Walgreens own Covid 19 data shows Significant Negative Efficacy Among the Vaccinated

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

You will never get any official links, the democracy is too far gone. But then you know that right?

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: Ksihkehe


So nothing at all to say about the facts or topic, just more personal attacks?

Noted.

You're arguing with people that agree with you. I have trouble believing anybody could be too dumb to understand this after having it pointed out several times. There are no facts in contention to discuss so I have no idea what you wish for me to say.

This has to be a troll job.

a reply to: just4fun

There is literally no data on this page that supports the OP's conclusion.

If anything this mostly tells us that people in high density urban areas are more likely to get covid checks In chain pharmacy.

Move to hoax bin, please.

originally posted by: abigredneck
It says,
"Positivity rate by vaccination status"
Not quite sure what you read.
Perhaps you could point that out for me.
a reply to: Blaine91555

The vax does not stop you getting covid, it stops you getting sick from it. Which this data doesn't reflect.

Links in my signature show that the vax reduces serious sickness, just like they said that it would

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: abigredneck
It says,
"Positivity rate by vaccination status"
Not quite sure what you read.
Perhaps you could point that out for me.
a reply to: Blaine91555

The vax does not stop you getting covid, it stops you getting sick from it. Which this data doesn't reflect.

Links in my signature show that the vax reduces serious sickness, just like they said that it would

No it actually makes you more likely to get covid which is what the data from Walgreens says its right there in black and white

Vaccine bad and you are a ####for pushing it on people. god I hope there is retribution for people like you ..

Did they tell us it had a negative efficacy?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: just4fun

There is literally no data on this page that supports the OP's conclusion.

If anything this mostly tells us that people in high density urban areas are more likely to get covid checks In chain pharmacy.

Move to hoax bin, please.

So it does say exactly what the op said it says?

Negative efficacy..

You have no leg to stand on

The vaccine does not work

We got Vaccinated at CVS (aka was a Walgreens or whatever).

That was in December/January/Feb (there are three of us).

At the moment, my wife has Pneumonia, advanced from Covid. She's been sick for over a month. The kiddo is sick too. Though she didn't test positive for COVID, she has also been sick a few weeks. And now it's hitting me. Covid or not covid.

Who knows, who cares.

I just know I don't get sick that often. Hell, I don't even have a doctor. Haven't seen one in decades.

Am I, we, sick because the vaccine weakened us? Idk.

Pfizer. Two shots. They have boosters, I don't. (and won't)

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: abigredneck
It says,
"Positivity rate by vaccination status"
Not quite sure what you read.
Perhaps you could point that out for me.
a reply to: Blaine91555

Links in my signature show that the vax reduces serious sickness, just like they said that it would

The absolute state of this thread.

Eventually lies catch up to you, and them.

They said it would reduce serious illness after telling us for quite some time that it would prevent illness and transmission. It wasn't a mistake it was a lie, they already had tribal data showing this. It was known the vaccine was not as effective as they claimed.

You know this because you were spouting off about the vaccines before they had to walk back the claim, redefine what vaccines are, and hope good little sycophants would help memory hole months and months of lies. We now know these lies are even more egregious than first thought. All in light of the trial document data that the FDA and pharma wanted suppressed. It is no surprise to anybody except for people that prefer their science "settled" and if not for people suing it would have sat in a file box for decades unreleased.

You should apologize for all the time you spent supporting the lie that it prevents illness. Remember when that was proven science and irrefuteable? Remember when what we know as truth now was called disinformation and anti-science?Everybody else does. It would go a long way toward restoring faith just for you to admit it was a mistake parroting their lies without the data to support it.

Blind faith is more of a cult than a religion. Your saint has just been exposed taking money under the table while being a chief federal administrator in the industry he getting payouts from. It took FOIA requests for this to come to light, I mean why would the citizens be interested in knowing $350+ million went to private individuals while they were working on protecting the citizens. I was under the impression the citizens paid them for that service, but it seems they're also getting paid by the industry they regulate? There may be a phrase for that.