Take it from a little place I call the British government. Which admitted today, in its newest vaccine surveillance report, that:
“N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination.” (Page 23)
What’s this mean? Several things, all bad. We know the vaccines do not stop infection or transmission of the virus (in fact, the report shows elsewhere that vaccinated adults are now being infected at much HIGHER rates than the unvaccinated).
What the British are saying is they are now finding the vaccine interferes with your body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus. Specifically, vaccinated people don’t seem to be producing antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, the shell of the virus, which are a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people.
This means vaccinated people will be far more vulnerable to mutations in the spike protein EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INFECTED AND RECOVERED ONCE (or more than once, probably).
It also means the virus is likely to select for mutations that go in exactly that direction, because those will essentially give it an enormous vulnerable population to infect. And it probably is still more evidence the vaccines may interfere with the development of robust long-term immunity post-infection.
Aside from that, everything is fine.
Alex might be right about these things. From the paucity of the information provided from UKHSA Report 42, it’s not immediately obvious, but it’s certainly concerning.
So, as usual, in order to try to get a clearer picture of what this might mean, I go to the source. The seroprevalence data comes from blood donors and they measure levels of S (spike) antibodies and N (nucleocapsid) antibodies.
The results presented here are based on testing samples with Roche nucleoprotein (N) and Roche spike (S) antibody assays. Nucleoprotein (Roche N) assays only detect post-infection antibodies, whereas spike (Roche S) assays will detect both post-infection antibodies and vaccine-induced antibodies. Thus, changes in seropositivity for the Roche N assay reflect the effect of natural infection. Increases in seropositivity as measured by S antibody reflect both infection and vaccination.
That seems to be fairly clear. Level of N-antibodies exclusively record exposure to natural infection whereas S antibody levels record both natural exposure to the virus and immunisation and apparently, it’s impossible to discriminate which is which. So the presence of N-type antibodies is our only reliable guide to exposure to the wild virus. What we don’t know is what constitutes an ‘infection’, whether the presence (or not) of antibodies is a reliable guide to an actual, symptomatic infection whereby the person infected becomes a potential transmitter because of the presence of an actively replicating virus coupled with a sufficiently high viral load present in the nasal cavities. With high viral load, double-jabbed pre or even asymptomatic superspreaders of delta now being a thing, the picture gets complicated. Here is what the report authors say about national prevalence:
Overall population weighted (by age group, sex and NHS region) antibody prevalence among blood donors aged 17 years and older in England was 18.7% (95% CI 17.7% to 19.8%) using the Roche N assay and 98.0% (95% CI 97.7% to 98.3%) using the Roche S assay for the period 16 August to 10 October (weeks 33 to 40 2021). 1,334 out of 7,384 were Roche N positive and 14,815 out of 15,081 samples were Roche S positive. This compares with 14.9% (95% CI 14.1% to 15.8%) Roche N seropositivity and 92.3% (95% CI 91.9% to 92.7%) Roche S seropositivity for the period of 24 May to 13 August 2021 (weeks 21 to 32 2021).
Here are two of the graphs for prevalence:
What is immediately clear is that the sharp rise in spike antibodies is almost certainly related to the vaccine rollout beginning in December 2020. The rise in N-Abs is much more gradual and is probably a reflection of gradually increasing prevalence, especially in the younger age groups, who are far less likely to suffer from noticeable symptomatic infections, but may nevertheless contract a very mild form of the virus, enough for their immune systems to generate antibodies against the virus shell. This suggests that the prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been increasing, but not at an alarming rate, although there has been a fairly sustained increase in natural infections in people under 40 since about week 23. Here is what the authors have to say about the Roche antibody level serum tests in blood donors:
Roche S seropositivity in blood donors has plateaued and is now over 96% across all age groups. Seropositivity estimates for S antibody in blood donors are likely to be higher than would be expected in the general population and this probably reflects the fact that donors are more likely to be vaccinated. Seropositivity estimates for N antibody will underestimate the proportion of the population previously infected due to (i) blood donors are potentially less likely to be exposed to natural infection than age matched individuals in the general population (ii) waning of the N antibody response over time and (iii) recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination. Vaccination has made an important contribution to the overall Roche S increases observed since the roll out of the vaccination programme, initially amongst individuals aged 50 years and above who were prioritised for vaccination as part of the phase 1 programme and more recently in younger adults as part of phase 2 of the vaccination programme.
They suggest that N antibody seropositivity is probably an underestimate because:
(i) blood donors are potentially less likely to be exposed to natural infection than age matched individuals in the general population
(ii) waning of the N antibody response over time
(iii) recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.
I can’t think why (i) might be an issue. With regards to (ii), antibody levels do definitely wane over time after exposure so this might mean that the shape of the curves above is correct, but they should be shifted up a few percent. But (iii) is a bit of a concern. It seems to suggest that with so many now double-jabbed, exposure to the wild virus is eliciting a more muted N-antibody response in those who have been double-jabbed (the majority of adults) compared to those who have resisted the government’s extreme coercion tactics thus far. As N antibody levels are a measure of natural adaptive immunity following exposure to the whole live virus, this might present a serious concern. Will Jones at the Daily Sceptic thinks it could be evidence of Original Antigenic Sin, which I’ve discussed previously.
A further thing revealed for the first time in this week’s surveillance report is that the vaccines may actually hobble the body’s ability to develop the strongest immunity once infected. As noted by Alex Berenson, the report mentions (in passing) that “recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data” show that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination”.
There is no elaboration on this, but on the face of it it is a startling admission. It is basically saying that a certain kind of antibody which is not produced by the vaccines but is usually produced by infection (and hence is used by PHE/UKHSA to identify those with antibodies-from-infection) is not produced so well by those who are infected post-vaccination. Insofar as this is true it means the vaccines may actually prevent the immune system from developing the strongest form of protection against reinfection. This phenomenon of the immune system being in some way hobbled by the way it first encounters a pathogen is well-known and is referred to as original antigenic sin.
It might be OAS, but I understood that to be the inability of the immune system to respond effectively to a new variant. So, in the case of the S-directed antibody response elicited by the vaccines, when the vaccinee is exposed to a virus with a significantly changed spike protein, the S-immune response ‘remembered’ by the trained immune system, will not be sufficient to neutralise the new spike antigen, hence the viral variant will be able to ‘escape’ vaccine immunity. What we seem to have with the nucleocapsid protein immune response – unique to natural infection – is that it is being diminished somehow because of vaccination. If that’s the case, it’s not good, not good at all. Why? Because mutated spike variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus undermine the vaccine immune response (based on obsolete spike versions), but in addition to this, the broad spectrum natural immune response (which is much less affected by mutations in the spike) is also being compromised, which means that double and triple-jabbed people may be in for a very bumpy ride if they come into contact with increasingly more altered spike versions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The importance of the nucleocapsid immune response is outlined below:
If we group vaccine antibody responses against natural infections, then we see a clear difference (Figure 2).
The data indicates a greater than 2 log increase in nucleocapsid IgG antibody signal after natural infection (median log2 MFI = 8.45) compared to pre-exposure or post-vaccination antibody levels (median log2 MFI = 6.38 and 6.36, respectively).
The following graph shows quite clearly that whereas natural infection elicits both S and N antibodies, vaccination only stimulates S-antibodies and indeed, the J&J vaccine appears to diminish the production of N-type antibodies.
Figure 3. Antibody signatures against full length SARS-CoV-2 proteins and subunit peptides following vaccination or natural infection. Each participant’s pre-vaccine or infection value was subtracted from their post value for each protein or peptide. Cohort values were averaged. Each row indicates a unique peptide or protein. The greater the difference, the more red the color. Blue indicates a decline in antibody binding after the immune event. Values are on Log2 scale. Chart is interactive, use the filter at the top to select specific proteins or peptides to view.
Note that the vaccines, after injection, tend to produce a decline in antibody binding to the nucleocapsid region.
Nucleocapsid is a protein involved in genome packaging and viral assembly. It is not found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2.
S, however, is found on the virus surface, which is the reason it is the dominant immune target after infection.
Due to the greater immune pressure it receives, S protein mutates more rapidly than nucleocapsid. When variants are discussed, the implied variation is in the S protein.
The reduced immune pressure on nucleocapsid helps conserve its sequence and structure, which could mean nucleocapsid antibodies retain effectiveness against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.
This explains why it is vitally important to preserve N-antibody response and why infection acquired immunity is more robust than narrow spectrum spike-directed vaccine immunity.
This paper has just been published. It’s a preprint so hasn’t been formally peer-reviewed, and that should be borne in mind when analysing its conclusions.
Here we report that the Spike protein from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) binds to the blood coagulation factor fibrinogen and induces structurally abnormal blood clots with heightened proinflammatory activity. SARS-CoV-2 Spike virions enhanced fibrin-mediated microglia activation and induced fibrinogen-dependent lung pathology. COVID-19 patients had fibrin autoantibodies that persisted long after acute infection. Monoclonal antibody 5B8, targeting the cryptic inflammatory fibrin epitope, inhibited thromboinflammation. Our results reveal a procoagulant role for the SARS-CoV-2 Spike and propose fibrin-targeting interventions as a treatment for thromboinflammation in COVID-19.
