:)
What booster are you on Tuchodi?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (38)
sorted by:
You admitted not having any science background or math education.
But this was a Grade 12 level math question and many teenagers would be able to outwit you.
It’s sad that your arts and gender studies diploma have failed you and left you so ill equipped to interpret basic math and science.
I don't need that to pass on what the experts are saying.
And it's funny that you, with the same background, think you can argue with them.
If you get tired of looking for tabloid magazines and newspapers to take pictures of here are some journal articles you might want to sneer at:
March 21, 2022 The Lancet "All vaccines analysed in this study were effective at preventing hospitalisation and death from COVID-19 in fully vaccinated older adults" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-7568(22)00035-6/fulltext
2022 Mar National Library of Medicine "We found COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were effective against symptomatic COVID-19 among the immunocompromised patients" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34982962/
Methodology: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-7568(22)00035-6/fulltext
STUDY TIMEFRAME: “The 230-day observation period ran from March 11 2021 to Oct 26, 2021”
Old data. It excludes the catastrophic infection rates in the fully vaccinated after the boosters in December. Once again. Why link such an old study Tuchodi?
DEFINITION of ‘Death from COVID-19’ in this study was defined as death that resulted from clinically compatible illness in a probable COVID-19 case HAHA
THE DEATHS IN THIS SO CALLED STUDY WERE NOT EVEN PCR CONFIRMED, they were assumed! This is fraudulent
Fraudulent methodology. Why use outdated 2021 data and why count unconfirmed Covid deaths? Not very scientific would you say Tuchodi?
Hah!
"2 828 294 participants were assessed" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-7568(22)00035-6/fulltext
The sun would burn out by the time you learned how to do it and then worked your way through the results of observations on almost 3 million cases.
You can claim data from five months ago is irrelevant. Go ahead.
Here's the complete quote: "Death from COVID-19 was defined as death that resulted from clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there was a clear alternative cause of death that could not be related to COVID-19"
Another unsupported opinion. VaC1 is completely ignorant of the notion of citing references.
No need to shout. You'll get spittle on you. Care to provide a source for this opinion?
^ FRAUDULENT DATA.
^ OUTDATED AND FRAUDULENT DATA