Science is not the place for spin. There is absolutely no reason not to do a RCT and the fact that Pfizer/KFF did not do one is telling in and of itself.
The confidence intervals on vaccine effectiveness are large because there were so few children going to the emergency room or medical office with covid. The numbers are too small to make reasonably precise evaluations. Isn't that right?
“is likely due to more immune-evasive Omicron sublineages becoming dominant by the time young children received their third dose and longer median time since dose 3 compared with dose 2.”
Don't fall for this - the sentence has the patina of logic because it's written in a peer-reviewed study, but it's just, to quote a friend, "hand waiving" gibberish. Kids with both 2 doses and 3 doses would be equally exposed to escape variants, and researchers must make temporal adjustments for population size (0, 1, 2, 3 etc. doses) at some regular intervals throughout the study period. Doesn't mean the 3rd dose is automatically the true effect (could be selection bias or some other confounder), just that this explanation is disingenuous. Not to mention that Footnote 5 is just clownish reference to to a CDC variant tracker, not some sort of related explanation to be found in another study.
While waning negative effectiveness re infection post 120 days has been well documented now across numerous populations, it is interesting to see the severity canard go by the wayside. I would note that by the time the immune-evasive variants were dominant, levels of immunity from prior infection were at even higher levels than during the earlier period when there was only a 2 dose population (i.e. pre-evasive), so I think reasonable conjecture would be that boosters are actively hampering naturally acquired immunity. Not even sure how a benefit/risk assessment would be done in such a situation, not that the FDA cares one iota. If it turns out that boosters degrade immunity from PI, it would also explain why severe outcomes among unvaccinated kids are steadily decreasing over time - could be b/c (i) their PI is unmolested while increasing in the population, (ii) virus is Muller's Ratcheting to become less virulent even while more evasive or both (i) & (ii).
Thank you, David. IMO Two dose/three dose ... whatever to render them basically ineffective. Now they know. In the meantime, those innocent babies and children have trash, Spike and God knows what else from the “vaccines” in their bodies. Test subjects. That is a tragedy.
Science is not the place for spin. There is absolutely no reason not to do a RCT and the fact that Pfizer/KFF did not do one is telling in and of itself.
The confidence intervals on vaccine effectiveness are large because there were so few children going to the emergency room or medical office with covid. The numbers are too small to make reasonably precise evaluations. Isn't that right?
“is likely due to more immune-evasive Omicron sublineages becoming dominant by the time young children received their third dose and longer median time since dose 3 compared with dose 2.”
Don't fall for this - the sentence has the patina of logic because it's written in a peer-reviewed study, but it's just, to quote a friend, "hand waiving" gibberish. Kids with both 2 doses and 3 doses would be equally exposed to escape variants, and researchers must make temporal adjustments for population size (0, 1, 2, 3 etc. doses) at some regular intervals throughout the study period. Doesn't mean the 3rd dose is automatically the true effect (could be selection bias or some other confounder), just that this explanation is disingenuous. Not to mention that Footnote 5 is just clownish reference to to a CDC variant tracker, not some sort of related explanation to be found in another study.
While waning negative effectiveness re infection post 120 days has been well documented now across numerous populations, it is interesting to see the severity canard go by the wayside. I would note that by the time the immune-evasive variants were dominant, levels of immunity from prior infection were at even higher levels than during the earlier period when there was only a 2 dose population (i.e. pre-evasive), so I think reasonable conjecture would be that boosters are actively hampering naturally acquired immunity. Not even sure how a benefit/risk assessment would be done in such a situation, not that the FDA cares one iota. If it turns out that boosters degrade immunity from PI, it would also explain why severe outcomes among unvaccinated kids are steadily decreasing over time - could be b/c (i) their PI is unmolested while increasing in the population, (ii) virus is Muller's Ratcheting to become less virulent even while more evasive or both (i) & (ii).
Thank you, David. IMO Two dose/three dose ... whatever to render them basically ineffective. Now they know. In the meantime, those innocent babies and children have trash, Spike and God knows what else from the “vaccines” in their bodies. Test subjects. That is a tragedy.
Thanks for this, David. So appreciated. Yesterday, Naomi Wolf and Ed Dowd gave an update on insane excess deaths in the UK. https://substack.com/@naomiwolf/note/c-40423527?r=b7jjt&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action My word!!!!!