Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine
Among 51 017 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine was 29% and 20% effective in preventing infection while the
Jay Hsu mark this message contains true information
｜originally written by Jay Hsu
兩個醫生，兩位都是台大的，其中一個有到美國哈佛修碩士。
然後一堆"帳號"不做功課就說這些是假的。
s蛋白的問題早在2020年日本人就有研究報告。
Rumble也只是一個影音平台。youtube的大老闆是疫苗廠的投資人，所以他們早就制定規則，要求影音內容創作者不得討論疫苗缺點，他們表面的假理由是：擴大疫苗猶豫，實際上是為了片更多人去打無效、不安全的新冠實驗疫苗。
1. https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofad209
世界第二名的醫院Cleveland Clinic 5萬1千人的研究報告：有打更危險。
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10125209/
doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.106733
University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark全世界排名約261的大學，發現，mRNA試驗組和對造組死亡率相當。不防死亡（既然不防死亡，我們當然可以合理懷疑其實根本也不防重症）（藥廠的研究也顯示：實驗組死亡人數更多）
3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036
（BMJ）主編Peter Doshi博士團隊發現，新冠疫苗：有打更危險。
4. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.25.22271454v1
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.25.22271454
NY Study 證明1個半月內，12-17歲疫苗有效率從66%變51%。5-11歲疫苗（對感染）有效率從68%變12%。ARR（絕對風險減少值）低於50%，則是無效疫苗。也就是說5-17歲人口注射新冠疫苗，大約在1個半月內失效。代表需要重複施打（加強針？）但是每打一針，副作用的機率就會增高，另外會造成免疫印記的問題（Cleveland Study可以證明）。所以這個針不能重複施打，而且打了2針（完整接種）後，約1.5個月就失效。
5. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13998
DOI: 10.1111/eci.13998
Batch-dependent safety 丹麥研究發現：每位注射者回報3種不良反應。
6. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
BNT file
7. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR0fh1DF8bsd2mQA7n7zynjO6QiuVFdDFSYNIWXL6HNLQ5AdoNBxTZbklvo#
DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00069-0
ARR, RRR"絕對風險減少值"與"相對風險減少值"的問題。
根據WHO，有效的疫苗是50%ARR（絕對風險減少值）。
但是新冠疫苗廠商使用的是RRR（相對風險減少值）。
真實的ARR值為：
1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford,
1·2% for the Moderna–NIH,
1·2% for the J&J,
0·93% for the Gamaleya, and
0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.
然後一堆"帳號"不做功課就說這些是假的。
s蛋白的問題早在2020年日本人就有研究報告。
Rumble也只是一個影音平台。youtube的大老闆是疫苗廠的投資人，所以他們早就制定規則，要求影音內容創作者不得討論疫苗缺點，他們表面的假理由是：擴大疫苗猶豫，實際上是為了片更多人去打無效、不安全的新冠實驗疫苗。
1. https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofad209
世界第二名的醫院Cleveland Clinic 5萬1千人的研究報告：有打更危險。
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10125209/
doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.106733
University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark全世界排名約261的大學，發現，mRNA試驗組和對造組死亡率相當。不防死亡（既然不防死亡，我們當然可以合理懷疑其實根本也不防重症）（藥廠的研究也顯示：實驗組死亡人數更多）
3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036
（BMJ）主編Peter Doshi博士團隊發現，新冠疫苗：有打更危險。
4. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.25.22271454v1
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.25.22271454
NY Study 證明1個半月內，12-17歲疫苗有效率從66%變51%。5-11歲疫苗（對感染）有效率從68%變12%。ARR（絕對風險減少值）低於50%，則是無效疫苗。也就是說5-17歲人口注射新冠疫苗，大約在1個半月內失效。代表需要重複施打（加強針？）但是每打一針，副作用的機率就會增高，另外會造成免疫印記的問題（Cleveland Study可以證明）。所以這個針不能重複施打，而且打了2針（完整接種）後，約1.5個月就失效。
5. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13998
DOI: 10.1111/eci.13998
Batch-dependent safety 丹麥研究發現：每位注射者回報3種不良反應。
6. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
BNT file
7. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR0fh1DF8bsd2mQA7n7zynjO6QiuVFdDFSYNIWXL6HNLQ5AdoNBxTZbklvo#
DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00069-0
ARR, RRR"絕對風險減少值"與"相對風險減少值"的問題。
根據WHO，有效的疫苗是50%ARR（絕對風險減少值）。
但是新冠疫苗廠商使用的是RRR（相對風險減少值）。
真實的ARR值為：
1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford,
1·2% for the Moderna–NIH,
1·2% for the J&J,
0·93% for the Gamaleya, and
0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.
References
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10125209/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.25.22271454v1
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13998
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292
Cannot get data from URL
Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults - PubMed
The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes.
Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine among children 5-11 and 12-17 years in New York after the Emergence of the Omicron Variant
Importance There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine for children, particularly those 5-11 years and after the Omicron variant’s emergence. Objective To estimate BNT162b2
Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine among children 5-11 and 12-17 years in New York after the Emergence of the Omicron Variant
Importance There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine for children, particularly those 5-11 years and after the Omicron variant’s emergence. Objective To estimate BNT162b2
Just a moment...
Checking if the site connection is secureonlinelibrary.wiley.com needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding.
Unknown error
Just a moment...
Checking if the site connection is securewww.thelancet.com needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding.
Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine
Among 51 017 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine was 29% and 20% effective in preventing infection while the
Cannot get data from URL
Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults - PubMed
The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes.
Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine among children 5-11 and 12-17 years in New York after the Emergence of the Omicron Variant
Importance There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine for children, particularly those 5-11 years and after the Omicron variant’s emergence. Objective To estimate BNT162b2
Just a moment...
Checking if the site connection is secureonlinelibrary.wiley.com needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding.
The content above by Cofacts message reporting chatbot and crowd-sourced fact-checking community is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0), the community name and the provenance link for each item shall be fully cited for further reproduction or redistribution.