Preprint
Conclusions The 2023-2024 formula COVID-19 vaccine given to working-aged adults afforded a low level of protection against the JN.1 lineage of SARS-CoV-2, but a higher number of prior vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19.
Summary Among 47561 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the 2023-2024 formula COVID-19 vaccine was 23% effective against the JN.1 lineage of SARS-CoV-2, but a higher number of prior COVID-19 vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19.
He, and also his piece of shit senior killing brother, fully deserve the pile of fresh steaming karma visiting him now. So he’s done a u-turn on the “horse dewormer” has he? But still can’t bring himself to accept that his “long covid” is actually a jab induced injury. I guess he’s still trying to maintain his bona fides with his npc brethren.
Stay tuned here for our resident covid comedian, coming up soon after this brief intermission.
Also: the cheque is in the mail.
” . . . antibacterial drug . . .”
Jesus Christ, the clueless idiots can’t get anything right even when they’re actually trying.
I have no interest in offering Covid 19 advice to anybody.. You do what you do..
Natural immunity. I trust my own body over “high tech” sciency shite.
Jeez, dead rat isn’t here to throw shade at the report of his wonder drugs not quite being perfect
Oh he’ll be back to tell us this study is weak and meaningless.
Never would take another Covid vax.
Didn’t take the first one, glad I followed my gut
“This article is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed”
I’m sure they’ll add the giant rat penis before they go to publication.
The information on the harms of the “Vax” have gone from a trickle to a fire hose. The Marmot doesn’t have enough fingers to fill the leaks in the dam.
This paper found that taking the new vaccine reduced your chances of getting COVID. You’re aware of that, right?
Stupid, stupid, stupid, you are stupid.
I was raised to believe that those who resort to vacuous insults do so because they have no actual rational argument.
I resort to vacuous insults because I need to clean the carpet, and I don’t like the carpet. When I’m in a good mood, vacuous compliments also work. Now, you’re supposed to be telling us all how this research is meek and willyless, aren’t you? Get on with it.
ebt:
No, I’m saying that the people who think this paper is some great score for the anti-vaxx side didn’t read the paper. It literally says that the vaccine was effective.
Did you read the paper? Did you understand what it said?
Wow, just as well it didn’t literally say that Comrade Stalin was a wise leader, or I’d have some serious rethinking to do, now wouldn’t I?
But you’ve caught me out, you devil. I have not in fact read and validated this entire paper. I try not to waste my time reading crap. Unless of course I write it myself, in which case, I can’t get enough.
Now, I was looking forward to a demonstration of meek and willyless. Frankly, achieving willyless status would be a step up in the current environment, with giant rat willies lurking round every corner. Apparently, this paper says the vaccine was effective. Did you notice any other shortcomings?
After the ‘peer review’ gamification exposed by the Covid scam, does any reader trust a paper that is ‘peer reviewed’?