Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
Several discussions highlight specific statistics from the review, such as the effectiveness of two doses at around 85% for infections and 95% in preventing death. The discussions feature assertive language and phrases like 'gold standard in science', which strengthen the credibility of the claims being made and convey a sense of urgency and importance in sharing reliable information on vaccine safety.
Most discussions express support for the conclusions of the study, emphasizing the effectiveness and safety of vaccines based on the presented data.
Users show strong curiosity about the findings, often sharing additional studies that corroborate the review's conclusions.
While many users cite specific statistics and findings from the study, the depth of engagement varies, with some discussions covering broader implications.
Participants universally acknowledge the substantial influence of the study on public opinion and health policies regarding COVID-19 vaccinations.
Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 worldwide studies https://t.co/ddcbypmPMm
https://t.co/8CJ1SdmeUA 58の観察研究を対象としたメタアナリシス。1回接種でのSARS-CoV-2感染予防効果は41%（95% CI: 28–54%）、2回接種では85%（95% CI: 81–89%）。アルファ株に対しては85%、デルタ株に対しては74%の有効性を報告。ワクチンは感染予防に加え、重症化や入院のリスクも大幅に低減。 https://t.co/TL7lnJ0kqB
@alastair_ak47 @Peter_Fitz If you can read and analyse actual scientific data, take a little peek at this. I'm afraid your unicorn is a horse with a traffic cone on its nose. Go straight to 'Conclusion' for a climactic finale. https://t.co/8nAcWi8D2D
@schwarzepumper @adambarlam @twobitidiot The source is also 100s of independent studies from everywhere in the world that you are too lazy to look up. https://t.co/iiW0UJY4Ce https://t.co/89QSqwHiWh
@WillFis95422355 I can't debate anecdotes on the internet. Show me large-scale reputable replicated science. Like this: https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU
@NickHudsonCT @rcr_pereira So @NickHudsonCT do you have any science to back up your claims? Here's a a systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 worldwide studies showing vaccine efficacy & safety. This is the gold standard of science. Any science on your end? https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU
This video explores the fascinating world of COVID-19 vaccines, their history, and how they function. It reviews their effectiveness, showing a marked increase in efficacy with multiple doses. Learn why it's essential…
This systematic review analyzes the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines based on 58 studies. It highlights single and double-dose efficacy in preventing infections and hospitalizations amid COVID-19…
@WEri616 @BackyardBane @txsalth2o The vaccine was publicly accessible in November of 2020. But here is a more recent study. This was published in November of 2021. https://t.co/hZrRmKrPkb
@a_votapek @Maebabyleavitt @txsalth2o Here’s another study that shows the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine. https://t.co/hZrRmKrPkb
@PoliticalSmoke1 @ItsDeanBlundell No you are wrong. "A pooled analysis showed that a single vaccine dose offered 53% effectiveness against death; two doses increased effectiveness to 95% (95–98%)" Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
@ladyonorato Questo è solo una delle prove scientifiche che smentiscono le sue parole molto pericolose. La scienza è basata sui fatti, non su pareri individuali. https://t.co/p27Hi0ontb
@pyorons 実世界研究におけるSARS-CoV-2ワクチンの有効性と安全性：系統的レビューとメタアナリシスhttps://t.co/kQ2PI6jypL
@M_Yavuz_Selim_ @tipsiztibbiyeli @dranatomikro @ProfSFindik 58 çalışmanın meta-analizi: 2 doz sonrası: Enfeksiyona etkinlik : %85 Semptomatik hastalığa karşı etkinlik : %97 Hastaneye yatışa karşı etkinlik : %93 Ölümü önlemede etkinlik : %95 Kaynak: Fan Y, et al. Int J Infect Dis. 2022. https://t.co/HtHCoXxhBO
RT @Calcijp: https://t.co/8CJ1SdmeUA 58の観察研究を対象としたメタアナリシス。1回接種でのSARS-CoV-2感染予防効果は41%（95% CI: 28–54%）、2回接種では85%（95% CI: 81–89%）。アルファ株に対しては8…
RT @Calcijp: https://t.co/8CJ1SdmeUA 58の観察研究を対象としたメタアナリシス。1回接種でのSARS-CoV-2感染予防効果は41%（95% CI: 28–54%）、2回接種では85%（95% CI: 81–89%）。アルファ株に対しては8…
