Who knew that all it took for these scumbags to get sued was the absolute vs relative risk shenanigans. I was pointing that out early and it was like people couldn't comprehend it, or thought I was lying, even though you could easily look it up.
If you do some digging you will find the FDA gold standard method of evaluating the efficacy of any drug/vaccine/treatment was 50%. Any efficacy below 50% is considered useless. It is very difficult to find the FDA documents now but there are still some out there if you dig. Doctors like Dr. Peter McCullough openly states this figure in interviews for the last three years.
My prediction is that nothing will come of it. If you dig, you'll find that the response was a ultimately a military operation and that Pfizer and other gov agencies have no liability for anything beyond outright fraud.
I think you've assumed he made a typo brother, writing, ".85%", when in fact it was indeed .85%, not 85% or .85-effective.
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/pfizer-vaccine-claim-misleads-on-efficacy-measures/
Yes but I deleted what I said a few seconds after I typed it and then couldn’t be bothered writing or researching any of their bunk because I knew it was bunk.
It’s not a conspiracy theory, the article acknowledges that it’s true. It’s debatable whether absolute is a more significant metric. In this context — for a disease with such an incredibly high survival rate, it is obvious that it is the more relevant metric. On the other hand, if COVID killed or seriously harmed half the people that got it, relative would seem the more important metric.
It's so bizarre to see people basically denying 2+2=4 in real time.
I don't think guys like @Thumbpicker are stupid. I think it's more like they are too smart. Too caught up in "Explanations" and "Science" and avoiding "Conspiracy theory" not to be able to step back and use common sense. Common sense might lead one to question, "Is it worth it to take a novel vaccine with no long term safety data in order to reduce my risk for catching something with a 99.965% survival rate by less than 1%(If that)?"
