let’s start with an example:

you’re a soldier pinned down in a foxhole. across the field from you is a bunker. getting into the bunker will greatly reduce your risk of being shot.

but the field you must cross is wide open to enemy fire.

if you’re going to make the choice to run for the bunker, on what would you base it?

would you say:

A) “wow, the bunker is 10X safer than the foxhole, let’s run!” and leave it at that?
or
B) might you want to know how risky crossing that field is and add that into the calculus as well?

because i think pretty much any sane person is going with B and anyone trying to sell you A is either dishonest or dangerously negligent.

to get to the protection of the bunker, you have to cross the field.

if you have a 10% risk of being shot where you are and a 0% risk in the bunker, it’s easy to calculate what would be a good choice.

if it’s a 5% chance of getting shot crossing the field, yeah, that’s still scary, but it’s less scary than staying where you are.

but if it’s a 20% chance of getting shot, then you should not run. doing so doubles your chances of being on the wrong end of the bang-bang. stay where you are.

this is 5th grade math, 3rd if you’re precocious. there’s nothing hard here.

the question is: why are so many alleged PhD’s not using it?

Watch Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader Season 1 | Prime Video

now let’s lay out some salients:

vaccines seem to provide efficacy against severe covid and death. but they do not provide efficacy against “cases” or even “symptomatic cases” and look to actually have negative VE in that regard. (analysis HERE) so we can dispense with the “social duty” claims. these never held water medically or ethically.

this is about you and making the choice that best ensures your personal safety.

and to do that, you need to know the real vaccine efficacy INCLUDING the “run across the field.”

this has been deliberately swept under the rug and manipulated.

vaccine companies, countries, and health agencies reporting “vaccine efficacy” are using definitions like “14 days after the second dose” for vaccinated. and they are calling all people who have had at least one dose but not reached the 14 day post d2 mark (sometimes 7 days) as “unvaccinated.” and this turns out to be a truly nasty sleight of hand that seriously affects the data.

the vaccine companies palmed a bad card, took it out of their hand, and put it in yours.

Is is Sleight or Slight of Hand? | Merriam-Webster

and they absolutely knew this. these definitions were not picked out of a hat or based on some other convention. they were tailor made by big pharma (who know a thing or twelve about manipulating results and trial design/definitions) to make the vaccines look more effective and to hide a glaring fact:

for the 2 weeks after you get your first covid jab, your risk of contracting covid goes up sharply. the VE is strongly negative. this means that there IS a field that you need to run across and that vaccination campaigns can act as pandemic accelerants.
(examples HERE and HERE)

we’ve looked at this VE data before:

in this STUDY the danes found dramatic increases in infection rates post vaccination. “adjusted VE” is the risk adjusted vaccine efficacy. it was -40% for nursing home residents and -104% for health care workers in those homes. it more than doubled their risk. (it’s to be expected that the younger, healthier HCW’s would see more drop vs the NH residents in the event of immuno-suppression as they had more effective immune systems to suppress. we see the same reflected in peak VE of 90% for HCW vs 64% in residents)

note that this is all in the 14 days post dose 1. VE ramped up over time, but those first two weeks were a serious risk accelerant. 40-100% rise in risk is no joke.

and this study does not stand alone. it was, in fact, validated in pfizer’s own data as laid out here by dr clare craig, a UK pathologist whose work i have followed, in her BMJ piece.

“As well as the papers cited by the authors, other studies have shown a similar effect. A Danish study showed a 40% increase in infections in the first two weeks after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination, despite not vaccinating in homes with recent outbreaks.[1] Indeed, the original Pfizer trial demonstrated a statistically significant 40% increase in ‘suspected COVID’, with 409 cases in the vaccination arm in the first week of the trial, compared with 287 in the placebo arm.[2] Other publications have omitted mention of the period immediately after vaccination.[3] [4] There is substantial anecdotal evidence of people who had tested negative prior to vaccination, becoming infected shortly afterwards, invariably attributed to exposure just before vaccination.[5] Others have raised concerns about this.[6]”

the data has always been there. it’s just being obfuscated. it has been scrubbed from the study data unless you dig into the supplements and from most society scale data altogether by the reporting standards.

they are selling you the safety of the bunker without admitting you have to run across the field of fire to get there and that you’ll have increased risk of being shot while you do.

they are doing worse than denying that the open run exists, they are watching you do it, seeing you get shot, and than calling it a “foxhole death” because you never made it to the bunker.

does this seems like a fair accounting of risk and efficacy to you?

because to me, it looks like not only hiding the risk needed to get the reward, but actually inflating the reported risk of not pursuing the reward in the first place.

they are not only hiding the heightened risk of covid to the newly vaccinated, but they are taking the bad outcomes from that increased risk and blaming it on lack of vaccination.

you might as well blame drowning on the way to the other end of the pool on “not swimming” because you never got across.

this is not a reasonable definition and if public health agencies wish to be taken seriously, they need to stop trying to pass this off as a valid risk reward analysis. it’s clearly not.

the FDA absolutely should have known better. this trial design and headline reporting should never have been approved.

to really assess VE, you need to look at ALL bad outcomes form the commencement of vaccination and accrue them to the vaccinated. this includes the heightened risk of covid.

bad cattitude

why "vaccinated covid…