Dr. Deborah Birx says she 'knew' COVID vaccines would not 'protect against infection'

[other one]

8 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Not according to Dr. Deborah Birx.

So, you are listening to her and Fauci now....    LoL   whoever or whatever fits your agenda.

[Sparks]

2 minutes ago, other one said:

So, you are listening to her and Fauci now....    LoL   whoever or whatever fits your agenda.

Not exactly.  She was paid to lie.  Now that she is retired, she told the truth.  I seek out the truth.

Between us, who is the more likely to listen to Dr. Fauci?

[one.opinion]

57 minutes ago, Sparks said:

... but sadly, there is no way to prove that.

Hospital data does prove it.

[one.opinion]

47 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Not according to Dr. Deborah Birx.

Dr. Birx is talking about infection, not severe disease and death.

[other one]

36 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Not exactly.  She was paid to lie.  Now that she is retired, she told the truth.  I seek out the truth.

Between us, who is the more likely to listen to Dr. Fauci?

depends on whether he's agreeing with you or not.

[Sparks]

28 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Hospital data does prove it.

... nah.  'Hospital data' would fail in a court of law where they understand evidence.  You might recall they dragged the PCR test into court to determine if it was accurate enough to be relied upon to determine shutdowns, and the evidence failed for the PCR test, too.

Not everyone is bedazzled by pseudoscience. 

27 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Dr. Birx is talking about infection, not severe disease and death.

Yep, that's right!  She knew the vaccines would not stop infection, but she said they would when the vaccines were being released.

And, by the way, the anti-vaxxers and anti-mRNAers also knew the vaccines would not stop infection from the beginning.  We also took notice of the new definition of a vaccine changing, published in dictionaries and the CDC, which also suggested they would not stop infection. 

[Sparks]

37 minutes ago, other one said:

depends on whether he's agreeing with you or not.

I don't know how Dr. Fauci and I are in agreement about anything.

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

'Hospital data' would fail in a court of law where they understand evidence.

This is only your guess, and not based on anything factual. 

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

You might recall they dragged the PCR test into court to determine if it was accurate enough to be relied upon to determine shutdowns, and the evidence failed for the PCR test, too.

This has nothing to do with vaccine efficacy. You are talking about 1 completely irrelevant court case in Portugal.

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

And, by the way, the anti-vaxxers and anti-mRNAers also knew the vaccines would not stop infection from the beginning.

The vaccine trials never showed 100% prevention from infection. It was a mistake for people to exaggerate to the point that they did.

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

We also took notice of the new definition of a vaccine changing, published in dictionaries and the CDC, which also suggested they would not stop infection.

The CDC improved their definition of a vaccine. It is just silly to imagine this is some sort of “gotcha”.

[Sparks]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is only your guess, and not based on anything factual.

I could not have said it better about your 'hospital data.'  You're guessing, and ignoring mountains of variables to draw your conclusions.  It's just as silly to say that billions have been vaccinated, therefore, the vaccine is safe.  That's not evidence that the vaccine works, nor is it evidence that it won't eventually kill the vaccinated later by a myriad of side effects.

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This has nothing to do with vaccine efficacy. You are talking about 1 completely irrelevant court case in Portugal.

It's perfectly relevant, the point being that courts understand evidence, while the armchair scientists and pseudo-scientists do not.  In fact plenty of experiments that end up in the pages of white papers turn out to be a clown show, because many actual scientists are very good at parts of their job, but very bad at drawing evidential conclusions.  Some even lie.  This is particularly true in agenda driven studies that involve anthropomorphic climate change, and vaccines.  It took a court to sort out the truth with PCR, using the scientists own data.  The scientists were schooled by the court because they either didn't understand their own data, or were lying.

Side note:  I know you are a big fan of evolution, so you should see how courts handled the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, keeping the 'scientists' on topic without the intended scope creep of the evolution crowd.  It was a staged trial, with a solid agenda.

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The vaccine trials never showed 100% prevention from infection. It was a mistake for people to exaggerate to the point that they did.

The vaccine trials also never showed that the vaccines actually worked, at all.  It was just 0.49% of both groups combined that got sick, while the rest of the roughly 35,000 didn't get sick whether they were vaccinated or not.  Talk about cherry picking.

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The CDC improved their definition of a vaccine. It is just silly to imagine this is some sort of “gotcha”.

The CDC and Webster (and others) expanded the definition to include the exact description of gene therapies that neither protect you from the infection, nor stop its spreading while the old vaccine definition of legacy vaccines suggested and demonstrated an immunity. 

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, Sparks said:

I could not have said it better about your 'hospital data.'  You're guessing

In a sample size running into many thousands, individuals that use “drug x” as prescribed exhibit a 42-fold decrease in “event y”. Does prescribed use of “drug x” reduce the risks of “event y”?