Persistent life-threatening thrombotic events are a hallmark of COVID-19. Aberrant clots form in multiple organs causing significant morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients (1, 2). The high incidence of clotting complications has been attributed to disease severity, inflammation and subsequent hypercoagulable state (3). However, the clinical picture is puzzling because of disproportionate rates of thrombotic events and abnormal clot properties not observed in other inflammatory conditions, such as severe sepsis or different viral respiratory illnesses (4-7).
The central structural component of blood clots, and a key regulator of inflammation in disease, is insoluble fibrin, which is derived from the blood coagulation factor fibrinogen and is deposited in tissues at sites of vascular damage (10, 11). Hypercoagulability in COVID-19 is associated with inflammation and the formation of fibrin clots resistant to degradation despite adequate anticoagulation (3-5).
The high prevalence of thrombotic events with these unique hypercoagulability features suggests an as yet unknown mechanism of abnormal blood clot formation in COVID-19. We set out to determine how blood clots form in COVID-19 and to identify therapies to combat the deleterious effects of abnormal coagulation occurring in acute and convalescent stages of disease. Since hypercoagulability in COVID-19 patients has features distinct from those of other inflammatory diseases, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 directly affects the structural and functional properties of blood clots.
So what we have is a virus which, in a relatively few serious cases, mainly in older people and those with co-morbidities, causes a unique form of pro-inflammatory blood clotting which has not been observed in other respiratory diseases and in fact appears to be a phenomenon new to medicine. It is these structurally abnormal clots which are responsible for many of the fatalities associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
What is causing these ‘structurally abnormal’ blood clots? The authors identify the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein as the culprit, the mechanism which involves the binding of the spike to one of the key ingredients of blood clots, fibrin:
The central structural component of blood clots, and a key regulator of inflammation in disease, is insoluble fibrin, which is derived from the blood coagulation factor fibrinogen and is deposited in tissues at sites of vascular damage (10, 11). Hypercoagulability in COVID-19 is associated with inflammation and the formation of fibrin clots resistant to degradation despite adequate anticoagulation (3-5).
Overall, these results reveal an unanticipated role for SARS-CoV-2 Spike as a fibrinogen binding protein that alone accelerates the formation of abnormal clots with altered structure and increased inflammatory activity.
It’s not the virus causing this damage; it’s the spike protein alone. The biologically engineered spike protein, in all likelihood. Fauci’s biologically engineered spike protein, that is.
The high prevalence of thrombotic events with these unique hypercoagulability features suggests an as yet unknown mechanism of abnormal blood clot formation in COVID-19.
I bet it’s not unknown to Fauci and his co-conspirators who designed this virus and, with the help of the CCP, unleashed it upon an unsuspecting world. You think maybe that’s a tin foil hat too far? I don’t think so. A huge amount of evidence now points to the man-made origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its deliberate or, less likely, unintentional release to create a planned pandemic. You might want to pre-order Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book on Fauci and his role in creating this plandemic and corrupting medical science along the way.
Since hypercoagulability in COVID-19 patients has features distinct from those of other inflammatory diseases, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 directly affects the structural and functional properties of blood clots. Incubation of SARS-CoV-2 recombinant trimeric spike protein (Spike) with healthy donor plasma increased fibrin polymerization (Fig. 1A). Spike strikingly altered the fibrin clot structure resulting in thinner fibers with a rough appearance and increased clot density as shown by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (Fig. 1B, fig. S1),
It’s not just spike proteins building abnormal blood clots which is a problem though, it’s even worse. The spike-induced fibrin accumulation at bodily sites actually causes more inflammation:
Fibrin is deposited locally at sites of vascular damage and is a potent proinflammatory activator and a key inducer of oxidative stress (11, 18). Strikingly, Spike increased fibrin-induced release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in a concentration-dependent manner in bone marrow derived macrophages (BMDMs), while Spike alone did not have an effect (Fig. 1G). These results suggest a role for Spike as an enhancer of fibrin-induced inflammation at sites of vascular damage. Overall, these results reveal an unanticipated role for SARS-CoV-2 Spike as a fibrinogen binding protein that alone accelerates the formation of abnormal clots with altered structure and increased inflammatory activity.
If the SARS-CoV-2 full length spike protein architecture is indeed a product of man, not nature, then it is quite obviously designed to be a lethal bioweapon of particularly fiendish effectiveness.
These results reveal a Spike–fibrinogen-dependent mechanism of clot formation that generates strong inflammatory and oxidative stress responses.
Fibrinogen is causally linked to the activation of macrophages and microglia in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases in the brain and periphery (11, 21). Fibrin is a driver of microglia-induced cognitive dysfunction (22) and is associated with perivascular-activated microglia and macrophages in brains of COVID-19 patients even without signs of infection (12).
Nasty. The authors summarise their findings as follows:
In summary, we find that SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein enhances the formation of highly inflammatory clots that are neutralized by a fibrin-targeting monoclonal antibody. Our data shed new light on the enigmatic coagulopathy found in COVID-19 revealing a causal role for fibrinogen in thromboinflammation – even independent of active viral replication. The high incidence of clotting complications in COVID-19 has been attributed to systemic inflammation (3), vascular damage including abnormal levels of circulating coagulation proteins (1, 26), genetic susceptibility to tissue factor and complement genes (27), and prothrombotic autoantibodies (28). Our findings now show that coagulopathy is not merely a consequence of inflammation. Rather, the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 Spike with fibrinogen and fibrin results in abnormal blood clot formation that in turn drives inflammation. Identification of SARS CoV-2 Spike protein as a fibrinogen binding partner provides a mechanistic basis for the formation of abnormal clots with enhanced inflammatory properties.
A vicious circle. Coagulation is not merely a result of inflammation, it causes inflammation also, a process driven by the presence of the spike protein alone and its peculiar interaction with fibrinogen and fibrin.
Now here’s the kicker. If the SARS-CoV-2 virus with its uniquely pathogenic spike protein is a bioweapon, then so also must be the ‘vaccines’, which cause the cells in our bodies to manufacture SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins in their trillions, and it has been demonstrated conclusively that these spikes find their way into the vascular system and circulate to every organ in the body, even the brain. Go figure, as they say.
GVDB has another post just published entitled ‘The Unforgivable Sin’. I quote:
One wonders how it is possible that while it has now been reported that vaccinated shed and transmit as much virus as unvaccinated people (1), the vaccinated are still protected against severe disease whereas the unvaccinated are said to be unprotected. So, how can one explain that viral shedding and transmission and hence, viral replication no longer seem to be impacted by the vaccine whereas the opposite still applies to the occurrence of (severe) disease?
Considering that vaccinees shed and transmit as much virus as unvaccinated people, how could one even postulate that unvaccinated people are susceptible to severe disease whereas vaccinees are still largely protected from severe disease?
Frankly speaking, this doesn’t make any sense at all. So there must be a ‘small’ detail the current ‘narrative’ overlooked.
It’s a good question, because even though we’re being told that the ‘vaccines’ are less effective in preventing transmission, we’re being assured that they are still proving effective in preventing serious disease. But it’s only older people and those who are immune-compromised who are susceptible to serious disease. So, if the ‘vaccines’ do not prevent transmission of delta, why on earth are we vaccinating children? Even though the ‘vaccines’ are said to be still protective against severe disease, children are not susceptible anyway, because they have very strong innate immunity. Geert picks up on this theme and, in doing so, exposes what might be the true horrific cost of vaccinating children needlessly.
Does anybody realize that protection from (severe) disease in healthy children and youngsters is due to innate Abs (5), even regardless of the possible short-term presence of poorly functional S-directed Abs (which may even contribute to diminishing rather than strengthening their immune defence)? Does anybody realize that this mechanism of protection is fundamentally different from the one protecting vaccinees from severe disease? When present in sufficient concentration, high affinity, antigen-specific Abs readily outcompete low affinity, multi-specific Abs for binding to the same antigen (6). It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that vaccinees experience long-lived functional suppression of their protective, CoV-recognizing innate Abs and are thereby left to rely on their vaccinal S-specific Abs for protection against severe disease (7).
Here Geert is saying that healthy children who have strong innate immunity may occasionally experience a temporary suppression of that immunity if they are rapidly re-exposed to a highly infectious variant. However, if they are jabbed, then this suppression of their innate Abs lasts a lot longer and they are consequently left to rely on the narrowly protective vaccinal Abs generated by the presence of the spike proteins. The current vaccines are developed to protect against the previous dominant variants, Alpha (the ‘Kent variant’) and the one circulating before that, D614G. It is also of note that the so called ‘boosters’ also only protect against these now virtually extinct variants. So, by vaccinating children with these obsolete drugs, we are in effect leaving them open to more serious disease from the delta strain, on account of the fact that their innate immunity will be compromised by the presence of aggressively competing vaccinal antibodies! This brings us back once again to the concept of original antigenic sin which I talked about in a previous post.
As the mechanism of immune defense in vaccinees is totally different from the one at play in unvaccinated individuals, the mantra of mass vaccination stakeholders that vaccination of youngsters and children will provide them with improved protection from contracting severe disease is a textbook example of scientific nonsense. Their irrational, erroneous extrapolations lead people to believe that they should get their children vaccinated whereas there is barely any more catastrophic immune intervention one could think of. In line with the intrinsic functional properties of innate, multi-specific Abs, healthy children and youngsters are NOT ‘naturally’ susceptible to any Sars-CoV-2 lineage but exclusively acquire such susceptibility as a direct consequence of functional suppression of their well-established innate immune capacity due to a rapid re-exposure event or, even much worse and long-lived, due to vaccination. The likelihood of rapid re-exposure to Sars-CoV-2 after previous infection dramatically increases when highly infectious variants expand in prevalence. Such an expansion in prevalence directly results from mass vaccination campaigns as mass vaccination turns vaccinees into an excellent breeding ground for naturally selected S-directed immune escape variants.
