Oh hey remember when we were saying that mass vaccination would lead to the virus moving to vax-resistant strains and the people who got the shots would be worse off than the people who just got the virus?
But this and other evidence doesn’t suggest the effects of mass vaccination (in terms of infections) are anything to do with viral evolution, but actually caused by vaccine induced aberrations to the immune system.
So in that respect, GVDB was completely wrong. His main thesis was that these specific vaccines (but don’t worry he’s involved in an alternative vaccine design) would induce dangerous mutations which would affect both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated alike, but as far as we can see the immune systems of the unvaccinated are handling whatever SARs-CoV-2 is without any problems at all, as if it is just part of the background endemic constantly evolving coronavirus swarm.
Wasn't the main point that the evolutionary pressure of mass intervention would drive the virus to create mutations at a much faster rate with potential for higher virulence breakthrough?
Are you saying there is strong evidence that the mass intervention did not drive virsus mutation over normal rates?
Although he did have the doomsday prophecy going strong.
Aren't vaccinated and unvaccinated still getting sick with reinfections, that's ehat I'm seeing at least ( totally accept the AEs occurring in vaccinated )
Also omicron, and God nows what else, looking now also man-made would confound anyones already probabilistic estimates of what could happen if just nature ran its course?
Anyway, he did open my eyes to 101 type stuff, can do that and still be wrong, doesn't mean it was wasted input by any means
Well this may be heretical but I don’t believe the “variants” narrative. Viruses are in a constant state of mutation, even inside a person. All a variant is is a sequence which is statistically closest to one of the current consensus sequences spread via the Internet.
I don’t think a novel virus has emerged from anywhere and spanned the globe. This is the essence of the confidence trick. I believe that all we have been doing is measuring elements of the previously endemic coronavirus swarm using shiny new technology, we don’t understand, and which is easily corruptible.
I've no problem with your position, he turned me on to 101 arguments which are usefull from my perspective, and your outline didn't align with what I'd settled on.
It does sound like you are arguing from within a different paradigm to Bossche-type virology.
If that is the case it introduces more complexity for anyone similar to myself, for now I'm sticking with the Bossche type analysts dissenting from within orthodox virology.
Yeadon agrees with you it seems, he doesn't think there was ever a novel virus, so for this and other reasons I'm not a loyalist to any position, but it's a position I have a hard time to envisage currently, it's an area that's fascinating.
Agreed, seems like a good tolerance for the most part.
When you get a piece of the Denis Noble's, Rubert Sheldrake's, John Gray's, PKD, Ligotti's ,Graham Hancock's etc , and have so much fun, you start seeking along the edges of things, maybe truth shows up there at certain inflection points !
"GVDB was completely wrong. His main thesis was that these specific vaccines... would induce dangerous mutations which would affect both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated alike"
- I don't think he said "ALIKE".
- He said immune pressure would make unvaxxers more likely to get infected, but not serious disease.
- He said the ones to be in trouble when doomsday variant comes would be mRNA vaxxers (who got 2+ dose and got vaxxed before infection). Those who are unvaxxed or got infected before vaccine would do well with future variants.
- He sounds pretty RIGHT, right?
As for "alternative vaccine design". He has some concepts, but I don't see any information on that he's trying to make and sell one. So stop trying to discredit him so lowly like that.
The observable human behaviour, what it says about us and what we do to each other, the lack of any permanent ethical progress regardless of cumulative technological same.
Versus
The minuate of molecules / genes / cells and fucking vaccines
People got sicker because of toxicity of the vaccines, not because of some immune system change related to the vaccine, and mutations of a fictional 'virus' ;)
I did eventually get through to my immediate family, they're done with gene-therapy-based stuff, although they started to get rumblings from elsewhere, maybe there is a critical mass encroaching.
Either way no-one's going out of their way to thank me or anything!
No. On the contrary, they will selectively remember and forget that which makes them feel like they were the ones who were right all along. Some may even stop communicating with you, which you might think is due to something you did, but no. In their own weak, cowardly, self-deluding way, these people will just tell themselves and their fellow travellers you’ve changed and have been brainwashed or had a breakdown or even point to something unrelated where you presented a countervailing thesis or opinion they disagreed with. It’s a coping mechanism to avoid admitting their own ignorance, cowardice and shallowness of their character and NPC / normie outlook on life to themselves.