RT @Calcijp: https://t.co/8CJ1SdmeUA 58の観察研究を対象としたメタアナリシス。1回接種でのSARS-CoV-2感染予防効果は41%（95% CI: 28–54%）、2回接種では85%（95% CI: 81–89%）。アルファ株に対しては8…
RT @Calcijp: https://t.co/8CJ1SdmeUA 58の観察研究を対象としたメタアナリシス。1回接種でのSARS-CoV-2感染予防効果は41%（95% CI: 28–54%）、2回接種では85%（95% CI: 81–89%）。アルファ株に対しては8…
RT @Calcijp: https://t.co/8CJ1SdmeUA 58の観察研究を対象としたメタアナリシス。1回接種でのSARS-CoV-2感染予防効果は41%（95% CI: 28–54%）、2回接種では85%（95% CI: 81–89%）。アルファ株に対しては8…
RT @Calcijp: https://t.co/8CJ1SdmeUA 58の観察研究を対象としたメタアナリシス。1回接種でのSARS-CoV-2感染予防効果は41%（95% CI: 28–54%）、2回接種では85%（95% CI: 81–89%）。アルファ株に対しては8…
RT @Calcijp: https://t.co/8CJ1SdmeUA 58の観察研究を対象としたメタアナリシス。1回接種でのSARS-CoV-2感染予防効果は41%（95% CI: 28–54%）、2回接種では85%（95% CI: 81–89%）。アルファ株に対しては8…
RT @Calcijp: https://t.co/8CJ1SdmeUA 58の観察研究を対象としたメタアナリシス。1回接種でのSARS-CoV-2感染予防効果は41%（95% CI: 28–54%）、2回接種では85%（95% CI: 81–89%）。アルファ株に対しては8…
RT @Calcijp: https://t.co/8CJ1SdmeUA 58の観察研究を対象としたメタアナリシス。1回接種でのSARS-CoV-2感染予防効果は41%（95% CI: 28–54%）、2回接種では85%（95% CI: 81–89%）。アルファ株に対しては8…
RT @Calcijp: https://t.co/8CJ1SdmeUA 58の観察研究を対象としたメタアナリシス。1回接種でのSARS-CoV-2感染予防効果は41%（95% CI: 28–54%）、2回接種では85%（95% CI: 81–89%）。アルファ株に対しては8…
RT @Calcijp: https://t.co/8CJ1SdmeUA 58の観察研究を対象としたメタアナリシス。1回接種でのSARS-CoV-2感染予防効果は41%（95% CI: 28–54%）、2回接種では85%（95% CI: 81–89%）。アルファ株に対しては8…
https://t.co/8CJ1SdmeUA 58の観察研究を対象としたメタアナリシス。1回接種でのSARS-CoV-2感染予防効果は41%（95% CI: 28–54%）、2回接種では85%（95% CI: 81–89%）。アルファ株に対しては85%、デルタ株に対しては74%の有効性を報告。ワクチンは感染予防に加え、重症化や入院のリスクも大幅に低減。 https://t.co/TL7lnJ0kqB
@realDexterL @simonmaechling The covid vaccine is safe and effective, as shown during its trials before being pushed to the public. It was not rushed, despite being the fastest, since the pandemic got everyone focusing on a vaccine. https://t.co/F1E5N5jE9v https://t.co/1DGC4tLuTq https://t.co/iRaGeXtQ5n
@MrMiyagikills @thelieisfalling @simonmaechling Ah. My old friend. 1. People were given informed consent. https://t.co/TwzKcE8thN 2. You gonna address the research yet? I’m still waiting, kiddo. https://t.co/F1E5N5jE9v https://t.co/1DGC4tLuTq https://t.co/iRaGeXtQ5n
@thelieisfalling @simonmaechling 1. It wasn’t a religion. 2. It was about science. 3. No, we didn’t. Else the vaccine wouldn’t have worked. Which it absolutely did. https://t.co/F1E5N5jE9v https://t.co/1DGC4tLuTq https://t.co/iRaGeXtQ5n
@coach28373 @sjs856 @LawOfficer No vaccine ever stops transmission. And yes, they are safe and effective, as has been shown by the research. https://t.co/F1E5N5jE9v https://t.co/1DGC4tLuTq https://t.co/iRaGeXtQ5n
@MrMiyagikills @jonathanstea @jejebob77 Ah yes. The ad hominems. A favorite to conspiracy theorist. When are you going to address this evidence? And besides just saying “muh curuptunz”? https://t.co/F1E5N5jE9v https://t.co/1DGC4tLuTq https://t.co/iRaGeXtQ5n
@MrMiyagikills @jonathanstea @jejebob77 I think it’s hilarious that despite the numerous times I keep presenting this data, you just say that I never presented anything, and dismiss it as just “muh curuptunz”. https://t.co/F1E5N5jE9v https://t.co/1DGC4tLuTq https://t.co/iRaGeXtQ5n
@DaveBla81093404 @jonathanstea Ah yes. Memes and debunked RFK Jr. clips. Truly scientific rigor. Meanwhile, here’s peer reviewed data showing that they are indeed safe and effective. Your turn. https://t.co/F1E5N5jE9v https://t.co/1DGC4tLuTq https://t.co/iRaGeXtQ5n
@MrMiyagikills @jonathanstea Considering you’re using misrepresentation, misleading, and outright false claims, while not even refuting the actual data of the vaccine, I’d say that you’re just willfully ignorant. https://t.co/F1E5N5jE9v https://t.co/1DGC4tLuTq https://t.co/CMAGm4tEeK
@MastadonHarry https://t.co/csU2aK720G
@Ivan_Tourel @SVimaire @Xavierconcept @duckduckd90 @Le_Patoff https://t.co/9tJvOJ16zH… https://t.co/HAOwA7mSEU… https://t.co/WDNneoPp3t… https://t.co/VGaC3FPcsu… https://t.co/3IdHeUXo8A…
@craigscoinpurse @timthehumanbot @Schwarzenegger This one, too: https://t.co/quuFSTRwMT
@Jopkiedora @mkeulemans @SpaanWilly @leondewinter Hier kan je wat lezen over de vaccins; - https://t.co/WJVgetXZfF - https://t.co/9jzdms5ymf - https://t.co/zQRInzvvqD -https://t.co/jQmJMuAObh Laat je even weten als je klaar bent met lezen?