So, unless there is any contradiction in the above reasoning and unless somebody could explain how similar viral replication and transmission dynamics in vaccinated as compared to unvaccinated individuals could lead to dissimilar clinical manifestations of infection, we can only conclude that the scenario is the following: Vaccination of children and youngsters is turning off their broadly protective innate immunity in exchange for S-specific vaccinal Abs that are becoming increasingly useless since their neutralizing capacity becomes more and more eroded as a result of enhanced escape of Sars-CoV-2 from neutralizing Abs [NAbs](a trend that has been clearly confirmed by molecular epidemiologists (8)). Resistance to the neutralizing effect of vaccinal Abs that are nevertheless still able to bind Sars-CoV-2 virions and thereby outcompete protective innate Abs is likely to enhance the susceptibility of vaccinees to ADE (Ab-dependent enhancement of disease).
Unless virology and immunology are being rewritten, I cannot imagine how mass vaccination of our youngsters and children will not lead to an even more disastrous outcome of all the scientifically irrational and unjustifiable vaccination efforts. Not only will this dramatically increase the children’s risk to succumb to (accelerated) Covid-19 disease but it will also take away the highly efficient capacity of healthy, unvaccinated people to diminish the dangerous, ever rising viral infectious pressure in the population. By vaccinating our youngsters, children and, even more generally, all people in excellent health, we deprive an important part of the population from its ‘anti-viral’ capacity and instead turn them into a breeding ground for more infectious and increasingly NAb-resistant variants. In other words, mass vaccination of children will inevitably obstruct the process of building herd immunity in the population. While unvaccinated children who contract Covid-19 disease in the vast majority of cases don’t suffer severe disease and contribute to the buildup of herd immunity in the population, mass vaccination campaigns in children will prevent them from contributing to herd immunity, because more infectious viral variants are increasingly escaping from neutralization by vaccinal anti-S Abs and gaining a significant fitness advantage in such an immunological environment.
There can be no doubt that large scale immune interventions which ignore the immune pathogenesis of the disease are recipes for massive disasters.
An absolutely damning indictment of the current obsession with mass vaccination, to the point where governments are threatening those who won’t comply with loss of their job and loss of their freedoms. The execrable Turdeau in Canada has already banned all those unjabbed over the age of 12 from any form of public transport. Australia is threatening to block out the unvaxxed from public life, Biden is intent on creating a sub-class of Americans who refuse the ‘vaccine’ and Wales effectively did just that only a couple of days ago, by farcically voting in vaccine passports. In Lithuania, the unjabbed are basically excluded from society, unable to work, and barely able to feed themselves. Horrendous. From what we now know about the lack of effectiveness of these ‘vaccines’, their risk to personal health and now the very considerable risk to public health in general, this is not just malfeasance in public office, it is palpably evil.
It’s evil because politicians must know the risks they are imposing upon the lives of the people they supposedly serve, because their ‘expert’ scientific advisers must know.
It cannot be that highly knowledgeable vaccinologists don’t understand this clear-cut message. I can only shout at all of them, no matter their international reputation, the number of awards and recognitions they’ve gotten, the number of books they’ve written or high-ranked papers they’ve published in peer-reviewed journals: shame on you for not standing up.
Geert Vanden Bossche, Robert Malone, Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Ryan Cole and dozens of other highly professional and respected physicians and scientists have put their careers and reputation on the line to speak up against the crimes and corruption now so evident in the pacts which governments have signed with Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and AZ. Pacts written in the blood of the people the politicians supposedly serve. These brave few are literally being hunted by the media and by the corrupt professional bodies which formerly supported them as tenured scientists and licensed physicians. Literally, the medical and political establishments are trying to cancel them. Those who have stood up and spoken out are the saints. We know only too well who the sinners are and their sins are very grave indeed.
The medical establishment must be getting utterly desperate. The New England Journal of Medicine, no less, have now taken the bizarre step of actually banning Robert Malone’s IP address so he can’t read their publications! To take such a desperate (and obviously ineffective) token measure, they must feel very threatened by Robert Malone and his brave colleagues who have, in a minority, elected to stand against the increasingly obvious corruption in the medical and scientific profession, in collusion with big Pharma companies, governments and the main stream media who are pushing very hard to try to enforce one narrative on the alleged ‘Covid crisis’ and its alleged ‘solution’.
Apart from the petty and absurd attempts by ‘respected’ scientific journals to restrict access by dissenting scientists, Robet Malone identifies the real problem:
Peter McCullough, a physician colleague of Robert Malone, has also suffered similar attempts to shut him up, but he’s having none of it. This talk by him is simply brilliant.
Vaccines currently are the primary mitigation strategy to combat COVID-19 around the world. For instance, the narrative related to the ongoing surge of new cases in the United States (US) is argued to be driven by areas with low vaccination rates . A similar narrative also has been observed in countries, such as Germany and the United Kingdom . At the same time, Israel that was hailed for its swift and high rates of vaccination has also seen a substantial resurgence in COVID-19 cases .
New Zealand and Australia are giving up on their insane, harmful and counterproductive Zero Covid strategies to instead concentrate on insane, harmful, counterproductive mass vaccination strategies, involving medico-fascistic ‘vaccine’ mandates based upon threats to remove the right to work plus other fundamental human rights which Antipodeans had, up until 2019, taken for granted, as did we all in the West. Can’t for the life of me think why that might be, when just last week the Premier of New South Wales was forced to resign after an investigation which found that she accepted £65m in bribes from AZ and Pfizer to aggressively promote their ‘vaccines’. I’m sure this is just an isolated case and that other states and countries effectively enforcing mandatory vaccination are doing so entirely for the public good, not simply because they were offered huge financial incentives by the WEF/Gates-controlled medical-financial-industrial complex whose immense vested interest in rolling out vaccine passports for the Build Back Better groupies is just a ‘conspiracy theory’.
So anyway, back to this article:
Findings At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1). In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people. Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplifed, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.
Of the top 5 counties that have the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifes 4 of them as “High” Transmission counties.
Conversely, of the 57 counties that have been classifed as “low” transmission counties by the CDC, 26.3% (15) have percentage of population fully vaccinated below 20%.
Does that sound to you like mass ‘vaccination’ campaigns are doing any bloody good whatsoever? Does it in fact suggest to you that mass vaccination campaigns might be doing more harm than good? Yes, of course it does, unless you are a brainwashed, hard-core virtue signalling pro-vax neophyte and Covid cultist peddling pseudoscience, or alternatively a scumbag, unhinged, sociopathic politician bribed with the promise of wealth and power beyond your wildest wet dreams – who is also peddling pseudoscience.
Here is how the authors interpret their findings:
The sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants. Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates. Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientifc evidence on real world efectiveness of the vaccines. For instance, in a report released from the Ministry of Health in Israel, the efectiveness of 2 doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine against preventing COVID-19 infection was reported to be 39% , substantially lower than the trial efcacy of 96% . It is also emerging that immunity derived from the Pfzer-BioNTech vaccine may not be as strong as immunity acquired through recovery from the COVID-19 virus . A substantial decline in immunity from mRNA vaccines 6-months post immunization has also been reported . Even though vaccinations ofers protection to individuals against severe hospitalization and death, the CDC reported an increase from 0.01 to 9% and 0 to 15.1% (between January to May 2021) in the rates of hospitalizations and deaths, respectively, amongst the fully vaccinated . In summary, even as eforts should be made to encourage populations to get vaccinated it should be done so with humility and respect. Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good.
“Humility and respect”. Sounds great – in theory.
Rabid Jabid to Care Home sector workers last week: “Get vaccinated or get out”.
The man doesn’t even know the meaning of the phrase. It’s as alien to him as worrying about whether, having lost your job, you can afford to keep the roof over your head, pay the fuel bills or even eat properly.
This is going to be a long article. There’s a lot to cover. I’ll try to break it up into bite-sized pieces so it’s easier to digest, but even the bite sized pieces are going to be pretty hard to swallow for some who’ve been suckered into getting jabbed. If you have, what’s done is done, but please, whatever you do, don’t get a ‘booster’ jab and don’t, if you have an ounce of decency and common sense, allow your kids to get jabbed. In the words of Dr Sucharit Bhakdi:
If you’re going for your third, write your will first.
The Vaccinated Superspread Hypothesis (is backed up by data)
We’ve already seen evidence for virtually unhindered viral transmission amongst double-jabbed health care workers in a hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam:
Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, explaining the transmission between the vaccinated people.
There’s a lot more data coming through though which is suggesting that not only are the double-jabbed just as likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 as the unjabbed, that not only do they harbour a similar viral load as the unjabbed but they are actually more likely to become infected than the unjabbed. First, let’s look at Israel again. This video has been posted on Twitter; a clip from Israeli TV news:
The commentator explains that 90% of cases recorded yesterday were in the double-jabbed and just 10% in the ‘unvaccinated’. However, ‘unvaccinated’ includes partially vaccinated so we don’t know for sure what percentage of cases were in the completely unjabbed, but it’s probably rather less than 10%, maybe much less. He then goes on to say that the proportion of double-jabbed in Israel is 94%, which means that being double jabbed offers essentially no protection against being infected with delta, now the dominant circulating variant in Israel. What it doesn’t tell us is the infection rate in the unjabbed compared to the double or single-jabbed. Supposedly, the ‘booster’ rollout will address this problem, but it hasn’t; infections are still running at record highs, meaning the government is now recommending a fourth jab in a few months time and then a fifth, and sixth, ad nauseum. Absolutely absurd. Essentially, if you get aboard the Covid ‘vaccine’ conveyor belt, then you are expected to be jabbed every few months as each new variant makes an appearance. You’re hooked for life, which with that number of synthetic mRNA injections (coding for a cytotoxic spike protein, which finds its way into most organs of your body including the brain) is likely to be short and increasingly unpleasant.
Low Ct values were detected in vaccinated people regardless of symptoms at the time of testing (Figure 1C). Ct values <25 were detected in 7 of 24 unvaccinated (29%; CI: 13-51%) and 9 of 11 fully vaccinated asymptomatic individuals (82%; CI: 48-97%), and 158 of 232 unvaccinated (68%, CI: 62- 74%) and 156 of 225 fully vaccinated (69%; CI: 63-75%) symptomatic individuals. Time from symptom onset to testing did not vary by vaccination status (p=0.40; Supplemental Figure 2). Infectious virus was detected in the sole specimen tested from an asymptomatic fully vaccinated individual. Although few asymptomatic individuals were sampled, these results indicate that even asymptomatic, fully vaccinated people might shed infectious virus.
Only 29% of unjabbed asymptomatic carriers were highly infectious (Ct<25). A massive 82% of double-jabbed asymptomatic carriers, on the other hand, were similarly highly infectious. This implies that being jabbed makes you a highly infectious asymptomatic superspreader. In those with symptoms, 68% of unjabbed were infectious vs. 69% of those double-jabbed, so no real difference in the symptomatic spreaders.
this combination makes those vaccinated with one dose or more into superspread bombs.
If you’re still not convinced, we have more very recent data from the UK. According to The Daily Sceptic and according to PHE’s own data:
None of this concept-policing does anything to alter the facts, however. In recent weeks reported infection rates have been higher in the double vaccinated than in the unvaccinated for the over-40s. That means that, for this period, (unadjusted) vaccine effectiveness is negative in those age groups.
It shows that in the two weeks since my article the vaccine effectiveness has dropped further, with unadjusted vaccine effectiveness in the over-40s now hitting as low as minus-53% among people in their 60s. This means that, on this data for this age group, the double vaccinated experienced a 53% higher reported infection rate than the unvaccinated in the past month. And that’s a fact.
So, it now looks like those people who were jabbed early on (people in their 60s) actually have an increased risk of being infected compared to those who are not jabbed and reliant upon their own natural immunity. This appears to confirm what Geert Vanden Bossche was warning about as early as March this year when he indicated the possibility that immunising people against a narrow part of the virus (which is proving to be highly mutable) might make those immunised more vulnerable when a new variant becomes dominant because the now largely ineffective vaccinated immune response against the new variant might nonetheless suppress the innate immune response. This is the phenomenon known as original antigenic sin and I was warning people about it some time ago on Twitter:
The basis of “original antigenic sin” requires immunological memory, and our immune system ability to autocorrect. In the context of viral infections, it is expected that if we are exposed to a native strain of a pathogen, we should be able to mount a secondary immune response on subsequent exposure to the same pathogen. “Original antigenic sin” will not contradict this well-established immunological process, as long as the subsequent infectious antigen is identical to the original one. But “original antigenic sin” implies that when the epitope varies slightly, then the immune system relies on memory of the earlier infection, rather than mount another primary or secondary response to the new epitope which would allow faster and stronger responses. The result is that the immunological response may be inadequate against the new strain, because the immune system does not adapt and instead relies on its memory to mount a response. In the case of vaccines, if we only immunize to a single strain or epitope, and if that strain/epitope changes over time, then the immune system is unable to mount an accurate secondary response. In addition, depending of the first viral exposure the secondary immune response can result in an antibody-dependent enhancement of the disease or at the opposite, it could induce anergy. Both of them triggering loss of pathogen control and inducing aberrant clinical consequences.
Doesn’t sound good does it? In the case of the broad spectrum infection acquired immunity to Covid, original antigenic sin would appear not to be an issue because not only does our immune system remember the whole virus (not just a single spike protein), it is also remarkably good at ‘guessing’ how the virus will mutate in future. In the case of a vaccine-induced narrow spectrum immune response (to the spike region), this looks like it could be a potential problem and now the data is pointing in that direction with regard to delta infections.
Finally, here is another study of vaccine effectiveness of the mRNA ‘vaccines’ in 5.6 million Americans aged over 65. The key findings are that since delta appeared, vaccine effectivness has waned considerably, more so in those jabbed early on.
How Effective Are the Vaccines at Preventing Covid Hospitalisations and Deaths?
Remember, this is the key metric by which governments originally sold us the jabs. They would supposedly stop the old and the vulnerable from getting sick and dying in such great numbers, so that when this key cohort was fully jabbed we could rejoice and celebrate the return of our freedoms according to Wanksock. That didn’t last long did it? Mission creep turned into an express train. So how are the old and the vulnerable, who got their first jabs six or more months ago, actually doing? Great, according to the ONS:
Some deaths are expected in vaccinated individuals as the number of people who are vaccinated is high and no vaccine is 100% effective. Between 2 January and 2 July 2021, there were 640 deaths involving COVID-19 in people who had received both vaccine doses, which is 1.2% of all deaths involving COVID-19 in that period (51,281 deaths). There were 458 deaths involving COVID-19 in people who received their second dose at least 21 days before the date of death. Deaths involving COVID-19 accounted for 0.8% of all deaths in this group, compared with 37.4% in unvaccinated individuals.
OMG, the unjabbed are dropping like flies compared to the double-jabbed! But the Daily Sceptic exposes the scam:
The ONS has published a new study on Covid deaths which purports to show how few vaccinated people die of Covid. Here’s how the Telegraph reported the headline claim: “Only 59 fully vaccinated people without serious health conditions died from COVID-19 out of more than 50,000 deaths in England this year, new figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.”
These statistics appear remarkable – until you realise what they’ve done. Although the data is presented as “this year” in fact the cut-off date is July 2nd. That is significant because it is just before the Delta surge got going. This means the data all comes from the Alpha surge, when almost no-one was vaccinated and tens of thousands of Covid deaths were reported, and from the quiet spring and early summer when many were vaccinated but almost no-one died (see chart below).
Comparing the number of deaths in the vaccinated and unvaccinated over this period and presenting it as a percentage is meaningless and to imply it tells us anything about the effectiveness of the vaccines is misleading.
What we need to know is how many jabbed people are dying with the current delta surge. DS provides the answer, using PHE data:
The important question is what the death rates were by vaccination status during the Delta surge, not prior to it.
Public Health England published a report last week which gave us this data for the period of August 9th to September 5th. Here is the table of deaths broken down by vaccination status and age.
This shows that of 2,381 deaths in this period, 1,659 or 69.7%, more than two thirds, were in the double vaccinated. Six hundred deaths or 25.2% were in the unvaccinated. This is very different to the ONS statistics as quoted in the press that 99% of deaths were in those not double vaccinated. Yet no major media outlet compared or contrasted the ONS data with the PHE data released just days ago and asked why there was such a gaping discrepancy. In the over-50s, the PHE report showed that 1,621 of 2,222 deaths or 73% were in the double vaccinated compared to 499 or 22.5% in the unvaccinated. Once you take into account the proportions of the over-50s vaccinated and unvaccinated this works out at a vaccine effectiveness against death of 68.1% – respectable, but a far cry from the kind of claims being made by the ONS and parroted by the media.
Clearly, with the arrival of delta, the ‘vaccines’ are not nearly as effective in preventing deaths as was originally claimed and it looks like as time goes on, their effectiveness in preventing infection, serious disease and death is waning considerably.
El Gato Malo has been looking at the deaths and hosptalisations data in US states and detects a clear seasonal signal, varying with latitude, as expected for a seasonal disease. However:
But most worrying is that despite vaccination and despite much more real herd immunity from disease recovery AND a milder variant that, while a bit more contagious, is ~2/3 less lethal, we’re seeing higher cases, deaths, and hospitalizations.
Something is clearly very wrong.
The south and west are dropping in line with seasonal expectation, but the northeast and midwest are rising and are at worse levels than last year by 5X in the NE (most vaccinated part of US) and 2.7X in the MW. testing is about 2X this time last year, so this adjusts down to 2.5X and 1.35X respectively.
And overall hospitalizations are up, not down vs year ago and so are deaths, both by wide margins. (2.5X and 2.7X respectively)
Since the appearance of the delta variant and its dominance in recorded cases:
/ Cases have increased
/ Those double-jabbed have as much virus in their nose and throat as unjabbed people
/ Delta spreads very easily between double-jabbed individuals – the ‘vaccines’ are having virtually no effect on reducing transmission
/ The double-jabbed appear to be asymptomatic/presymptomatic superspreaders
/ It is looking like those people double-jabbed early on are now more likely to become infected with delta than the unjabbed
/ Ominously, it’s looking like highly jabbed populations are experiencing an increase in Covid deaths and hospitalisations as ‘vaccine’ effectiveness wanes and the jabbed become superspreaders
It Gets Worse – The Jabbed Are Dying in Disproportionate Numbers
The ONS appear to have slipped up again and inadvertently released data which shows the ‘vaccinated’ are dying in disproportionate numbers from all causes compared to those unjabbed. It’s the same data they publicly aired to supposedly ‘prove’ that the ‘vaccines’ were effective at preventing deaths, ending July 2nd, which the Daily Sceptic pulled to pieces above. The Expose writes:
This means the unvaccinated account for just 30.3% of deaths, the partly vaccinated account for 37.6% of deaths, and the fully vaccinated account for 32% of deaths due to all causes excluding Covid-19 during the first six months of 2021. Therefore, people who had received a Covid-19 vaccine account for 69.7% of deaths due to all causes excluding Covid-19, with a total of 145,968 people having died.
