1974 replies to this topic

[joesixpack]

An interesting note from Alex Berenson's blog today. He got an email from a CDC insider and verified their identity. They report that, there is growing reluctance to take more shots by CDC workers.

 

Here is a link: https://alexberenson...m_campaign=post

 

Here is a quote:

 

Now some confide to me that they don't want more boosters, and the body count is getting noticeable-people in their 40s-60s mostly, representative of the workplace.

But I don't think they'll ever admit they were wrong: there's no face-saving way I can think of to back down and admit the truth.

Edited by joesixpack, 29 January 2023 - 08:44 PM.

[Hip]

Jacinda Ardern resigned because she abused the citizens of her country and her party is on a path to take a beating in the next election.

 

Abused the citizens of her country?! How? She was a very popular Prime Minister both at home and abroad. She handled the pandemic brilliantly. It may be that the populace now want a more right wing government, which would explain her party dropping in the polls. But she was well liked. Where did you get this idea that she "abused the citizens of her country". Sounds like more of the misinformation Longecity is famous for.

 

The reasons she gave for her resignation was burnout (she said her "tank was empty"). But the death threats from criminally insane antivaxers did not help. I was glad to see one antivaxer get 14 months in prison for issuing death threats to Ardern. 

Edited by Hip, 30 January 2023 - 02:54 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

This was August of last year and her numbers only continued to decline.
 
New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern has lowest approval rating since 2017
 
She was initially supported for her handling of the covid-19 pandemic, but as time wore on her methods were seen as increasingly heavy handed.
 
Every politician of all political stripes in the free world receives death threats. It's not nice but it's part of the job unfortunately. These things induce almost none of them to resign. What does tend to bring on resignation is the realization that you're likely to be voted out in the next round of elections.
 
BTW - NZ's new PM seems like a peach of a guy. He's promised to go "chase down" people that are hesitant to be vaccinated.
 
New Zealand's incoming prime minister, Chris Hipkins promises to chase down people who are hesitant to be vaccinated

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 30 January 2023 - 03:59 AM.

[Gal220]

"On the Recent Study of 17 Million Medicare Beneficiaries

-40% rise in myocardial infarctions

-50% rise in pulmonary embolism

~ Dr. Marty Makary"

 

https://twitter.com/...821035934867456

 

 

In the link, Dr, Makary makes the obvious point, why are we getting this information now, 2 years later?

[Hip]

BTW - NZ's new PM seems like a peach of a guy. He's promised to go "chase down" people that are hesitant to be vaccinated.
 
New Zealand's incoming prime minister, Chris Hipkins promises to chase down people who are hesitant to be vaccinated

 
The link says "New Zealand's incoming prime minister, Chris Hipkins wants to hunt people down to get them vaccinated". 
 
That "hunt people down" phrase is just another example of Internet rage-baiting. 
 
What Chris Hipkins actually said is this:

Hipkins said he did not want to get into a "finger pointing exercise" in which particular groups were being labelled for slow vaccination rates or why people were not getting vaccinated.
 
"We need to just get out there and encourage people to be vaccinated and I think a finger pointing type exercise is actually going to be an impediment to getting people to come forward and be vaccinated.
 
"I’m always hesitant when it comes to talking about that sort of thing because it quickly descends into a thing of saying those people just aren't pulling their weight or they’re not doing what they should be doing. Actually that’s not helpful."

Edited by Hip, 30 January 2023 - 05:04 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 
The link says "New Zealand's incoming prime minister, Chris Hipkins wants to hunt people down to get them vaccinated". 
 
That "hunt people down" phrase is just another example of Internet rage-baiting. 
 
What Chris Hipkins actually said is this:

 

What he said is in the video in that twitter post and is quite plain. He said "chase down". The twitter post did say "hunt down" and while it does convey the same I idea, I was careful to use his wording.

 

You appear to be quoting a different statement of his.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 30 January 2023 - 05:09 PM.

[Hip]

"On the Recent Study of 17 Million Medicare Beneficiaries

-40% rise in myocardial infarctions

-50% rise in pulmonary embolism

~ Dr. Marty Makary"

 

https://twitter.com/...821035934867456

 

 

In the link, Dr, Makary makes the obvious point, why are we getting this information now, 2 years later?

 

I am not sure why Dr Marty Makary says that, because one year ago, a massive study was published showing that conditions such as heart failure and stroke were substantially higher in people who had recovered from COVID-19 than in similar people who hadn’t had the disease.  

