The study once again shows that we'd be so much better off if we just let people get infected and encourage the use of proven early treatment protocols.
If you're immuno-compromised the vax won't help much either, Recent Ontario/Denmark studies show the vaccinated more likely to become infected with Omicron so you're actually safer around the recovered or unvaccinated.
Steve, I heard you say that you had the vacvine earlier. I’m just curious; you’re a highly intelligent man. What was your rationale for doing so? Did you just accept the experts’ advice at that time?
Why I ask is because a man who I regularly meet, while walking our dog, told me he got the jab. Yet, he was so proud that at his age (75), he never had a vaccine or a drug in his life. He got quite agitated when I told him the vaccines don’t actually work and walked off.
Steve, like millions other still do, believed the system was working and the FDA was not corrupt. That is my understanding from other videos of Steve being asked this question.
Dr Malone took the Moderna shot because he heard that the shot helped long covid.
That is why I think there are only about 20 to 30 percent that will take the Booster willingly. Some will do it to feed the family, basically. There are and will be a lot of possed off people.
I know a few people here who also got the shots, but who won't get the booster knowing now what they didn't earlier. In one case, it's giving up a professional career.
Yes it seems very widespread. I have some hard core pro vax friends and X friends. But a lot took the Jab or two thinking that would be the end of all this. They see the clown show in full view. Dont underestimate Documentaries like Pandemic with 1 billion views and shows like Rogan.
On a side note, I found an organization in the states that wants to organize by one issue. Medical Tyranny. The idea is to inform the Politicians regardless of left or right that you will support medical freedom or we vote against you.
I like the idea. Have XX in the group and threaten their job.
Unfortunately, here in Australia, freedom is just a suggestion, not a right, as so many of us have found out in the past two years. Mind you, there are pockets of America that are the same. They treat the constitution like toilet paper.
You missed the most important detail of that study: You get SIGNIFICANTLY different outcomes if you had the vaccine first, the caught COVID, vs catching COVID, then getting the vax. This SCREAMS "original antigenic sin."
And THAT is the really troubling news. As it becomes more obvious that we vaccinated are at increased risk, what will the public response be? The effort to suppress such news continues but can it be maintained? Nobody wants to be on a treadmill of endless boosters.
Wonder how the re-re-infection cycle looks as we recover only to get infected again. Will that be happening?
To answer the second question; I have no idea. This is just one study but there have been signs of OAS from other places. I don't know that it necessarily follows that people who were vaccinated first will have perpetual problems.
Steve, have you looked into terrain theory? This Beauchamp book..linked below...is very in line with your thinking. Basically, it goes into the history of vaccinations and shows in numerous instances, that the vaccines may have reduced the risk of acquiring one pathogen, but led to other problems and, specifically, an INCREASE IN ALL-CAUSE MORTALITY. This is a historical thing with numerous vaccines. A bit about this in RFK's book as well.
Hence, I don't think this is something unique only to SARS-COV-2. It's a historical problem with mass vaccination and honestly Pasteur may be wrong that vaccination is the way to control the spread of viruses in many cases.
The better way may simply be to strengthen the immune system, or terrain, and treat early, since there will always be viruses and they are essentially unavoidable. This philosophy I think is superior, meaning the foundation of Western Medicine is fundamentally corrupt and largely based on erroneous principles.
100% agree Matt. We have been deceived into thinking that our God given miraculous immune system needs a vaccine to protect us from disease when there are so many lifestyle decisions, supplements and vitamins to strengthen our immune system without needing a chemical laden jab to do it for us. The globalists and big pharma don't want the world to find out how toxic and harmful the vaccines are and how they have compromised our immune systems for decades, making it more vulnerable to diseases and they actually cause autoimmune conditions, autism, dementia, etc. But they have overplayed their hand with this plandemic and when the truth comes out, it will lead to the complete destruction of big pharma/vaccines/allopathic medicine and lead to a huge paradigm shift on so many levels.
YES to Matt and R. Trinity. TERRAIN THEORY is where it's at, and I believe where we need to go. Germ theory isn't cutting it. Germ theory implies "just take this drug/shot" (and is the "lazy" way), while Terrain theory means each one of us actually has to pay attention and take 100% responsibility for our own health. And I for one, know many folks that do not want to face that fact. Everyone wants to hit the easy button and just take a drug. And you could say that - that thinking is what helped to get us into this mess.
Ditto BC. People want a silver bullet, the easy way out. Obesity is the largest risk factor for Covid. But yet they're mandating healthy people get the clot shot quackxxine to protect others.
Not even a *genetic therapy*, which would be deep shit already; watch Dr. Alexandra Henrion-Caude, Geneticist, Discusses The Workings of the mRNA Vaxx & Her Concerns https://www.bitchute.com/video/vohfFAMO8tJp/ mRNA has the capacity to change human DNA as it uses a vocabulary unknown to mankind, cf. 20:*
I agree. If we strengthen our immune system, we may not need to get infected, but I understand Steve's point and advice. However, since the spike protein is cytotoxic and for those of us who believe SARS CoV-2 is a bioweapon (Dr. Peter McCullough/Dr. David Martin), even a mild case may create issues down the road... we just don't know.
My wife and I had "COVID-19" in March 2020, and for us, it was like having bronchitis. Our doctors told us to say home and basically treat it like the seasonal flu. It was over in about four days. We got sick with a cold in August 2020, and it was over in 24 hours and treated like the seasonal flu. We also had about 20 family members and friends get sick with "COVID-19" in 2020, and everyone recovered within a day to five days. We all agreed it was just like the seasonal flu.
Maybe we can all agree that it's inevitable that we are all EXPOSED to the virus. What happens beyond that exposure depends on our Terrain. (Vit D3, y'all, along with all the other healthy things we should be doing.)
No. It is mathematically inevitable. SARS-CoV-2 is extremely infectious. Have you never caught a cold or a flu in your life? SARS-CoV-2 is way more infectious than that. It's not a matter of if, but when you get infected (unless you relocate to a cave in Siberia)
Yep that's good to hear. Notice I only mentioned SARS-CoV-2, not COVID. The virus has definitely infected your body, but your immune system learned how to deal with it, therefore you won't get COVID.
If you want to intentionally get infected by a Omicron, an alleged variant of a bioweapon virus, go for it. I prefer to use my immune system which has served me well thus far. I haven't caught a cold or the flu in two decades. You believe SARS CoV-2 is "extremely infectious" because it's based on a bogus PCR test which can't diagnose disease. The CDC PCR Test Report (pg. 40) states "Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens" https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
FDA PCR Test Report: page 1 “Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.” https://www.fda.gov/media/138526/download
This is a casedemic/scamdemic, more than a legitimate pandemic. They needed to inflate cases to create the illusion of a pandemic. There are deadly flu strains that come around. People tragically die from the flu and pneumonia. When the news covers this 24/7, it can create the false reality that serves the big pharma and globalists' agenda.