At first glance you could argue that this would be expected due to the majority of the population allegedly having received a Covid-19 vaccine. However, these deaths did not all occur once the majority of the population had been vaccinated.
60% of deaths due to all causes between January 2nd 2021 and July 2nd 2021 occurred during the first three months, the majority of these occurring in January, followed by February, and then March.
By the end of these three months 47.6% of the population had received a single dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, and just 7.4% of the population had received a second dose of a Covid-19 vaccine.
Even by July 2nd 2021 just 67.6% of the population had received a single dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, whilst 50.2% of the population had received a second dose of a Covid-19 vaccine.
We cannot say for sure that the unjabbed are dying in disproportionate numbers because of the limitations of the ONS data, but it very much looks that way from the data they have supplied.
It would be helpful to have more data on deaths by vaccination status, such as the date of occurrence, in order to come to a firm conclusion.
However, what we do know is that the majority of deaths due to all causes occurred during the first three months of 2021 when the number of people to have received a single dose of a Covid-19 vaccine ranged from 2% to 47.6% and the number of people to have received a second dose ranged from 0% to just 7.4%.
Of course, The Expose is a ‘conspiracy’ site. We know this because it keeps getting banned by Twitter, therefore we can’t believe the facts which they publish online, so for completeness let’s look at what Queen Mary College London analysts Norman Fenton and Martin Neil have to say on their Probability and Risk blog:
The UK Government’s own data does not support the claims made for vaccine effectiveness/safety.
In a previous post we argued that the most reliable long-term measure of Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness/safety is the age adjusted all-cause mortality rate. If, over a reasonably prolonged period, fewer vaccinated people die, from whatever cause, including Covid-19, than unvaccinated people then we could conclude that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.
We believe there are severe weaknesses and possible errors in the ONS data (see foonote**). But importantly, while it does not provide the raw age categorized data, it does provide “age standardized” mortality rates***. This means the ONS have calculated the overall mortality rate in a way which (they believe) adjusts for the confounding effect of age, and this is ‘baked into’ the mortality rates they have published. However, while they report this age adjusted mortality rate for each of the three separate categories of vaccinated people they do not report it for the combined set of vaccinated people. In our analysis, and in the absence of the actual age stratified data, we compute a population weighted age adjusted all-cause mortality rate by using the ONS’s published population sizes for each of the three categories of vaccinated. This is not ideal because the ONS age adjusted rates are so opaque and are not ‘abolute numbers’. However, in the absence of detailed data this should provide a reasonable estimate of what the ONS age adjusted all-cause mortality rate would be for all unvaccinated if they had bothered to report it. We will call this the ‘weighted vaccinated mortality rate’. The data table derived from the ONS data and used to compute this rate is given at the end of this post.
It turns out that, even using this age adjusted mortality rate, the death rate is currently higher among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
Because of the limitations and possible errors in the ONS data**, there are many caveats that need to be applied to our crude analysis (including some which are covered in the previous post). But we can conclude that the ONS’s own data does not support the claims made for vaccine effectiveness/safety.
So there you have it. A more rigorous analysis of the ONS data, by expert statisticians, confirms that the jabbed are dying at a greater rate from all causes, not just Covid, than are the unjabbed. How on earth could this be you ask? The ‘vaccines are supposed to save lives, not expedite our demise. Some of the answers to that question have been staring us in the face for months and I’ve provided quite a few hints here on my own humble blog.
Covid ‘Vaccine’ Harms
Sarah Knapton at the Telegraph published an interesting article yesterday, highlighting facts for a change, not opinion or gossip, which most of the MSM has excelled in for 18 months. It’s titled, provocatively:
Thousands more people than usual are dying … but it’s not from Covid
While focus remains firmly fixed on Covid-19, a second health crisis is quietly emerging in Britain. Since the beginning of July, there have been thousands of excess deaths that were not caused by coronavirus.
According to health experts, this is highly unusual for the summer. Although excess deaths are expected during the winter months, when cold weather and seasonal infections combine to place pressure on the NHS, summer generally sees a lull.
This year is a worrying outlier.
Whatever can be wrong? Sarah puts it all down to delays in treatment and compromised population immunity due to lockdowns. Without doubt, these must be factors, especially the dirt poor ‘health’ service now very reluctantly granted grudgingly as a favour to citizens by elitist NHS GPs intent on not seeing patients. Many urgent, life threatening cases are going undiagnosed as a result, but still there is a huge backlog of outpatient appointments at hospitals. However, what our national newspaper science editor fails to reveal is the very analysis above which reveals that the jabbed are dying at a greater rate than the unjabbed. There is a clue in her article though as to what is killing significant numbers of people and, as it happens, this appears to coincide with reported serious adverse reactions to the jabs:
Data from Public Health England (PHE) shows that during that period there were 2,103 extra death registrations with ischemic heart disease, 1,552 with heart failure, as well as an extra 760 deaths with cerebrovascular diseases such as stroke and aneurysm and 3,915 with other circulatory diseases.
Nothing like investigative science journalism which is short on investigation and leaves out relevant science, eh? Wouldn’t want to upset Pol Pot Belly and Rabid Jabid though. So must tread carefully.
At the recent FDA advisory group meeting where the board voted 16-2 not to roll out mRNA booster jabs to the general populace, Steve Kirsch, Executive Director of the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund, made a remarkable claim:
“I’m going to focus my remarks today on the elephant in the room that nobody likes to talk about, that the vaccines kill more than they save.”
“We were led to believe that the vaccines were perfectly safe but this is simply not true, for example there are four times as many heart attacks in the treatment group in the Pfizer 6 month file report, that wasn’t just bad luck. VAERS shows heart attacks happen 71 times more often following these vaccines compared to any other vaccine,
“Only the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) are statistically significant, but the other numbers are troubling.
“Even if the vaccines have 100% protection, it still means we kill 2 people to save 1 life.
“Four experts did analysis using completely different non US data sources and all of them came up with approximately the same number of excess vaccine related deaths, about 411 deaths per million doses. That translates into 115,000 people have died (due to the Covid-19 vaccines).
“The real numbers confirm that we kill more than we save. And I would love to look at the Israel ministry of health data on the 90+ year olds where we went from a 94.4% vaccinated group to 82.9% vaccinated in the last 4 months.
“In the most optimistic [case] it means that 50% of the vaccinated people died and 0% of unvaccinated people died. Unless you can explain that to the public you cannot approve the boosters.”
Steve Kirsch, who is also a ‘conspiracy theorist’, having been banned from Twitter, can be found on Gab. He has recently dug up this devastating paper, appearing in Toxicology Reports. The findings of this study should seriously concern everyone. The Abstract says:
This article examines issues related to COVID-19 inoculations for children. The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children. The bulk of the normalized post-inoculation deaths also occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, while the normalized post-inoculation deaths are small, but not negligible, in children. Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size. Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases. Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.
A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.
Here is a list of the known and potential side effects of the Covid ‘vaccines’, according to the authors:
We believe that mid-or long-term adverse effects are possible based on the recent emergence of evidence that would support the probability of mid-and long-term adverse effects from the COVID-19 inoculants, such as: 1) The spike protein itself can be a toxin/pathogenic protein: 2) S protein alone can damage vascular endothelial cells (ECs) by downregulating ACE2 and consequently inhibiting mitochondrial function . 3) it is concluded that ACE2 and endothelial damage is a central part of SARS-CoV2 pathology and may be induced by the spike protein alone . 4) the spike protein of SARS-CoV-1 (without the rest of the virus) reduces ACE2 expression, increases angiotensin II levels, exacerbates lung injury, and triggers cell signaling events that may promote pulmonary vascular remodeling and Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) as well as possibly other cardiovascular complications . 5) the recombinant S protein alone elicits functional alterations in cardiac vascular pericytes (PCs) . This was documented as: 6) increased migration 7) reduced ability to support EC network formation on Matrigel 8) secretion of pro-inflammatory molecules typically involved in the cytokine storm 9) production of pro-apoptotic factors responsible for EC death. Furthermore, the S protein stimulates the phosphorylation/activation of the extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2) through the CD147 receptor, but not ACE2, in cardiac PCs, the S protein may elicit vascular cell dysfunction, potentially amplifying, or perpetuating, the damage caused by the whole coronavirus . 10) “even in the absence of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, the S1 subunit from SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binding to neutral phospholipid membranes leads to their mechanical destabilization and permeabilization. A similar cytotoxic effect of the protein was seen in human lung epithelial cells.” . 11) The LNP layer encapsulating the mRNA of the inoculant is highly inflammatory in both intradermal and intranasal inoculation  and “Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a cause of anaphylaxis to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine” . “Humans are likely developing PEG antibodies because of exposure to everyday products containing PEG. Therefore, some of the immediate allergic responses observed with the first shot of mRNA-LNP vaccines might be related to pre-existing PEG antibodies. Since these vaccines often require a booster shot, anti-PEG antibody formation is expected after the first shot. Thus, the allergic events are likely to increase upon re-vaccination” . There is also the possibility that the components of the LNP shell could induce the ASIA Syndrome (autoimmune/ inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants), as shown by studies on post-inoculation thyroid hyperactivity  and post-inoculation subacute thyroiditis . 12 The spike protein has been found in the plasma of postinoculation individuals, implying that it could circulate to, and impact adversely, any part of the body . 13 The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood-brain barrier in mice , and “the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins trigger a pro-inflammatory response on brain endothelial cells that may contribute to an altered state of BBB function” . 14 The spike proteins manufactured in vivo by the present COVID-19 inoculations could potentially “precipitate the onset of autoimmunity in susceptible subgroups, and potentially exacerbate autoimmunity in subjects that have pre-existing autoimmune diseases”, based on the finding that anti-SARS-CoV-2 protein
antibodies cross-reacted with 28 of 55 diverse human tissue antigens .
15 “The biodistribution of ChaAdOx1 [Astra Zeneca’s recombinant adenovirus vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2] in mice confirmed the delivery of vaccine into the brain tissues . The vaccine may therefore spur the brain cells to produce CoViD spike proteins that may lead to an immune response against brain cells, or it may spark a spike protein-induced thrombosis. This may explain the peculiar incidences of the fatal cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) observed with viral vector-based CoViD-19 vaccines” [51,52]. A complementary perspective to explain adenovirus-based vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia is that “transcription of wildtype and codon-optimized Spike open reading frames enables alternative splice events that lead to C-terminal truncated, soluble Spike protein variants. These soluble Spike variants may initiate severe side effects when binding to ACE2-expressing endothelial cells in blood vessels.” . 16 A Pfizer Confidential study performed in Japan showed that “modRNA encoding luciferase formulated in LNP comparable to BNT162b2′′ injected intramuscularly concentrated in many organs/ tissues in addition to the injection site . The main organs/sites identified were adrenal glands, liver, spleen, bone marrow, and ovaries. While damage to any of these organs/sites could be serious (if real for humans), adverse effects on the ovaries could be potentially catastrophic for women of childbearing or pre-childbearing age.
Talking of the effect of spike proteins on the endothelial lining of the blood vessels, the authors state the following:
These effects can occur throughout the body in the short term, as we are seeing with the VAERS results. They can occur in the mid- and longterm as well, due to the time required for destructive processes to have full effect and the administration of further inoculations. For example, micro-clots resulting from the inoculation that were insufficient to cause observable symptoms could in effect raise the baseline for thrombotic disease . Lifestyle activities that contribute to enhanced blood clotting would have less distance to travel to produce observable symptoms, and thus the serious effects of clotting would have been accelerated [59,60]. As an example: the risk of venous thrombosis is approximately 2- to 4-fold increased after air travel . How much this rate would increase after the inoculations, where microthrombi have formed in some recipients, is unknown. These potential baseline-raising effects could impact the interpretation of the VAERS results, as we show at the end of Appendix 1.
The authors perform a cost-benefit analysis using the VAERS data, known clinical pathology associated with injection of the ‘vaccines’ and projections of long and mid term effects and they come to this devastating conclusion:
Thus, our extremely conservative estimate for risk-benefit ratio is about 5/1. In plain English, people in the 65+ demographic are five times as likely to die from the inoculation as from COVID-19 under the most favorable assumptions! This demographic is the most vulnerable to adverse effects from COVID-19. As the age demographics go below about 35 years old, the chances of death from COVID-19 become very small, and when they go below 18, become negligible.
It should be remembered that the deaths from the inoculations shown in VAERS are short-term only (˜six months for those inoculated initially), and for children, extremely short-term (˜one month) . Intermediate and long-term deaths remain to be identified, and are possible from ADE, autoimmune effects, further clotting and vascular diseases, etc., that take time to develop. Thus, the long-term cost-benefit ratio under the best-case scenario could well be on the order of 10/1, 20/1, or more for all the demographics, increasing with decreasing age, and an order-of-magnitude higher under real-world scenarios! In summary, the value of these COVID-19 inoculations is not obvious from a cost-benefit perspective for the most vulnerable age demographic, and is not obvious from any perspective for the least vulnerable age demographic.
Is Now The Winter Of Our Discontent?
It certainly looks like it in the UK. We’re looking at soaring energy bills, possible major blackouts, fuel shortages, possibly food shortages, a crisis of health care (all mostly manufactured by the media and by government incompetence/calculated planning), soaring respiratory infections and escalating deaths due to all causes, a government chomping at the bit to introduce more restrictions and lockdowns and justify the introduction of totally useless vaccine passports whose only real purpose is to act as an entry-level digital ID for a globally enforced social credit system allied with digitalised central bank currencies. Then there’s the alleged ‘climate crisis’ (a Guardian style guide invention) which we’ll be plugged with ad nauseum in the run up to COP 26 and have our journeys interrupted by paid ‘climate protestors’ blocking roads (assuming we can fill up the car). Not to put too fine a point on it, some people (maybe a lot of people are not going to make it through this coming hell winter and a large part of the blame for the coming carnage will fall at the feet of our politicians and a craven main stream media who have created the ‘crises’ which we will be facing. Original sinners, one and all, who most likely have also committed original antigenic sin; thus the last word must go to Geert Vanden Bossche in his recent article, The Last Post:
It’s important to note that a high background level of innate population-level immunity will prevent the virus from wiping out a whole population. Part of this immunological capacity will be eroded as the infectious pressure rises; however, it will subsequently be replaced by robust, naturally acquired immunity when people who became vulnerable recover from the disease. This mechanism enables the host population to keep the virus under control while – in return – providing the virus with a renewable reservoir for asymptomatic transmission (i.e., by virtue of asymptomatically infected people). This is how Sars-CoV-2 could have become endemic.
Let’s now consider the additional impact of human intervention on the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic. Human intervention too may have both detrimental and beneficial effects which may be age-dependent as well and equally evolve over time. More importantly, influences from human intervention will interfere with those caused by the evolutionary dynamics of a natural pandemic. Infection prevention measures may, for example, have a beneficial short-time effect in that they diminish viral transmission and, therefore, reduce morbidity rates in vulnerable people (i.e., primarily in the elderly). In the longer run, however, they may lead to insufficient training of innate immune mechanisms, which would primarily become manifest in those who primarily rely on innate immunity as a first line of immune defense (i.e., children).
There should be no doubt that non-transmission-blocking vaccines (i.e., so-called ‘leaky’ or ‘imperfect’ vaccines) can never ever control a pandemic, even though they may temporarily protect against disease.
Given the globally increasing immune pressure and concomitant infectious viral pressure, genomic epidemiologists have no doubt that this pandemic roller coaster will not stop before it takes us over the cliff into the abyss of complete viral resistance to anti-spike (S) antibodies. That is where all runaway trains of the different ongoing pandemics of highly infectious variants will be coming together and converge into a big whirl where they can no longer be distinguished from one another. The first stages of this evolution is what we now begin to see in countries which have already massively vaccinated their population (e.g., Israel). There is no doubt that other countries like the United Kingdom and the United States will soon go down the same path. Due to increasing resistance to neutralizing anti-S antibodies (Abs), these countries are now even beginning to shift from a primarily beneficial (i.e., less susceptible to severe disease) to a primarily detrimental effect (more susceptible to severe disease) in the vaccinated as compared to the unvaccinated (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variant-variant-of-concern-20201201).
The current situation is highly problematic as ALL segments of the population will dramatically suffer from a situation where anti-S Abs still bind strongly enough to suppress the vaccinee’s innate immune response against non-mutable, highly conserved Coronavirus (CoV) motifs while no longer being able to sufficiently neutralize highly infectious variants. Instead, poor binding affinity of anti-RBD (receptor-binding domain) Abs to Sars-CoV-2 S protein as a result of mutations in the N-terminal domain (NTD) could tip the scale in favor of infection-enhancing Abs and thereby make vaccinees prone to suffering Ab-dependent enhancement (ADE) of Covid-19 disease (1) (Liu et al., 2021; Yahi N et al., 2021).
Viral resistance to these S-specific Abs is a terrifying thought as spike protein is not only required but sufficient for enabling CoV infectiousness and pathogenicity (Belouzard S, 2012; Weiss and Navas-Martin, 2005).
The mass vaccination hype will undoubtedly enter history as the most reckless experiment in the history of medicine. It will be cited as the unequivocal proof of how overuse or misuse of man-made antimicrobials leads to antimicrobial resistance, regardless of whether the antimicrobial is an antibiotic or an antibody administered through passive immunization or elicited via active immunization. Mass vaccination campaigns conducted in the middle of a viral pandemic will, for generations to come, become the most sobering example of the boundaries of human intervention in nature in general and of the boundaries of conventional vaccinology in particular. This irrational experiment will unambiguously highlight the clear-cut limitations of conventional vaccine approaches. It will convincingly illustrate that – unlike natural acute self-limiting infection or disease – ‘modern’ technologies alone do not suffice to develop vaccines that are capable of preventing viral transmission or immune escape.