@spiritinmotione @thesnawn @liz_churchill10 A review of real world COVID vaccine studies can be found here: https://t.co/Tsgfh7eLZO
@annette_glass75 @DocteurPEB1 Des études montrent que les vaccins ARNm sont efficaces pour prévenir les formes graves du C-19, allant jusqu'à 95%. Pour le long terme, ils ont des effets secondaires similaires à d'autres vaccins, avec peu de cas graves observés https://t.co/FxDpr1vkp0 https://t.co/wvosc32YZ6
@MeasslainteIRL @flattop_north @MannicheVibeke @JesslovesMJK @ClareCraigPath I use the Bloomberg Global Health index, the gold standard, and Israel is #10 with Australia #7. https://t.co/fCGF1ZrzWn The vaccine significantly reduces severe disease & death, especially pre-first infection to the vulnerable. https://t.co/DpGayAsw2q https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU https://t.co/L1WU1WsnyQ
@VigilantFox 2/2 https://t.co/ms1KmTJPqQ https://t.co/dBQS8QvWfh
@stkirsch https://t.co/cWmxPGby1x https://t.co/QMAC7Jad6p https://t.co/bRHmyaq7X2 https://t.co/T9FqIlRF7C
@BrochandP @ChatSecouriste Au pif, la science ? https://t.co/C7ytNnCQ3F https://t.co/5by09DjSl5 https://t.co/7zC5IG186a https://t.co/C7ytNnCQ3F https://t.co/VovcniTDXM https://t.co/TWfjTR1Jh8 https://t.co/hSAVCAifzf https://t.co/HeCgXMLv7f https://t.co/mTnkYrpFS4
@DanielW0774 @amigo_astro @IreneZimmer1957 @vienna1011 Auch hier nochmal eine tatsächliche Studie zum Thema als die Ausführungen eines YouTubers. https://t.co/RH3AqJQjpI
@Ellacoccinera @tatiann69922625 https://t.co/SwdxN4g72F https://t.co/lk9MANZ38l ou des méta-analyses et revues dès 2021: https://t.co/upLSiRvwsa https://t.co/GggaoNBSrP La difficulté est plutôt de les trier. Il y a plus de 27000 résultats pubmed pour "covid vaccine" + "hospitalization".
@KatharinaL001 @veit_markus @gigabente @maithi_nk @maithinkx Schauen Sie mal hier eine metaanalyse. Irgendwie sind die Ergebnisse anders als das, was sie behaupten https://t.co/b4ZXEmIBnP
@Ken__kaneki33 @loulou2745 @Polaris19710 @ScienceParle_SW Tiens, voilà des études qui concluent à la sûreté des vaccins: https://t.co/KWCBbHRNIl https://t.co/qz4q2Yief6 https://t.co/bYPnhuVdvP https://t.co/mlwImyjjwk https://t.co/FVFeX4jR8e https://t.co/R8QO1vOyBU
@Ken__kaneki33 @ScienceParle_SW @loulou2745 Vas y champion, payes ta science. Qu’as tu as redire sur ces études: https://t.co/vOkn7N0DUL https://t.co/lNycQlTQ4h https://t.co/WyWzuUbtzs https://t.co/4JbBYB7nNL https://t.co/a2lxi7M4Az https://t.co/gYhr0P4uHz https://t.co/FVFeX4jjiG https://t.co/PQBlfmxAlo
@JlsRet51206 @VLSdirect Je veux bien qu'on vérifie ensemble. https://t.co/5by09DkqaD https://t.co/7zC5IG1FVI https://t.co/C7ytNnDnTd https://t.co/VovcniUbNk https://t.co/TWfjTR2h6G https://t.co/hSAVCAiNoN
@BarrettBoys @thevegdoc This is a narrative review not a systematic review or meta-analysis which would be used to make generalizations on whether something is beneficial or not. Narrative reviews aren’t as strong in evidence as meta analyses are. https://t.co/9zTdLGjfg0 https://t.co/klf6ozO8aN
@1tpecom @LeCovidOfficiel "Science de la tv", excellente vanne. https://t.co/5by09DkqaD https://t.co/7zC5IG1FVI https://t.co/C7ytNnDnTd https://t.co/VovcniUbNk https://t.co/TWfjTR2h6G https://t.co/HeCgXMM2WN https://t.co/1EqA2tM6mZ https://t.co/awwCK6G3rs
RT @thereal_truther: @ztwiig @thevivafrei Absolutely agree. And we have hundreds of worldwide high level studies that do that. Thanks for…
RT @thereal_truther: @ztwiig @thevivafrei Absolutely agree. And we have hundreds of worldwide high level studies that do that. Thanks for…
@ztwiig @thevivafrei Absolutely agree. And we have hundreds of worldwide high level studies that do that. Thanks for conceding on the poll. Start here: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 worldwide studies https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU A safety study out of Israel which included 20% of the
RT @thereal_truther: @GFN8882 Show me one meta-analysis that shows this. I'll wait. https://t.co/DpGayAsw2q https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU
@GFN8882 Show me one meta-analysis that shows this. I'll wait. https://t.co/DpGayAsw2q https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU
@_ErnieTho @quintonadas @recognizedpatte @yippyskippy69 @mclovenxoxo @btcnft420 Here’s a review of loads of em in one place bucko. https://t.co/3XA9arVCN3
@iluminatibot A breakthrough COVID infection does not mean vaccines do not work. COVID vaccines reduce infection, hospitalization and death. https://t.co/aNqypFKWhG https://t.co/6QcUKzkIdr what dont you understand?
