zlacker

I chose my words with care.

The figure (specifically Fig1D and Fig1E of https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/jour...) speaks for itself.

I would rather the authors soft-pedal the alarming results and get published than not get published at all. Just as I approve of POWs appearing to collaborate by sitting for media interviews that may, on the surface, make their captors seem humane and then blinking "T-O-R-T-U-R-E" in Morse code.

Ignoring the charts and clutching at that line of text still requires one to accept that vaccinated and boosted persons didn't clear covid any faster than unvaccinated persons, which completely contradicts the vaccine-pushers' dogma that the adverse effects and deaths occurring in younger demographics (especially but not solely among younger males) post-vax are worth it, on balance, because the shots reduce spread to and hence deaths among more vulnerable groups.

>>briand+(OP)
Ok got it. You conducted your own study that contradicts the authors by reading their minds and combining that with your unrelated conspiracy theories.

>>guelo+2M
Again, the authors state they found no evidence that vaccinated and boosted individuals were faster to clear covid (either according to PCR testing or culture [replication-competent viruses]) than unvaccinated.

This directly contradicts much of the dishonest, unethical messaging urging young and healthy individuals to submit to experimental shots, which sold it to us on the basis that we would be shielding higher-risk persons, depriving those who were not at high risk yet chanced the shots for altruistic reasons of genuine informed consent.

The clearing rates indicated in the embedded figure match what I'm seeing in my own community and I'm afraid your cognitive dissonance is bound to increase as time goes on and you find you're inhabiting what you claim to view as a conspiracy theory.

Time will tell.