 

We already knew over 2 years ago that COVID is killing people at a higher rate than the COVID death statistics would indicate; we know this from the worldwide excess death data. The excess deaths are much higher than the reported numbers of people dying of COVID lung asphyxiation in hospitals. And we've seen other studies showing that in the year after a COVID infection (even a mild infection), there is double the risk of death from any cause. So a lot of people are dying of heart attacks, strokes, etc some months after recovering from COVID, and their families may be unaware that SARS-CoV-2 contributed to their death.

 

So once you have SARS-CoV-2 in your tissues, your health is negatively impacted on a long term basis, it seems. 

 

We also saw a new study showing that your risk of death in the 6 months after your second COVID infection is twice that of your first infection. So that throws the idea of natural immunity out of the window, as prior COVID infection seems to further increase your chances of death if you catch COVID again, rather than reduce your risk of death.

 

So every time you catch COVID as a re-infection, it seems your health is further negatively impacted. 

Edited by Hip, 30 January 2023 - 05:31 PM.

[Hip]

What he said is in the video in that twitter post and is quite plain. He said "chase down". The twitter post did say "hunt down" and while it does convey the same I idea, I was careful to use his wording.

 

You appear to be quoting a different statement of his.

 

In this video, Chris Hipkins says: "Early next year we will be in the phase of chasing up people who have not come forward to get their vaccination, or have missed their bookings".

[Mind]

I am not sure why Dr Marty Makary says that, because one year ago, a massive study was published showing that conditions such as heart failure and stroke were substantially higher in people who had recovered from COVID-19 than in similar people who hadn’t had the disease.  

 

We already knew over 2 years ago that COVID is killing people at a higher rate than the COVID death statistics would indicate; we know this from the worldwide excess death data. The excess deaths are much higher than the reported numbers of people dying of COVID lung asphyxiation in hospitals. And we've seen other studies showing that in the year after a COVID infection (even a mild infection), there is double the risk of death from any cause. So a lot of people are dying of heart attacks, strokes, etc some months after recovering from COVID, and their families may be unaware that SARS-CoV-2 contributed to their death.

 

So once you have SARS-CoV-2 in your tissues, your health is negatively impacted on a long term basis, it seems. 

 

We also saw a new study showing that your risk of death in the 6 months after your second COVID infection is twice that of your first infection. So that throws the idea of natural immunity out of the window, as prior COVID infection seems to further increase your chances of death if you catch COVID again, rather than reduce your risk of death.

 

So every time you catch COVID as a re-infection, it seems your health is further negatively impacted. 

 

People should be concerned about this new study that shows no matter your COVID injection status, your risk of death is twice that of your first infection. The concern comes from the fact that you are MORE likely to get re-infected if you took the injection. Your risk of infection keeps going up with every COVID booster, according to at least 2 peer-reviewed studies, and observational data from several countries.

[Hip]

People should be concerned about this new study that shows no matter your COVID injection status, your risk of death is twice that of your first infection. The concern comes from the fact that you are MORE likely to get re-infected if you took the injection. Your risk of infection keeps going up with every COVID booster, according to at least 2 peer-reviewed studies, and observational data from several countries.

 

Yes, this is the study that shows natural immunity has no long term benefits in terms of protecting from death; on the contrary, having natural immunity actually increases your chances of death from your next COVID infection by 2 times. So much for the natural immunity brigade.

 

 

As for vaccination making you more likely to be infected with COVID, that myth is debunked here. 

Edited by Hip, 30 January 2023 - 08:12 PM.

[healthmysteries31]

relying on a single study is often not helpful. The average study finds a risk reduction for both vaccines and natural immunity. What's the chance this one is right and the others wrong?

 

Why would one be better than the other?

 

https://www.thelance...0801-5/fulltext

 

11 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 15 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of hybrid immunity were included. For previous infection, there were 97 estimates (27 with a moderate risk of bias and 70 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of previous infection against hospital admission or severe disease was 74·6% (95% CI 63·1–83·5) at 12 months. The effectiveness of previous infection against reinfection waned to 24·7% (95% CI 16·4–35·5) at 12 months. For hybrid immunity, there were 153 estimates (78 with a moderate risk of bias and 75 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of hybrid immunity against hospital admission or severe disease was 97·4% (95% CI 91·4–99·2) at 12 months with primary series vaccination and 95·3% (81·9–98·9) at 6 months with the first booster vaccination after the most recent infection or vaccination. Against reinfection, the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following primary series vaccination waned to 41·8% (95% CI 31·5–52·8) at 12 months, while the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following first booster vaccination waned to 46·5% (36·0–57·3) at 6 months

 

 

Edited by healthmysteries31, 31 January 2023 - 06:30 PM.

