No - I can just interpret data because that’s what I was trained to do as a student of science. Big Pharma vaxtards struggle with facts.
No - I can just interpret data because that’s what I was trained to do as a student of science. Big Pharma vaxtards struggle with facts.
See post #33 this thread, and you will see the raw data the 0.054% comes from. Were you to compute the % of doubly vaccinated that have died from Covid relative to the total number of Doubly vaccinated in the UK, and not just the confirmed cases, you'd of course get a much smaller percent. I think I already made this point; it would be a vanishingly small percent. The 0.054 number , although close to zero, is relative to the number of total cases reported and not relative to the number of doubly vaccinated, which of course is by now quite a large number; much, much larger than the number of cases included in the study I referred to in post #33.You said: "very close to 0%" of double vaccinated in the U.S. end up dying from Covid.
Please provide the raw data and not some garbage headline with zero facts to back it up.
The lack of evidence found by the UNC researchers of human tampering with Covid genetics is easily explained. They were looking for the wrong thing! They should have looked for rogue tracts of nucleic acids coding for bamboo carbohydrates.So now you are trying to claim that UNC - Chapel Hill is in on the conspiracy. What complete nonsense.
As noted previously, all the Researchers (PhDs) involved in this research at UNC - Chapel Hill have come out with detailed information demonstrating with finality that the COVID-19 virus was not genetically modified to deliberately infect humans. There is no sequencing or splicing that shows this to be the is case. This is merely fabricated nonsense pushing by ignorant conspiracy theorists.

No - I can just interpret data because that’s what I was trained to do as a student of science. Big Pharma vaxtards struggle with facts.
Nope. Don’t see it there. I believe you are quoting some UK data. Show me the CDC data.
But that’s not the question.See post #33 this thread, and you will see the raw data the 0.054% comes from. Were you to compute the % of doubly vaccinated that have died from Covid relative to the total number of Doubly vaccinated in the UK, and not just the confirmed cases, you'd of course get a much smaller percent. I think I already made this point; it would be a vanishingly small percent. The 0.054 number , although close to zero, is relative to the number of total cases reported and not relative to the number of doubly vaccinated, which of course is by now quite a large number; much, much larger than the number of cases included in the study I referred to in post #33.
We know from the data provided to the FDA, when Moderna and Pfizer were applying for emergency authorization, that these new RNA vaccines were being reported as ~90+% effective, which is outstanding as vaccines go. These RNA vaccines are just amazing!!!
Is there anything else I can help you with today?
Yup. That’s what I was saying this whole fucking time.Well done. Those numbers I quoted are from the UK. How perceptive of you. If you want CDC data, I'll trade you some for some Gondor data from Middle Earth.
Yup. That’s what I was saying this whole fucking time.
You would get a D or worse in your virology lab. Get back to the library.
What’s your honorarium and in what subject?You can come back and tell us about virology knowledge when you complete this simple quiz...
View attachment 264167
What’s your honorarium and in what subject?
Where is the source of 12 people dying from the vax?
How was the J&J picnic this year? Did they offer free stabbings at the softball game?