Vacciner

⚠️ BREAKING NEWS ⚠️‼️ The Lancet’s nye peer reviewed study ‼️ bekræfter vaxxine effektivitet, som ikke er i nærheden af 95%, som ellers påstået.Jeg har lyst til at sige, at det er sådan det går, når det er producenten selv, der undersøger disse ting. Hvis jeg havde produceret et produkt, jeg gerne ville sælge og promovere, så skulle jeg da nok sørge for, at jeg fik det til at fremstå så godt som muligt 💉Jeg er ingen ekspert, men min personlige vurdering er, at vi endnu engang er blevet ført bag lyset.Sandheden om effektivitet ser således ud:☠️ AZ = 1.3%☠️ M0derna = 1.2%☠️ J&J = 1.2%☠️ PfiSer = 0.84%Dette vil forklare hvorfor, at alle vaxxinerede fortsat bliver smittede. De har ført os bag lyset ved at rapportere RRR (Relative Risk Reduction) i stedet for ARR (Absolute Risk Reduction) ☢️Læs det fulde studie her:https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext 

relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer-BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna-NlH, 90% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the backgro Il with Look Up Share... Copy COVI 19, which varies betw en populations and over time. Ithough the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1•3% for the AstraZeneca-Oxford, 1•2% for the Moderna-NlH, 1•2% for the J&J, for the Gamaleya, and for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines