RT @djlange: @AngelaReiersen Sorry to hear this, there is sadly a correlation between no. of vax shots and no. of infections. People were…
RT @djlange: @AngelaReiersen Sorry to hear this, there is sadly a correlation between no. of vax shots and no. of infections. People were…
@FriedmanJas Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine https://t.co/uQfTb932h0 https://t.co/E08bgzqi8f
@SalamonSMD Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine https://t.co/mqTDiJ3THA https://t.co/pBFnEmK6yK
RT @djlange: @AngelaReiersen Sorry to hear this, there is sadly a correlation between no. of vax shots and no. of infections. People were…
RT @djlange: Remember claims we were in a 'pandemic of the unvaccinated'? A new study concludes... MORE VACCINES = MORE INFECTIONS https:…
RT @djlange: @AngelaReiersen Sorry to hear this, there is sadly a correlation between no. of vax shots and no. of infections. People were…
RT @djlange: Remember claims we were in a 'pandemic of the unvaccinated'? A new study concludes... MORE VACCINES = MORE INFECTIONS https:…
RT @djlange: @AngelaReiersen Sorry to hear this, there is sadly a correlation between no. of vax shots and no. of infections. People were…
@CDCgov Ignore these liars. https://t.co/pRODe6xvsQ
@CovidSolidarit1 CDC .... millions https://t.co/UO05p3EWOZ
@JoeBiden Or just injure and kill them with your mandates https://t.co/UO05p3EWOZ
@CDCgov I suppose the Nazi gas chamber was safe and effective? https://t.co/UO05p3EWOZ
RT @djlange: @AngelaReiersen Sorry to hear this, there is sadly a correlation between no. of vax shots and no. of infections. People were…
@AngelaReiersen Sorry to hear this, there is sadly a correlation between no. of vax shots and no. of infections. People were duped. https://t.co/pRODe6xvsQ
@SwaledaleMutton @etem422 @yawlnellie10 @YourFerntasy @Headbanger215 @Questio31810600 @Creativologist @MaxDippyDog @apocalypse_boss @ButHisEmails @Similar89 You are a shill who is dramatically in denial of data. negative efficacy, in the biggest trial don
@TheChiefNerd https://t.co/0DIIW28rhj Here's the Cleveland Clinic trial he's talking about.
@DavidLMayhew @JeromeAdamsMD @US_FDA @WHO @CDCgov 12-19-2022 The Cleveland Clinic studied 51,011 employees🚨 “The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19” bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was 29% 20% 4% effe
@DocDeezWhat @ichudov First of all, nice strawman argument (nobody ever said natural immunity is perfect except you), second of all, there is evidence showing COVID vaccines suppress natural immunity roughly in proportion to the number of shots taken. htt
Voilà à quoi ressemble l’ADE (risque accru d’infection par le vaccin) dans les études cliniques qui ne sont pas supprimées par l’industrie pharmaceutique et le gouvernement.
@801formal_llama @jeremykauffman And, sorry, it was the Cleveland clinic, not Mayo clinic. https://t.co/eSr8GMC7YA https://t.co/XjHijvDxg2
@JuBacon4 @Selbstbestimm10 https://t.co/5DYjCkvifU Ist kein Unsinn… Gegen einen stark mutierenden Virus zu impfen hilft allerdings der Pharma viel Geld zu verdienen…
@Siggiiiii @krutinho94 @schwurbler6500 Welchen Artikel meinst Du Siggi? Den hier? https://t.co/H3sp5OHQqL
@Siggiiiii @krutinho94 @schwurbler6500 https://t.co/QxTl8a90It Aber Achtung es ist nur ein Preprint.
@D1ddy @LonVarnadore1 @RealJohn1776 @realChrisBrunet Adjusted for various risk factors, the people who had four or more doses had 3.4 times as much chance of being infected as those who had none. https://t.co/3w3P9OWDsg
@D1ddy @LonVarnadore1 @RealJohn1776 @realChrisBrunet People who had received three or more shots were more than three times as likely to be infected as those who hadn’t received any. https://t.co/3w3P9OWDsg
@Caramello16419 @MargaritaDali1 @JeromeAdamsMD @CriticalPeon 12-19-2022 The Cleveland Clinic studied 51,011 employees🚨 “The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19” bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was 29%
@ButHisEmails @d_a_keldsen @jhan2qt @sjs856 @Similar89 @YourFerntasy You know nothing. https://t.co/sGQleOJoBj
@CDCDirector 12-19-2022 The Cleveland Clinic studied 51,011 employees🚨 “The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19” bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was 29% 20% 4% effective in preventing infection dependi
@keepCOhonest @CDCDirector ICYMI 12-19-2022 The Cleveland Clinic studied 51,011 employees🚨 “higher the number of vaccines previously received,the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19” bivalent C-19 vaccine was 29% 20% 4% effective in preventing infect
@N_Shirtcliffe @TrishtheDish_7 @LadySkimmington @SPHdeORD @MarkChangizi But the covid vaccines INCREASED susceptibility to infection. https://t.co/p2iOyhhNNb https://t.co/EpPqm4ZR4U
@N_Shirtcliffe @LadySkimmington @SPHdeORD @MarkChangizi What part of "The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19" is so hard for you to understand? https://t.co/aNJAyoYEx4
RT @RandPaul: “The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19.” 🤔 hmmm? https://t.co/Dn…
RT @JanieckS: 'Scherpe daling in levensverwachting voor mensen met meerdere mRNA-injecties' Bron : https://t.co/pbEJF8SgZ1 https://t.co/bG…
'Scherpe daling in levensverwachting voor mensen met meerdere mRNA-injecties' Bron : https://t.co/pbEJF8SgZ1 https://t.co/bGHDn3K63D
RT @CanadaSOS1: A 🧵: NEW Cleveland Clinic study: "The risk of COVID-19 varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received…
RT @CanadaSOS1: A 🧵: NEW Cleveland Clinic study: "The risk of COVID-19 varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received…
@kacdnp91 12-19-2022 The Cleveland Clinic studied 51,011 employees🚨 “The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19” bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was 29% 20% 4% effective in preventing infection depending
@BradStanfieldMD @TheRealKildare 12-19-2022 The Cleveland Clinic studied 51,011 employees🚨 “The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19” bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was 29% 20% 4% effective in preventi
@BradStanfieldMD 12-19-2022 The Cleveland Clinic studied 51,011 employees🚨 “The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19” bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was 29% 20% 4% effective in preventing infection dep
RT @CanadaSOS1: A 🧵: NEW Cleveland Clinic study: "The risk of COVID-19 varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received…
RT @CanadaSOS1: A 🧵: NEW Cleveland Clinic study: "The risk of COVID-19 varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received…
Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine https://t.co/Bi0xM6XY42
@gerdgudd420912 @ZuckerZucker3 @mauerbrand @SHomburg Brille putzen? Im übrigen sollte man schon ein wenig im Thema sein oder zumindest wissen, wie man Google benutzt, wenn man hier mitdiskutieren will. Service: https://t.co/wHU8NfWdRH
@DirtyHarry_tv Eine ebenfalls interessante (und von Kritikern vorausgesagte) Erkenntnis aus einer anderen Studie: https://t.co/wHU8NfWdRH https://t.co/rjRHCMXLH4
@AnaBana2198 @albacastillo45 Coincido Ladri, es un problema para todos pero tampoco voy a obligar a que no se vacunen, es desicion de cada uno 🤷♂️ https://t.co/royihm86Qh
@D2R67 @momentomoriDM @yay_its_james https://t.co/YerGsc6CGw Before you go either way, read this 👆
@biboarderdude @yay_its_james @momentomoriDM https://t.co/YerGsc6CGw Dec 2022 it's about 16 months old now 'formally' lol
@ScootyPuffSr99 @PrivateIncome @DHShades Measles? It's coming across the southern border unchecked. https://t.co/ONsLPYGK2D Here's your source genius - more 💉 = more infxn n=50000, adjusted for testing frequency https://t.co/zIvKaZna13
