O/T Covid Vaccine mRNA

[KerrAvon]

As I said, tricky one here. Do you believe this particular article?

I believe in its existence - I've read it.

The study looks like a serious piece of work that has been published in a respected journal. It’s findings, however, are something of an outlier in that multiple studies have made contrary findings. Whether that represents quirks in the methodology used, I wouldn’t like to say without digging into it in a manner that would take far longer than I am willing or able to spare.

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8112/3/10/103

This is a meta study from 2023, which drew on 31 studies, which means that it is based on a large sample size and multiple methods, which is likely to enhance its reliability. It is also more recent than the Lancet study, which means that it was written when the dynamics of the SARS-COV-2 virus would be better understood. For that reason I prefer its findings, the key ones of which are described in the abstract in this way:

From PubMed and Embase, 31 studies were included describing the impact of original wild-type COVID-19 vaccines on disease transmission or viral load. Overall, study results showed the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 transmission (range 16–95%), regardless of vaccine type or number of doses. The effect was apparent, but less pronounced against omicron (range 24–95% for pre-omicron variants versus 16–31% for omicron). Results from viral load studies were supportive, showing SARS-CoV-2 infections in vaccinated individuals had higher Ct values, suggesting lower viral load, compared to infections among the unvaccinated. Based on these findings, well-timed vaccination programs may help reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission—even in the omicron era. Whether better-matched vaccines can improve effectiveness against transmission in the omicron era needs further study.

If you think your opinion outweighs that of RFK Jr., that's your problem.

And you think that because he’s a lawyer or because he says things that you want to believe?

You have avoided answering my question – Doesn’t it bother you that the write up on RFK’s website (he’s a lawyer don’t you know!) bears only a passing resemblance to the reality of the situation?

I have put up a link to the judgement in the LA case – the actual words of the judges – why do you think that RFK’s website misrepresents those words?