So the rumblings is of the potential critical mass ( personified ) imposing itself to emerge and become manifest. Like some nascent creature awakening from a nightmarish slumber.
Isn't this 'waning' efficacy just the illusion resulting from the statistical 'cheap trick' that Norman Fenton has highlighted, rather than any actual efficacy at any point?
No need to even go there. Based on recent studies, VAERS, nursing home mortality statistics, all cause mortality and pregnancy/live birth statistics in heavily vaccinated countries, re-infections in the vaccinated, etc .....the preponderance of the evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the vaccines are an unmitigated disaster.
We can argue about methodology and statistical accuracy of individual studies all we want, but there is overwhelming evidence that the vaccines should never have been administered to anyone, except perhaps to those who volunteered for the trials....
You know what, I was going to argue the toss, but in my gut I think you are right as far as where I was coming from.
There is no appetite in the general population for statistical analysis and nuanced arguments of this sort, especially coming from alternative quarters, no matter how damning they are. And Fenton's examples while so incisive, are to be honest inaccessible to most lay (due to disinterest or ability) people. You'd have to study them for a while with no prior stat knowledge I reckon.
There are other angles that hopefully will have more success to get through to people, unfortunately that might be the sickness, death, reduced civil life they see around them.
At the moment that's only getting through to a minority!
Yeadon had a similar attitude in his interview with Kirsch, Kirsch seemed incredulous that he wouldn't want to explore whether the lateral flow tests were bogus or not. He got quite frustrated with him and I kind of did also ( was amysing as well ! ) but then Yeadon was just like [ paraphrasing] 'ah you do it if you like it woudn't be the worse thing to do, but not for me'.
He stated he saw something like that as a small detail on the side of the road.
He'd already highlighted where he thinks the road is heading, made sense he felt there was greater things to concentrate on when I fully realised what conclusions he's personally drawn.
Rjj I found Fenton early on in the scandal occurring.
His breakdown and explanation of RR v AR reduction was a real eye opener to how pharma pulls the long con.
The other tricks they pull made me do a lot of digging, my instincts have always been to stay away from doctors and medical intervention as much as possible.
I prefer to use natural therapy treatments, our ancestors made it thousands of years without huge profit making drugs.
Yeah, I mean it seems like there might be a small percentage of useful drugs, many derived from nature ! Some others that have efficacy, well there's questions if the extra longevity contribute to meaningful life, but that's another story ! I'd probably still want many medical interventions personally depending!
Your point about ARR Vs RRR is apt, and still constantly missed, even if there is a real-world efficacy of 95% RRR for any intervention, this is meaningless, for risk-benefit decisions in light of side-effects, without some idea of ARR.
It's been a stalwart for pharma to claim product usefulness, too bad all the doctors that went along with it.
I now refer to RRR as sleight of hand by pharma, they have both sets of facts but attract your attention to the one that serves the sale’s purposes.
Here’s an interesting one for you regarding nature’s medicine.
A couple of months ago I was at one of our local plant nursery gardens, a couple came in and the lady was talking about some liquorice plants her husband had ordered for a stately home he was renovating. The lady was sneezing caused by hayfever so the lady assistant picked up one of the small potted liquorice plants handed it to her and told her to smell the sent of the plant for a few minutes.
The assistant explained she’d done the same a few days previously with a lady who was constantly sneezing.
Within a few minutes the lady had stopped and felt much better and the assistant explained that simple plant treated hayfever and asthma.
It made me think because natural liquorice twig sticks used to be all over sweets shop when I was a child and we ate them regular without thought.
While modern medicine has haven is many life saving treatments and surgeries to be grateful for, sometimes a simple old remedy is far better than overloading our bodies, especially young ones on pharma drugs, it’s just an option to keep open and in mind
Agreed, let's say there were definite advances in various medical fields, many pharma advances derived ( or inspired, but that's recursive ! ) from the natural world solely ,much skullduggery of course e.g. vaccines , then at a certain point there was a highjacking / ramped up takeover / what-have-you for the purpose of pure greed, while the targets of this greed lost a lot and their way, during this same period.
Not perfect obviously, I'll take it as a working summing up !
Have you checked their analysis for Prof. Norman Fenton's "Cheap Trick", which renders any evaluation of vaccine efficacy a statistical illusion, and makes even a placebo or a poison look effective initially, before declining just in time for a booster? https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-very-best-of-cheap-trick The shape of the graph strongly indicates the trick has also been used here?
