Quote:
Originally Posted by x808drifter
The real TL;DR
The study was done to determine if the vaccines reduce deaths from causes other than COVID-19
This doesn’t accurately reflect the study, which has not been peer-reviewed. Medical experts have noted that the findings are limited and said that more research is needed.
In the study, researchers used clinical trial data to see what if any effect the different COVID-19 vaccines had on reducing deaths from all causes, not just from COVID-19. It found that adenovirus vaccines like Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca appeared to protect against non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths, while mRNA vaccines didn’t have much of an impact.
The study found that of the 31 deaths that occurred in mRNA-vaccinated individuals, only two were from COVID-19. The rest were due to other causes. For the adenovirus-vaccinated group, two of the 16 deaths were from COVID-19.
The research reinforced that both types of vaccines significantly prevented COVID-19 deaths, "which is not surprising as both types of vaccines generate cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2, protecting us against severe disease."
The research didn’t conclude that mRNA vaccines were ineffective at protecting people from dying of COVID-19.
What was that thing about fitting a narrative?
|
Yes that's the point in the "science" you were spoon fed they only tested for effectivity from COVID. That's why the same people who support this are against free speech. Free speech is the social media form of peer review (even if it much of it is BS). Sometimes you have to step back and look beyond the tip of the iceberg. So if someone who was not at high risk for COVID dies of heart failure from the vaccine maybe that was an unnecessary risk that we were told believe was because we didn't have all the data. But hey like @
weederr33 says not like anyone in here is changing any minds now. Not sure if that means it not worth a discussion though.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk