About Moderation (old original thread)

[Churchill]

@MakeHaste

A screenshot was posted (since deleted) and citation was requested but withheld.

@MakeHaste

It’s not just the effort that went into determining the source but the acknowledgement that the source was withheld because it would be challenged.

‘The thread’ was going after me for posting a screenshot of the findings of a study? They seem far more interested in the source of the screenshot, than the actual source of the findings. Which I posted, which you seem to have left out of your post.

COVID-19: Chapter 9 - OMGicron

I thought the image was easier reading than this from the report Specifically, in March, protection against infection was: 88% (95% CI, 87% to 89%) for Janssen; 92% (95% CI, 92% to 93%) for Moderna; and 91% (95% CI, 91% to 92%) for Pfizer-BioNTech. By August, protection against infection had declined to: 3% (95% CI, -7% to 12%) for Janssen; 64% (95% CI, 62%-66%) for Moderna; and 50% (95% CI, 47% to 52%) for Pfizer-BioNTech. Seems the image creator erred on the positive side for March stats …

Just about every study I have ever posted has been ‘problematic’, especially the studies that found vaccines waned over time. It was almost like certain posters thought I wrote the studies myself, rather than just me putting them out there for discussion.

Here’s the screenshot I deleted, why don’t you compare that to the stats above. Maybe wonder if the Anti-Vax dog (woof, woof) was necessary, why Trolly was so concerned about a screenshot rather than the findings of the report and just why CN wanted to discredit a youtuber and not focus on the findings.