Lady test positive 2 months after second shot.

[percho]

Dozens in Central Florida contract COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated (bitchute.com)

 

[JonC]

Yep. "They" (the docs) said fully vaccinated people could still test positive & spread COVID...even get sick (probably less symptomatic). None of the vaccines are 100%.

 

[percho]

Yep.
Probably?

 

[Gold Dragon]

While none of the vaccines were 100% at preventing covid19 (between 70-95%), they were all 100% at preventing severe covid19 and death by Covid19 in the trials.

So if you want to turn covid19 from something that kills 1% of those infected and sends 10-20% to hospital into something that causes 20% of folks to have a mild cold and everyone else doesn’t even get sick, then you want the vaccine.

 

[Aaron]

Yep. "They" (the docs) said fully vaccinated people could still test positive & spread COVID...even get sick (probably less symptomatic). None of the vaccines are 100%.

CDC Director: New Data Indicates Vaccinated People Do Not Carry CCP Virus

New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that people who get COVID-19 vaccines don’t carry the virus that causes the disease, the CDC’s director said late Monday.

“Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick, and that it’s not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data,” Rochelle Walensky, the director, said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

CDC Director: New Data Indicates Vaccinated People Do Not Carry CCP Virus
​

We listenin' to the same doctors?

 

[Gold Dragon]

CDC Director: New Data Indicates Vaccinated People Do Not Carry CCP Virus

New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that people who get COVID-19 vaccines don’t carry the virus that causes the disease, the CDC’s director said late Monday.

“Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick, and that it’s not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data,” Rochelle Walensky, the director, said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

CDC Director: New Data Indicates Vaccinated People Do Not Carry CCP Virus
​

We listenin' to the same doctors?

This is the CDC study being referenced by Walensky

Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA

What is added by this report?

Prospective cohorts of 3,950 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 13 consecutive weeks. Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%.

SARS-CoV-2 infection was diagnosed by RT-PCR in 205 (5.2%) participants; ...Only 22.9% of PCR-confirmed infections were medically attended, including two hospitalizations; no deaths occurred.

So the vaccine turns Covid19 which is normally a disease that sends 10-20% of cases to hospital and 1% of cases to the grave into a disease that sends 1% of cases to hospital and no deaths to occur. And possibly up to 95% have sterilizing immunity which means they are fully immune to covid19. We don't know how long that will last but that is great news.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yep. "They" (the docs) said fully vaccinated people could still test positive & spread COVID...even get sick (probably less symptomatic). None of the vaccines are 100%.

And the lefties want us to have a covid passport. Idiots

 

[JonC]

And the lefties want us to have a covid passport. Idiots

I saw that. And I see Biden is still wanting a mask mandate.

 

[carpro]

Testing positive has never been a 100% sign that one is infected, vaccine administered or not.

The test they are using was never designed to specifically test for Covid 19.

 

[Aaron]

This is the CDC study being referenced by Walensky

Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA





So the vaccine turns Covid19 which is normally a disease that sends 10-20% of cases to hospital and 1% of cases to the grave into a disease that sends 1% of cases to hospital and no deaths to occur. And possibly up to 95% have sterilizing immunity which means they are fully immune to covid19. We don't know how long that will last but that is great news.

That's in the high risk tiers. In the low risk tiers, those rates are more comparable to the flu, and in children, many of which the flu kills every year, the risk of severe symptoms is essentially zero.

I had it. Had a mild fever for three or four days. Lost taste and smell and don't have it back 100% and probably never will.

That's beside the point. I find it interesting--no, damning--that the Left will tout the virtues of an expensive, mildly effective, risky vaccine, and defame and slander doctors who have had phenomenal success with repurposed inexpensive drugs in early treatment, even in the high risk strata.

 

[Gold Dragon]

That's in the high risk tiers. In the low risk tiers, those rates are more comparable to the flu, and in children, many of which the flu kills every year, the risk of severe symptoms is essentially zero.

I had it. Had a mild fever for three or four days. Lost taste and smell and don't have it back 100% and probably never will.

That's beside the point. I find it interesting--no, damning--that the Left will tout the virtues of an expensive, mildly effective, risky vaccine, and defame and slander doctors who have had phenomenal success with repurposed inexpensive drugs in early treatment, even in the high risk strata.

Unfortunately the inexpensive drugs in early treatment just didn’t work if you looked at randomized control trials. Their “phenomenal successes” were not reproducible with rigorous trials. It was wishful thinking in the part of those doctors touting it. We all wanted them to work but those who were honestly looking at the data and not with rose coloured glasses for political or other reasons saw that they didn’t work unfortunately. Massive funds were poured into studying these drugs hoping they would work. But they didn’t.

Just for HCQ there was so much money spent and all the well designed randomized control trials unfortunately showed it didn’t work even in early treatment.

Lancet - HCQ in early treatment

NEJM - HCQ in prophylaxis

No benefit of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19: Results of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials”

 

[Aaron]

Unfortunately the inexpensive drugs in early treatment just didn’t work if you looked at randomized control trials. Their “phenomenal successes” were not reproducible with rigorous trials. It was wishful thinking in the part of those doctors touting it. We all wanted them to work but those who were honestly looking at the data and not with rose coloured glasses for political or other reasons saw that they didn’t work unfortunately. Massive funds were poured into studying these drugs hoping they would work. But they didn’t.

Just for HCQ there was so much money spent and all the well designed randomized control trials unfortunately showed it didn’t work even in early treatment.