Rjj I read an article in Chemistry world in December 2020, a team at Oxford had been monitoring 12000 healthcare workers tracking for reinfection rates.
Guess what, they found natural immunity lasted a minimum of six months back then. Yes it will be far longer in some but it far out strips and exceeds the efficacy and endurance of the crummy darting.
If the vaccine efficacy/waning is a result of statistical manipulation, likely, ok grand.
The natural immunity efficacy/waning could be just that genuinely, afterall in the normal round of things, people do get colds / flu recurring, as it always was, as coronas mutate this natural immunity always was challenged pre-covid.
It doesn't say anything about the severity of the reinfection ( by authors own admission) and of course you wouldn't have the monstrous side-effects of the intervention.
Do liquorice plants induce clarity of thought also?
Would someone please forward this report on the Lancet study to both Jill Biden and Whoopsie Goldberg? Both are currently sick with Covid and both Vaxed FIVE TIMES!!
Sep 7, 2023·edited Sep 7, 2023Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
If you look at Part A of the figure, you can see what natural boosting looks like. Natural immunity gets refreshed with a new variant.
In defense of vaccines, the other explanation the paper puts forth for the negative values is that the unvaccinated have had a depletion of susceptibles. But this can only be true if the vaccines really did have efficacy either against cases or severe outcomes.
One thing that has always stuck with me is that VE against cases wanes, whereas VE against severe cases does not so much. It seems to be similar for natural immunity as well. This makes me think the protection against severe outcomes may actually be real, even if exaggerated - potentially greatly. It also makes me doubt Fenton and Neil's hypothesis of a data crime by defining vaccination status 2 or 3 weeks post vax. If their hypothesis were sufficient to explain the waning efficacy against cases, would it not affect the curve for VE against severe outcomes similarly?
The statistical anomaly of a possible placebo vaccine showing efficacy using that method has been demonstrated unequivocally.
This and other 'tricks' have been shown to have been used in observational studies claiming efficacy.
You'd have to refute their claims directly, showing how they've got it wrong, no?
As far as the no waning on servere outcomes in these charts, surely we can come up with a plausible reason, isolated from the apparent waning of vaccine ( and / or ) natural immunity.
I don't disagree. I think the stat trick definitely affects many studies on VE against cases. But it is a question of how much. If it was huge, I would expect VE against severe cases to also wane rapidly, which it doesn't.
'There was an indication of some decline in effectiveness of primary-series vaccination and booster vaccination over time; however, the limited number of severe COVID-19 cases hindered precise estimation of the potential waning in effectiveness. '
Now if they themselves say essentially 'you can't infer anything from this analysis' , I'd go further and say we should just dismiss it.
I've come to the conclusion that these gene-therapies have no place, or foreseeable place, in humans.
I enjoy stat stuff ( sometimes! ) , got a degree in it, interested in the history of it and the abuses of it! The Fenton et al analysis was intriguing, because it highlighted again for me just how non-intuitive stats can be and what they can bring to light.
However from one perspective I see it as quibbling over something that should have been brought to a grinding halt by now, I feel some of Yeadon's angst, here we are arguing over clear subterfuge while the real issue gets blurred.
OK, that said, is the Qatari dataset open? Anyone could drill into the 525 and 12,227 severe cases, independently I'd imagine it'd agree with authors or show something more damning.
Shave me bald and call me slappy, but wasn't it this particular "peer-reviewed" journal that aided and abetted the push for the vax in the first place?
The reason the 'efficacy' is negative, is not because of some BS reason, it's because the vaccines were never beneficial, they are toxic and detrimental to health.
There's no 'virus' to protect against, so how can you expect any benefit from the 'vaccines'?
Yep. The "100% efficacy" was simply a byproduct of how they were counting: If you got through the 'worry window' of 2 weeks after your final shot, you were vaccinated. If you didn't get through that worry window, you were counted as unvaccinated.
Every school has a 100% graduation rate if it only counts the kids who make it to graduation.
This is the same trick played with hate crime reporting whereby they consider only whites can be racist; so 100% of racist hate crimes are committed by racist whites. A non-white can (and routinely do) commit violence against whites and it would not be counted as hate crime. It’s weird too because I’m from Philly and served in the military and personally knew a lot of blacks that hated whites and Asians for just being white or Asian. Go figure.