About 25-30% of the population would test positive for colonized Staphylococcus aureus and 1-2% with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) inside their nose, but they aren't infected with disease nor transmitting it. Another possible reason for a false positive Covid test.
Also, a review of over 25 clinical trials on influenza vaccines reported, "Over 200 viruses cause influenza-like illness (ILI), which produces the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches, pains, cough, and runny nose) as influenza. Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot distinguish between ILI and influenza because both last for days and rarely cause serious illness or death. Injected influenza vaccines have a small protective effect against influenza as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case."
The absolute risk reduction (ARR) measure (i.e. vaccine effectiveness) of the flu vaccine is only 1.4% according to clinical trial data. The ARR is calculated as 1/71 = .014 = 1.4%. So like the Covid jabs, the flu vaccine is also a dud.
And a Pentagon study found that the flu shot increases the risks from coronavirus by 36%. “Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as “virus interference…’vaccine derived’ virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus…” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19313647?via%3Dihub
Starting in 2015 the CDC decided to combine influenza and pneumonia into one statistic. This American Lung Assoc. document illustrates how deceptive today’s influenza death figures are since they include the much larger number of pneumonia deaths. The chart on pg. 5 shows all the pneumonia and flu deaths per year. Deaths from influenza averaged 1,313 between 1999 - 2013. Hard to push the flu shot with these actual flu figures. Pg. 9 also shows how low and relatively flat hospitalization rates were from 1988 to 2010. https://www.lung.org/getmedia/98f088b5-3fd7-4c43-a490-ba8f4747bd4d/pi-trend-report.pdf.pdf
> I prefer to use my immune system which has served me well thus far. I haven't caught a cold or the flu in two decades.
You have completely missed the point. You have already been exposed to the cold or flu. They have already infected your body and your immune system was able to fight it off. Congratulations. Now you are going to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 whether you like it or not, whether you are aware of it or not, just like you have already been infected with multiple cold viruses without your knowledge. It may be the case that you have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and are naturally immune.
I've been in the "want to get infected" camp this whole time. I'm healthy and low risk. Nothing better I can do than help with community resistance. Be prepared. Improve my own health. Have a personal proactive mitigation plan.
Funny enough, after losing 50 lbs and receiving stellar labs, I ordered up the new T-cell test and came back positive for a recently past covid infection. Never knew it. Might have had a brief cold a few months back. And had a bit of a cough and fatigue some months before that. Ah... Life being expendable... Oh. Wait. They used to call it essential.
Exposure is inevitable. Infection is not. Both lead to immunity.
I love your post but suggest using the word "exposed" rather than "infected" to reflect what ideally happens to many healthy people who encounter this virus, especially children. (I have anecdotal experience with the youth in my own family who never were symptomatic but lab tests show mounted an immune response.)
Grabbed this condensed version of the Israeli study cut down in easy to consume factoids. Would make for a handy brochure or insert for holiday cards.... https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=244442
But if the vaccine wasn't used, Big Pharma couldn't make billions and Trump, the acknowledged "father of the vaccine", couldn't feed his ego and play superhero who defeated the pandemic.
From what I understand there wasn’t a push within his WH to get everyone vaccinated. It was supposed to be the health care workers, elderly and those with underlying health issues.
Instead we got a senile old fool, pushing vaccines on toddlers. Several doctors were yelling about mass vaccinations during a pandemic. The yokels in the district of communists will never admit they f***up.
I'm not a Trump fan but he was out of his league in Washington and suffered greatly from saboteurs and snakes in the ranks from the start. I'm happy to blame him for a lot that is his own doing but he wanted RFK in his camp and was driven to the Fauci network. He also leaned toward pardons for Snowden, Kiriakou and Assange and instead DoJ arrested Julian because of CIA players in his ear. It's still technically on his watch but Washington insiders drove these policies while MSM did everything possible to distract and undermine him. Russiagate plus January 6 drama are all smear campaigns to take down Trump. He remains an outsider in the bipartisan swamp.
If one looks at the supplemental materials of this study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.04.21267114v1.supplementary-material), interesting details come up. By "vaccinated then recovered" they mean vaccinated 1st time then infected before the 2nd jab. And most recoveries happen right after the 1st jab, thanks to the jab causing the infection by flooring their immunity. All this analysis is also good for nothing as the study period coincides with the sharp peak of infections in Jan. 2021 while in the midst of the primary vaccination campaign. And the boosters happened in the absence of the disease in Israel, other than that induced by boosting itself, starting Jul. 31, 2021. So, tons of artifacts in this study, and no way to correctly account for it. And as they vaxxed their recovered and there was no Covid wave in June-Oct. (other than booster-induced), the recovered-then-vaxxed look PRETTY GOOD just because of this coincidence. So, consume with a pound of salt the different comparisons.
There was plenty of “wave” during the booster roll-out and this study period (August + September). I don’t see anything supporting “they mean vaccinated 1st time then infected before the 2nd jab”...
"We used two-month periods as our basic time interval for defining the sub-cohorts, but combined months 12 to18 for the Recovered cohort and omitted months 8 to 10 for the Vaccinated and the hybrid cohorts due to the small number of individuals."
And also:
"Typically, infection rates among recovered or vaccinated individuals are compared to the infection rate among unvaccinated-not-previously-infected persons. However, due to the high vaccination rate in Israel, the latter cohort is small and unrepresentative of the overall population; furthermore, the MoH database does not include complete information on such individuals. Therefore, we did not include unvaccinated-not-previously-infected individuals in the analysis."
● Recovered: Previously infected individuals 90 or more days after confirmed infection who had never been vaccinated.
● Recovered then Vaccinated: Previously infected individuals who later were 7 or more days after receiving a single vaccine dose.
● Vaccinated then Recovered: Individuals who had been vaccinated with one or two doses and were later infected.
● Vaccinated: Individuals seven days or more after receiving the second dose, and who had not been infected before the start of the study period.
● Booster: Individuals who received a third (booster) dose 12 or more days previously and had not been infected before the start of the study period.
And later...
The first infections of individuals in the Recovered and hybrid cohorts were from mostly the pre-Alpha and the Alpha variants. If protection provided by prior infection depends on the variant, its effect is confounded with the effect of time since infection. As a single variant was dominant in Israel during each of the pandemic waves,17 our study cannot disentangle the two effects. Moreover, infections during the study period were mostly of the Delta variant, and there is not enough information at this time to suggest implications from our results regarding protection from new variants such as the Omikron.
