Zobel said:

---

So peer review we like is iron clad, peer review we don't is bought and paid for by pharma? Forget the appeal to authority. Engage with the facts. The paper is trash, because the methodology is suspect.

You know this is a re-analysis of an initial paper that was published in NEJM right? So why do you go with this analysis over that?

Peer review is no guarantee, papers get withdrawn. That's why you don't rely on one paper.

---

There is more than one paper suggesting the vaccine cost was much higher than Pfizer indicated. If you have an actual study (not a blog post) that seriously examines the statistical evidence it might be worth reading. Otherwise, you are violating every principal you've previously set forth on this board regarding evidentiary value.

GeorgiAg said:

---

I love how the conspiraloons mention the vax, but don't mention the virus. All these posts mention, "he was vaxxed," but are silent as to whether he had the virus.

I am open to scientific inquiry, but not by Twitter posters.

The spike proteins in the vax causing heart damage? Well, guess what the virus has...

---

This will be the next path.

We went from 1) the phase III trial shows no increased risk of myocarditis to:
2) myocarditis isn't that serious and now, finally to:
3) its probably the virus and not the vaccine causing the problem.


https://www.unibas.ch/en/News-Events/News/Uni-Research/Temporary-mild-damage-to-heart-muscle-cells-after-Covid-19-booster-vaccination.html

GeorgiAg said:

---

I am open to scientific inquiry, but only if we repeatedly continue to fail to censor, silence, dismiss, and humiliate anyone who expresses any doubt or concern about the approved government establishment narratives.

---

fify

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

But mounting evidence of permanent damage due to the swelling of the heart and swelling to membranes around the heart.

---

can you share this evidence, please?

---

I don't have time to dig all of this up. Basically since Covid started I have done a massive deep dive into everything Covid. I've read through hundreds of studies, thoroughly. Have a group of friends, 17 of us, two are epidemiologists, one an infectious disease lab minion, who share and challenge and discuss etc. It's not like I have sone document with those studies linked. We have a numbered database in which we can reference studies when discussing, but we didn't take the time to categorize everything. We're not running a study, just learning.

But very concerning, as time goes on, the lasting impacts from the vaccine. Again, these were the shortest phase 3 trials ever. EAU with literally *zero* long term data. The masses are the trial, especially regarding long term efficacy and risks.

RWWilson said:

---

Zobel said:

---

So peer review we like is iron clad, peer review we don't is bought and paid for by pharma? Forget the appeal to authority. Engage with the facts. The paper is trash, because the methodology is suspect.

You know this is a re-analysis of an initial paper that was published in NEJM right? So why do you go with this analysis over that?

Peer review is no guarantee, papers get withdrawn. That's why you don't rely on one paper.

---

There is more than one paper suggesting the vaccine cost was much higher than Pfizer indicated. If you have an actual study (not a blog post) that seriously examines the statistical evidence it might be worth reading. Otherwise, you are violating every principal you've previously set forth on this board regarding evidentiary value.

---

I have never once argued against people evaluating papers or proposed gatekeeping discussions solely in the realm of published papers.

The critiques are real and valid. You're practicing the exact same gatekeeping you're accusing me of. Defend the crap methodology and questionable statistics, don't make it about me.

So… no?

Zobel said:

---

So… no?

---

Lol. No.

Edit to add: that's the problem with wanting everything spoon fed to you. You lack the willingness to look into this stuff yourself and to think critically. You take what's spoon fed to you as gospel. That's why we're in this mess to begin with.

Zobel said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

Zobel said:

---

So peer review we like is iron clad, peer review we don't is bought and paid for by pharma? Forget the appeal to authority. Engage with the facts. The paper is trash, because the methodology is suspect.

You know this is a re-analysis of an initial paper that was published in NEJM right? So why do you go with this analysis over that?

Peer review is no guarantee, papers get withdrawn. That's why you don't rely on one paper.

---

There is more than one paper suggesting the vaccine cost was much higher than Pfizer indicated. If you have an actual study (not a blog post) that seriously examines the statistical evidence it might be worth reading. Otherwise, you are violating every principal you've previously set forth on this board regarding evidentiary value.

---

I have never once argued against people evaluating papers or proposed gatekeeping discussions solely in the realm of published papers.