[Mind]

Yes, this is the study that shows natural immunity has no long term benefits in terms of protecting from death; on the contrary, having natural immunity actually increases your chances of death from your next COVID infection by 2 times. So much for the natural immunity brigade.

 

 

As for vaccination making you more likely to be infected with COVID, that myth is debunked here. 

 

Big lol.

 

They didn't debunk anything, they just rationalized why the Walgreens data DID show more vaccinated people getting COVID. They argued that maybe more unvaccinated people showed up at Walgreens prior to the time of the data (2022), so less were showing up in 2022. It is just an alternative explanation why MORE vaccinated people were in the Walgreens data.

 

Same with the Denmark and the Veterans study. No debunking, just suggesting that there might be statistical anomalies regarding the sample size and what-not.

 

No word on the Cleveland clinic study.

 

Even Bill Gates (who has been held up as a guru of virology and epidemiology throughout the whole media-created COVID panic) now says the COVID injections "do not block infection".

 

After a while, these debunkers just look silly trying to rationalize away study after study after study. Using studies from the CDC/Pfizer no less, which has ADMITTED to lying and hiding data. Here is another example.

 

Even the FDA, which had to be sued to release the Pfizer trial data, is now trying to hide safety data from the public. More and more people are asking legitimate questions.

 

A lot of people are talking about the recent undercover Pfizer executive video. The most important thing stated during that interview is that the "FDA is just a revolving door between big pharma and government". No surprise there.

[Hip]

They didn't debunk anything, they just rationalized why the Walgreens data DID show more vaccinated people getting COVID. They argued that maybe more unvaccinated people showed up at Walgreens prior to the time of the data (2022), so less were showing up in 2022. It is just an alternative explanation why MORE vaccinated people were in the Walgreens data.

 

Yes they did debunk: the article explains that you cannot just use raw data to jump to any conclusion that the vaccinated have more or less COVID infections that the unvaccinated. 

 

Anyone who understands the scientific method will be very aware that there are all sorts of uncontrolled factors in the raw data that can sway results.

 

 

For example, just off the top of my head, it could be that the vaccinated have a stronger immune response to the virus (which is very likely). Therefore a very mild COVID infection which may be more or less asymptomatic in the unvaccinated, and therefore go unnoticed. Whereas in the vaccinated, it might show up as a symptomatic infection in the vaccinated, because of a stronger immune response. 

 

If this is the case, then it might look like the vaccinated are catching COVID more, when in fact they are not.

 

I mention this just as one example of an uncontrolled factor, which shows that you cannot use the raw data as you are trying to do. 

[Hip]

Even Bill Gates (who has been held up as a guru of virology and epidemiology throughout the whole media-created COVID panic) now says the COVID injections "do not block infection".

 

What do you mean that he "now" says the COVID vaccines do not block infections. This is nothing new. We knew this as soon as the vaccines were rolled out. 

 

The vaccines reduce your chances of death by about 2000%, but they don't prevent infection. Neither does natural immunity prevent subsequent infections. In fact, natural immunity has now been shown to increase your chances of dying. 

Edited by Hip, 01 February 2023 - 01:03 AM.

[Gal220]

double post 

 

Edited by Gal220, 01 February 2023 - 07:18 AM.

[Gal220]

What do you mean that he "now" says the COVID vaccines do not block infections. This is nothing new. We knew this as soon as the vaccines were rolled out. 

 

The vaccines reduce your chances of death by about 2000%, but they don't prevent infection. Neither does natural immunity prevent subsequent infections. In fact, natural immunity has now been shown to increase your chances of dying. 

 

All the data out of Australia has the vaccinated being hospitalized

https://twitter.com/...src=typed_query

 

 

"The  NSW govt’s own data shows that over the past 4 weeks; 498 quadruple vaccinated people have been admitted to hospital with Covid - and just one vaccine free person. "

 

 

 

Insurance analysis - in a dose dependent fashion, the more vaccinated, the more aggregate mortality

https://twitter.com/...512597798977539

 

 

"7% Increase In Aggregate Mortality for Each C19 Dose Received"

Edited by Gal220, 01 February 2023 - 07:17 AM.