Another source of potential bias is due to cohort misclassification. To be classified as a recovered person in our study, a PCR test must have been performed and found positive. However, many infected individuals have not been diagnosed and some of these have received vaccination. Thus, some of those classified into the Vaccinated cohort or the Booster cohort should have been included in the hybrid-immunity cohorts. This may have led to underestimation of the rate among vaccinated uninfected individuals. Yet, as the Recovered group was much smaller than the Vaccinated group (see Table 1), the size of this bias is expected not to be large.
Right, so both the single and double-dosed are included in vaxed + recovered. That was my impression given the days to infection chart. Thanks for highlighting the relevant text.
Add this to the growing list of possible vaccine "benefits". This paper is one observational case study so there is much more work to be done before we can declare that the so-called "vaccine" causes cancer, but angioimmunoblastic t-cell lymphoma makes covid-19 look like a Sunday picnic.
You missed possibly the most important point. The last rows in the chart. Vaccinated then recovered somehow wanes faster than recovered or recovered then vaccinated. Seems the vaccine could mess with the immune response leaving you worse off than if you just recovered. Highlighting these should only be used on the most vulnerable populations.
Steve found that the vaccines are more dangerous than the virus across all age groups, therefore should not be used by anyone https://www.skirsch.com/covid/VCage.pdf
Point well taken however I would disagree with "anyone". When looked at with more factors than age there are subgroups that it would make sense to give it to. For example, someone over 70 who had recently undergone immune destroying chemo (I have one such individual in my extended family) I think it makes sense in that case as getting the virus when that immunocompromised is literally a death sentence. However to your point I think healthy people can handle this virus just fine and with early treatment the hospitalization/death rate can drop to negligible numbers.
Disagree Steve. The shots are dangerous for any age cohort and the immunocompromised and they don't work. You can't justify an unsafe, ineffective vaccine on anyone.
The vaccines only reduce the risk of infection by < 2%. Articles in medical journals have confirmed this. The absolute risk reduction (ARR), for all the Covid vaccines (i.e. vaccine effectiveness, how much do they reduce an individual's risk of infection) is < 2%. A study published in The Lancet confirms all the Covid19 vaccines' ARR is < 2%.
Pfizer .9%
Moderna 1.4%
J&J 1.8%
AstraZeneca-Oxford 1.9%
Gamaleya (Sputnik V) 1%
"Covid-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness - the elephant (not) in the room"
Dr. Ronald Brown's peer reviewed article analyzed Pfizer's and Moderna's clinical trial data that they submitted to the FDA for their EUA and he confirmed their vaccines reduce the risk of infection by only .7% and 1.1%, respectively, (their ARR). The FDA, Pfizer and Moderna did not disclose the ARR to the public, ignoring the FDA's own reporting guidelines*. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/
*The FDA Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide states, “Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.” (page 60). https://www.fda.gov/media/81597/download
The ARR can easily be calculated looking at the clinical trial data. It's high school math, using simple division and subtraction. You don't have to be as brilliant as Kirch to calculate the ARR. So anyone could have seen this for themselves.
Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of the BMJ, also reported the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines' ARR were less than 1%.
Also, the jabs have antibody dependent enhancement risk.
An NIH/NIAID funded study published Oct. 28, 2020 on Informed Consent said vaccine clinical trial participants were not properly informed of the antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) risk, which is "non-theoretical and compelling" where the vaccinated could experience "severe disease, lasting morbidity or even death" but would otherwise have a mild case if unvaccinated.
ADE is why a SARS CoV vaccine has never been brought to market. In previous animal trials, vaccinated mice and ferrets, when later exposed to the SARS coronavirus, developed acute liver failure and lung inflammation, respectively, due to ADE, and either died or had to be euthanized. Fauci warned about ADE in an early press conference, but said it would be observed in animal studies. But they skipped animal studies during Operation Warpspeed and any animal studies that were conducted were not disclosed to the public. Animal studies are the most critical component in vaccine safety trials.
In this brief video, Dr. Robert Malone (nominated for Nobel Prize), inventor of the original core technology platform for the mRNA and adenovirus DNA gene based vaccines, talks about ADE and how the vaccine trials did not test for ADE risk and the FDA knew this when they approved their EUA. He said the clinical trials were flawed, he objects to the FDA's recommendation for pregnant women to get the shot and he is completely against "this crazy push to vaccinate all the kids." Kirsch has done a round table discussion with Malone and Bret Weinstein.
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler warned the ADE increases the likelihood of more serious disease when exposed to any future coronavirus, whether it's a Covid19 variant, a new SARS CoV or even the common cold.
After injection, it was believed the vaccine would remain local in the deltoid muscle and some would go to the local draining lymph nodes to trigger an immune response. But a study showed the spike protein was found circulating in the blood of vaccinated healthcare workers at Brigham and Women's Hospital. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075
A recent in vitro study shows the spike protein, from either virus infection or vaccination, directly interferes with the function of two important DNA repairing protein enzymes, BRCA1 (breast cancer) and 53BP1. The spike protein enters the cell’s nucleus (which we were told it would not do) and dampens the DNA repair mechanism by as much as 90%.
SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro
If your body can no longer repair DNA... cancer and autoimmune diseases, etc. will go unchecked. That's why doctors are reporting cancer and autoimmune conditions that were in remission or manageable, surging post jab.
The Japanese Pfizer biodistribution animal study (released after a Freedom of Information request from viral immunologist Dr. Bryam Bridle and international collaborators) showed after 48 hours, the lipo nanoparticles (which protect the fragile mRNA) collected in numerous areas throughout the body, especially the ovaries (infertility) and crossed the blood brain barrier (page 17, Table 2.6.5.5B).
Bridle is interviewed by attorney Reiner Fuellmich, co-founder of the Corona Investigative Committee, who is leading an international legal team against the corruption surrounding the pandemic. Fuellmich is joined by attorney Viviane Fischer and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who mentions the ARR "betrayal" (time mark 32:43). https://www.bitchute.com/video/RZpqrxaztvt2/
The Perspectives on the Pandemic Series interviewed Dr. Bhakdi, who in February, 2021, along with a group of his colleagues, including Dr. Yeadon, warned the European Medicines Agency (the EU's FDA), about the potential danger of blood clots and cerebral vein thrombosis (CVT) in millions of people receiving the vaccines. Bhakdi explains what the vaccines do in the body and the CVT risk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyPjAfNNA-U
So much information that confirms these jabs are not safe. The Covid19 mortality rate is 99.95% for ages up to 69 and 99.998% for ages 0 to 19, yet they are conducting clinical trials on infants as young as six months old. This doesn't pass the smell test. The vaccines have never been about saving lives.