The critiques are real and valid. You're practicing the exact same gatekeeping you're accusing me of. Defend the crap methodology and questionable statistics, don't make it about me.

---

I apologize. I confused you with another poster who routinely dismisses evidence if it is not "peer reviewed". That said, the issue is the Pfizer trials. The study in question calls into question the Pfizer trial and now a blog has called into question the questions about the trial.

Do you believe the Pfizer trial accurately stated vaccine efficacy and accurately stated vaccine risks?

In God we trust. All others bring data. I have.

Yes. Because this paper went back reevaluated the results with an arbitrary definition of adverse events - their own - that inconsistently included some and excluded others. They did that to p-hack the data to get a statistically significant result which is junk. GIGO. Then they used that cherry picked group to compare events to hospitalizations, biasing their analysis arbitrarily to show more harm from the vaccines. Their defense of their approach is that they didn't have access to the same data as the fda. So it's all junk. Like the multiple responses from doctors and researchers have said. Read the critiques, they're not just saying "this study is bad".

Zobel said:

---

Yes. Because this paper went back reevaluated the results with an arbitrary definition of adverse events - their own - that inconsistently included some and excluded others. They did that to p-hack the data to get a statistically significant result which is junk. GIGO. Then they used that cherry picked group to compare events to hospitalizations, biasing their analysis arbitrarily to show more harm from the vaccines. Their defense of their approach is that they didn't have access to the same data as the fda. So it's all junk. Like the multiple responses from doctors and researchers have said. Read the critiques, they're not just saying "this study is bad".

---

That wasn't really my question. Independent of the study you dispute, do you believe the Pfizer study (95% efficacy) and risk (no increased risk of myocarditis or clotting) were accurate?

Dude you've been wrong about this for a long time. You need to look around a little. This same old crap doesn't work anymore.

Zobel said:

---

In God we trust. All others bring data. I have.

---

You've brought the phase 3 clinicals. Even the CDC has updated their vaccine efficacy and risk numbers. That was pointless and universally recognized outdated info that you provided.

I've shared plenty of papers on this topic other than the trials. The next evidence you post will be the first.

Yes. Studies look at predefined outcomes during a predefined length of time. That's partly what keeps the system honest. They record what they see. The adverse events and serious adverse events observed during the trials were all recorded. The rates of symptomatic illness and serious illness due to COVID were recorded. The difference between the placebo and vaccine group is a calculated number. That is true for that study, in that period.

There are other studies that went outside of that period, studying different things. But what was found in those remains a fact. We know - because of those other studies - that efficacy wanes for symptomatic infection, but very much less so for serious illness.

The real test of a study is how useful the results are for predictions or generalization outside of the study window. So on efficacy against severe illness they were good - very good. On efficacy against symptomatic infection, they were ok because they didn't capture the eventual decline. That doesn't make the study wrong, it is a natural limitation. It's ironic because part of the reason the limit came into play was because the number of hospitalizations to end the study was pre defined, and they were hit very quickly….nearly entirely in the placebo group (150 to 1 off the top of my head, could be remembering wrong). Had that outcome not been so rapid or clear, perhaps the drop symptomatic illness efficacy would have been captured.

Then they did six months of safety follow up. That was outside of the clinical trials. Still useful, but now that has no comparison for COVID because they didn't continue the counting of the placebo group. That's one of the biasing features of your study. They kept counting adverse events, but they stopped counting COVID hospitalization. The longer you do that, the worse the vaccine looks. But it's complete fiction, because the benefit - protection from COVID serious illness - also keeps accumulating.

Rockdoc said:

---

Dude you've been wrong about this for a long time. You need to look around a little. This same old crap doesn't work anymore.

---

What has he been wrong about?

Zobel said:

---

Yes. Studies look at predefined outcomes during a predefined length of time. That's partly what keeps the system honest. They record what they see. The adverse events and serious adverse events observed during the trials were all recorded. The rates of symptomatic illness and serious illness due to COVID were recorded. The difference between the placebo and vaccine group is a calculated number. That is true for that study, in that period.

There are other studies that went outside of that period, studying different things. But what was found in those remains a fact. We know - because of those other studies - that efficacy wanes for symptomatic infection, but very much less so for serious illness.

