の研究などがあります。 個人レベルでの因果関係は国レベルでは測ることができず、それを疫学用語で生…
RT @mph_for_doctors: ワクチンで感染が減るかどうかは、接種者と非接種者を比較した研究で確認し、国同士の比較は不適切です。 今はオミクロン前の議論ですので、下記の研究などがあります。 個人レベルでの因果関係は国レベルでは測ることができず、それを疫学用語で生…
RT @mph_for_doctors: ワクチンで感染が減るかどうかは、接種者と非接種者を比較した研究で確認し、国同士の比較は不適切です。 今はオミクロン前の議論ですので、下記の研究などがあります。 個人レベルでの因果関係は国レベルでは測ることができず、それを疫学用語で生…
ワクチンで感染が減るかどうかは、接種者と非接種者を比較した研究で確認し、国同士の比較は不適切です。 今はオミクロン前の議論ですので、下記の研究などがあります。 個人レベルでの因果関係は国レベルでは測ることができず、それを疫学用語で生態学的誤謬と言います。 https://t.co/QoHBxy8y0d
RT @christianperez: El Sr. Gervás está reconociendo que las vacunas son eficaces contra la infección. En este tiempo, mantuvieron una efica…
@simondrichards @KINGLUI_NFT @patcondell If you’d just ask evidence for everything that’s you government is saying… https://t.co/2uspSbMCyD
@TheMan30465458 @contractorwolf @3lenacat @CloudsGalore @davenewworld_2 @williamlegate Dr. Rochelle Walensky's comment referred to this study which involved 3,950 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers who comple
RT @GauteNilsen: Tenk om @Prebens hadde lest seg litt opp før han kom med slike uttalelser? https://t.co/JOCWukx1Tt Norske "eksperter" 🙄
Er det noen som vet hvordan det går med denne 90% beskyttelsen?
Tenk om @Prebens hadde lest seg litt opp før han kom med slike uttalelser? https://t.co/JOCWukx1Tt Norske "eksperter" 🙄
@FullyvaxxedEsq @Rivercity76 @Cosmo33904 @de24207346 @RobSchneider https://t.co/JDubdRqwoy Here ya go March 29th 2021 after your second dose you will have FULL immunization from Sars Cov-2 so says the cdc. Feel free to search the rest on your own kiddo.
@Nishi8777 @6_flzp 先ほどのはイスラエルの例ですが、CDCでもこんな発表をしています。こちらでも感染予防率90%としています。 https://t.co/4zqaK6ON5p
@adelaid84706125 @oldcrow709 @AdamGFrench Yep taken out of context that looks damning. However in that clip she was referring to the vaccines efficacy against Covid prior to Delta. https://t.co/vhOczIwUWV
@anonzed06 @LouiseMHinton1 @CalRiffkenJr @ScottAdamsSays Nobody ever said 99%. Pfizer said around 95%, and J&J around 70%. After vaccinations initially began the data (linked below) showed that it was effective at preventing infection, but the data cha
RT @1000boj: @Inconforme75 No lo he encontrado, pasalo por favor porque lo que si he visto es esto https://t.co/X6vko8HbwO https://t.co/KJr…
@Inconforme75 No lo he encontrado, pasalo por favor porque lo que si he visto es esto https://t.co/X6vko8HbwO https://t.co/KJrcGzwsUt
@madgefan1189 @GypsyCeltic @baddestmamajama Here's the actual study that doesn't say what you say it does: https://t.co/eyYUo128be
@haigh88 @mwbeck6 @ArgenTo46 @metaborandriel @ARmastrangelo Thanks for sharing. This clip is out of context though. She’s talking about data from before Delta. This is the CDC study she was referencing. Is this what Fauci and Gates were talking about as we
RT @FreeCountryLovr: So here is the CDC saying that the EXPERIMENTAL “vaccines” will PREVENT you from getting covid!! https://t.co/2A0E0B2…
So here is the CDC saying that the EXPERIMENTAL “vaccines” will PREVENT you from getting covid!! https://t.co/2A0E0B2voN
@Todorito11 @Mavrogialuros1 @jimofficial10 @yp2GqfzRbs9M4PA Τώρα τους βάζεις να διαβάζουν τους τίτλους; Κοροϊδεύεις εμένα ή τον εαυτό σου; Αν πραγματικά θες να μάθεις τι πετάς τόση ώρα σε τίτλους χωρίς να έχεις ιδέα, διάβασε την έρευνα, την βρήκα εδώ https
@wokeyouthmvmnt @PaulBieniasz @DrJBhattacharya @MaudMaron I am not wrong constantly like jay battacharya, bro This article summarizes some studies that existed in early 2021. https://t.co/ZD9r7h3Mlw The studies: https://t.co/YtIDqw35WV https://t.co/L5nUQ03
@johndefeo That's just saying those weren't end points studied in the original trial. Not that they failed those end points. Her statement was based on a followup study after the rollout of vaccines. https://t.co/KuEXNgagTn
@ItsSamG @fallondpicks @MichaelPSenger This is a possibility, but in most cases when efficacy was originally referred to at the start of 2021 it was specifically talking about preventing infection. CDC suggested a 90% reduction. We now know this was likely
Much as Twitter loves to label certain tweets as 'misleading', it never once applied it to tweets containing misleading information from the CDC. And though the CDC has since effectively declared what it said was misleading, Twitter will not badge tweets
@FireMtnGlass @TractorLaw @wolmanj @abmoser88 @coreybowers @Jturk125 @BeecherDenys @Skepti2 @tyandnate @BIG_O_XRP1 @tomselliott Numerous independent studies show they do all four https://t.co/eteULwlKfO https://t.co/4bbIVgztVw https://t.co/Dj0GGqPctT
RT @WhitneyEpi: 🧵9/x Some of my skepticism re: the stats was because I’m a social epidemiologist. We're very attuned to residual confoundi…
