Why don't you change the rules again by getting rid of the second goal post entirely. That way you don't have to keep on moving it. So far they have changed the definition of: Pandemic. Virus. Vaccine. Gain of function. And let's not forget that you've use the word 'rare' millions of times concerning adverse affects and deaths.
I was discussing this with somebody just the other day who thought that the third (booster) shot was formulated specifically to combat Omicron. I had to explain to them that no, it's exactly the same as you've had two times previously, and give it six months and they'll be injecting you again, with exactly the same substance. What kind of vaccine has to be administered every six months?
An imperfect vaccine for a new virus, I suppose. Do you believe that vaccines are necessarily supposed to all have specific qualities just because they're vaccines? Does every virus work the same way? Do they all mutate the same way?
The first and second dose to give you a little if any protection what makes you think the third is gonna do any good or anything pass at even lying to you the whole time
the science does not back up the claim that boosters matter UNLESS, its been three to six months since your last shot. your body will create antibodies when it thinks there is an infection (either from a vaccine, a booster or natural infection) and that is ALL the vaccine/boosters do. They do not create extra antibodies, they do not create super antibodies. its bitwise, body either thinks you have an infection or not...full stop.
I dont know why its so hard to tell the public repeatly that there is a difference between 'effective against transmission' and 'effective against illness'. The headline of this video makes the entire video not worth even watching because I hve no idea which of those two RADICALLY diferent things they are talking about.
What’s wrong with what he said. He’s saying the two doses offer little protection to the new variant which would be the omicron. Anyone that knows anything knows mutations happen and vaccines have to evolve. So what’s wrong with this statement?it’s very consistent with his previous stance on the first vaccination protection time frame.
He's referring specifically to the omicron variant. 2 doses only protects against omicron infection by about 10% and hospitalization by 52%, adding a third dose brings that to 75% protection from infection and 88% protection from hospitalization. He went on to discuss a vaccine specifically for omicron.
@@reedr6 What an amazing, insightful, and clever reply. You would rather take his one single sentence out of context, imagine what it means, and then believe that he 100% means what you imagine, but you won't believe that he means what he actually says. You either believe him, or you don't. If you don't believe him, then that sentence about the vaccine not being effective must not be true, because you don't believe him. Or, you do believe him, in which case you believe his other numbers also. You want to have it both ways.
@@stevegurasich9708 You must have some doubts if you are engaging in finding videos and posting comments. I know you want to believe that world governments and these pharmaceuticals companies have your best interests at heart, but they don't. They don't care about side effects or effectiveness. That's why they have to use force and coercion to make people comply.