Sapan Dessi is a serial fraudster, academic and otherwise. He left a trash pile of papers that had to be retracted across multiple journals. The Lancet editors and publisher don't care about your opinion.
Getting "CoNvId" aka "undesirable" side effects of mRNA Nanoparticle Bioweapon
IMPORTANT: The COVID 19 Bioweapons Are “Nano Technology Enabled” – The National Nanotechnology Initiative
"At this time, there should be no further discussion regarding the presence of nanotechnology in the C19 shots. Even the government sees this as a valid scientific truth."
Reminder. Dr Phil Febo: Moderna and Pfizer Never Had the ‘Isolated’ Virus in Their Lab, They Used the Sequence Sent From China. Chinese CDC Admits They Never Isolated the Virus. Kary Mullis about PCR test
I started to answer your question but thought better of it.
I’ve been through this before and believe me, honest answers will generate some really ugly responses..... and I’m not in the mood for a big fight tonight, especially when I know that the other side is wrong 😑
170 Plus Research Studies & documents help Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19 as far superior than COVID 'narrowly focused high affinity, vaccinal specific immunity;
Boys and girls, the study is down at the moment. Save your screenshots. Hopefully it is just temporary site maintenance or something. The preprint is still up though:
There is NO Genome for ‘ COVID’ ( SARS-CoV-2).....’flu’s’ or detoxing ...and build up of environmental toxins, EMF, and from cumulative childhood quackcinnes ( fetal,bovine cells, SV40,etc)....these BIOWEAPON shots just bring it all to a head.....
ERHCP and Chris, @ooze, is there any way to parse out that it couldn't be both? Distributed toxins (including the 'arson' idea of creating a few intentional sickness hotspots to set the wheels in motion) AND some crappy gene "weapon" of dubious potency? Every single step of this debacle has had intentional water-muddying, so why not?
Sometimes there is the 'COVID' genome which is shockingly similar to the genome for a genetically engineered weapon originally developed at Fort Derrick. The Detrick isolate itself has yet to be sequenced in vivo.
Oh hey remember when we were saying that mass vaccination would lead to the virus moving to vax-resistant strains and the people who got the shots would be worse off than the people who just got the virus?
Well we were all conspiracy nuts...
We weren't virologists...silly us
We predicted spoiler alerts
But this and other evidence doesn’t suggest the effects of mass vaccination (in terms of infections) are anything to do with viral evolution, but actually caused by vaccine induced aberrations to the immune system.
So in that respect, GVDB was completely wrong. His main thesis was that these specific vaccines (but don’t worry he’s involved in an alternative vaccine design) would induce dangerous mutations which would affect both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated alike, but as far as we can see the immune systems of the unvaccinated are handling whatever SARs-CoV-2 is without any problems at all, as if it is just part of the background endemic constantly evolving coronavirus swarm.
I see the tone, but just to tease out....
Wasn't the main point that the evolutionary pressure of mass intervention would drive the virus to create mutations at a much faster rate with potential for higher virulence breakthrough?
Are you saying there is strong evidence that the mass intervention did not drive virsus mutation over normal rates?
Although he did have the doomsday prophecy going strong.
Aren't vaccinated and unvaccinated still getting sick with reinfections, that's ehat I'm seeing at least ( totally accept the AEs occurring in vaccinated )
Also omicron, and God nows what else, looking now also man-made would confound anyones already probabilistic estimates of what could happen if just nature ran its course?
Anyway, he did open my eyes to 101 type stuff, can do that and still be wrong, doesn't mean it was wasted input by any means
Well this may be heretical but I don’t believe the “variants” narrative. Viruses are in a constant state of mutation, even inside a person. All a variant is is a sequence which is statistically closest to one of the current consensus sequences spread via the Internet.
I don’t think a novel virus has emerged from anywhere and spanned the globe. This is the essence of the confidence trick. I believe that all we have been doing is measuring elements of the previously endemic coronavirus swarm using shiny new technology, we don’t understand, and which is easily corruptible.
I've no problem with your position, he turned me on to 101 arguments which are usefull from my perspective, and your outline didn't align with what I'd settled on.
It does sound like you are arguing from within a different paradigm to Bossche-type virology.
If that is the case it introduces more complexity for anyone similar to myself, for now I'm sticking with the Bossche type analysts dissenting from within orthodox virology.