🧵9/x Some of my skepticism re: the stats was because I’m a social epidemiologist. We're very attuned to residual confounding by all the factors that go along with social position. And US vaccination tracked with US social and wealth hierarchies https://t
@bertnernieabc @uqPYT8vICd @wolveast @GeorgeTakei I mean, stopping transmission is exactly what they told us it would do when it first arrived - in fact they said it was over 95% effective at preventing covid infection. They were still saying over 90% by A
@Nopanaden @Desobediencia00 Cuando dice que "las vacunas evitaban en más de un 90% la infección sintomática", supongo que se refiere a las ESIMACIONES PROVISIONALES del CDC de EE.UU. relativo al período dic 2020 - mar 2021. El propio estudio expresa sus li
@martha_sekander @wef This study "demonstrate that current vaccination efforts are resulting in substantial preventive benefits among working-age adults." https://t.co/7p6uVGrNeg From March 2020 to April 2021, vaccination in progress...
@carwyndaud @WildeSideView @RepMontague It is harder to access older papers, but here's one from April 2021; https://t.co/03UiolXgQw
This is someone who accused Rogan. On December 2020 I already knew the vaccine wouldn't stop transmission. It's a virus. You get the flu shot and still get the flu. How does my doctor know better than you folks?
@DrKatEpi @ejdickson @RollingStone The definition of misinformation Vax failed to prevent transmission within 10 months https://t.co/J3Ztf9nkcQ
@TheRona18 @Bernice73566696 @MontagueTerrie I want to maintain that energy that you had when you demanded articles showing that the world was told that the vaxxes prevent transmission. Here is a April 2021 report from the CDC providing the information that
@ssanchezblog @Luis_Endera @tresgalloetxera @A3Noticias Empieza por aquí: https://t.co/unTs5pYdnH https://t.co/MzbEWEBdbD Un saludo.
@jbirdsauer @RanmaOtherHalf @Kingsley_Zizzou @Panosfrmgoranos @tedcruz https://t.co/3DoZMNnO6Q Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness 90% Again it was never said to be 100% https://t.co/LZUSRSEUOA
@beetldude @goldencell @Dlerxst Off hand, another CDC study with 14 days as the definition. https://t.co/dUeXlunFcC
@RealCandaceO Why are republicans still (literally) dying on this hill? https://t.co/6PGUcyAaBZ
RT @orion7710: @LolaMotz @dave_m_ @games_tray Estimated mRNA Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness in prevention of Sars-Cov-2 infection, adjusted…
@LolaMotz @dave_m_ @games_tray Estimated mRNA Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness in prevention of Sars-Cov-2 infection, adjusted for study site: 90% for full immunization and 80% for partial immunization. https://t.co/cV0cIvo6fm 1/
RT @DR_ILL: @NYC__Freedom @DubyaArgh @Baconsolidater @JonMcgehee @polititrolls @SamSeder Here's a bunch of other studies that don't limit i…
@NYC__Freedom @DubyaArgh @Baconsolidater @JonMcgehee @polititrolls @SamSeder Here's a bunch of other studies that don't limit it to household contacts. Educate yourself and stop spewing bullshit: https://t.co/Cd8oqnW5ib https://t.co/bX89D4Wg0E https://t.co
@JuliePe12227491 @Greg_A_ @vorstau @ianbremmer I'm sorry you're wrong about stuff. There's only like 3 dozen studies showing the same stuff. FFS. https://t.co/Y6YMw2ezkQ https://t.co/SEz5InQn7V https://t.co/qjK7tySpy4 https://t.co/6QEVG9ZfGM So sick
@Guru85Neurotic @ZubyMusic CDC director said the data SUGGESTS, and was smacked down pretty quickly even by the CDC. This was posted the same day as that idiotic forbes headline. Their study they released in march did have nice results though. https://t
RT @bcbluecon: Remember this government lie? "Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, w…
RT @bcbluecon: Remember this government lie? "Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, w…
RT @bcbluecon: Remember this government lie? "Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, w…
RT @bcbluecon: Remember this government lie? "Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, w…
RT @bcbluecon: The governments went from promising 90% effectiveness from being infected to now saying it only reduces the effects of COVID…
RT @bcbluecon: Remember this government lie? "Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, w…
RT @bcbluecon: The governments went from promising 90% effectiveness from being infected to now saying it only reduces the effects of COVID…
The governments went from promising 90% effectiveness from being infected to now saying it only reduces the effects of COVID, and the media dutifully pivoted for them.