[Hip]

All the data out of Australia has the vaccinated being hospitalized

https://twitter.com/...src=typed_query

 

There is a concern that too many booster shots might possibly weaken immunity, due to the recently-published study showing IgG class switching to the IgG4 subtype after multiple boosters. So that's something to keep an eye on.

 

However, this raw data on hospitalisation rate you linked to cannot be used to gauge vaccine efficacy, because the most vaccinated/boosted people are likely to be the most vulnerable people (the elderly, and those with underlying conditions). These vulnerable people more at risk of hospitalisation to begin with.

 

For example, in the unvaccinated population, if you are over 80, you are about 70 times more likely to die of COVID than someone in the age range of 0 to 39. Ref: here.

[Daniel Cooper]

There is a concern that too many booster shots might possibly weaken immunity, due to the recently-published study showing IgG class switching to the IgG4 subtype after multiple boosters. So that's something to keep an eye on.

 

However, this raw data on hospitalisation rate you linked to cannot be used to gauge vaccine efficacy, because the most vaccinated/boosted people are likely to be the most vulnerable people (the elderly, and those with underlying conditions). These vulnerable people more at risk of hospitalisation to begin with.

 

For example, in the unvaccinated population, if you are over 80, you are about 70 times more likely to die of COVID than someone in the age range of 0 to 39. Ref: here.

 

Yes, if you're are over 80 you're a lot more likely to die of a lot of things, including life in general.

 

But, it may well have made very good sense for people in that age bracket to take the initial shots and maybe a booster (but probably not multiple boosters).

 

So why on earth are some western countries sanctioning and encouraging the vaccination of children as young as 5 years old who almost never die or suffer significant health consequences from contracting covid-19?  If you look at the US CDC's data, from Jan 1 2020 to present 1,460 people 17 years and below have died with/from covid-19. Almost every one had significant comorbidities. Deaths from all causes in that age bracket in that time span were 106,196. So covid deaths accounted for 1.4% of all deaths. There were 16.2 million diagnosed cases of covid-19 in that age group during that time period. There must have been 4-5 times that many actually infected.  If you were 0-17 years old and were diagnosed with covid-19 you had a 0.009% of dying from it. If you got covid your chances of dying would have been about about 0.0018% assuming as the CDC suggests that for every diagnosed case of covid there are 4 cases undiagnosed.

 

Based on those numbers the rationale for vaccinating this age group is very poor indeed.

 

Data sources:

 

https://www.statista...s-by-age-group/

 

https://www.cdc.gov/...eekly/index.htm   (Table 1)

 

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 01 February 2023 - 07:48 PM.

[Hip]

So why on earth are some western countries sanctioning and encouraging the vaccination of children as young as 5 years old who almost never die or suffer significant health consequences from contracting covid-19? 

 

Well for one thing, because contrary to that statement, there are now 65 million people in the world of all ages with long COVID. This is a very significant consequence of contracting COVID.

 

These people with LC will cost the economy a lot of money, as they will likely require lifetime disability support. Plus they are going to live a very low quality of life, largely housebound, and too tired and brain fogged to engage in much.   

 

The vaccines are not that effective at preventing LC, but figures I have seen suggest they reduce LC risk by about 15% to 40%. That is certainly worth it, just on its own. 

[Daniel Cooper]

Well for one thing, because contrary to that statement, there are now 65 million people in the world of all ages with long COVID. This is a very significant consequence of contracting COVID.

 

These people with LC will cost the economy a lot of money, as they will likely require lifetime disability support. Plus they are going to live a very low quality of life, largely housebound, and too tired and brain fogged to engage in much.   

 

The vaccines are not that effective at preventing LC, but figures I have seen suggest they reduce LC risk by about 15% to 40%. That is certainly worth it, just on its own. 

 

There are millions of people of all ages with prostate cancer right now. Of course, most of them are men over 50. See, lumping in all groups together like that isn't terribly revealing or useful.

 

And I've noticed this seems to be a new tact you've taken - whenever someone points out problems with the vaccines or the fact that masks don't work all that well you resort to "Well, there are 65 million people with long covid - surely it's worth whatever side effects or downsides might exist to prevent that". 

 

Maybe if you didn't get myocarditis from the vaccine that's a compelling argument. If on the other hand you weren't so fortunate maybe it is less convincing.