Thanks for your reply. I actually agree with most of what your saying here so would like to clarify my point a bit. I agree with the ARR vs RRR discussion completely, I think this has been a huge issue the whole time. When I said I could see some benefit in very specific situations I wasn't talking about risk of getting the disease which I believe is 100% for everyone. I also would have been interested to see public interest in these if they defined them as gene therapies and had to abide by the regulatory requirements of that class of drugs instead. Anyone that doubts these should be called gene therapy should see how the ICH/FDA defines this in their latest GT guidance which is ICH S12 released in September. That also interestingly says they recommend companies not only measure the delivery vehicle itself but also the expressed protein and track its distribution. Then they bizarrely state that the guidance doesn't apply to "prophylactic vaccines". Head scratcher there. In terms of ADE I agree on the informed consent and I was concerned about that myself but I'm a bit less concerned now as the signal for that doesn't appear the way it did in say Dengvaxia a few years ago. Additionally the MOA for Dengvaxia made perfect sense why we would see ADE. SARS-CoV-2 behaves differently than SARS-CoV and the information that I have to review doesn't show animal deaths upon exposure to the virus after vaccination. Sorry I can't post the materials here because I could lose my job but I reviewed Moderna, JnJ and Novavax (can't seem to find the Pfizer info). In terms of cancer risk there is a possibility but the problem with the study is they used the WT spike and not the altered spike used in the vax. Now does that discount the findings? No it does not and it doesn't prove safety either however in order to conclude that is happening we would need to study the actual antigen in question. Personally I think it's more likely that the transient immunosuppression caused by the vax is responsible for the rise in latent virus/cancer. That isn't to say though that I think efficacy is zero and risk/benefit tradeoff can be calculated. Based on the UK data if you normalize correctly (they don't in the report) you see *some* efficacy against hospitalization/death for a time. The problem I have with their methodology is they take cases and divide into the total pop (of vax or unvax) to get a rate per 100,000. This is incorrect as it overinflates the numbers as the populations are such different sizes, if you instead normalize to the number of positive tests the numbers look very different but show again some small efficacy. This goes back to the risk/benefit which can be calculated on an individual basis, in my case my risk of hospitalization is ~.000114% last I checked so even a 90% effective vaccine with this risk profile is unacceptable. However in the case of the family member I spoke of earlier their risk is orders of magnitude higher and a chance at a temporary reduction in their risk could be worth taking. Again I think this only applies to a small part of the population not the population in general and I'm not giving sweeping recommendations to anyone. The way I calculate risk is determine the risk reduction based on real world evidence (RWE) and multiply by risk of getting disease which I set at 1 (since I see it as 100%). Then I look at the known risk side of things and calculate those rates and it can make sense in some situations. The problem is in quantifying the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns so if the calculus is close I wouldn't do it. Personally, I believe early treatment is the best option however the vast majority of docs I've spoken with don't know how to do this and won't even try accepted therapies such as mAb's in patients that fit all the criteria even when I've handed them the info on how to get it and use it. It's a sad situation we find ourselves in to be honest.
What you will never hear/read on the controlled MSM - Get plenty of rest, plenty of love, vitamin D, eat some broccoli, get some sunshine, exercise and drink fluids.
It occurs to me that a good way to assess vaccine performance is to run stats on people with medical exemptions. If the mainstream narrative is correct, these people can’t have better outcomes than the vaccinated. However, I predict that people with exemptions (when adjusted for age and comorbidities) actually have lower overall rates of infection and death from Covid than either the vaccinated or the general unvaccinated. This is because people with exemptions are simply more conscious of their overall health and behave accordingly.
If people with exemptions have lower death rates from Covid than the vaccinated, then all bets are off, and the fraud is naked for everyone to see.
So for immunocompromised people, just screw us? We can't get infected, we have no immune system to fight for us.
If you're immuno-compromised the vax won't help much either, Recent Ontario/Denmark studies show the vaccinated more likely to become infected with Omicron so you're actually safer around the recovered or unvaccinated.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.30.21268565v1.full
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v3
Treatments that work on the virus itself are probably the best option for the immuno-compromised.
I will take Omicron over the jab right now. Lets get it on.
Steve, I heard you say that you had the vacvine earlier. I’m just curious; you’re a highly intelligent man. What was your rationale for doing so? Did you just accept the experts’ advice at that time?
Why I ask is because a man who I regularly meet, while walking our dog, told me he got the jab. Yet, he was so proud that at his age (75), he never had a vaccine or a drug in his life. He got quite agitated when I told him the vaccines don’t actually work and walked off.
Steve, like millions other still do, believed the system was working and the FDA was not corrupt. That is my understanding from other videos of Steve being asked this question.
Dr Malone took the Moderna shot because he heard that the shot helped long covid.
That is why I think there are only about 20 to 30 percent that will take the Booster willingly. Some will do it to feed the family, basically. There are and will be a lot of possed off people.
I know a few people here who also got the shots, but who won't get the booster knowing now what they didn't earlier. In one case, it's giving up a professional career.
Yes it seems very widespread. I have some hard core pro vax friends and X friends. But a lot took the Jab or two thinking that would be the end of all this. They see the clown show in full view. Dont underestimate Documentaries like Pandemic with 1 billion views and shows like Rogan.
On a side note, I found an organization in the states that wants to organize by one issue. Medical Tyranny. The idea is to inform the Politicians regardless of left or right that you will support medical freedom or we vote against you.
I like the idea. Have XX in the group and threaten their job.
Unfortunately, here in Australia, freedom is just a suggestion, not a right, as so many of us have found out in the past two years. Mind you, there are pockets of America that are the same. They treat the constitution like toilet paper.
Has our new writer in residence Dr. Topol chimed in yet?
He apparently has a problem with conflict.
It looks like he's blocked comments.
Have any of you come across any papers or studies on whether or not this vaccine can shed?
Yes, the vaccinated shed more than unvaccinated.
You missed the most important detail of that study: You get SIGNIFICANTLY different outcomes if you had the vaccine first, the caught COVID, vs catching COVID, then getting the vax. This SCREAMS "original antigenic sin."
And THAT is the really troubling news. As it becomes more obvious that we vaccinated are at increased risk, what will the public response be? The effort to suppress such news continues but can it be maintained? Nobody wants to be on a treadmill of endless boosters.