@vince8004 @ClaudeSteve6 Ah si : https://t.co/ZsKOyoPjqo https://t.co/5by09DjSl5 https://t.co/7zC5IG186a https://t.co/C7ytNnCQ3F https://t.co/VovcniTDXM https://t.co/TWfjTR1Jh8 https://t.co/HeCgXMLv7f https://t.co/1EqA2tLyxr https://t.co/awwCK6FvBU
@pylon72 @KevinNimmock https://t.co/WEK4reKtyL
@pylon72 @psheather3 @KevinNimmock https://t.co/WEK4reKtyL
@psheather3 @pylon72 @KevinNimmock https://t.co/WEK4reKtyL
@pylon72 @Apostle136 https://t.co/WEK4reKtyL
@pylon72 @KevinNimmock https://t.co/WEK4reKtyL
@sudokuvariante Et voici quelques étude qui vous donner tort https://t.co/8oCgB3oOUx https://t.co/gR1Tj8ifiA https://t.co/FVFeX4jjiG https://t.co/o8Tu0m5yPg Vous remettez donc en doute ces centaines d’experts? Sur quelles compétences? Apportez des preuves du contraire, et écrivez un article.
@Altered_Podcast @jasonwoody @AdeDetective https://t.co/YJ8Y1H9uow
@loindevant @UEFrance @X @ThierryBreton Je les ai vus, t'inquiètes. J'en ai plein moi aussi, regarde : https://t.co/5by09DjSl5 https://t.co/7zC5IG186a https://t.co/C7ytNnCQ3F https://t.co/VovcniTDXM https://t.co/TWfjTR1Jh8 https://t.co/HeCgXMLv7f https://t.co/1EqA2tLyxr https://t.co/awwCK6FvBU
@DogmanStephane @amyrtyweb @skyzonte @f_philippot https://t.co/v6M920NIOq https://t.co/CkkFJsmVT7 https://t.co/v2WwViZs0U https://t.co/4CRK0AXX5A https://t.co/5by09DjSl5 https://t.co/7zC5IG186a
@MikeDonio https://t.co/jBgGpoqUOJ https://t.co/dBQS8QvWfh
@ShadowMike14 @avalonesome @AvocatduPeuple @BarouniaA @fluidloading Ok. https://t.co/5by09DjSl5 https://t.co/7zC5IG186a https://t.co/VovcniTDXM https://t.co/TWfjTR1Jh8 https://t.co/HeCgXMLv7f https://t.co/1EqA2tLyxr https://t.co/awwCK6FvBU .
@RachelEph77 @Pianokit @DebraBr81576310 @frugally_minded @LeeKurtiss @MEHtheNurseTwin @calirunnerdoc @jonwebsterreal https://t.co/HB4JttxgHX
@TCDMS99 @GinaZippiHicks @NewYorkStateAG https://t.co/XCnWsIZ6Dz
@UmbertoCruvuk @Arwed1211 @barriere_dr Okay. https://t.co/1EqA2tLyxr https://t.co/awwCK6FvBU https://t.co/HeCgXMLv7f https://t.co/5by09DjSl5 https://t.co/C7ytNnCQ3F https://t.co/7zC5IG186a https://t.co/TWfjTR1Jh8 .
