A new UCSF study reveals vaccinated individuals without prior infection are up to six times more likely to face hospitalization than those who recovered naturally, sparking major calls for vaccine pol
First, you are reading the interpretation of a pre-print from UCSF by Steve Kirsch, a major force among anti-vaccine writers. Secondly, you speak as if the intention of this study - which you apparently did not read - was other than even the title clearly suggests: "Postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2." This was not about safety and efficacy beyond the "post-acute" - the "recovery phase" - of active SARS-CoV-2 disease, meaning Long Covid-19 disease. While it does speak to the fact that men, in particular, with specific comorbidities were more likely to experience severe illness and he hospitalized - which should be no surprise to anyone in hindsight - it emphasizes the fact that this same cohort, if vaccinated, had a very low incidence of Long Covid disease as compared to an unvaccinated cohort. Kirsch does his level best to misrepresent the intention of this study.
If you are, in fact, interested in the genuine science of the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, I would suggest you look no further than the Cochrane Library of Evidence-Based Medicine [https://www.cochranelibrary.com/], which is the gold standard for research & investigation; which I would note accepts funding or outside support from no one, particularly "Big Pharma." They concluded:
Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines
Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).
Implications for practice
Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern.
Implications for research
Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficac y and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.
I am soooo glad I listened to my family members and did NOT get vaccinated !!!!!!!!
Anyone who mandates vaccines these days after the post Plandemic/Scamdemic needs a dirt nap.
No surprised to anyone who researched the Jab from the get-go
Are you married? I didn't know the woman of my dreams was real, but here I am, trying to swoon her in the comments of her Substack comments…
First, you are reading the interpretation of a pre-print from UCSF by Steve Kirsch, a major force among anti-vaccine writers. Secondly, you speak as if the intention of this study - which you apparently did not read - was other than even the title clearly suggests: "Postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2." This was not about safety and efficacy beyond the "post-acute" - the "recovery phase" - of active SARS-CoV-2 disease, meaning Long Covid-19 disease. While it does speak to the fact that men, in particular, with specific comorbidities were more likely to experience severe illness and he hospitalized - which should be no surprise to anyone in hindsight - it emphasizes the fact that this same cohort, if vaccinated, had a very low incidence of Long Covid disease as compared to an unvaccinated cohort. Kirsch does his level best to misrepresent the intention of this study.
If you are, in fact, interested in the genuine science of the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, I would suggest you look no further than the Cochrane Library of Evidence-Based Medicine [https://www.cochranelibrary.com/], which is the gold standard for research & investigation; which I would note accepts funding or outside support from no one, particularly "Big Pharma." They concluded:
Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines
Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).
Implications for practice
Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern.
Implications for research
Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficac y and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.