Firstly ...... - no. I didn't mean that. I meant that you can't...

  1. 30,924 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 174
    Firstly ...... - no. I didn't mean that. I meant that you can't tell how effective the vaccine is if the disease is on the wane.

    And you can't. If you have a look at the study itself, you'll find that in some groups there were more cases in the immediately vaccinated clusters than the delayed vaccinated ones - and the claim that it is 100% effective is simply a lie. You must understand that when it comes to medical statistics, almost anything is provable if you look hard enough - the WHO have found a small population where there was 100% efficacy within a closely defined set of circumstances. In total, however, there were 41 cases of ebola in vaccinated individuals, out of a total of 75 cases in the whole population (vaccinated and unvaccinated). As there were 4,394 people vaccinated out of a total population of 7,651, there was a 0.93% infection rate amongst the vaccinated, vs. a 0.98% infection rate amongst the group as a whole. Personally, I can't see the benefit, especially as there were 43 serious adverse effects reported.
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.