@fubarspam @ImmunoGangsta Heck this study is from 2021 and there are a lot more like that. https://t.co/LYVMymvZG0
@P_McCulloughMD @LindaMacaroni2 SEE THIS BS'ING: //mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are not a complete failure and dangerous. mRNA vaccines have a reassuring safety profile and reduce COVID-19 hospitalization and death. https://t.co/TW8EmlKcyP https://t.co/azWbmWLdBG https://t.co/uAUa9kwQuT - COMMUNITY NOTE OPTION
@Quarantequinze @donna_197 https://t.co/XmsVJfFXVr https://t.co/KWCBbHRfSN https://t.co/FVFeX4jjiG https://t.co/LhqxnWNzoz
@BenoitPhilipp12 @PharmaMedic95 @Gaethe1 Toi t'as des articles de presse, moi j'ai des études. Tu vois la différence ? https://t.co/1EqA2tLyxr https://t.co/awwCK6FvBU https://t.co/HeCgXMLv7f https://t.co/VovcniTDXM https://t.co/5by09DjSl5 https://t.co/C7ytNnCQ3F https://t.co/7zC5IG186a https://t.co/TWfjTR1Jh8
@kvaughn @Death6102 @TedLogan1010 @BillSEsquire_11 @No_Curve https://t.co/7vbmVHDPVa
@SupernovaT423 @Compost69820 @vinceflibustier Bon allez une méta analyse https://t.co/EtRLoCNDrn et les chiffres de l'ansm https://t.co/uyEY5uDUOP
@VigilantFox https://t.co/aX062Oc7tP
@forgedcoupon @MSerdikoff @DavidWinter11 For those reading this on the fence please take note that "Lyle" hasn't shared a single study to back up his claims. Here's a systematic review and meta-analysis (the gold standard in science) which includes 58 worldwide studies through the Delta wave. https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU
@MarcusDAurelius @AdamCarollaShow @PeteParada @33Barrett More https://t.co/WEK4reKtyL
@niklasflier @USMortality @tagesschau Weil es eben keine Fakten sind. Sogar laut dieser von der Tagesschau (die ständig für die Impfung wirbt) verlinkten Studie ist die Impfung mit einer Chance von 1:100.000 tödlich - pro Dosis! https://t.co/cp09K3wHNG
@isa_fang @marsu35 @GillesWell @12dg95 Quels mensonges? Quelles sont vos sources pour vos « nombre de décès, handicaps et invalidités »? La littérature scientifique le reconnaît sûr. https://t.co/Ob3DN4ADQt https://t.co/FVFeX4jjiG https://t.co/Pt89942tos
@weralltravelrs @gangster_space @MixtUpMixy @stkirsch Can you let us know where these studies have gone wrong? Based on the real-world studies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have reassuring safety and could effectively reduce the death, severe cases, symptomatic cases, and infections. https://t.co/bYy3Y58eal
@GattoRobin3 @StatChrisCotton @m_zenonus @StevePascolo @marseille_jeff @VictorSinclair3 Concernant leur sûreté, voici ce qu’en disent les experts: https://t.co/IMXF7HLlDM https://t.co/FVFeX4jR8e https://t.co/kmVLIMCd6q https://t.co/XEIFsqrnhe
@StefanHuster @mathias_reuter Nach dieser (sogar von der sehr impffreundlichen Tagesschau verlinkten) Studie ist das Risiko 1:100.000 (pro Dosis) an der Impfung zu sterben. Damit sind 3 Impfungen wesentlich tödlicher für junge, gesunde Leute als die Krankheit an sich. https://t.co/cp09K3wHNG
@Wegstein_Blog @HarvardNRW1 @tagesthemen @gaborhalasz1 Selbst die Tagesschau verwies auf diese Studie, nach der 0,1 von 10.000 Impfdosen tödlich sind. Damit sind drei Impfdosen zusammen für junge Menschen wesentlich tödlicher als Covid und man tötet >2500 Menschen in Deutschland, wenn alle geboostert werden. https://t.co/cp09K3wHNG
@schwarzepumper @adambarlam @twobitidiot The source is also 100s of independent studies from everywhere in the world that you are too lazy to look up. https://t.co/iiW0UJY4Ce https://t.co/89QSqwHiWh
@tonyagunn7 @Raithold @majorityfm I said showing efficacy. There are. Start here, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 worldwide studies: https://t.co/ddcbypmPMm Then here's an all-cause mortality study: https://t.co/ia8iZo4CIX
@iam_chipo https://t.co/5MGrVMouII
@g00dtimezr0le @2hip2tweet And false: https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU
@TykeSpone @SputterOnline @ToadonaWire @PeterHotez https://t.co/xGQB3DERLo
@ToadonaWire https://t.co/xGQB3DERLo
@ExcusedEarly @DeborahWyrick2 @mcuban https://t.co/aiD4DAdzeu
@PiranSim @paolo_gibilisco Questa è una systematic review e una metanalisi (sono gli studi più affidabili). Si dice che i vaccini (a livello mondiale) siano efficaci nel ridurre le morti, i casi severi, i casi sintomatici e le infezioni. https://t.co/gt9I6TqwLL
@Diar380 @jason_willz1 @pwleaks I've shown you a well-designed study. We have many others. ONS numbers are accurate. You've been misled. https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU
@WillFis95422355 I can't debate anecdotes on the internet. Show me large-scale reputable replicated science. Like this: https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU
@frontierremote @LiedSuddenly Please stop sharing propaganda on my timeline or you will have to go. Primary sources and studies/data only. https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU
@MadParticipant You are correct that they did mention this in interim and updated to 91-92% at preventing Covid. Analysis was for first strain of Covid (not omicron) and durability was tested up to 6 months I believe. Real world data matches this? https://t.co/y7e0AH5iTQ
@m_de_spinoza @kevinnbass So again, you can decide how significant the efficacy is but "no efficacy" isn't an option. Unless you did your own meta-analysis, the gold standard in science that refutes this? https://t.co/nMgV4tS17L
@m_de_spinoza @kevinnbass Excess deaths do not tell us anything about vaccine efficacy (although they can be used as evidence the vaccines aren't CAUSING excess, which they aren't!) You have to look at large-scale science. Systematic review and meta-analysis are at top of chain! https://t.co/nMgV4tS17L
@iamnotchattel Here is another study that proves you wrong. https://t.co/zHSiRq7sgJ
@SimonTurton10 @goodatmaths57 No, i stick to large scale science and data. https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU
@NickHudsonCT @rcr_pereira So @NickHudsonCT do you have any science to back up your claims? Here's a a systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 worldwide studies showing vaccine efficacy & safety. This is the gold standard of science. Any science on your end? https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU
@SahabiaAli @Lacenaire4 @Renkatroussier2 @ChristopheSage Et pourtant il y a des meta sur la sûreté des vaccins. https://t.co/Ob3DN4ADQt https://t.co/IMXF7HKNOe https://t.co/FVFeX4jjiG https://t.co/bTz9js8NHK
A meta-analysis of 44 studies of covid vaccine real world outcomes. One reported a reduction in covid-related mortality in cases arising in the first fourteen days after vaccination. The other 43 didn't look at this endpoint. Wonder why? https://t.co/hvefTfsZsh
RT @thereal_truther: Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 worl…
RT @thereal_truther: Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 worl…
RT @thereal_truther: Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 worl…
@SimonTurton10 @as_known_as_unk Science https://t.co/ddcbypnnBU
RT @thereal_truther: Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 worl…
@NickHudsonCT https://t.co/L15LlyxToJ
RT @thereal_truther: Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 worl…
@giannmi @Selftoken @Debscornucopia @JamesSurowiecki @ErinBrickman14 Because it's still both of those things. https://t.co/KeVJDJtxme
@giannmi @Selftoken @Debscornucopia @JamesSurowiecki @ErinBrickman14 https://t.co/KeVJDJtxme
Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 worldwide studies https://t.co/ddcbypmPMm
@HamEggsnSam @EthicalSkeptic @TorySnyc https://t.co/QU7OkxT4ZO https://t.co/sDaeR33HbJ https://t.co/BKzJwSVxur Here are just a few studies showing vaccine safety, and hell I was even feeling generous and decided to throw in a study that used VAERS that you all love so much.
@GlennOConnor72 @millingcheck @abiroberts @IanDunt
@SylVinestbon @KristyWker @TPMP @DIVIZIO1 Here a sample of published articles on the impact of the 1st year of vaccination: https://t.co/jo1nrJt2s1 and https://t.co/FqodgKio1w. Duration of effectiveness is high in the first six months: https://t.co/mRyCOF8P6o, in France specifically: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274309
@Olis__K @marko_kovic ....ansonsten hier die Daten zur Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit aus der Metaanalyse von über sieben Mio. Menschen. https://t.co/juZzuk84uG
@finecurves @EthanGoldstei16 @SHomburg hier die Daten aus der Metaanalyse über die Wirkung der mRNA Impfstoffe von über sieben Mio. ...ich im Gegenzug zu Dir lese halt alternative Medien selber. ;-) https://t.co/juZzuk7wF8
@YunaSakashiro @Dromedaner1 @claudia_nebel2 @SHomburg Die Wirkung der Impfung vor schwerer Krankheit und Tod ist den Daten der Metaanalyse von über sieben Mio. zum entnehmen. https://t.co/juZzuk7wF8
@drjpiper @Dom1984Bln @El_Haginho ach was... nach der ersten Impfung steigt IgG nach ca 20 Tagen auf das Maximum und nach der zweiten bereits nach sieben bis zehn tagen. Die Wirkung kann aus den Daten der Metaanalyse von über sieben Mio. entnommen werden. https://t.co/juZzuk7wF8
@MariBeau2 @ManaiaTauwhare @davidfarrier But not according to the scientific evidence e.g. 74% effectiveness against Delta, and 1.5% incidence of adverse events per this systematic review and meta-analysis from 2021: "Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies" https://t.co/fFyIbsDI4I
@Andreariva16 Eccoli due recenti. I dati non si taroccano in una systematic review
@Andreariva16 L esperienza personale non è un dato statistico. Ti sei dimenticato che esiste una marea di letteratura scientifica o, da italiano beone, parli per sentito dire? https://t.co/a3qETvXpsR
@WappieBB68 @Flappieenhetke1 @ZdaddyChi @almeremarja @chrisenfran @WOrtsen Vooruit,vooruit. Wat is dan je bezwaar tegen studies als dit? https://t.co/zwEPwpjGP0 https://t.co/iNRF2P60DG
@ilariabrunelli Ce ne sono anche recenti. Non è un articolo, è una systematic review. Ti professi esperta e poi manco sai cos'è una systematic review?!