Yeadon agrees with you it seems, he doesn't think there was ever a novel virus, so for this and other reasons I'm not a loyalist to any position, but it's a position I have a hard time to envisage currently, it's an area that's fascinating.
BTW did you see this piece I co-authored with Professors Neil and Fenton and Jessica Hockett?
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/whodunnit-unabridged
Thanks I'll have a read of that.
That’s the kind of open minded response which gets you opprobrium / cancellation on X!!!
Thank goodness for this platform.
Agreed, seems like a good tolerance for the most part.
When you get a piece of the Denis Noble's, Rubert Sheldrake's, John Gray's, PKD, Ligotti's ,Graham Hancock's etc , and have so much fun, you start seeking along the edges of things, maybe truth shows up there at certain inflection points !
"GVDB was completely wrong. His main thesis was that these specific vaccines... would induce dangerous mutations which would affect both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated alike"
- I don't think he said "ALIKE".
- He said immune pressure would make unvaxxers more likely to get infected, but not serious disease.
- He said the ones to be in trouble when doomsday variant comes would be mRNA vaxxers (who got 2+ dose and got vaxxed before infection). Those who are unvaxxed or got infected before vaccine would do well with future variants.
- He sounds pretty RIGHT, right?
As for "alternative vaccine design". He has some concepts, but I don't see any information on that he's trying to make and sell one. So stop trying to discredit him so lowly like that.
What is most baffling is this STILL doesn’t register to otherwise very smart humans. Leaving aside the medical skullduggery, the
plandemic has been a fascinating case study of the human brain.
The observable human behaviour, what it says about us and what we do to each other, the lack of any permanent ethical progress regardless of cumulative technological same.
Versus
The minuate of molecules / genes / cells and fucking vaccines
I hear that !
Van Bossche did the heavy lifting for me to get a handle on that early
The thing is, there was no virus to begin with.
People got sicker because of toxicity of the vaccines, not because of some immune system change related to the vaccine, and mutations of a fictional 'virus' ;)
Yes
Just gotta say it, just once at least ~ We Told You So. You should have listened or at least done your due diligence. PS Don't take anymore shots.
I did eventually get through to my immediate family, they're done with gene-therapy-based stuff, although they started to get rumblings from elsewhere, maybe there is a critical mass encroaching.
Either way no-one's going out of their way to thank me or anything!
No. On the contrary, they will selectively remember and forget that which makes them feel like they were the ones who were right all along. Some may even stop communicating with you, which you might think is due to something you did, but no. In their own weak, cowardly, self-deluding way, these people will just tell themselves and their fellow travellers you’ve changed and have been brainwashed or had a breakdown or even point to something unrelated where you presented a countervailing thesis or opinion they disagreed with. It’s a coping mechanism to avoid admitting their own ignorance, cowardice and shallowness of their character and NPC / normie outlook on life to themselves.
Thank you for saving your family and probably some of their friends Rjj!!!
Haha cheers !
Jury's out this was booster-doubt !
Isn't encroachment when the minorities start moving into the neighborhood?
Ya, meant approach
However....
Encroach: impose oneself
Encroaching: the act of imposing oneself
So the rumblings is of the potential critical mass ( personified ) imposing itself to emerge and become manifest. Like some nascent creature awakening from a nightmarish slumber.
I'll get my coat.
It's all good. As long as it's not enroachment. - yuch.
If the vaccines worked
It would mean that those who have
Died Suddenly
Would be dying from something else (Covid)
Everyone would NEED the vaccine.
And the pharmaceutical companies
Would be shouting from the rooftops
About those who are dying suddenly.
.
These 'people' Died Suddenly because it was necessary to implementation of the Program.
And
If the Unvaccinated were dying
They would be all over that
To push the vaccines.
Hat Tip: @Zoe
If the unvaccinated were dying they would be dead. They wouldn't speak I'll of the dead. We would never hear about it. And that's why we haven't.
Isn't this 'waning' efficacy just the illusion resulting from the statistical 'cheap trick' that Norman Fenton has highlighted, rather than any actual efficacy at any point?
No need to even go there. Based on recent studies, VAERS, nursing home mortality statistics, all cause mortality and pregnancy/live birth statistics in heavily vaccinated countries, re-infections in the vaccinated, etc .....the preponderance of the evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the vaccines are an unmitigated disaster.
