3 ms·
> They have went back on their statements on efficacy of the jabs - starting from 99% effective down to 10% - indicating they never had any tangible data to sup
by AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> They have went back on their statements on efficacy of the jabs - starting from 99% effective down to 10% - indicating they never had any tangible data to support their claims
I can buy that they never had tangible data. But can you point me to a source for them claiming only 10% effective?
- infotapeworm 2y agoHere is 12% from https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/28/pfizer-covid-vaccine-was-just-12percent-effective-against-omicron-in-kids-5-to-11-study-finds.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/28/pfizer-covid-vaccine-was-jus... Although it is variant specific and from 5-11 age group
- baseballdork 2y agoThis borders on intellectual dishonesty on your part. They’re saying the vaccines, with their effectiveness around the original quoted numbers were ineffective against a new variant.
- infotapeworm 2y agoThere are hundreds of other articles detailing ineffectiveness of the vaccines and lowering efficacy. It is well known that the institutions also changed the narrative to say that vaccines were never about "transmission" I've seen a 2 minute long video showing the declining percentages mainstream media claimed on the vaccine over the course of 3 months. Perhaps this one particular article was dishonest however.
- baseballdork 2y agoYour original statement was that they lied about the effectiveness. The article you presented to back that up was about how the effectiveness was different for a different strain. So either you didn't read the article, didn't understand it, or were being dishonest.