@ilariabrunelli Sono ingegnere e chinesiologo. Ho imparato a non farmi viaggi mentali e a unire i puntini come voglio ma a seguire i dati e i risultati della ricerca scientifica. Domanda: ha ragione Ilaria o la ricerca scientifica? https://t.co/a3qETvWRDj
@longagnani È una opinione. Non una ricerca scientifica. Non esiste il principio di autorevolezza nella scienza
@longagnani Io non mi faccio viaggi unendo come voglio i puntini. Gli studi di alto livello hanno già dimostrato l'efficacia e la sicurezza del vaccino
@ilcorpoemio Lo dicono le innumerevoli systematic review che hanno dimostrato la sicurezza e l'efficacia del vaccino. Te ne posto una. Aspetto le tue fonti (ovviamente peer reviewed).
@theflyisin @RobMcKichan @McMasterU Cite your source on that? I’ve never seen a published academic article that said otherwise. https://t.co/sHCsUiiNdn
@HetMasteen2 @amelie_for_you https://t.co/6iRRd5fj9z
@ValerioWho83 Io ragiono con gli studi peer reviewed, che purtroppo per te esistono. Ma credo che tu non sappia neanche cosa sia una systematic review... Coglionazzo. https://t.co/a3qETvWRDj
@molt67 Girami questi studi che li leggo. Ovviamente devono essere peer reviewed almeno. Immaginavo che ovviamente sei anche un beone novax. Avanti con gli studi. Non eri tu quello che si informava bene? Io intanto ti lascio una bella systematic review
@fabioboldrini2 Non importa chi lo sostiene. Importano gli studi che hanno dimostrato l'efficacia. https://t.co/a3qETvWRDj
@Salix135 "in una puntata di report"
Estudio de Revisión sistemática sobre Eficacia y seguridad de la vacuna contra el SARS-CoV-2 en estudios del mundo real: una revisión sistemática y un metanálisis. Se incluyeron un total de 58 estudios. https://t.co/BR83N7owd5
@fungibIes I’m also for difference of opinion, personal autonomy, asking questions. If healthy people get Covid, they’ll probably be fine. Some do die, even young people. The vaccine dramatically reduces the small risk of a healthy person dying or being hospitalized. https://t.co/AzCOXF5niN
@The_Last_Gasp @manginobrioches https://t.co/WEKAXP00xu
@Fidelio_H @AleAntinelli https://t.co/YjCLERnSUB https://t.co/TrI5NqAM4n https://t.co/WEKAXP00xu
@Mast3rmo @RMConservative 3/ What is clear is that while there are side effects, overall we are all vastly better off with vaccination and boosters. Here's just one of many meta-analyses. https://t.co/l7SPdu3A19
@alastair_ak47 @Peter_Fitz If you can read and analyse actual scientific data, take a little peek at this. I'm afraid your unicorn is a horse with a traffic cone on its nose. Go straight to 'Conclusion' for a climactic finale. https://t.co/8nAcWi8D2D
@ferpamanz @CabraPyrenaica2 @balkraix @Dr_Pilgrim @LekLaial @Contrer29959878 @NuevoParadigma3 @AlejandroCazo18 @carachisteguiri @Seheiha @TanTinTao @deborahciencia Gracias por tu tiempo. Real life y pivotales. Empezamos por los primeros. https://t.co/G35Lc1PjNm
@BrautigamRoland [5/n]5. Both safety and efficacy of Pfizer vaccine:https://t.co/rmQ6D2HO5z 6.Scientific study to the effectiveness and safety of coronaviruses in real world data: https://t.co/7HidAaP7Hg 7. Retrospective study of the safety and efficacy of Pfizer vaccine: https://t.co/brZfpqNJbD
@MarsWinton Il tono di uno che sa la differenza tra uno cohort study e un case study. Il tono di uno che sa cos'è uno studio peer reviewed. Il tono di uno che è pieno di systematic review sull efficacia e sulla sicurezza del vaccino.