Wonder how the re-re-infection cycle looks as we recover only to get infected again. Will that be happening?
To answer the second question; I have no idea. This is just one study but there have been signs of OAS from other places. I don't know that it necessarily follows that people who were vaccinated first will have perpetual problems.
My preference would be mass sentencing under a Nuremberg 2, with the same punishments as the original.
Steve, have you looked into terrain theory? This Beauchamp book..linked below...is very in line with your thinking. Basically, it goes into the history of vaccinations and shows in numerous instances, that the vaccines may have reduced the risk of acquiring one pathogen, but led to other problems and, specifically, an INCREASE IN ALL-CAUSE MORTALITY. This is a historical thing with numerous vaccines. A bit about this in RFK's book as well.
Hence, I don't think this is something unique only to SARS-COV-2. It's a historical problem with mass vaccination and honestly Pasteur may be wrong that vaccination is the way to control the spread of viruses in many cases.
The better way may simply be to strengthen the immune system, or terrain, and treat early, since there will always be viruses and they are essentially unavoidable. This philosophy I think is superior, meaning the foundation of Western Medicine is fundamentally corrupt and largely based on erroneous principles.
https://www.amazon.com/Bechamp-Pasteur-Chapter-History-Biology/dp/1467900125
100% agree Matt. We have been deceived into thinking that our God given miraculous immune system needs a vaccine to protect us from disease when there are so many lifestyle decisions, supplements and vitamins to strengthen our immune system without needing a chemical laden jab to do it for us. The globalists and big pharma don't want the world to find out how toxic and harmful the vaccines are and how they have compromised our immune systems for decades, making it more vulnerable to diseases and they actually cause autoimmune conditions, autism, dementia, etc. But they have overplayed their hand with this plandemic and when the truth comes out, it will lead to the complete destruction of big pharma/vaccines/allopathic medicine and lead to a huge paradigm shift on so many levels.
YES to Matt and R. Trinity. TERRAIN THEORY is where it's at, and I believe where we need to go. Germ theory isn't cutting it. Germ theory implies "just take this drug/shot" (and is the "lazy" way), while Terrain theory means each one of us actually has to pay attention and take 100% responsibility for our own health. And I for one, know many folks that do not want to face that fact. Everyone wants to hit the easy button and just take a drug. And you could say that - that thinking is what helped to get us into this mess.
Ditto BC. People want a silver bullet, the easy way out. Obesity is the largest risk factor for Covid. But yet they're mandating healthy people get the clot shot quackxxine to protect others.
yes, I've interviewed alix mayer about this. all vaccines are problematic, but this one takes the cake.
Thanks Steve! Please post link to interview. Would love to see that! Hard to find material on this subject!
I agree that this vaxx takes the cake for sure! Will go down in history as perhaps the greatest medical blunder ever...as far as I can tell.
These are two interviews Steve has done with Alix:
https://rumble.com/vqiqr2-alix-mayer-interview-on-childrens-vaccine-safety.html
https://rumble.com/vqqb06-alix-mayer-explains-why-the-drug-companies-are-targeting-kids.html
It takes the cake because it is not a vaccine, for starters.
Not even a *genetic therapy*, which would be deep shit already; watch Dr. Alexandra Henrion-Caude, Geneticist, Discusses The Workings of the mRNA Vaxx & Her Concerns https://www.bitchute.com/video/vohfFAMO8tJp/ mRNA has the capacity to change human DNA as it uses a vocabulary unknown to mankind, cf. 20:*
*mRNA Vaxx has the capacity, etc.
I feel like “try to get infected” isn’t exactly the advice Steve…
I agree. If we strengthen our immune system, we may not need to get infected, but I understand Steve's point and advice. However, since the spike protein is cytotoxic and for those of us who believe SARS CoV-2 is a bioweapon (Dr. Peter McCullough/Dr. David Martin), even a mild case may create issues down the road... we just don't know.
The whole thing is a biological weapon. I also don’t ever buy “everyone”. But being prepared to treat and crush viral load quickly is the best.
The infection is inevitable. You can not escape from it.
My wife and I had "COVID-19" in March 2020, and for us, it was like having bronchitis. Our doctors told us to say home and basically treat it like the seasonal flu. It was over in about four days. We got sick with a cold in August 2020, and it was over in 24 hours and treated like the seasonal flu. We also had about 20 family members and friends get sick with "COVID-19" in 2020, and everyone recovered within a day to five days. We all agreed it was just like the seasonal flu.
Maybe we can all agree that it's inevitable that we are all EXPOSED to the virus. What happens beyond that exposure depends on our Terrain. (Vit D3, y'all, along with all the other healthy things we should be doing.)
Agree to disagree. That is speculation.
No. It is mathematically inevitable. SARS-CoV-2 is extremely infectious. Have you never caught a cold or a flu in your life? SARS-CoV-2 is way more infectious than that. It's not a matter of if, but when you get infected (unless you relocate to a cave in Siberia)
I can't get covid. I'm a doctor treating covid patients. No antibodies or positive tests this entire time, and testing regularly.
Yep that's good to hear. Notice I only mentioned SARS-CoV-2, not COVID. The virus has definitely infected your body, but your immune system learned how to deal with it, therefore you won't get COVID.
If you want to intentionally get infected by a Omicron, an alleged variant of a bioweapon virus, go for it. I prefer to use my immune system which has served me well thus far. I haven't caught a cold or the flu in two decades. You believe SARS CoV-2 is "extremely infectious" because it's based on a bogus PCR test which can't diagnose disease. The CDC PCR Test Report (pg. 40) states "Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens" https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
FDA PCR Test Report: page 1 “Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.” https://www.fda.gov/media/138526/download
This is a casedemic/scamdemic, more than a legitimate pandemic. They needed to inflate cases to create the illusion of a pandemic. There are deadly flu strains that come around. People tragically die from the flu and pneumonia. When the news covers this 24/7, it can create the false reality that serves the big pharma and globalists' agenda.
About 25-30% of the population would test positive for colonized Staphylococcus aureus and 1-2% with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) inside their nose, but they aren't infected with disease nor transmitting it. Another possible reason for a false positive Covid test.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134439/
Also, a review of over 25 clinical trials on influenza vaccines reported, "Over 200 viruses cause influenza-like illness (ILI), which produces the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches, pains, cough, and runny nose) as influenza. Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot distinguish between ILI and influenza because both last for days and rarely cause serious illness or death. Injected influenza vaccines have a small protective effect against influenza as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case."