Summary of ‘Vaccine’ Harms
/ Huge and unprecedented numbers of serious adverse reactions and deaths compared to other vaccines
/ ‘Vaccines’ killing more people than saving, potentially killing a lot more people in the medium to long term
/ Well defined set of clinical symptoms associated with adverse reactions and deaths due to ‘vaccination’
/ Spike proteins and lipid mRNA envelope causing a lot of the clinical symptoms – microclots a long term risk multiplier.
/ Data showing that the death rate from all causes in the double-jabbed exceeds that of the unjabbed
/ Mass vaccination with leaky vaccines will potentially extend the pandemic and make matters a lot worse
/ Booster jabs will ony exacerbate the situation and quite likely seriously harm many individuals who get them
My advice to those jabbed and unjabbed. Get some Ivermectin in stock and take Vitamin D supplements throughout the dark winter months. Don’t let your kids get jabbed. Do not get a booster jab at any price. Let’s stay warm, stay healthy and let’s hopefully stay together through this very challenging coming winter (not forgetting an extremely challenging coming summer for our friends Down Under).
Review of data from the three COVID-19 vaccines marketed in the US shows complete lack of a health benefit and even an increase in severe events among vaccine recipients. The proper scientific clinical trial endpoint, “all cause severe morbidity” was created by combining all severe and or life threatening events, both infectious and non-infectious, occurring in the vaccinated and placebo control groups respectively. The data (Table 1) shows there are clearly more severe events in the vaccinated groups. The results are highly statistically significant. The use of a true scientific measure of health as an endpoint for a vaccine trial gives a contrasting result compared to the use of a non-scientific surrogate endpoint of heath, severe infections with COVID-19.
I’ve been reading a lot recently, not only about science but finance and economics, a topic which I have never found easy to understand and have shied away from trying to understand for most of my life.
I still fail to grasp even the basics of global economics except now for this one thing: the global financial system was on the brink of collapse in 2008 and was only prevented from doing so by bailing out the ‘too big to fail banks’. But that just delayed the inevitable and just before the ‘pandemic’, the system was on the brink of collapse once again.
The solution – the final solution – was to destroy the old financial system deliberately in order to bring about a Great Reset of the world economy, allowing the big stakeholders complete control over our lives and all financial transactions via programmable central bank digital currencies, a digitised Universal Basic Income, to be administered via universal digital IDs. The so called ‘vaccine passport’, necessary to control deadly infections supposedly, but now exposed as absurdly unfit for purpose, was to be the entry-level digital ID and it is still being brought in and enforced by governments worldwide, even though it is obvious that it has nothing whatsoever to do with public health. They have to you see, they can’t do anything else. They set in motion the Great Reset in desperation to secure their financial assets. It cannot be reversed. They have committed themselves absolutely and either it will succeed and humanity will be subjected to a horrifying totalitarian New World Order of top-down global governance with the total loss of all our basic human rights and freedoms, or it will not.
This video makes it all crystal clear for me now. I guessed almost from the word go that the ‘Covid crisis’ was a scam, that the response was globally planned and coordinated and that Klaus Schwab’s WEF was probably intimately involved. What I didn’t know was why, what was the prime motive for such a horrifyingly harmful and destructive scheme, implemented in virtual unison by governments all over the world? It turns out that the drivers were simple: greed and control. The corporate ‘stakeholders’ have vastly increased their wealth over the last 18 months at the expense of humanity in general. Even pre-Covid, the elite ruling technocracy and the bankers were gaining far too much power and influence via the digital revolution. They saw that the collapse of the old world economic system was inevitable precisely as a result of their unrestrained greed and lust for power, so they devised a new system whereby not only would they increase their wealth spectacularly, but they would have total control over every human being on the planet. Needless to say, they are extremely dangerous psychopaths, megalomaniac malignant narcissists who think nothing about inflicting poverty and misery upon billions and killing many millions of people in order to achieve their aims.
This video explains it all. It also explains why, hopefully their evil plan cannot possibly succeed, even though they may inflict huge damage upon humanity in the process. Please watch it. Please also read this article, which explains in further detail why, in the words of the IMF itself, “vaccine policy is economic policy”.
Hold the line people. They are going to be coming for us all and it’s not going to be pleasant. But to paraphrase Ernst Wolff, this nightmare is the greatest opportunity humanity has ever had to wake up en masse and change things for the better, to finally rid ourselves of the elite psychopaths who have governed our lives for far too long now. What we must not do is allow them to provoke civil war and widescale violent rioting. That’s what they want: chaos and disorder, so they can impose their own order upon us. We need to resist them peacefully and in huge numbers, using non-compliance as our weapon, even though they will attempt the violent repression of dissenters I’m certain.
I’ve written previously with regard to the large number of women reporting quite drastic changes to their periods following administration of the Covid ‘vaccines’. It appears to be quite a significant problem, which, considering the close link between menstruation and fertility and women’s overall health in general, is worthy, in my opinion, of urgent further investigation; nay, actually it was worthy of urgent investigation before they just dished out these ‘vaccines’ to healthy young women, even pregnant women, who are at little risk of severe Covid symptoms. So what do we get from the US National Institute of Health? A ‘non urgent’ investigation which bizarrely includes female to male transgender individuals who are taking large doses of male hormones!
It’s been a little over six months since the three COVID-19 vaccines in the US — Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — became widely available to all adults. But even in the early days of vaccine rollout, some women were noticing irregular periods following their shots, as reported first by the Lily in April.
Shana Clauson, 45, spoke to the Washington Post’s women’s news site at the time, and again this week, about her experience after getting the jab — revealing that her period arrived earlier and heavier than what she considers normal. She was one of many who gathered on social media to share what they were seeing.
“Is this not being discussed, or is it even being looked at or researched because it’s a ‘woman’s issue?’ ” Clauson speculated to the Lily last spring.
It would appear that the NIH heard Clauson and others’ reports, as they announced on Aug. 30 that they intended to embark on just such research — aiming to incorporate up to half a million participants, including teens and transgender and nonbinary people.
Researchers at Boston University, Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins University, Michigan State University and Oregon Health and Science University have been enlisted to embark on the study, commissioned by the NIH’s National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the Office of Research on Women’s Health.
That’s big of them isn’t it? They’re even going to include transgender and non binary ‘people’ as well as politically incorrect to mention women. So inclusive of them.
The approximately yearlong study will follow initially unvaccinated participants to observe changes that occur following each dose. More specifically, some groups will exclude participants on birth control or gender-affirming hormones, which may have their own impact on periods.
Some groups? Why not all groups? Does it not seem fairly obvious that if you want to investigate the possible influence of the ‘vaccines’ only on the menstrual cycles of women, then you include only normally menstruating, healthy women, not those taking contraceptive pills, and certainly not those receiving massive doses of male hormones as part of gender reassigment, both of which can seriously affect periods? These will only serve to cloud the results. You don’t need these groups at all. But, but, diversity, inclusion! Would it surprise me in the least if, in deference to the rainbow-hued God of Diversity, they also included male to female transgenders who don’t menstruate at all on account of the fact that they don’t have ovaries or a uterus? No, it would not! They would argue in that case that the ‘vaccines’ had no effect whatsoever on the menstrual cycles of these women! Science, innit?
Now, the federal health agency has distributed one-year supplemental grants totaling $1.67 million to Boston University, Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins University, Michigan State University and Oregon Health and Science University.
The five studies will likely recruit between 400,000 and 500,000 participants, including adolescents, transgender women and nonbinary people, Dr Diana Bianchi, director of the NIH’s National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told The Washington Post.
So it looks like different universities will study different groups of ‘menstruating people’, in the words of Bianchi.
It just gets worse:
“Our goal is to provide menstruating people with information, mainly as to what to expect, because I think that was the biggest issue: Nobody expected it to affect the menstrual system, because the information wasn’t being collected in the early vaccine studies,” said NICHD director Diana Bianchi in a statement to the Lily — reportedly crediting their early coverage for helping to make the NIH aware.
‘Nobody expected’? Is that their justification for doing a post hoc study after administering these ‘vaccines’ to millions of unsuspecting women assured at the time that they were ‘safe and effective’. Bloody hell! This is what now passes for ‘science’ and medical ethics? And ‘menstruating people’? What is so wrong with saying women? Biological women are the only human beings on the planet who menstruate and the concern should be solely with normal, healthy menstruating and recently menopausal women (yes, there have also been reports of post menopausal women experiencing periods!), not subjects who will likely be experiencing significant interruptions to their periods due to other (totally unrelated) issues.
But it gets even worse than that. The NIH boldly claims (without evidence) that the ‘vaccines’ do not affect fertility and that investigating their potential effect upon menstruation is hardly a “life and death” issue! Say what? If an unborn child dies in the womb, then I think that is a life or death issue, don’t you? For the child certainly, but also potentially for the grieving mother.
As changes to the menstrual cycle are “really not a life and death issue,” explained Bianchi, the Food and Drug Administration — fast-tracking their work — prioritized only the most critical risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.
Then Bianchi pulls the cat out of the bag, giving away the real reason why they have grudgingly and belatedly, ‘rushed through’ what is essentially a ‘non-urgent’ study into the effects of the experimental ‘vaccines’ on a key indicator of the reproductive health of women:
The NIH, too, pulled together the initiative at breakneck speed. Funding for such a study would typically take years to see approval.
“We were worried this was contributing to vaccine hesitancy in reproductive-age women,” said Bianchi.