 

Speaking of which - did you take the vaccine? I honestly don't recall your mentioning it.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 01 February 2023 - 10:12 PM.

[Gal220]

But, it may well have made very good sense for people in that age bracket to take the initial shots and maybe a booster (but probably not multiple boosters).

 

A year after their release, health agencies finally decided they need to spread the shots out more to avoid a hyper immune response which is partly related to another issue

 

Does your body ever stop making spike protein, apparently there is no off switch?  Muscle cells live for years.   Dr Urso thought 2 months was the answer, but its not a settled issue

https://twitter.com/...082124103127040

 

 

But lets say for argument the body does produce spike for 2 months(the new minimum for getting a booster), why was there ever a need for a booster or even 2nd dose(which caused so many side effects)?

Your immune system got all the training it needed from the 1st jab.  A booster does provide extra protection for 2 months as your immune system is in a stimulated state(assuming a match to the current circulating virus), but thats it.

 

This is real problem, if these vaccines were really effective and needed, this mistake resulted in cutting the vaccine supply in half but also it doubled profits...

There was all this chatter from the WHO about vaccine equity, the booster doses could have been used to finish vaccinating poorer regions, of course not as profitable either

Edited by Gal220, 02 February 2023 - 12:55 AM.

[Hip]

There are millions of people of all ages with prostate cancer right now. Of course, most of them are men over 50. See, lumping in all groups together like that isn't terribly revealing or useful.

 

Summarising data is not really useful? That's a strange argument.

 

For example, how many cases of cervical cancer does the HPV vaccination program prevent each year?

 

The answer is that HPV causes 11,000 cases of cervical cancer each year in the US, and 4,000 of  these women will die of cervical cancer as a result. The HPV vaccination has been shown to prevent nearly 90% of these cancer cases. Is that a useful piece of information to know, or do you consider it not useful. 

 

The HPV vaccine is associated with certain side effects, such as on very rare occasions triggering a mysterious fatiguing illness. But this has to be balanced with the cancers and lives saved. Therefore we need summarised data like this.

 

 

 

And I've noticed this seems to be a new tact you've taken - whenever someone points out problems with the vaccines or the fact that masks don't work all that well you resort to "Well, there are 65 million people with long covid - surely it's worth whatever side effects or downsides might exist to prevent that". 
 
Maybe if you didn't get myocarditis from the vaccine that's a compelling argument. If on the other hand you weren't so fortunate maybe it is less convincing.
 
Speaking of which - did you take the vaccine? I honestly don't recall your mentioning it.

 

Are you suggesting that it is wrong to mention the possible negative consequences of not being vaccinated? Long COVID is a MASSIVE negative. Is Longecity a forum where we only discuss the problems with the vaccines, not their benefits?

 

Myocarditis is caused by the COVID virus itself, and COVID vaccination helps protect against such infection-triggered myocarditis. So whilst the vaccine might sometimes cause myocarditis, it also protects from myocarditis. Again, you need the summarised data to work out the pros and cons of vaccination with respect to myocarditis. 

 

 

I am up to date on my COVID vaccines, taking all the recommended vaccines and boosters as soon as I get an text message from the NHS that it's time to take them. 

Edited by Hip, 02 February 2023 - 01:06 AM.

[zorba990]

Your immune system got all the training it needed from the 1st jab.

This is, of course, not true. The Spike is only one protein.

And the Spike made from mRNA jabs is not identical to any naturally found Spike protein due to the pseudo-Uridine it contains, making it longer lasting and immune system disrupting:

https://yournews.com...ng-clots-heart/

"Cole said mRNA is a message that tells your cell to make a certain protein for different body reactions.
“But when you put this synthetic pseudouridine [in your body],” said Cole. “The body doesn’t know what to do with it, and it looks at it and says, ‘Hmm, I don’t know what to do. So I’m not going to break it down.’ And so it evades that breakdown process, and it also evades an immune response. But it also turns down our immune system, which is not a good thing because other things—cancers, viruses—get to wake up.”
In a February interview with The Epoch Times, Cole said that he had seen an uptick in cancers that he shouldn’t be seeing. In addition, he has seen elevations and clotting factors persisting for a long time post-vaccination. However, when he voiced his concerns, no government agencies were willing to look into this finding."


Natural immunity arrises from exposure to all the proteins of the Virus and will always be superior:

https://www.swfinsti...o-covid-vaccine
"There was also a July 2021 study called “Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells”

The study essentially highlights that most recovered COVID-19 patients mount broad, durable immunity after infection.