The absolute risk reduction (ARR) measure (i.e. vaccine effectiveness) of the flu vaccine is only 1.4% according to clinical trial data. The ARR is calculated as 1/71 = .014 = 1.4%. So like the Covid jabs, the flu vaccine is also a dud.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub6/epdf/full
And a Pentagon study found that the flu shot increases the risks from coronavirus by 36%. “Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as “virus interference…’vaccine derived’ virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus…” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19313647?via%3Dihub
Starting in 2015 the CDC decided to combine influenza and pneumonia into one statistic. This American Lung Assoc. document illustrates how deceptive today’s influenza death figures are since they include the much larger number of pneumonia deaths. The chart on pg. 5 shows all the pneumonia and flu deaths per year. Deaths from influenza averaged 1,313 between 1999 - 2013. Hard to push the flu shot with these actual flu figures. Pg. 9 also shows how low and relatively flat hospitalization rates were from 1988 to 2010. https://www.lung.org/getmedia/98f088b5-3fd7-4c43-a490-ba8f4747bd4d/pi-trend-report.pdf.pdf
The Journal of Advanced Practice Nursing "Don't Believe Everything about Flu Deaths" https://www.asrn.org/journal-advanced-practice-nursing/1212-do-not-believe-everything-you-read-about-flu-deaths.html
The late Mike Wallace did a 60 Minutes episode about the Swine Flu vaccine and the CDC lies that fueled this bogus pandemic.
https://rumble.com/vnaz55-mike-wallace-60-minutes-exposes-swine-flu-pandemic-vaccine-fallout-of-1976.html
Once you see through the CDC's and FDA's lies and manipulation, supported by a complicit media, you will realize that they are playing us.
> I prefer to use my immune system which has served me well thus far. I haven't caught a cold or the flu in two decades.
You have completely missed the point. You have already been exposed to the cold or flu. They have already infected your body and your immune system was able to fight it off. Congratulations. Now you are going to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 whether you like it or not, whether you are aware of it or not, just like you have already been infected with multiple cold viruses without your knowledge. It may be the case that you have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and are naturally immune.
Thanks for the parody!
I've been in the "want to get infected" camp this whole time. I'm healthy and low risk. Nothing better I can do than help with community resistance. Be prepared. Improve my own health. Have a personal proactive mitigation plan.
Funny enough, after losing 50 lbs and receiving stellar labs, I ordered up the new T-cell test and came back positive for a recently past covid infection. Never knew it. Might have had a brief cold a few months back. And had a bit of a cough and fatigue some months before that. Ah... Life being expendable... Oh. Wait. They used to call it essential.
Congratulations, on all counts!
It is the best advice. Infection is inevitable. Your odds of survival decrease with age. Therefore get infected sooner than later.
EXACTLY!
Exposure is inevitable. Infection is not. Both lead to immunity.
I love your post but suggest using the word "exposed" rather than "infected" to reflect what ideally happens to many healthy people who encounter this virus, especially children. (I have anecdotal experience with the youth in my own family who never were symptomatic but lab tests show mounted an immune response.)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7979809/
Grabbed this condensed version of the Israeli study cut down in easy to consume factoids. Would make for a handy brochure or insert for holiday cards.... https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=244442
Thank you for sharing this!
But if the vaccine wasn't used, Big Pharma couldn't make billions and Trump, the acknowledged "father of the vaccine", couldn't feed his ego and play superhero who defeated the pandemic.
From what I understand there wasn’t a push within his WH to get everyone vaccinated. It was supposed to be the health care workers, elderly and those with underlying health issues.
Instead we got a senile old fool, pushing vaccines on toddlers. Several doctors were yelling about mass vaccinations during a pandemic. The yokels in the district of communists will never admit they f***up.
Odd take on history when Trump was first to say HCQ and Biden wins as jabber in chief.
Weak argument. Warp speed EO Sep. 19, 2019? Trump cannot walk away from it. Plus his horrendous appointments like Azar. They are all in it together.
I'm not a Trump fan but he was out of his league in Washington and suffered greatly from saboteurs and snakes in the ranks from the start. I'm happy to blame him for a lot that is his own doing but he wanted RFK in his camp and was driven to the Fauci network. He also leaned toward pardons for Snowden, Kiriakou and Assange and instead DoJ arrested Julian because of CIA players in his ear. It's still technically on his watch but Washington insiders drove these policies while MSM did everything possible to distract and undermine him. Russiagate plus January 6 drama are all smear campaigns to take down Trump. He remains an outsider in the bipartisan swamp.
If one looks at the supplemental materials of this study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.04.21267114v1.supplementary-material), interesting details come up. By "vaccinated then recovered" they mean vaccinated 1st time then infected before the 2nd jab. And most recoveries happen right after the 1st jab, thanks to the jab causing the infection by flooring their immunity. All this analysis is also good for nothing as the study period coincides with the sharp peak of infections in Jan. 2021 while in the midst of the primary vaccination campaign. And the boosters happened in the absence of the disease in Israel, other than that induced by boosting itself, starting Jul. 31, 2021. So, tons of artifacts in this study, and no way to correctly account for it. And as they vaxxed their recovered and there was no Covid wave in June-Oct. (other than booster-induced), the recovered-then-vaxxed look PRETTY GOOD just because of this coincidence. So, consume with a pound of salt the different comparisons.
There was plenty of “wave” during the booster roll-out and this study period (August + September). I don’t see anything supporting “they mean vaccinated 1st time then infected before the 2nd jab”...
From the Supplemental comments:
"We used two-month periods as our basic time interval for defining the sub-cohorts, but combined months 12 to18 for the Recovered cohort and omitted months 8 to 10 for the Vaccinated and the hybrid cohorts due to the small number of individuals."
And also:
"Typically, infection rates among recovered or vaccinated individuals are compared to the infection rate among unvaccinated-not-previously-infected persons. However, due to the high vaccination rate in Israel, the latter cohort is small and unrepresentative of the overall population; furthermore, the MoH database does not include complete information on such individuals. Therefore, we did not include unvaccinated-not-previously-infected individuals in the analysis."
From the Data:
● Recovered: Previously infected individuals 90 or more days after confirmed infection who had never been vaccinated.
● Recovered then Vaccinated: Previously infected individuals who later were 7 or more days after receiving a single vaccine dose.
● Vaccinated then Recovered: Individuals who had been vaccinated with one or two doses and were later infected.
● Vaccinated: Individuals seven days or more after receiving the second dose, and who had not been infected before the start of the study period.
● Booster: Individuals who received a third (booster) dose 12 or more days previously and had not been infected before the start of the study period.
And later...