It’s the Hare and the Tortoise race. The Hare (propaganda, fear and lies based on pseudoscience) took off at great speed and crossed the globe before the Tortoise of Truth had even got his boots laced up. Massive collateral damage (ongoing) – economic, social, psychological, medical, environmental is the result. A public health catastrophe is looming and probably unavoidable now. Likewise, economic catastrophe as a result of insane government spending. But the Truth Tortoise is about to cross the finishing line ahead of lying Hare and the Hare is busy making up excuses for why he lost the race.
So let’s just blast quickly through the unmasking of the lies shall we, aka the revelation of extremely inconvenient truths and scientific facts.
First, a study from Oxford University which reveals that the jabbed have 251 times the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 (Delta variant) in their nostrils compared to those (unjabbed) who caught Covid much earlier in the epidemic. The study furthermore demonstrates that the Delta variant passed very easily among those fully jabbed persons, the majority of whom were young and who experienced mild to moderate symptoms.
We studied Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine breakthrough infections associated with SARS255 CoV-2 Delta variant among healthcare workers of a major hospital for infectious diseases in HCMC, Vietnam between 11th and 25th June 2021 (week 7 and 8 after the second dose). 62/69 infected cases participated in the clinical study.
Between 11th–25th June 2021 (week 7–8 after dose 2), 69 healthcare workers were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. 62 participated in the clinical study. 49 were (pre)symptomatic with one requiring oxygen supplementation. All recovered uneventfully. 23 complete-genome sequences were obtained. They all belonged to the Delta variant, and were phylogenetically distinct from the contemporary Delta variant sequences obtained from community transmission cases, suggestive of ongoing transmission between the workers. Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020. Time from diagnosis to PCR negative was 8–33 days (median: 21). Neutralizing antibody levels after vaccination and at diagnosis of the cases were lower than those in the matched uninfected controls. There was no correlation between vaccine-induced neutralizing antibody levels and viral loads or the development of symptoms.
So, in essence, what this preprint non peer reviewed study suggests is that so called ‘breakthrough’ Delta variant infections are occurring in fully vaccinated individuals, with much higher viral loads than those recorded previously for other earlier variants, a majority of those infected are getting ill but they are spreading the disease very quickly prior to developing symptoms. This is nothing but catastrophic for the mass vaccination program, proving that it is worse than useless, that it is in fact a public health menace, especially in healthcare settings, where workers are jabbed and easily passing the disease onto other patients (vaccinated or not) and their co-workers.
Thus, we have a key piece to the puzzle explaining why the Delta outbreak is so formidable — fully vaccinated are participating as COVID-19 patients and acting as powerful Typhoid Mary-style super-spreaders of the infection.
Vaccinated individuals are blasting out concentrated viral explosions into their communities and fueling new COVID surges. Vaccinated healthcare workers are almost certainly infecting their coworkers and patients, causing horrendous collateral damage.
Continued vaccination will only make this problem worse, particularly among frontline doctors and nurses workers who are caring for vulnerable patients.
Health systems should drop vaccine mandates immediately, take stock of COVID-19 recovered workers who are robustly immune to Delta and consider the ramifications of their current vaccinated healthcare workers as potential threats to high risk patients and coworkers.
‘But, but, surely, the jab must be better than not being jabbed at all,’ I hear the pro-jabbers crying, ‘even if it’s not perfect.’ Well, for a start, it is very very far from perfect, so far in fact that it’s a menace to society and secondly, innate immunity to all variants (including the Delta variant, in fact especially the Delta variant, which has probably predominated in response to mass jabbing) is far superior to that acquired via ‘vaccination’.
The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.
Oh dear. You got jabbed to go to the pub, go on holiday, virtue-signal your dedication to doing what’s right for the common good, or simply because you switched off all logical and rational processing units in your brain and did what the government told you to do. What a shame, never mind. The booster will work – for a few more months at least. If it doesn’t kill you that is. This is what the Israeli PM recommends, after all. You can definitely trust him. He signed the contract with Pfizer. He’s a good egg.
The Israeli study is no small affair, involving just a handful of subjects:
The study, conducted in one of the most highly COVID-19–vaccinated countries in the world, examined medical records of tens of thousands of Israelis, charting their infections, symptoms, and hospitalizations between 1 June and 14 August, when the Delta variant predominated in Israel. It’s the largest real-world observational study so far to compare natural and vaccine-induced immunity to SARS-CoV-2, according to its leaders.
Though a word of caution in that the actual numbers of infected were small:
The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.
“The differences are huge,” says Thålin, although she cautions that the numbers for infections and other events analyzed for the comparisons were “small.” For instance, the higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just eight hospitalizations in a vaccinated group and one in a previously infected group. And the 13-fold increased risk of infection in the same analysis was based on just 238 infections in the vaccinated population, less than 1.5% of the more than 16,000 people, versus 19 reinfections among a similar number of people who once had SARS-CoV-2.
Nevertheless, it does appear that post infection innate immunity is actually superior to that offered by the ‘vaccines’, far safer (given the huge and unprecedented number of severe adverse reactions and deaths) and much longer lasting.
Nussenzweig’s group has published data showing people who recover from a SARS-CoV-2 infection continue to develop increasing numbers and types of coronavirus-targeting antibodies for up to 1 year. By contrast, he says, twice-vaccinated people stop seeing increases “in the potency or breadth of the overall memory antibody compartment” a few months after their second dose.
For many infectious diseases, naturally acquired immunity is known to be more powerful than vaccine-induced immunity and it often lasts a lifetime. Other coronaviruses that cause the serious human diseases severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome trigger robust and persistent immune responses. At the same time, several other human coronaviruses, which usually cause little more than colds, are known to reinfect people regularly.
More Warnings From GVDB and Why Vaccinating Kids is a Very Bad Idea
In light of the UK government’s insane, ludicrous, extremely provocative pronouncement that 12-15 year olds will be jabbed without parental or informed consent once they go back to school, and in light of the now demonstrated ineffectiveness of the ‘vaccines’ against the Delta variant, it would be instructive to consider the recent comments of Geert Vanden Bossche.
Conducting mass vaccination campaigns on a background of high infection rates generates optimal conditions for breeding even more infectious Sars-CoV-2 variants. The combination of massive, spike-directed immune pressure combined with high infectious pressure rapidly allows these variants to reproduce more effectively such as to outcompete previously circulating variants/ strains. Mass vaccination, therefore, promotes viral evolution towards more infectious variants. The resulting enhancement of viral infectious pressure makes it more likely for everyone, including healthy, unvaccinated people to come in contact with the virus, especially in times where infection prevention measures are loosened. To the extent that high infection rates cause people to become re-exposed shortly after a previous asymptomatic infection, their innate Sars-CoV-binding antibodies (Abs) will be suppressed by short-lived, poorly functional anti-spike Abs, known to not be responsible for preventing the infection from becoming symptomatic. It is precisely the suppression of these broadly protective innate Abs that makes previously asymptomatically infected individuals more susceptible to disease.
I’ve pointed out GVDB’s warnings before, especially highlighting the extremely worrying possibility that the ‘vaccines’ may actually suppress innate immunity.
Extending mass vaccination campaigns to these younger age groups is the most irresponsible public health proposal (decision?) ever as
1. it results in turning a huge cohort of naturally protected people into subjects who will soon become much more vulnerable because the virus is now becoming increasingly resistant to vaccinal Abs (which, despite poor functionality, are still able to suppress broadly protective innate Abs).
2. it further augments pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., on spike protein, which happens to be the target of all C-19 vaccines!) and, therefore, will only contribute to expediting viral evolution towards enhanced infectiousness (and eventually full resistance to anti-S Abs). As already mentioned, the higher viral infectivity rates grow, the more the incredibly precious innate immune capacity of the population gets eroded and the faster vaccine-mediated protection will wane as a result of enhanced evolution of the virus towards S-Ab-directed resistance. In the meantime – and for as long the C-19 vaccines protect against disease – mass vaccination is turning healthy people into asymptomatic breeding grounds and spreaders of evolving, more infectious variants, which is quite the opposite effect of what mass vaccination was supposed to do (i.e., to generate herd immunity). We only begin to see the early consequences of waning vaccine protection, erosion of innate immunity and fulminant expansion of steadily evolving, more infectious variants.
The Delta variant – which may only have taken advantage of the mass vaccination campaign, having previously evolved naturally – may just be the start of this process. More contagious and more virulent strains may evolve directly in response to the mass vaccination of the population, especially children. Dishing out boosters in response to the Delta and jabbing kids will probably only make things much worse. Getting jabbed, allowing your kids to be jabbed, is just about the most socially irresponsible thing you can do at the moment, given the current state of knowledge. Don’t do it! If you’ve been jabbed twice, admit that you were conned and are lucky so far if you’ve not suffered any ill effects. Do not get suckered into getting a third ‘booster’ jab. I guarantee that you will regret it and that ultimately we will all regret your personal decision.
Australia is seemingly intent on becoming the Antipodean answer to full blown Covid-flavoured Nazism. Melbourne is locked down and under strict curfew because of a handful of ‘cases’. Queensland has decreed that the Unjabbed cannot enter or leave its borders. Now the New South Wales government is talking about getting 24,000 children into a sports arena to jab them without their parents being present and they’re calling it an ‘opportunity’. Terrfifying. What the hell happened in Australia? Who would ever have expected Down Under to become an actual Hell on earth? I used to think it might be the nearest place to heaven. If this is repeated across the Anglosphere, then God help us all.