This all revolves around conservatives focusing on ARR instead of RRR numbers on vaccine efficacy. Here’s a description I found of the difference from another article:
Let’s say a study enrolled 20,000 patients into the control group and 20,000 in the vaccine group. In that study, 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 people in the vaccine group got sick. Even though the vaccine efficacy would be a whopping 100%, the ARR would show that vaccines reduce the absolute risk by just 1% (200/20,000= 1%). For the ARR to increase to 20% in our example study with a vaccine with 100% efficacy, 4,000 of the 20,000 people in the control group would have to get sick (4,000/20,000= 20%).
Paxton’s claim is also a lie. We didn’t just invent vaccines a few years ago. They’ve been around for two or three generations now.
Not like they were working from scratch as far as efficacy. All the ingredients are well known. The only thing new was the the particular mRNA, that’s like saying steaks need two years of clinic trials because it comes from a different family of cows, has slightly different DNA, like saying Coke needs two years of trials when they make a new flavor.
Then after you take it, we can do the blood test after the injection and see the antibodies. What more is there to know?
What’s the mechanism that they are claiming the vaccine can be harmful? Why is this vaccine unique as compared to any other, proven safe for decades vaccine?
I’m merely hoping for a competent judge who accepts logic and the scientific method. Not even a great judge, just a basically sane and reasonable one.
I remember when I used to take that for granted. I’m having an “ignorance is bliss” moment.
It’s Texas. Best they can do is the 5th Circuit.
If half the country wasn’t a bunch of anti-science religious dipshits, mRNA vaccines would be recognized as the greatest achievement of my lifetime.
Whole cell/virus vaccines have been around forever. Grog got some dirt on his hands while hunting ibex? Congrats, that’s a vaccine!