@MarsWinton La tua non è un fonte autorevole ma un articolo di giornale. Questa è una fonte autorevole in e addirittura systematic review: https://t.co/a3qETvWRDj
@ant_s16 Non lo dico io. Lo dicono studi peer reviewed. Sotto uno dei tanti usciti. Se ti chiudi davanti l evidenza scientifica si chiama dissonanza cognitiva
@eglem1 @LaTweetasse @MarianaGrepinet @EmmanuelMacron @ParisMatch Protection contre l'infection : https://t.co/1omVghs975 https://t.co/4HmeOBiZr1 https://t.co/prsxeTHxGX https://t.co/2SI6I74nY9
@mariuszszulc555 @Straz_Graniczna https://t.co/9MSvK8l1dI https://t.co/oDxCcLJgRt czy https://t.co/WsdorQtJCx
@mudra_radek @DChocholousek @CT24zive Takže žádný zdroj nemáte a sirite domněnky jako fakta. Klasika. Těch studii o účinnosti očkování je mnoho, stačí hledat. Jedna napr. zde: https://t.co/uHqlrXOETI
@felixarpino https://t.co/a3qETvWRDj
@mantistrader @MorseBart @voices_nz @dbseymour FIrstly, that vaccines don't reduce transmission: https://t.co/bYgN1rAQGf
@mantistrader @MorseBart @voices_nz @dbseymour Both of those claims are false per the scientific evidence. https://t.co/q6lFlXXxpd https://t.co/G0rJ9QQSqh
@Xcell84 @voices_nz Rather than claiming it isn’t an argument, you’d be better to stick with your point about ‘zero cost’ since there is a risk to vaccination (and all medical procedures) which is 0.4% risk of serious adverse reaction and 0.1% risk of death: https://t.co/q6lFlXXxpd
@wannnnn777 @JarufJilalij @ethikrad @dunjahayali Temporäre Immunität, Schutzt gegen Hospitalisierung und Tod, Herabsetzung der Transmission. Alles nachweisbare Faktoren. https://t.co/gmk68CpqvZ https://t.co/KScAjT6Wb3 https://t.co/kmERVvi67i
@derekp2p @voices_nz That's this research article in case you missed it. Rather than 'keeping the receipts', you could take a stab at reading it. https://t.co/q6lFlXXxpd
@derekp2p @voices_nz The scientific evidence on vaccine efficacy does not support your argument. https://t.co/q6lFlXXxpd
Lastly: are the #vaccines safe? When reading through some meta-analyses: yes, they are safe, no severe side-effects were found. Sources: Chen et al., 2021: https://t.co/pHKC0o1nMR Liu et al., 2021: https://t.co/KXD0ldVIzF Sharif et al., 2021: https://t.co/R0aFB5XGj4
@JavierFerrerRu1 @BorjaPerez78 @EzeBaigorriaok @pancho_de_roca El punto es que es mas probabe contraer el virus y ser hospitalizado que cuando estas vacunado. Las vacuans sirven y la pluralidad de los datos y estudios esta conmigo. Yo me guío por estudios arbitrados, no threads en twitter de gente cualquiera. https://t.co/xIjn5DzNqH https://t.co/hfvCD8W9E9
@DVolbeat @Elihuhu2 @SergiTuiter Esta dificil cuando ustedes no sono convencidos con estudios ni nada. Son convencidos por noticias que ven en facebook y paginas conspiranoicas. Yo por estudios arbitrados. https://t.co/xIjn5DzNqH
@sbakachs @santivikernes @MamelaFialloFlo Si hay estudios y resultados. De ivermectina no hay evidencia. https://t.co/xIjn5DzNqH
@Bobby_Network @US_FDA @pfizer https://t.co/Te2BvpP2nn
RT @HAS_veille: Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis | Infectious Di…
Trending on PubMed: Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://t.co/7LLDwTm46y
RT @HAS_veille: Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis | Infectious Di…
Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis | Infectious Diseases of Poverty | Full Text https://t.co/f0sZxaTLZX
Trend top+4: Liu Q, ..., Liu J (Infect Dis Poverty) __Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis__ https://t.co/8wmiqevjhq
RT @COVID_Evidence: PubMed: Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis: C…
PubMed: Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis: CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have reassuring safety and could effectively reduce the death, severe… https://t.co/qxF483bT20 #covid19 #SARSCOV2 #coronavirus
New article: Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis https://t.co/jbf1pKBzNX #coronavirus #COVID19 #2019ncov https://t.co/8KEN0D3dhc
RT @CryoPerSea: Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis https://t.co/Y…
Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis https://t.co/Y1tskj3iP7
RT @SafetyManTX: Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis - Infectious D…
Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis - Infectious Diseases of Poverty - Infectious Diseases of Poverty - BioMed Central https://t.co/DOTCrgipC2
TT
C
WB
D
AN
BM
G
O
D
鈴腰
拳
SM
R
オ
牛評
ま松
R
素P
フ
枯私
O
M
AE
AK
FM
JL
L
IG
KK
O
FO
AP
M
Y
E
JG
GS
S
CQ
T
J
IM
X
MD
SU
JD
C
YM
BM
Z
K
CM
K
DV
MJ
FL
B
PH
ML
LR
M
PH
FM
KS
BE
MD
MK
SF
PW
IU
B
MH
C
CC
ØI
VV
DE
M
HH
FF
P
H
EX
DW
F
B
AS
PT
S
HV
TL
CE
N
ᚷ
RS