The first infections of individuals in the Recovered and hybrid cohorts were from mostly the pre-Alpha and the Alpha variants. If protection provided by prior infection depends on the variant, its effect is confounded with the effect of time since infection. As a single variant was dominant in Israel during each of the pandemic waves,17 our study cannot disentangle the two effects. Moreover, infections during the study period were mostly of the Delta variant, and there is not enough information at this time to suggest implications from our results regarding protection from new variants such as the Omikron.
Another source of potential bias is due to cohort misclassification. To be classified as a recovered person in our study, a PCR test must have been performed and found positive. However, many infected individuals have not been diagnosed and some of these have received vaccination. Thus, some of those classified into the Vaccinated cohort or the Booster cohort should have been included in the hybrid-immunity cohorts. This may have led to underestimation of the rate among vaccinated uninfected individuals. Yet, as the Recovered group was much smaller than the Vaccinated group (see Table 1), the size of this bias is expected not to be large.
Right, so both the single and double-dosed are included in vaxed + recovered. That was my impression given the days to infection chart. Thanks for highlighting the relevant text.
did you look at the additional materials to the study?
It's lookin' like Israel really went full-retard on this, just like Poop Francis - who'd of thunk it?!
It is because the spelling now is Pfizrael.
That may not be a joke, word on the street was that Pfizer stipulated the name change in their secret contract.
Whoever is left may find out and confirm in what - 55 years?
Think they changed it to 75 years, they want to make sure all the children they injured are dead before the company incriminates itself.
Add this to the growing list of possible vaccine "benefits". This paper is one observational case study so there is much more work to be done before we can declare that the so-called "vaccine" causes cancer, but angioimmunoblastic t-cell lymphoma makes covid-19 look like a Sunday picnic.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.798095/full
You missed possibly the most important point. The last rows in the chart. Vaccinated then recovered somehow wanes faster than recovered or recovered then vaccinated. Seems the vaccine could mess with the immune response leaving you worse off than if you just recovered. Highlighting these should only be used on the most vulnerable populations.
Steve found that the vaccines are more dangerous than the virus across all age groups, therefore should not be used by anyone https://www.skirsch.com/covid/VCage.pdf
Point well taken however I would disagree with "anyone". When looked at with more factors than age there are subgroups that it would make sense to give it to. For example, someone over 70 who had recently undergone immune destroying chemo (I have one such individual in my extended family) I think it makes sense in that case as getting the virus when that immunocompromised is literally a death sentence. However to your point I think healthy people can handle this virus just fine and with early treatment the hospitalization/death rate can drop to negligible numbers.
Disagree Steve. The shots are dangerous for any age cohort and the immunocompromised and they don't work. You can't justify an unsafe, ineffective vaccine on anyone.
The vaccines only reduce the risk of infection by < 2%. Articles in medical journals have confirmed this. The absolute risk reduction (ARR), for all the Covid vaccines (i.e. vaccine effectiveness, how much do they reduce an individual's risk of infection) is < 2%. A study published in The Lancet confirms all the Covid19 vaccines' ARR is < 2%.
Pfizer .9%
Moderna 1.4%
J&J 1.8%
AstraZeneca-Oxford 1.9%
Gamaleya (Sputnik V) 1%
"Covid-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness - the elephant (not) in the room"
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
Dr. Ronald Brown's peer reviewed article analyzed Pfizer's and Moderna's clinical trial data that they submitted to the FDA for their EUA and he confirmed their vaccines reduce the risk of infection by only .7% and 1.1%, respectively, (their ARR). The FDA, Pfizer and Moderna did not disclose the ARR to the public, ignoring the FDA's own reporting guidelines*. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/
*The FDA Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide states, “Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.” (page 60). https://www.fda.gov/media/81597/download
The ARR can easily be calculated looking at the clinical trial data. It's high school math, using simple division and subtraction. You don't have to be as brilliant as Kirch to calculate the ARR. So anyone could have seen this for themselves.
Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of the BMJ, also reported the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines' ARR were less than 1%.
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/
"Absolute risk vs. relative risk Reporting the findings: Why you should always use absolute risk numbers" https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/absolute-vs-relative-risk/
Also, the jabs have antibody dependent enhancement risk.
An NIH/NIAID funded study published Oct. 28, 2020 on Informed Consent said vaccine clinical trial participants were not properly informed of the antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) risk, which is "non-theoretical and compelling" where the vaccinated could experience "severe disease, lasting morbidity or even death" but would otherwise have a mild case if unvaccinated.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcp.13795?fbclid=IwAR3UmkB4jtA0lPACSOucFNfLrS2JNv7-A3pxRIDw8eDOH2aG7V6XBUPutnk
ADE is why a SARS CoV vaccine has never been brought to market. In previous animal trials, vaccinated mice and ferrets, when later exposed to the SARS coronavirus, developed acute liver failure and lung inflammation, respectively, due to ADE, and either died or had to be euthanized. Fauci warned about ADE in an early press conference, but said it would be observed in animal studies. But they skipped animal studies during Operation Warpspeed and any animal studies that were conducted were not disclosed to the public. Animal studies are the most critical component in vaccine safety trials.
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler warned about ADE, which occurs through pathogenic priming. I had discussions with him about his article before LinkedIn (owned by Microsoft) shut down his account in Sept 2020 and he said he hoped people would heed his warning. "Notice to Clinicians, Regulatory Agencies and Vaccine Manufacturers: Enhanced Immunopathology via SARS-CoV-2 Pathogenic Priming May Matter Most" https://web.archive.org/web/20200414004642/https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/notice-clinicians-regulatory-agencies-vaccine-via-may-lyons-weiler/
In this brief video, Dr. Robert Malone (nominated for Nobel Prize), inventor of the original core technology platform for the mRNA and adenovirus DNA gene based vaccines, talks about ADE and how the vaccine trials did not test for ADE risk and the FDA knew this when they approved their EUA. He said the clinical trials were flawed, he objects to the FDA's recommendation for pregnant women to get the shot and he is completely against "this crazy push to vaccinate all the kids." Kirsch has done a round table discussion with Malone and Bret Weinstein.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jHcDEhJgn3y6/
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler warned the ADE increases the likelihood of more serious disease when exposed to any future coronavirus, whether it's a Covid19 variant, a new SARS CoV or even the common cold.
The spike protein is a cytotoxic antigen. The spike protein was believed to be a benign/harmless antigen. However, a Salk Institute study reported the spike protein itself is cytotoxic and causes systemic damage separate from the virus itself. https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902
After injection, it was believed the vaccine would remain local in the deltoid muscle and some would go to the local draining lymph nodes to trigger an immune response. But a study showed the spike protein was found circulating in the blood of vaccinated healthcare workers at Brigham and Women's Hospital. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075
A recent in vitro study shows the spike protein, from either virus infection or vaccination, directly interferes with the function of two important DNA repairing protein enzymes, BRCA1 (breast cancer) and 53BP1. The spike protein enters the cell’s nucleus (which we were told it would not do) and dampens the DNA repair mechanism by as much as 90%.
SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056/htm
If your body can no longer repair DNA... cancer and autoimmune diseases, etc. will go unchecked. That's why doctors are reporting cancer and autoimmune conditions that were in remission or manageable, surging post jab.
The Japanese Pfizer biodistribution animal study (released after a Freedom of Information request from viral immunologist Dr. Bryam Bridle and international collaborators) showed after 48 hours, the lipo nanoparticles (which protect the fragile mRNA) collected in numerous areas throughout the body, especially the ovaries (infertility) and crossed the blood brain barrier (page 17, Table 2.6.5.5B).
https://freewestmedia.com/2021/06/04/pfizer-biontech-animal-trials-show-dangerous-concentrations-of-nano-particles-in-organs/
Bridle is interviewed by attorney Reiner Fuellmich, co-founder of the Corona Investigative Committee, who is leading an international legal team against the corruption surrounding the pandemic. Fuellmich is joined by attorney Viviane Fischer and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who mentions the ARR "betrayal" (time mark 32:43). https://www.bitchute.com/video/RZpqrxaztvt2/
Doctors4CovidEthics is an international organization co-founded by microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi and other scientists from 33 countries to raise awareness about the vaccine/booster risks. https://doctors4covidethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Vaccine-immune-interactions-and-booster-shots_Sep-2021.pdf
The Perspectives on the Pandemic Series interviewed Dr. Bhakdi, who in February, 2021, along with a group of his colleagues, including Dr. Yeadon, warned the European Medicines Agency (the EU's FDA), about the potential danger of blood clots and cerebral vein thrombosis (CVT) in millions of people receiving the vaccines. Bhakdi explains what the vaccines do in the body and the CVT risk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyPjAfNNA-U
So much information that confirms these jabs are not safe. The Covid19 mortality rate is 99.95% for ages up to 69 and 99.998% for ages 0 to 19, yet they are conducting clinical trials on infants as young as six months old. This doesn't pass the smell test. The vaccines have never been about saving lives.
In an interview with American Frontline Doctors, Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer Chief Science Officer said "It's my considered view that it is entirely possible that this [vaccines] will be used for massive-scale depopulation." https://web.archive.org/web/20210328131119/https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/exclusive-former-pfizer-vp-to-aflds-entirely-possible-this-will-be-used-for-massive-scale-depopulation/
Thanks for your reply. I actually agree with most of what your saying here so would like to clarify my point a bit. I agree with the ARR vs RRR discussion completely, I think this has been a huge issue the whole time. When I said I could see some benefit in very specific situations I wasn't talking about risk of getting the disease which I believe is 100% for everyone. I also would have been interested to see public interest in these if they defined them as gene therapies and had to abide by the regulatory requirements of that class of drugs instead. Anyone that doubts these should be called gene therapy should see how the ICH/FDA defines this in their latest GT guidance which is ICH S12 released in September. That also interestingly says they recommend companies not only measure the delivery vehicle itself but also the expressed protein and track its distribution. Then they bizarrely state that the guidance doesn't apply to "prophylactic vaccines". Head scratcher there. In terms of ADE I agree on the informed consent and I was concerned about that myself but I'm a bit less concerned now as the signal for that doesn't appear the way it did in say Dengvaxia a few years ago. Additionally the MOA for Dengvaxia made perfect sense why we would see ADE. SARS-CoV-2 behaves differently than SARS-CoV and the information that I have to review doesn't show animal deaths upon exposure to the virus after vaccination. Sorry I can't post the materials here because I could lose my job but I reviewed Moderna, JnJ and Novavax (can't seem to find the Pfizer info). In terms of cancer risk there is a possibility but the problem with the study is they used the WT spike and not the altered spike used in the vax. Now does that discount the findings? No it does not and it doesn't prove safety either however in order to conclude that is happening we would need to study the actual antigen in question. Personally I think it's more likely that the transient immunosuppression caused by the vax is responsible for the rise in latent virus/cancer. That isn't to say though that I think efficacy is zero and risk/benefit tradeoff can be calculated. Based on the UK data if you normalize correctly (they don't in the report) you see *some* efficacy against hospitalization/death for a time. The problem I have with their methodology is they take cases and divide into the total pop (of vax or unvax) to get a rate per 100,000. This is incorrect as it overinflates the numbers as the populations are such different sizes, if you instead normalize to the number of positive tests the numbers look very different but show again some small efficacy. This goes back to the risk/benefit which can be calculated on an individual basis, in my case my risk of hospitalization is ~.000114% last I checked so even a 90% effective vaccine with this risk profile is unacceptable. However in the case of the family member I spoke of earlier their risk is orders of magnitude higher and a chance at a temporary reduction in their risk could be worth taking. Again I think this only applies to a small part of the population not the population in general and I'm not giving sweeping recommendations to anyone. The way I calculate risk is determine the risk reduction based on real world evidence (RWE) and multiply by risk of getting disease which I set at 1 (since I see it as 100%). Then I look at the known risk side of things and calculate those rates and it can make sense in some situations. The problem is in quantifying the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns so if the calculus is close I wouldn't do it. Personally, I believe early treatment is the best option however the vast majority of docs I've spoken with don't know how to do this and won't even try accepted therapies such as mAb's in patients that fit all the criteria even when I've handed them the info on how to get it and use it. It's a sad situation we find ourselves in to be honest.
What you will never hear/read on the controlled MSM - Get plenty of rest, plenty of love, vitamin D, eat some broccoli, get some sunshine, exercise and drink fluids.
Steve,
It occurs to me that a good way to assess vaccine performance is to run stats on people with medical exemptions. If the mainstream narrative is correct, these people can’t have better outcomes than the vaccinated. However, I predict that people with exemptions (when adjusted for age and comorbidities) actually have lower overall rates of infection and death from Covid than either the vaccinated or the general unvaccinated. This is because people with exemptions are simply more conscious of their overall health and behave accordingly.
If people with exemptions have lower death rates from Covid than the vaccinated, then all bets are off, and the fraud is naked for everyone to see.
Luc Montagnier, winner of the Nobel Prize for discovering the HIV virus, says the death curve follows the vaccination curve.
https://freewestmedia.com/2021/05/27/nobel-prize-winner-in-every-country-the-death-curve-follows-the-vaccination-curve/