- Jan 29, 2014
- Reaction score
- VCDS Serial number
Do you have invested in the funeral business to spread your opinion all day long? If we would play Quartett, you would have already lost.Mother of Crasher (82) has had all four jabs and still caught Covid
Uwe: I will of course bow to your better knowledge of how to interpret @Crasher words given that (I assume) he is a friend and you are both countrymen.
One is vreihen himself, one is our own Eric, and I probably should know who the third person is, but I'm drawing a blank.
Dave: I agree 101%. However, the disparity between fact and public perception should be viewed as a reason for better education - it should/can not be a reason for accepting public misunderstandings as fact!!That's the difference between public perceptions and manufacturers claims - which, as is usually the case, are not the same.
hmm....... yes, after 4 x distemper shots which were unsuccessful - I would take the time to read the manufacturer's literature about the purpose of the medicine (in fact, I would do this after the first unsuccessful shot)!!You know, if I got my dog four distemper shots over a period of not much more than a year and she still came down with distemper, I'd be asking some questions...
Yes, that is indeed Fake News. However the docs, are, shall we say, "interesting".
So these documents are fake?the docs are NOT "shall we say "interesting""!! They are in actual fact fake!
Do you not look at the locations next to posts? Crasher is in the UK. I am in the USA.[Crasher] and you are both countrymen.
OK, let's have a look at this Pfizer press release dated November 18, 2020. The very first bullet point says:yes, after 4 x distemper shots which were unsuccessful - I would take the time to read the manufacturer's literature about the purpose of the medicine
How exactly did they expect people to interpret, "95% effective against COVID-19"?Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19
The only way it can help end the pandemic is if it prevents people from getting infected, no? Yet it clearly does not do that very well, and if it does it at all, it is certainly nowhere near 95% effective at doing so."The study results mark an important step in this historic eight-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic."
Yes, my bad (and my apology)Do you not look at the locations next to posts? Crasher is in the UK. I am in the USA.
Uwe: We are both aware of the foibles of selective quotes from individual information sources.OK, let's have a look at this Pfizer press release dated November 18, 2020. The very first bullet point says:
How exactly did they expect people to interpret, "95% effective against COVID-19"?
It also quotes Pfizer's CEO as saying:
The only way it can help end the pandemic is if it prevents people from getting infected, no? Yet it clearly does not do that very well, and if it does it at all, it is certainly nowhere near 95% effective at doing so.
Yet this is how it was "sold", not by an over-optimistic press, or over-optimistic public health officials, but by Pfizer themselves!
I didn't know the answers to your questions - so I found them on Google!!Now, would you care to guess which US State currently has the highest infection rate? And whether this is a State with a high or low vaccination and booster rate?
They are prone to far more than hyperbole.yes, even Pfizer is prone to hyperbole
It isn't. My question wasn't "has had", it was "currently has".So if my perfunctory research is correct
They are prone to far more than hyperbole........................
Am I the only one here who detects a pattern of egregious behavior by this company?
hmm.... Ok if I re-do my research (from HERE) - I suspect that you are referring to your down-home State of Pennsylvania with 1,609 daily infections and a full vaccination rate of 69%. Again, what does this prove about the vaccine (efficacy, rather than Stopping the infection)? Nebraska has a full vaccination rate of 64%, but it's daily infection count is a mere 140. As I have already said - "drawing broad conclusions from stats like these is extremely courageous" and again, we are talking about vaccine efficacy hereIt isn't. My question wasn't "has had", it was "currently has".
Really? You think you can find a decades long pattern of criminal behavior that led directly to quite a few deaths in other companies and other industries?I'm sure that you could pull-up a similar number of like documents for any mega-company that has the global reach of an international conglomerate like Pfizer.
Yes, it is my contention that they knew that it wouldn't work nearly as well as they claimed when they applied for the EUAs; that they knew what efficacy there was would wane rather quickly, and they knew the product wasn't anywhere near as "safe" as they held it out to be. In other words, that they deliberately misrepresented it so they could make a fortune selling it, because very few people would have taken it if they had been honest.let's agree that Pfizer is "egregious" (as you say) - How does our agreement impact on the point of our debate about infection versus disease control? And if you are asserting that the egregiousness of Pfizer has extended to deliberate misinformation about the intent of their vaccines-
@Uwe: hmm........ I could try again to guess your meaning. However, I'm perfectly happy to admit that I have been bested!!Nope.
Hint: Find the US State with the highest vaccination (and boosting) rate and have a look at the current infection rate in that state.maybe a more efficient way forward for this intriguing matter might be for you to provide the answer (perhaps)?