The real test of a study is how useful the results are for predictions or generalization outside of the study window. So on efficacy against severe illness they were good - very good. On efficacy against symptomatic infection, they were ok because they didn't capture the eventual decline. That doesn't make the study wrong, it is a natural limitation. It's ironic because part of the reason the limit came into play was because the number of hospitalizations to end the study was pre defined, and they were hit very quickly….nearly entirely in the placebo group (150 to 1 off the top of my head, could be remembering wrong). Had that outcome not been so rapid or clear, perhaps the drop symptomatic illness efficacy would have been captured.

Then they did six months of safety follow up. That was outside of the clinical trials. Still useful, but now that has no comparison for COVID because they didn't continue the counting of the placebo group. That's one of the biasing features of your study. They kept counting adverse events, but they stopped counting COVID hospitalization. The longer you do that, the worse the vaccine looks. But it's complete fiction, because the benefit - protection from COVID serious illness - also keeps accumulating.

---

What do you make of the fact the trials did not account for decreasing infection rate during the period of the study?

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/05/07/study-claims-pfizer-vaccine-is-95-effective-in-over-65s-but-should-that-be-74/

Not even Pfizer claims their 95% efficacy as accurate any longer.

It seems somewhat duplicitous to claim, "the trials were accurate within the confines of their historically short period" when we all know that efficacy and risks cannot be accurately gauged within such short periods.

The methodology of the trials had other flaws and there is growing evidence the vaccine efficacy was not 95% nor the risk of clotting and myocarditis negligible.

https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/important-caveats-to-pfizer-vaccine

RWWilson said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yes. Studies look at predefined outcomes during a predefined length of time. That's partly what keeps the system honest. They record what they see. The adverse events and serious adverse events observed during the trials were all recorded. The rates of symptomatic illness and serious illness due to COVID were recorded. The difference between the placebo and vaccine group is a calculated number. That is true for that study, in that period.

There are other studies that went outside of that period, studying different things. But what was found in those remains a fact. We know - because of those other studies - that efficacy wanes for symptomatic infection, but very much less so for serious illness.

The real test of a study is how useful the results are for predictions or generalization outside of the study window. So on efficacy against severe illness they were good - very good. On efficacy against symptomatic infection, they were ok because they didn't capture the eventual decline. That doesn't make the study wrong, it is a natural limitation. It's ironic because part of the reason the limit came into play was because the number of hospitalizations to end the study was pre defined, and they were hit very quickly….nearly entirely in the placebo group (150 to 1 off the top of my head, could be remembering wrong). Had that outcome not been so rapid or clear, perhaps the drop symptomatic illness efficacy would have been captured.

Then they did six months of safety follow up. That was outside of the clinical trials. Still useful, but now that has no comparison for COVID because they didn't continue the counting of the placebo group. That's one of the biasing features of your study. They kept counting adverse events, but they stopped counting COVID hospitalization. The longer you do that, the worse the vaccine looks. But it's complete fiction, because the benefit - protection from COVID serious illness - also keeps accumulating.

---

What do you make of the fact the trials did not account for decreasing vaccine effectiveness?

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/05/07/study-claims-pfizer-vaccine-is-95-effective-in-over-65s-but-should-that-be-74/

Not even Pfizer claims their 95% efficacy as accurate any longer.

It seems somewhat duplicitous to claim, "the trials were accurate within the confines of their historically short period" when we all know that efficacy and risks cannot be accurately gauged within such short periods.

---

This is what I don't understand. The manufacturers of the vaccines, CDC, NIH, no one uses the efficacy and risk findings from those clinical trials any longer. But you have folks who still want to die on that hill. Hell, even Fauci and bill gates have updated what they spew to numbers that are at least close to accurate.

The 95% was accurate. They didn't amend the study. If you go outside and check to see if a rock is wet or not every day for a three month period and it's a monsoon season, maybe you find it wet 95% of the time. That's what you'd write in your paper. If your study was a year, and it never rained other than in monsoon, maybe you'd find 25% of the time. That doesn't make your study false, or wrong. It makes it limited.

You love to bag on the reduction in efficacy against symptomatic illness. But why not focus on the efficacy against hospitalization and death?

Through six months they found 91% efficacy against illness but 96% against severe disease.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110345

So how long do we need to window? How long do you wait before publishing? Ten years? What's the cost?