LINK: https://www.cell.com...t/S2666-3791(21)00203-2

The abstract reads, “Ending the COVID-19 pandemic will require long-lived immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Here, we evaluate 254 COVID-19 patients longitudinally up to 8 months and find durable broad-based immune responses. SARS-CoV-2 spike binding and neutralizing antibodies exhibit a bi-phasic decay with an extended half-life of >200 days suggesting the generation of longer-lived plasma cells. SARS-CoV-2 infection also boosts antibody titers to SARS-CoV-1 and common betacoronaviruses. In addition, spike-specific IgG+ memory B cells persist, which bodes well for a rapid antibody response upon virus re-exposure or vaccination. Virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are polyfunctional and maintained with an estimated half-life of 200 days. Interestingly, CD4+ T cell responses equally target several SARS-CoV-2 proteins, whereas the CD8+ T cell responses preferentially target the nucleoprotein, highlighting the potential importance of including the nucleoprotein in future vaccines. Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients.”
"
"

[Gal220]

This is, of course, not true. The Spike is only one protein.

 

My point was the 2nd jab wasnt going to be an improvement

[geo12the]

Comprehensive new review on the state of COVID vaccines in the journal Nature. Read here

[zorba990]

Comprehensive new review on the state of COVID vaccines in the journal Nature. Read here

Hard Pass

[Daniel Cooper]

Comprehensive new review on the state of COVID vaccines in the journal Nature. Read here

 

This will be interesting to watch unfold.

 

The initial covid-19 vaccines were approved under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that circumvented a great deal of the normal FDA approval process. The initial strain was more deadly, the scope of what the impact of covid-19 would develop into was unknown, and people were very fearful.  So, what would normally take years was approved in about 1 year.

 

However, the landscape has now changed. Covid is much less deadly, a lot of natural immunity has been built up, and it is a known quantity. In my area, life has returned to just about as close to normal as one can imagine and has been this way for sometime and almost nobody is getting boosters. The hospitalization rates and death rates have become pretty low and the vast majority of people are no longer scared of this virus.

 

So how would one justify approving a completely new vaccine under another EUA?  And if it's not approved under a EUA, it will take perhaps 3(ish) years to run a new vaccine through a normal process and that's if you're really "humping it" as we say in my neck of the woods.

 

In 3 years covid-19 will be even less of an issue than it is now, which isn't much of an issue as we speak.

 

Is anyone going to care about a new vaccine several years from now? Or, will the FDA circumvent the approval process with another EUA by greatly expanding the definition of "Emergency"?

[Mind]

 

 

What do you mean that he "now" says the COVID vaccines do not block infections. This is nothing new. We knew this as soon as the vaccines were rolled out. 

 

I remember when many people in this discussion said the COVID injections did not prevent infection. They were attacked as anti-science, anti-vax, conspiracy nuts - called "Covidiots"

 

My how things have changed.

 

The same thing happened when multiple leading virologists and immunologists expressed concern about immune imprinting, immune suppression, ADE, the class switch, etc... They were harassed. Their careers were threatened. They were censored.

 

Now. "Well of course, we knew this the whole time."

 

 

 

There is a concern that too many booster shots might possibly weaken immunity, due to the recently-published study showing IgG class switching to the IgG4 subtype after multiple boosters. So that's something to keep an eye on

 

 

Thankfully the history of all the attacks, all the vitriol, all of the ad hominem attacks are preserved here in the forum.

[Mind]

FDA is concerned that getting multiple shots at once will raise stroke risk.

 

_________________________

 

The changing of menstrual cycles after the COVID injection is once again making news after the Pfizer director caught on hidden camera says Pfizer was aware of the problem and wasn't sure what was causing it and that the injections "shouldn't be interfering with that...it has to be something hormonal".

 

I remember when these women tried to alert everyone to what was happening with their menstrual cycles. They were savagely attacked and censored online. They were called insane anti-vaxxers, among many other horrible things.

 

Pretty soon, I am sure someone will say "well of course, we always knew that the COVID injections would cause hormonal problems".

Edited by Mind, 03 February 2023 - 10:36 PM.

[geo12the]

Hard Pass

 

Is it the new vaccines they talk about that you will take a pass on or the article itself?

Edited by geo12the, 04 February 2023 - 01:13 AM.