A Lancet study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated people in Sweden was conducted among 1.6 million individuals over nine months. It showed that protection against symptomatic COVID-19 declined with time, such that by six months, some of the more vulnerable vaccinated groups were at greater risk than their unvaccinated peers.
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/news/post/vaccine-acquired-immune-deficiency-syndrome-vaids-we-should-anticipate-seeing-this-immune-erosion-more-widely/
@metal-brain saidAny reason why your not just quoting the lancet 🙄
A Lancet study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated people in Sweden was conducted among 1.6 million individuals over nine months. It showed that protection against symptomatic COVID-19 declined with time, such that by six months, some of the more vulnerable vaccinated groups were at greater risk than their unvaccinated peers.
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/news ...[text shortened]... quired-immune-deficiency-syndrome-vaids-we-should-anticipate-seeing-this-immune-erosion-more-widely/
Stop lying and stop being stupid
@kevcvs57 saidThe lancet was good enough for leftists that hated ivermectin until they were forced to retracted the article. Not much coverage of the retraction though.
Any reason why your not just quoting the lancet 🙄
Stop lying and stop being stupid
Is the Lancet acceptable to you or not?
@metal-brain saidHey Dummy your not posting a link to the lancet are you.
The lancet was good enough for leftists that hated ivermectin until they were forced to retracted the article. Not much coverage of the retraction though.
Is the Lancet acceptable to you or not?
23 Mar 22
@metal-brain saidThe retracted article was about hydroxychloroquine, not ivermectin.
The lancet was good enough for leftists that hated ivermectin until they were forced to retracted the article. Not much coverage of the retraction though.
Is the Lancet acceptable to you or not?
23 Mar 22
@metal-brain saidThis isn't true. This is why you need to post the source rather than an article that gives a filtered assessment of the study.
It showed that protection against symptomatic COVID-19 declined with time, such that by six months, some of the more vulnerable vaccinated groups were at greater risk than their unvaccinated peers.
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/news/post/vaccine-acquired-immune-deficiency-syndrome-vaids-we-should-anticipate-seeing-this-immune-erosion-more-widely/
such that by six months
The abstract clearly states the study is about whether protection lasts "longer" than six months; so already, you made a false statement. By six months, the vaccine is still effective; in fact the abstract states "The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months".
Stop posting secondary sources and stick the primary source. You seem to only post articles that give a false interpretation of studies.
@vivify saidStop lying. I never made any false statements.
This isn't true. This is why you need to post the source rather than an article that gives a filtered assessment of the study.
such that by six months
The abstract clearly states the study is about whether protection lasts "longer" than six months; so already, you made a false statement. By six months, the vaccine is still effective; in fact the abstract state ...[text shortened]... ick the primary source. You seem to only post articles that give a false interpretation of studies.
That article had the source article. All you had to do was click on it. Here it is, lazy.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410
I realize vaccinated people do not want to believe it, but facts are facts. The study is real.
23 Mar 22
@metal-brain saidYour article banks on their readers *not* doing that and just taking their word for it, like you did. I clicked through that website, they are clearly focused on spreading right-wing Covid propaganda.
That article had the source Lancet article. All you had to do was click on it.
Your article links to the study but misrepresents it. So stop posting links that filter data through right-wing misinformation and stick to the original sources.
23 Mar 22
@vivify saidYou are lying again. Prove it if you can.
Your article banks on their readers *not* doing that and just taking their word for it, like you did. I clicked through that website, they are clearly focused on spreading right-wing Covid propaganda.
Your article links to the study but misrepresents it. So stop posting links that filter data through right-wing misinformation and stick to the original sources.
@metal-brain saidI already addressed the this; you clearly don't pay attention when you read. Here's my post from earlier in this thread about the very link you just posted:
Stop lying. I never made any false statements.
That article had the source article. All you had to do was click on it. Here it is, lazy.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410
The abstract clearly states the study is about whether protection lasts "longer" than six months; so already, you made a false statement. By six months, the vaccine is still effective; in fact the abstract states "The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months".
24 Mar 22
@vivify saidThat doesn't contradict anything I have said. You made a false statement when you said I made a false statement.
I already addressed the this; you clearly don't pay attention when you read. Here's my post from earlier in this thread about the very link you just posted:
The abstract clearly states the study is about whether protection lasts "longer" than six months; so already, you made a false statement. By six months, the vaccine is still effective; in fact the abstract states "The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months".
Stop lying.
24 Mar 22
From the Lancet report:
"These preprints are early stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision making and should not be presented to a lay audience without highlighting that they are preliminary and have not been peer-reviewed. "
End thread
24 Mar 22
@vivify saidDoesn't change the fact you lied.
From the Lancet report:
"These preprints are early stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision making and should not be presented to a lay audience without highlighting that they are preliminary and have not been peer-reviewed. "
End thread