Does it change with variants? Yes. With time? Yes. And we add that knowledge to the knowledge from the trials.

Zobel said:

---

The 95% was accurate. They didn't amend the study. If you go outside and check to see if a rock is wet or not every day for a three month period and it's a monsoon season, maybe you find it wet 95% of the time. That's what you'd write in your paper. If your study was a year, and it never rained other than in monsoon, maybe you'd find 25% of the time. That doesn't make your study false, or wrong. It makes it limited.

You love to bag on the reduction in efficacy against symptomatic illness. But why not focus on the efficacy against hospitalization and death?

Through six months they found 91% efficacy against illness but 96% against severe disease.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110345

So how long do we need to window? How long do you wait before publishing? Ten years? What's the cost?

Does it change with variants? Yes. With time? Yes. And we add that knowledge to the knowledge from the trials.

---

Sure. That's not the point. The point was that vaccines were shoved down our throats, lives ruined, businesses ruined, etc., because of those data in the phase 3 trials which you just admitted were "limited" and obviously only a small piece of the larger picture. If you're going to set sweeping policy based on limited data you're ****ing insane and it's completely malicious. Especially when you factor in that the policy setters stood to gain large financial benefits for recommending said policy based on the trials.

At least you finally admitted that those trials were limited and only a snapshot of what was going on.

It's not an admission, it's written in plain English in the papers.

It is a mistake to conflate the research with public policy. I don't agree with vaccine mandates or most of the public policy decisions made during the pandemic. That doesn't make the vaccines dangerous or ineffective.

Zobel said:

---

It's not an admission, it's written in plain English in the papers.

It is a mistake to conflate the research with public policy. I don't agree with vaccine mandates or most of the public policy decisions made during the pandemic. That doesn't make the vaccines dangerous or ineffective.

---

What about gene therapy?

What about it

Smudge said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The 95% was accurate. They didn't amend the study. If you go outside and check to see if a rock is wet or not every day for a three month period and it's a monsoon season, maybe you find it wet 95% of the time. That's what you'd write in your paper. If your study was a year, and it never rained other than in monsoon, maybe you'd find 25% of the time. That doesn't make your study false, or wrong. It makes it limited.

You love to bag on the reduction in efficacy against symptomatic illness. But why not focus on the efficacy against hospitalization and death?

Through six months they found 91% efficacy against illness but 96% against severe disease.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110345

So how long do we need to window? How long do you wait before publishing? Ten years? What's the cost?

Does it change with variants? Yes. With time? Yes. And we add that knowledge to the knowledge from the trials.

---

Sure. That's not the point. The point was that vaccines were shoved down our throats, lives ruined, businesses ruined, etc., because of those data in the phase 3 trials which you just admitted were "limited" and obviously only a small piece of the larger picture. If you're going to set sweeping policy based on limited data you're ****ing insane and it's completely malicious. Especially when you factor in that the policy setters stood to gain large financial benefits for recommending said policy based on the trials.

At least you finally admitted that those trials were limited and only a snapshot of what was going on.

---

Hindsight is 20-20. We were faced with an unknown health crisis. Hospital ICUs were at full capacity even with all the lockdowns, masks, closed schools etc... With no lockdowns, our health care system would have been overwhelmed.

Who predicted the variability and severity of the virus? LMK because I need him to pick some football games or go to Vegas with me.

Vaccination reduced the amount of severe disease so we could open back up again without hospitals being overrun.

Zobel said:

---

It's not an admission, it's written in plain English in the papers.

It is a mistake to conflate the research with public policy. I don't agree with vaccine mandates or most of the public policy decisions made during the pandemic. That doesn't make the vaccines dangerous or ineffective.

---

Typically yes, that would be a mistake. But this research was walking in lock step with policy makers and their intentions. You cannot separate the two.

And it is an admission. How many times did lord Fauci say the science is settled? All of you sheep took it as gospel and still hold to it. Truly amazing.

Yes. It was bad science. The time was too short. This is obvious now and was before Covid. Phase 3 trials are never that short for this very reason. I remember all the Dems saying this out loud when it was Trumps vaccine. That narrative went away the second Biden was sworn in. All of a sudden short phase 3 trials were totally fine.