We can argue about methodology and statistical accuracy of individual studies all we want, but there is overwhelming evidence that the vaccines should never have been administered to anyone, except perhaps to those who volunteered for the trials....
Worse than an unmitigated disaster! A genocide, if not a holocaust.
You know what, I was going to argue the toss, but in my gut I think you are right as far as where I was coming from.
There is no appetite in the general population for statistical analysis and nuanced arguments of this sort, especially coming from alternative quarters, no matter how damning they are. And Fenton's examples while so incisive, are to be honest inaccessible to most lay (due to disinterest or ability) people. You'd have to study them for a while with no prior stat knowledge I reckon.
There are other angles that hopefully will have more success to get through to people, unfortunately that might be the sickness, death, reduced civil life they see around them.
At the moment that's only getting through to a minority!
Yeadon had a similar attitude in his interview with Kirsch, Kirsch seemed incredulous that he wouldn't want to explore whether the lateral flow tests were bogus or not. He got quite frustrated with him and I kind of did also ( was amysing as well ! ) but then Yeadon was just like [ paraphrasing] 'ah you do it if you like it woudn't be the worse thing to do, but not for me'.
He stated he saw something like that as a small detail on the side of the road.
He'd already highlighted where he thinks the road is heading, made sense he felt there was greater things to concentrate on when I fully realised what conclusions he's personally drawn.
Yes exactly. They only counted the successes while the failures were classified as unvaccinated.
On his substack he ( Fenton ) outlines multiple 'tricks' used in different observational studies to game the efficacy numbers.
So it's difficult to use this analysis with folks not engaged. Difficult? Understatement!
Rjj I found Fenton early on in the scandal occurring.
His breakdown and explanation of RR v AR reduction was a real eye opener to how pharma pulls the long con.
The other tricks they pull made me do a lot of digging, my instincts have always been to stay away from doctors and medical intervention as much as possible.
I prefer to use natural therapy treatments, our ancestors made it thousands of years without huge profit making drugs.
Yeah, I mean it seems like there might be a small percentage of useful drugs, many derived from nature ! Some others that have efficacy, well there's questions if the extra longevity contribute to meaningful life, but that's another story ! I'd probably still want many medical interventions personally depending!
Your point about ARR Vs RRR is apt, and still constantly missed, even if there is a real-world efficacy of 95% RRR for any intervention, this is meaningless, for risk-benefit decisions in light of side-effects, without some idea of ARR.
It's been a stalwart for pharma to claim product usefulness, too bad all the doctors that went along with it.
I now refer to RRR as sleight of hand by pharma, they have both sets of facts but attract your attention to the one that serves the sale’s purposes.
Here’s an interesting one for you regarding nature’s medicine.
A couple of months ago I was at one of our local plant nursery gardens, a couple came in and the lady was talking about some liquorice plants her husband had ordered for a stately home he was renovating. The lady was sneezing caused by hayfever so the lady assistant picked up one of the small potted liquorice plants handed it to her and told her to smell the sent of the plant for a few minutes.
The assistant explained she’d done the same a few days previously with a lady who was constantly sneezing.
Within a few minutes the lady had stopped and felt much better and the assistant explained that simple plant treated hayfever and asthma.
It made me think because natural liquorice twig sticks used to be all over sweets shop when I was a child and we ate them regular without thought.
While modern medicine has haven is many life saving treatments and surgeries to be grateful for, sometimes a simple old remedy is far better than overloading our bodies, especially young ones on pharma drugs, it’s just an option to keep open and in mind
Nice ! , they're an attractive plant also I see.
Agreed, let's say there were definite advances in various medical fields, many pharma advances derived ( or inspired, but that's recursive ! ) from the natural world solely ,much skullduggery of course e.g. vaccines , then at a certain point there was a highjacking / ramped up takeover / what-have-you for the purpose of pure greed, while the targets of this greed lost a lot and their way, during this same period.
Not perfect obviously, I'll take it as a working summing up !
This 'waning' efficacy is waning efficacy.
If there's no efficacy then it's 'efficacy'
If there's no efficacy then it can't be waning, so 'waning'
So the entire concept is not real.....
'waning' 'efficacy'
So how's ....
'waning efficacy'
I think I get it. No efficacy without an effect ..
Have you checked their analysis for Prof. Norman Fenton's "Cheap Trick", which renders any evaluation of vaccine efficacy a statistical illusion, and makes even a placebo or a poison look effective initially, before declining just in time for a booster? https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-very-best-of-cheap-trick The shape of the graph strongly indicates the trick has also been used here?
That's what I was thinking, always do now !
How would that work with the natural immunity waning though?
Rjj I read an article in Chemistry world in December 2020, a team at Oxford had been monitoring 12000 healthcare workers tracking for reinfection rates.
Guess what, they found natural immunity lasted a minimum of six months back then. Yes it will be far longer in some but it far out strips and exceeds the efficacy and endurance of the crummy darting.
Good point....
If the vaccine efficacy/waning is a result of statistical manipulation, likely, ok grand.
The natural immunity efficacy/waning could be just that genuinely, afterall in the normal round of things, people do get colds / flu recurring, as it always was, as coronas mutate this natural immunity always was challenged pre-covid.
It doesn't say anything about the severity of the reinfection ( by authors own admission) and of course you wouldn't have the monstrous side-effects of the intervention.
Do liquorice plants induce clarity of thought also?
Would someone please forward this report on the Lancet study to both Jill Biden and Whoopsie Goldberg? Both are currently sick with Covid and both Vaxed FIVE TIMES!!
They also have something else in common, they are both arrogant, self righteous asses. And that’s the nicest thing that I can say about them....
Only five!!!
They need at least another ten for full protection.
Why?
Whoopsie daisy - Send it to Daisy also.
If you look at Part A of the figure, you can see what natural boosting looks like. Natural immunity gets refreshed with a new variant.
In defense of vaccines, the other explanation the paper puts forth for the negative values is that the unvaccinated have had a depletion of susceptibles. But this can only be true if the vaccines really did have efficacy either against cases or severe outcomes.
One thing that has always stuck with me is that VE against cases wanes, whereas VE against severe cases does not so much. It seems to be similar for natural immunity as well. This makes me think the protection against severe outcomes may actually be real, even if exaggerated - potentially greatly. It also makes me doubt Fenton and Neil's hypothesis of a data crime by defining vaccination status 2 or 3 weeks post vax. If their hypothesis were sufficient to explain the waning efficacy against cases, would it not affect the curve for VE against severe outcomes similarly?
The statistical anomaly of a possible placebo vaccine showing efficacy using that method has been demonstrated unequivocally.
This and other 'tricks' have been shown to have been used in observational studies claiming efficacy.
You'd have to refute their claims directly, showing how they've got it wrong, no?
As far as the no waning on servere outcomes in these charts, surely we can come up with a plausible reason, isolated from the apparent waning of vaccine ( and / or ) natural immunity.
I don't disagree. I think the stat trick definitely affects many studies on VE against cases. But it is a question of how much. If it was huge, I would expect VE against severe cases to also wane rapidly, which it doesn't.
The authors themselves state........
'There was an indication of some decline in effectiveness of primary-series vaccination and booster vaccination over time; however, the limited number of severe COVID-19 cases hindered precise estimation of the potential waning in effectiveness. '
Now if they themselves say essentially 'you can't infer anything from this analysis' , I'd go further and say we should just dismiss it.
I've come to the conclusion that these gene-therapies have no place, or foreseeable place, in humans.
I enjoy stat stuff ( sometimes! ) , got a degree in it, interested in the history of it and the abuses of it! The Fenton et al analysis was intriguing, because it highlighted again for me just how non-intuitive stats can be and what they can bring to light.
However from one perspective I see it as quibbling over something that should have been brought to a grinding halt by now, I feel some of Yeadon's angst, here we are arguing over clear subterfuge while the real issue gets blurred.
OK, that said, is the Qatari dataset open? Anyone could drill into the 525 and 12,227 severe cases, independently I'd imagine it'd agree with authors or show something more damning.
Shave me bald and call me slappy, but wasn't it this particular "peer-reviewed" journal that aided and abetted the push for the vax in the first place?
They certainly did NOT help the situation.
Take away: "peers" matter.
I would gladly shave you naked but I refuse to call you slappy.
Got another name in mind 😆
The reason the 'efficacy' is negative, is not because of some BS reason, it's because the vaccines were never beneficial, they are toxic and detrimental to health.
There's no 'virus' to protect against, so how can you expect any benefit from the 'vaccines'?
Yep. The "100% efficacy" was simply a byproduct of how they were counting: If you got through the 'worry window' of 2 weeks after your final shot, you were vaccinated. If you didn't get through that worry window, you were counted as unvaccinated.