Lancet - HCQ in early treatment

NEJM - HCQ in prophylaxis

No benefit of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19: Results of Systematic Review an

Here we go with the same old liberal lying talking points and skewed studies. I will soundly debunk them after work. Some of us do real labor for a living, and we don't have the luxury of time and leftist orgs designing infiltration posts and emails for us.

 

[Scott Downey]

The PCR test is kinda useless for telling you if you have live active virus infecting you, it does show a positive test for covid viral fragments that are not infectious.
What kinda test did they do?
I suppose if you have 'symptoms' then you have some kind of active infection of something, not necessarily covid-19 either.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Here we go with the same old liberal lying talking points and skewed studies. I will soundly debunk them after work. Some of us do real labor for a living, and we don't have the luxury of time and leftist orgs designing infiltration posts and emails for us.

It took me 5 minutes on google to find those studies. The last one is what we call a systematic review which looks at all RCTs published at that point in time. They compiled data from 1071 published trials about HCT. That is 100s of millions if not billions of research dollars poured into seeing if it works.

 

[Aaron]

It took me 5 minutes on google to find those studies. The last one is what we call a systematic review which looks at all RCTs published at that point in time. They compiled data from 1071 published trials about HCT. That is 100s of millions if not billions of research dollars poured into seeing if it works.

Your appeals to randomized control trials are a mere retreat to authority, not science or medicine, and is a mere parroting of Fauci, the NIH and FDA.

But randomized control trials are only part of a cumulative program, and those in the field have long protested the elevation of them as a gold standard, because they have severe limitations and are not definitive, even when conducted without a political agenda.
It is customary for doctors in the field to use their discretion in repurposing drugs for treatment of emerging diseases and report their successes in the effort to improve treatment abroad, and it is customary for other practitioners to take advantage of those reports.

Why the 'gold standard' of medical research is no longer enough

Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials

The pitfalls of randomized controlled trials

Relegating "big data" to fiction and wishful thinking, and asserting, as Fauci et al have done, that nothing is really known without a randomized trial, then tying the hands of physicians is not only false, but insidious especially when faced with something like SARS and MERS.

But as thousands of doctors have reported, they have tremendous success with HCQ. It is only despotism that is saying otherwise.

HCQ for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 276 studies

The case for HCQ Against COVID-19 Is Now Overwhelming | Principia Scientific Intl.

 

[percho]

BREAKING: Dr. Fauci Admits COVID Vaccine May Not Be Safe (thewashingtongazette.com)

 

[Gold Dragon]

Your appeals to randomized control trials are a mere retreat to authority, not science or medicine, and is a mere parroting of Fauci, the NIH and FDA.

But randomized control trials are only part of a cumulative program, and those in the field have long protested the elevation of them as a gold standard, because they have severe limitations and are not definitive, even when conducted without a political agenda.
It is customary for doctors in the field to use their discretion in repurposing drugs for treatment of emerging diseases and report their successes in the effort to improve treatment abroad, and it is customary for other practitioners to take advantage of those reports.

Why the 'gold standard' of medical research is no longer enough

Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials

The pitfalls of randomized controlled trials

Relegating "big data" to fiction and wishful thinking, and asserting, as Fauci et al have done, that nothing is really known without a randomized trial, then tying the hands of physicians is not only false, but insidious especially when faced with something like SARS and MERS.

But as thousands of doctors have reported, they have tremendous success with HCQ. It is only despotism that is saying otherwise.

HCQ for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 276 studies

The case for HCQ Against COVID-19 Is Now Overwhelming | Principia Scientific Intl.

RCTs absolutely have their limitations (which have been known since their inception) and your initial articles mention some correctly.

Remember the Surgisphere fraud papers? Those were big data based and may have been interesting if their data was not fraudulent. But in no way would it have supplanted RCTs. In fact the Surgisphere debacle has probably sent big data papers back years in terms of gaining any traction in the medical community.

Your second suggestion is looking at doctor reports of tremendous success. So just because RCTs have some limitations in some settings that the standard from the Middle Ages of anecdote is now the best authority again?

What a load of bullocks.

 

[Aaron]

RCTs absolutely have their limitations (which have been known since their inception) and your initial articles mention some correctly.

Remember the Surgisphere fraud papers? Those were big data based and may have been interesting if their data was not fraudulent. But in no way would it have supplanted RCTs. In fact the Surgisphere debacle has probably sent big data papers back years in terms of gaining any traction in the medical community.

Your second suggestion is looking at doctor reports of tremendous success. So just because RCTs have some limitations in some settings that the standard from the Middle Ages of anecdote is now the best authority again?

What a load of bullocks.

Lol. A lot of doctors, who till now were unimpeachable, disagree with you.

 

[Gold Dragon]

BREAKING: Dr. Fauci Admits COVID Vaccine May Not Be Safe (thewashingtongazette.com)

They quote him accurately in the article and then completely misrepresent what he says. Do people actually get duped by such shoddy writing?

The reason is traditionally when you have a situation like a new vaccine, you want to make sure, because children as well as pregnant women, are vulnerable, so, before you put it into the children, you’re going to want to make sure you have a degree of efficacy and safety that is established in an adult population, particularly an adult, normal population.

Do they even understand the concept of testing a vaccine before you release it to hundreds of millions of people?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Lol. A lot of doctors, who till now were unimpeachable, disagree with you.

Good for them. I’m not sure why I should care about their opinion.