Again, to be eligible for the study you had to be sick. Sick enough to rush to the urgent care clinic or emergency department of one the hospitals in the study.
Not only that, but you had to present "with a COVID-19–like illness diagnosis."
Read that again: Everyone in the study had a "COVID-like illness."
Which means the study was utterly useless in determining whether or not the ‘vaccines’ were of any use in preventing COVID-like illness.
But we're not dealing with honest people here. We're dealing with the CDC and drug company-sponsored researchers.
Using primarily PCR testing, the researchers compiled a tally of COVID "positive" and "negative" cases among the participants.
The inaccuracy and non-specificity of PCR tests is now the stuff of legend, and even their original inventor, Kary Mullis, publicly stated they were not designed to detect illness nor even active infection. Not to mention the dark clouds hanging over the Sars-Cov-2-specific Corman-Drosten PCR test.
The researchers were not bothered by any of that at all. Heck no - they had a script to follow.
And by following the script, they produced a far higher "SARS-CoV-2 positive test result" tally among unvaccinated patients compared to vaccinated patients.
But given that:
All patients had presented with COVID-19–like illness, including acute respiratory illness (e.g., COVID-19, respiratory failure, or pneumonia) or related signs or symptoms (cough, fever, dyspnea, vomiting, or diarrhea) using diagnosis codes from the International Classification of Diseases, and;
The researchers failed to present a skerrick of evidence to show that the vaccinated fared better in any actual health outcome (e.g. severity of illness, duration of hospital stay, death);
Originally Posted by Kitsuma
Reply With Quote