@weltbetriebsrat @chefofmembers @CHROPINIONmb @Svenson62383796 Eine sehr interessante Studie, https://t.co/wHU8NfWdRH die zeigt, dass 1. die Wirkung der Booster selbst dann sehr bescheiden gewesen ist, wenn sie zum Virus passen, dass 2. mit jedem Booste
RT @HofmeisterAusLU: @MichaelKuhr In der im Artikel erwähnten Studie geht es um die Effizienz der Impfung. Von Todesfällen ist nicht die Re…
RT @HofmeisterAusLU: @MichaelKuhr In der im Artikel erwähnten Studie geht es um die Effizienz der Impfung. Von Todesfällen ist nicht die Re…
@MichaelKuhr Wie schlecht ist denn der Artikel? Nutzen Sie Ihren „gesunden Menschenverstand und wagen einen kurzen Blick in die Studie, die dort sogar verlinkt ist, die aber zu völlig anderem Ergebnis kommt, als der Artikel behauptet. Nämlich: Impfen schü
@OhHeyCreeper @CDyo456 @glassbeachband @arcadia_grey @fleece_kawasaki Masks do not work and the "vaccine" was proven to be something completely different from what was approved. https://t.co/0Mueuc4W2C Not effective! https://t.co/359f42PCtW I understand th
RT @HofmeisterAusLU: @MichaelKuhr In der im Artikel erwähnten Studie geht es um die Effizienz der Impfung. Von Todesfällen ist nicht die Re…
@DadVomDorf @HofmeisterAusLU @MichaelKuhr In dem Fall bedeutet es, dass der ursprüngliche Post dreist gelogen ist weil die betreffende Studie nichts von dem behaupteten auch nur ansatzweise sagt https://t.co/MZ3g9852mq
@MichaelKuhr Zu feig die Studie zu posten? Also das ist schon absurd dreist. In der Studie kommt das Wort „Cancer“ nämlich kein einziges Mal vor. Auch über Lebenserwartung oder Nebenwirkungen in Verbindung mit der Impfung wird kein Wort verloren. https://t
RT @HofmeisterAusLU: @MichaelKuhr In der im Artikel erwähnten Studie geht es um die Effizienz der Impfung. Von Todesfällen ist nicht die Re…
Michael #Kuhr von der #WerteUnion erzählt lügt. Der Artikel ist vom Verschwörungstheoretiker Peter Mayer. In der zitierten Studie geht es NICHT um angeblich kürzere Lebensdauer durch COVID-Impfung. Reaktion von Kuhr? Ausreden und Ablenkung. Studie:
RT @HofmeisterAusLU: @MichaelKuhr In der im Artikel erwähnten Studie geht es um die Effizienz der Impfung. Von Todesfällen ist nicht die Re…
@tupac65_pac65 @MichaelKuhr Darf ich helfen? Michael sagt nicht die Wahrheit https://t.co/DAHZmmqGe2
@InfoRgk @HolgerHamburgo @DrPuerner eine zeitung schreibt irgendwas und dein aluhut glüht schon 🤣pass aber auf, dass dir die chemtrails nicht das frühstück versauen, während du am erdrand spazieren gehst. du musst dich jetzt stark zusammenreißen: https://t
@MichaelKuhr In der im Artikel erwähnten Studie geht es um die Effizienz der Impfung. Von Todesfällen ist nicht die Rede. Alles dreist gelogen. https://t.co/GeuBSZhoGw
@WalshFreedom Medical peer reviewed study says the Covid mRNA vaccines are AT MOST 30% effective for the first 90 days the. Drop to 0% effective. https://t.co/82RRIFPSTH
@Deevoee @central_paladin @profvrr how about a comparison on 50,000 working-age people (the key group) adjusted for testing probability bias? The largest study of its kind has unmistakeable results: More jabs = more covid https://t.co/CHUfQ4Hghm https:/
@RenePresta Wo steht das in der Studie? Der Artikel verlinkt das PDF, hier geht es zur Studie selbst: https://t.co/KDb5GPWb5H
@YoyoKaz212 @BenFranklin1171 @EdoajoEric Hi Kazz In medicine, the onus is to prove an intervention works. Otherwise you can mandate anything and claim it does something. But here is proof it doesn't work: Cleveland clinic study showing more shots = more
@heidemarieschn3 @viennasky Die Quelle sind Regierungsdaten aus Cleveland. Tkp ist nur Überbringer der Nachricht. Haben Sie den "Schwachsinn" denn berprüft? 😂😂😂 https://t.co/HJ926AZ56p
not him posting this high school grade mla format report like it’s relevant 💀💀💀
RT @Robert_mac88: He’s linked a study that has nothing to do with what he’s talking about and concludes that the vaccine offered protection…
RT @cryaboutitbabe: "which was not certified by peer review" right at the top 👍🏾
RT @sxftcookie: He didn’t read the paper he posted. 😭😭😭
RT @Robert_mac88: He’s linked a study that has nothing to do with what he’s talking about and concludes that the vaccine offered protection…
Not the point, but also worth noting that MedRxiv is designed for housing pre-print papers that have not yet passed peer-review. The reviewed version has been published here https://t.co/Sv0qT1aDrI. The final version also does not back this guy’s claim.