Zobel said:

---

What about it

---

The accepted definition of vaccine had been to produce immunity. The products put out during Covid did no such thing so now the terminology has been changed to "protection" from "immunity". I'm just wondering if we're talking about actual vaccines or gene therapy.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Smudge said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The 95% was accurate. They didn't amend the study. If you go outside and check to see if a rock is wet or not every day for a three month period and it's a monsoon season, maybe you find it wet 95% of the time. That's what you'd write in your paper. If your study was a year, and it never rained other than in monsoon, maybe you'd find 25% of the time. That doesn't make your study false, or wrong. It makes it limited.

You love to bag on the reduction in efficacy against symptomatic illness. But why not focus on the efficacy against hospitalization and death?

Through six months they found 91% efficacy against illness but 96% against severe disease.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110345

So how long do we need to window? How long do you wait before publishing? Ten years? What's the cost?

Does it change with variants? Yes. With time? Yes. And we add that knowledge to the knowledge from the trials.

---

Sure. That's not the point. The point was that vaccines were shoved down our throats, lives ruined, businesses ruined, etc., because of those data in the phase 3 trials which you just admitted were "limited" and obviously only a small piece of the larger picture. If you're going to set sweeping policy based on limited data you're ****ing insane and it's completely malicious. Especially when you factor in that the policy setters stood to gain large financial benefits for recommending said policy based on the trials.

At least you finally admitted that those trials were limited and only a snapshot of what was going on.

---

Hindsight is 20-20. We were faced with an unknown health crisis. Hospital ICUs were at full capacity even with all the lockdowns, masks, closed schools etc... With no lockdowns, our health care system would have been overwhelmed.

Who predicted the variability and severity of the virus? LMK because I need him to pick some football games or go to Vegas with me.

Vaccination reduced the amount of severe disease so we could open back up again without hospitals being overrun.

---

LOL

GeorgiAg said:

---

Smudge said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The 95% was accurate. They didn't amend the study. If you go outside and check to see if a rock is wet or not every day for a three month period and it's a monsoon season, maybe you find it wet 95% of the time. That's what you'd write in your paper. If your study was a year, and it never rained other than in monsoon, maybe you'd find 25% of the time. That doesn't make your study false, or wrong. It makes it limited.

You love to bag on the reduction in efficacy against symptomatic illness. But why not focus on the efficacy against hospitalization and death?

Through six months they found 91% efficacy against illness but 96% against severe disease.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110345

So how long do we need to window? How long do you wait before publishing? Ten years? What's the cost?

Does it change with variants? Yes. With time? Yes. And we add that knowledge to the knowledge from the trials.

---

Sure. That's not the point. The point was that vaccines were shoved down our throats, lives ruined, businesses ruined, etc., because of those data in the phase 3 trials which you just admitted were "limited" and obviously only a small piece of the larger picture. If you're going to set sweeping policy based on limited data you're ****ing insane and it's completely malicious. Especially when you factor in that the policy setters stood to gain large financial benefits for recommending said policy based on the trials.

At least you finally admitted that those trials were limited and only a snapshot of what was going on.

---

Hindsight is 20-20. We were faced with an unknown health crisis. Hospital ICUs were at full capacity even with all the lockdowns, masks, closed schools etc... With no lockdowns, our health care system would have been overwhelmed.

Who predicted the variability and severity of the virus? LMK because I need him to pick some football games or go to Vegas with me.

Vaccination reduced the amount of severe disease so we could open back up again without hospitals being overrun.

---

There is no ****ing way you believe what you just wrote.

1872walker said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What about it

---

The accepted definition of vaccine had been to produce immunity. The products put out during Covid did no such thing so now the terminology has been changed to "protection" from "immunity". I'm just wondering if we're talking about actual vaccines or gene therapy.

---

This argument is so bad. Many vaccines don't produce immunity. Hep B, influenza, pertussis, some polio vaccines, rotavirus all fall into this category.

Zobel said:

---

1872walker said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What about it

---

The accepted definition of vaccine had been to produce immunity. The products put out during Covid did no such thing so now the terminology has been changed to "protection" from "immunity". I'm just wondering if we're talking about actual vaccines or gene therapy.

---

This argument is so bad. Many vaccines don't produce immunity. Hep B, influenza, pertussis, some polio vaccines, rotavirus all fall into this category.

---

Did any of the Covid vaccines meet that definition of offering protection?