Remember this government lie? "Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization and 80% for partial immunization." https://t.co/EeATaUyrNT
Hmm jaha ja #COVID
RT @TuvGuro: Uttalelser under "koronaen" har hatt omtrent like lang holdbarhet som meieriprodukter, men denne er det kanskje verdt å korrig…
RT @TuvGuro: Uttalelser under "koronaen" har hatt omtrent like lang holdbarhet som meieriprodukter, men denne er det kanskje verdt å korrig…
RT @TuvGuro: Uttalelser under "koronaen" har hatt omtrent like lang holdbarhet som meieriprodukter, men denne er det kanskje verdt å korrig…
RT @TuvGuro: Uttalelser under "koronaen" har hatt omtrent like lang holdbarhet som meieriprodukter, men denne er det kanskje verdt å korrig…
RT @TuvGuro: Uttalelser under "koronaen" har hatt omtrent like lang holdbarhet som meieriprodukter, men denne er det kanskje verdt å korrig…
Uttalelser under "koronaen" har hatt omtrent like lang holdbarhet som meieriprodukter, men denne er det kanskje verdt å korrigere @Prebens ?
@NorthernConvo @trevortombe Remember mRNA vaccines do, in fact, ⬇️ transmission by ⬇️ # infected both +/- symptoms (HEROES-RECOVER study: https://t.co/PpqvjpvdfM). Lots of confusion on this point, happy to walk through it. I have yet to review data that va
@LRob1337 @BernuFedor @KG3152 @h3h3productions It's not 100% but it does prevent getting and spreading it, https://t.co/af7y9sK5NY
@Blingstonhughes @Fishnchipsking @FlurkBureau @briantylercohen @laurenboebert Even Snopes says Biden said it: https://t.co/yteUzOQTX3 Here Fauci says it protects you from infection: https://t.co/6xv23Wx6Lu And the CDC: https://t.co/YoAjNpmkVV
@ScottAdamsSays Waned. Here’s the report. https://t.co/DKXg4wX6Yh
@alfwarrior @Centollobucane1 @gorka_orive @lalbert75 Por el ejemplo el chico este, nada simpático, me ha puesto este estudio sobre la efectividad. Me parece un estudio bastante malo, ya que medir la efectividad a los dos meses y solo sobre infecciones, no
@ManuProscrito @gorka_orive Vaya. Ahora vas cambiando las condiciones... Vamos a ver cuánto tardas en volver a cambiarlas Uno en covid https://t.co/exA8JoD6N1
@MickFluet @mac6110 @Paulintoronto47 @maninblack63 @rayferrarotsn CDC said vaccine was 90% effective against infection. Obviously they either interpreted data wrong, or didn't have the right data. I don't care which, but I ask you how we trust experts that
@winocm @CT_Bergstrom @Morr6565 @cdc @CDCDirector Here is that entire paper: https://t.co/WbHuM9bZxL There it is, right there in the middle. https://t.co/sxcyuJyUGN
Just a few medical research articles on the timeline with real life numbers in case anyone is bored and needs reading material. https://t.co/r4xnyUvUte https://t.co/e5r21SAnwG https://t.co/CxW0hDRaXd
@TommyJennings85 @keithsamui @MaajidNawaz There's a link in the article!! Gee! . https://t.co/nENTHuIxhp
@SteveODare @helgy2 @MetroUK Remember how Pfizer promised 90% efficiency based on a CDC study; https://t.co/USTfvCkck4 However; https://t.co/3MS958bz45 And promises also made about no transmission turned out to be fake.
@LeDock7 @GuillaumeRozier @LechypreP Et quand on regarde l'étude d'où est tirée l'article, que voit-on ? Incroyable, il n'y jamais question de cette efficacité dans la réduction de transmission. https://t.co/LG6KlFGMvG Curieux 🙃