Every school has a 100% graduation rate if it only counts the kids who make it to graduation.
This is the same trick played with hate crime reporting whereby they consider only whites can be racist; so 100% of racist hate crimes are committed by racist whites. A non-white can (and routinely do) commit violence against whites and it would not be counted as hate crime. It’s weird too because I’m from Philly and served in the military and personally knew a lot of blacks that hated whites and Asians for just being white or Asian. Go figure.
Yup, exactly.
A famous mathematician from UK (Norman Fenton) explained exactly how the fraud with '2 week window' works.
You can have a 80-90% fake 'efficacy', just by adding a time window, during which the vaccinated are counted as unvaccinated..
Here's his video, explaining in detail:
https://youtu.be/Gkh6N-ZL3_k?si=7_0pi0KiKe-KdAgh
Perhaps Lancet is looking to develop some credibility for a change.
I can’t imagine that they would bother now.....
I'm sorry but after the surgisphere fraud the lancet is trash
Sapan Dessi is a serial fraudster, academic and otherwise. He left a trash pile of papers that had to be retracted across multiple journals. The Lancet editors and publisher don't care about your opinion.
Getting "CoNvId" aka "undesirable" side effects of mRNA Nanoparticle Bioweapon
IMPORTANT: The COVID 19 Bioweapons Are “Nano Technology Enabled” – The National Nanotechnology Initiative
"At this time, there should be no further discussion regarding the presence of nanotechnology in the C19 shots. Even the government sees this as a valid scientific truth."
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/important-the-covid-19-bioweapons
Graphene COVID Kill Shots: Let the Evidence Speak for Itself
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/graphene-covid-kill-shots-let-the
Reminder. Dr Phil Febo: Moderna and Pfizer Never Had the ‘Isolated’ Virus in Their Lab, They Used the Sequence Sent From China. Chinese CDC Admits They Never Isolated the Virus. Kary Mullis about PCR test
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/reminder-dr-phil-febo-moderna-and
Where does someone go to see a decent debate on the 'no virus' motion?
Just ignore the viruses-aren't-real folk, they mean well but they are unfortunately retarded
I started to answer your question but thought better of it.
I’ve been through this before and believe me, honest answers will generate some really ugly responses..... and I’m not in the mood for a big fight tonight, especially when I know that the other side is wrong 😑
Another time !
So answer me this.....
is there a 'no-virus' absolute position ( I.e. virology is bogus science )
Versus
a 'no-covid-virus' , flu got rebranded / there's only sars-2 computer sequence position ( I.e. other viruses do exist )
?
Yes
Wonder how both camps view each other
DR PAUL ALEXANDER SUBSTACK
170 Plus Research Studies & documents help Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19 as far superior than COVID 'narrowly focused high affinity, vaccinal specific immunity;
https://palexander.substack.com/p/170-plus-research-studies-and-documents
ARCHIVED ⬇️
https://archive.md/2023.05.21-141034/https://palexander.substack.com/p/170-plus-research-studies-and-documents
Boys and girls, the study is down at the moment. Save your screenshots. Hopefully it is just temporary site maintenance or something. The preprint is still up though:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.28.23289254v1.full-text
Make sure to download your copies now.
Edit: And a few hours later it is back up.
Were people included who became infected within 14 days of dose 1?
Probably not included, just skimmed the paper and can’t find mention of 1 dose so they’re probably counted as unvaccinated or excluded.
For 2nd & 3rd dose:
“Tests occurring within 14 days of a second dose or 7 days of a third dose were excluded.”
There is NO Genome for ‘ COVID’ ( SARS-CoV-2).....’flu’s’ or detoxing ...and build up of environmental toxins, EMF, and from cumulative childhood quackcinnes ( fetal,bovine cells, SV40,etc)....these BIOWEAPON shots just bring it all to a head.....
ERHCP and Chris, @ooze, is there any way to parse out that it couldn't be both? Distributed toxins (including the 'arson' idea of creating a few intentional sickness hotspots to set the wheels in motion) AND some crappy gene "weapon" of dubious potency? Every single step of this debacle has had intentional water-muddying, so why not?
Sometimes there is the 'COVID' genome which is shockingly similar to the genome for a genetically engineered weapon originally developed at Fort Derrick. The Detrick isolate itself has yet to be sequenced in vivo.