The Second Term of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States of America

[Rigby5]

An expanded version of #3,515

A blocked COVID vaccine study has finally been published.

The study, published in JAMA Network Open, looked at how well the 2025-2026 COVID vaccine protected adults during the latest season of infections.

Researchers found that the updated vaccine was about 55% effective against COVID-related hospitalization and about 50% effective against COVID-related emergency department or urgent care visits.

That does not mean vaccinated people could not get infected. It means that, among adults who sought care for COVID-like illness, those who had received the updated vaccine were less likely to test positive for COVID than those who had not.

The study drew extra attention because it was originally expected to appear in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, one of the agency’s main public health publications. But Trump administration political appointees raised concerns about the study design and it did not run there.

The method, called a test-negative design, is widely used in vaccine research. It compares people who seek medical care for similar symptoms, then looks at who tests positive and who tests negative, and how vaccination rates differ between the groups.

Critics argue the method depends on assumptions that could skew results. Supporters say it is one of the best available tools for tracking vaccine effectiveness in real time, especially when viruses evolve and population immunity keeps changing.

The findings themselves are not especially surprising. COVID vaccines have repeatedly been shown to reduce the risk of severe illness, especially hospitalization.

But the controversy around this paper points to something bigger.

Public health depends not only on collecting data, but on publishing it clearly, quickly, and transparently so people can understand the risks and make informed decisions.

Read the study:

“Interim Estimated Effectiveness of 2025-2026 COVID-19 Vaccines in Adults Using a Test-Negative Design.” JAMA Network Open.


SOURCE

Wrong.
By making our own cells grow spike proteins, the immune system then has to kill those damaged cells.
So for 2 weeks after an mRNA injection, the immune system is hyped up on overdrive.
But after 2 weeks, there is not a single recorded response to the mRNA injection other than damage, such as blood clots.

Use your own knowledge.
Spike proteins open up ACE2 receptors into our cells because our own exosomes need to use spike proteins in order to be let in.
So spike proteins can not be used as an epitope to identify a pathogen.
And since all mRNA does is make our own cells grow spike proteins, there can not possibly be any immunity information learned from mRNA injections.

 

[Shiftless2]

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 5561

{...
The majority, composed of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, determined that birth on U.S. soil plus being subject to U.S. law is enough for citizenship.
...
Several dissenters, including Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, say birth alone is not enough — the child’s parents must have a deeper political allegiance or relationship to the U.S.

Jackson’s direct disagreement with Thomas’ dissent highlights a major rift between the legal minds. Here are the justices in their own words:

Chief Justice John Roberts​

Much of Roberts’ opinion was a history lesson on English common law, in which he concluded that birthright citizenship has always depended primarily on birthplace — not on parents’ immigration status or domicile.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, citing congressional debate over the amendment, “We keep that promise today.”

“We break no new ground today,” Roberts said on the bench as he read the court’s majority opinion.

Justice Clarence Thomas​

Thomas, who wrote the main dissent, disagreed with the majority’s opinion and argued that American-born children are not automatically American citizens.

The basis of his argument, among other things, is that the court ignored evidence from Reconstruction debates that suggested citizenship depended on a deeper relationship to the country. After the Civil War, the U.S. underwent a series of political and constitutional battles over how to define the civil rights and citizenship status of formerly enslaved Black Americans.
...}
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-...constitution-6541b7ffa208162f482fd33dfd1798b6