Call it whatever you want, the shots administered over the past two and a half years were an abject failure by any definition.

Smudge said:

---

Typically yes, that would be a mistake. But this research was walking in lock step with policy makers and their intentions. You cannot separate the two.

And it is an admission. How many times did lord Fauci say the science is settled? All of you sheep took it as gospel and still hold to it. Truly amazing.

Yes. It was bad science. The time was too short. This is obvious now and was before Covid. Phase 3 trials are never that short for this very reason. I remember all the Dems saying this out loud when it was Trumps vaccine. That narrative went away the second Biden was sworn in. All of a sudden short phase 3 trials were totally fine.

---

Of course I can separate them. Some politician using research to come to conclusions I don't agree with doesn't prevent me from understanding and valuing the research independently. That only makes our use and understanding of research beholden to politicians. Why give them that power?

Who cares what Fauci said? Why does that matter? When have I said you should think this because Fauci said so?

Clinical trials hit their endpoints when they arrive at pre determined outcomes. That happens whenever it happens, the length of time is uncontrolled. Some take a year, some take ten. It depends on the prevalence and time of disease course. What isn't in doubt is that the median time for safety follow up for vaccines in the past 20 years is six months. That's with an average of 3000 people in the trial. These vaccines did the same safety follow up as average with around ten times the normal size group, and then safety was monitored further during the EUA period. as a result the safety of these is better understood that at the same time period of most vaccines, not worse.

But again, same question. How long should the trial have gone? Two years? Ten? How many people needed to be hospitalized or die in the placebo arm? How many people needed to die in the general public?

1872walker said:

---

Did any of the Covid vaccines meet that definition of offering protection?

Call it whatever you want, the shots administered over the past two and a half years were an abject failure by any definition.

---

Yes! That's the whole point, they absolutely did and do. You have to deny a whole body of research from around the world to come to the opposite conclusion.

You are staying that as a fact with zero - zero! - evidence. Again. Groundhog Day.

Zobel said:

---

Smudge said:

---

Typically yes, that would be a mistake. But this research was walking in lock step with policy makers and their intentions. You cannot separate the two.

And it is an admission. How many times did lord Fauci say the science is settled? All of you sheep took it as gospel and still hold to it. Truly amazing.

Yes. It was bad science. The time was too short. This is obvious now and was before Covid. Phase 3 trials are never that short for this very reason. I remember all the Dems saying this out loud when it was Trumps vaccine. That narrative went away the second Biden was sworn in. All of a sudden short phase 3 trials were totally fine.

---

Of course I can separate them. Some politician using research to come to conclusions I don't agree with doesn't prevent me from understanding and valuing the research independently. That only makes our use and understanding of research beholden to politicians. Why give them that power?

Who cares what Fauci said? Why does that matter? When have I said you should think this because Fauci said so?

Clinical trials hit their endpoints when they arrive at pre determined outcomes. That happens whenever it happens, the length of time is uncontrolled. Some take a year, some take ten. It depends on the prevalence and time of disease course. What isn't in doubt is that the median time for safety follow up for vaccines in the past 20 years is six months. That's with an average of 3000 people in the trial. These vaccines did the same safety follow up as average with around ten times the normal size group, and then safety was monitored further during the EUA period. as a result the safety of these is better understood that at the same time period of most vaccines, not worse.

But again, same question. How long should the trial have gone? Two years? Ten? How many people needed to be hospitalized or die in the placebo arm? How many people needed to die in the general public?

---

As many as it takes in order to determine whether in not what was injected into people truly was/is safe and effective.

Zobel said:

---

1872walker said:

---

Did any of the Covid vaccines meet that definition of offering protection?

Call it whatever you want, the shots administered over the past two and a half years were an abject failure by any definition.

---

Yes! That's the whole point, they absolutely did and do. You have to deny a whole body of research from around the world to come to the opposite conclusion.

You are staying that as a fact with zero - zero! - evidence. Again. Groundhog Day.

---

How can you determine the efficacy at this point?

I'm not denying anything. I'm saying that it's far too early to know.

Further clinical trials. Observational studies. Random surveillance.

For example
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00345-0/fulltext

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2117128

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33378-7

And a meta analysis of 41 randomized controlled trials from Cochrane
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015477/full