You muscle through the flu each year as well I assume? Future vaccines will be tailored to the newer strains and there are efforts to develop a multi coronavirus vaccine using invariant portions of the virus. Try not to infect the (very) old or (very) young when you’re sick in case they don’t do as well as you do. Remember “dexamethasone” if a cytokine storm hits.
What if I told you that people who don't get the flu vaccine don't necessarily get the flu every year? And that clinical trials have shown little or no benefit to the updated COVID vaccines? And that being vaccinated has never been shown in 2022 to make any difference to whether you infect the very old or very young?
Isn't that just picking one aspect at the omission of another? In Canada, our charts show a huge disparity in deaths between the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated. It is pretty unmistakable - small bump among the vaccinated, huge mountain among the unvaccinated.
We've known for a long time now that even vaccinated people may still get/spread Covid. That doesn't suggest that one should ignore the death tolls.
Those charts are unfortunately not truthful. They are designed to manipulate people into taking vaccines. In other countries with more truthful approaches to data what you see is close to no effectiveness against death anymore, and seriously negative effectiveness against infection i.e. the vaccinated get infected a lot more often than the unvaccinated do.
The way public health agencies like Canada's manipulate the data is as follows:
1. They use a form of statistical adjustment called test negative case control. This is meant to remove bias from observational data, to go from "case rates by vaccine status" to "how effective the vaccine is". But to do this it critically relies on the assumption that people don't control whether they get tested for a disease or not. For many diseases this is somewhat reasonable, because people don't control if they feel sick and they don't control what tests a doctor decides to use. For COVID this assumption obviously doesn't hold, and as such this adjustment method goes wrong such that it raises perceived effectiveness incorrectly.
2. They don't count someone as vaccinated for a relatively long time after they took their shots (like, weeks or even longer). There is no biological basis for this - try and find one, whilst remembering that the spikes are meant to be fully gone within one or two days. This creates two forms of bias: it creates a period of time in which the vaccinated cannot die (a denominator issue), and also, the vaccines are immunosuppressants. This was confirmed by a Pfizer document released after the judge ordered disclosure in the FDA lawsuit. That is, the vaccine itself makes you more likely to be infected by things in the time period immediately after taking it. It means the vaccination pulls forward infections into the "taken it but not yet officially vaccinated" territory, where they're allocated incorrectly to the unvaccinated bucket.
Public health tries very hard to keep this fact a secret. At one point the government of Alberta accidentally published a graph of COVID-19 cases indexed by days after vaccination. We know it was accidental because it showed the immunosuppressant effect extremely clearly, and the moment people noticed the graph was there they simply deleted it:
There are other tricks but you get the idea. Public health agencies are not trustworthy. They want you to take vaccines, they want you to take a lot of them, and they will happily abuse people's trust by redefining common words, or by knowingly using invalid statistical methodologies, if it allows them to convince more people to follow their instructions.
I find all these mandates silly, but in a way this makes more sense than the places here in the US which have a vaccination requirement but still accept proof of shots from early/mid 2021, which are known to have worn off long ago at this point.
It doesn't make sense because the immunity does not "wear off" but rather the virus mutates beyond it. Mandating vaccines on a regular basis doesn't help because the vaccines aren't being updated to target newer variants.
Why not? Well, they tried. Moderna did a trial of an Omicron vaccine. It failed because the vaccinated population simply generated antibodies against the 2019 WIV strain "wild type" spike, not the Omicron spike. It only worked in the unvaccinated, but that's not a market for obvious reasons.
The underlying issue appears to be a form of imprinting or lack of resolution. Our bodies lack the ability to quickly differentiate the different spikes. The immune system just says, ah ha, a spike! I know what to do now, I've seen this problem before! Then it generates antibodies that don't bind properly, which is why the boosted are now getting so frequently sick with COVID even just months apart, which isn't meant to happen. In normal times, even after the virus mutated such that the body can't tell it apart from earlier variants, it doesn't matter because the virus keeps hitting people who were never previously infected and whose immune systems thus develop properly targeted antibodies. It acts as a firebreak and slows the whole thing down pretty dramatically, which is why most people can go many years without re-catching flu. But now we've broken that diversity by homogenizing the entire population. Almost everyone has now been imprinted with a spike that's long since extinct in the wild, so there's no firebreak anymore.
Given that context, insisting on COVID vaccine every nine months is catastrophic. It won't slow down Omicron, it would only make it worse, and the spike protein is cytotoxic. It's not at all free to repeatedly flood your system with it.
11 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 40.0 ms ] threadWe've known for a long time now that even vaccinated people may still get/spread Covid. That doesn't suggest that one should ignore the death tolls.
The way public health agencies like Canada's manipulate the data is as follows:
1. They use a form of statistical adjustment called test negative case control. This is meant to remove bias from observational data, to go from "case rates by vaccine status" to "how effective the vaccine is". But to do this it critically relies on the assumption that people don't control whether they get tested for a disease or not. For many diseases this is somewhat reasonable, because people don't control if they feel sick and they don't control what tests a doctor decides to use. For COVID this assumption obviously doesn't hold, and as such this adjustment method goes wrong such that it raises perceived effectiveness incorrectly.
2. They don't count someone as vaccinated for a relatively long time after they took their shots (like, weeks or even longer). There is no biological basis for this - try and find one, whilst remembering that the spikes are meant to be fully gone within one or two days. This creates two forms of bias: it creates a period of time in which the vaccinated cannot die (a denominator issue), and also, the vaccines are immunosuppressants. This was confirmed by a Pfizer document released after the judge ordered disclosure in the FDA lawsuit. That is, the vaccine itself makes you more likely to be infected by things in the time period immediately after taking it. It means the vaccination pulls forward infections into the "taken it but not yet officially vaccinated" territory, where they're allocated incorrectly to the unvaccinated bucket.
Public health tries very hard to keep this fact a secret. At one point the government of Alberta accidentally published a graph of COVID-19 cases indexed by days after vaccination. We know it was accidental because it showed the immunosuppressant effect extremely clearly, and the moment people noticed the graph was there they simply deleted it:
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-government-of-albert...
Gone without explanation.
There are other tricks but you get the idea. Public health agencies are not trustworthy. They want you to take vaccines, they want you to take a lot of them, and they will happily abuse people's trust by redefining common words, or by knowingly using invalid statistical methodologies, if it allows them to convince more people to follow their instructions.
Why not? Well, they tried. Moderna did a trial of an Omicron vaccine. It failed because the vaccinated population simply generated antibodies against the 2019 WIV strain "wild type" spike, not the Omicron spike. It only worked in the unvaccinated, but that's not a market for obvious reasons.
The underlying issue appears to be a form of imprinting or lack of resolution. Our bodies lack the ability to quickly differentiate the different spikes. The immune system just says, ah ha, a spike! I know what to do now, I've seen this problem before! Then it generates antibodies that don't bind properly, which is why the boosted are now getting so frequently sick with COVID even just months apart, which isn't meant to happen. In normal times, even after the virus mutated such that the body can't tell it apart from earlier variants, it doesn't matter because the virus keeps hitting people who were never previously infected and whose immune systems thus develop properly targeted antibodies. It acts as a firebreak and slows the whole thing down pretty dramatically, which is why most people can go many years without re-catching flu. But now we've broken that diversity by homogenizing the entire population. Almost everyone has now been imprinted with a spike that's long since extinct in the wild, so there's no firebreak anymore.
Given that context, insisting on COVID vaccine every nine months is catastrophic. It won't slow down Omicron, it would only make it worse, and the spike protein is cytotoxic. It's not at all free to repeatedly flood your system with it.