9/13/22
So here’s a little tidbit you may not have heard on CNN or MSNBC, but it turns out that, according to the CDC (not the “Semi-Fascist Gazette”), SOME 44% OF PEOPLE hospitalized with COVID had THREE OR FOUR SHOTS – you know, the ones that would keep you from getting infected, until they didn’t; but they will definitely keep you from severe illness or death – DEFINITELY, until they apparently didn’t. Oops.
According to WebMD (my bold) “Almost half the people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 last spring had been fully vaccinated and received a third dose or booster shot…Researchers found 39.1% of patients had received a primary vaccination series and at least one booster or additional dose; 5% were fully vaccinated with two boosters."
Now, roughly 48% of eligible Americans have one booster (notice how the first booster is now being referred to as “a third dose” – remember when Fauci lied, I mean said that the third shot was always meant to be part of the initial vaccine regimen?) and 34% are double boosted and yet 44% of those hospitalized were triple or quadruple vaxxed.
As you know, I like to present my cases using the words of the very liars and idiots who’ve been being lying idiots lo these past 30 months, and today is no different.
In a piece by MSNBC (so you KNOW it’s legit) from just two months ago entitled “The danger of skipping your Covid booster is rising—and more than 100 million Americans are at risk” we’re told “Experts say booster shots are key to stopping BA.5 in its tracks…The main job of a Covid vaccine is to prevent severe illness in case you get sick. It does help prevent infections in the first place, but it’s not perfect in that regard — no vaccine is…‘Booster shots essentially amplify those same benefits’, says Ross Kedl, a professor of immunology and microbiology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. He says booster-induced protection against severe illness holds up over time against every known Covid variant and subvariant, including BA.5…The protection against infection wanes a bit after three or four months”
First, I’m waiting for someone to present actual data on this “prevent severe illness” thing because all the data I’ve seen (including today’s piece) says no such thing. While you’re at it, send along the data on how “It does help prevent infections in the first place”. And somebody remind me, when exactly did it become the "main job"of the vax to prevent severe illness? What were we being told we KNEW was "the main job" of the vax back in 2021 when they were forcing everyone to get them and demonizing those who didn't? I seem to remember something about the President of the United States telling us IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS "You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations," Somebody's memory-holing! Maybe I'm misremembering. Moving on.
Second, the assertion that “no vaccine is” perfect when trying to make excuses for the failures of the Pfizer jab is absurd. Before last year every human on earth would have said a vaccine PREVENTS one from getting sick with whatever the vaccine is for. That’s why we all have “faith” in vaccines – you stick a hundred shots in your baby but at least “breakthroughs” are all but unheard of. With this vax, “protection” is the exception not the rule. And I wonder what good old professor Ross Kedl would say today. I’m quite sure he’d have some good excuse for why he was wrong just two months ago. By the way, “The study also found that hospitalization rates among people over 65 increased threefold over the study period.” Which group is more likely to have three of four shots in them? Oh yeah, the group that tripled their hospitalizations.
As to the vaccine “wanes a bit after three or four months”, here’s some actual data that says something else.
This from a piece published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week:
Graph “E” shows how effective the PFIZER VAX is at keeping kids out of the hospital. Graph “F” shows how effective PREVIOUS INFECTION is at keeping kids out of the hospital. Notice how much better the previous infection is even though we were told for the better part of the year (by no less than Anthony Fauci himself) that natural infection protection was inferior to the vax so even though you already had COVID you still NEEDED the vaccine. Notice how it takes the vaccine four weeks to reach its peak protection (which is at least 10% less than that of infection, and only lasts a moment before it begins to wane while infection's protection peaks immediately and stays high). But it’s even worse, as I’ve sandbagged you a little here; if you didn't already, notice the scale at the bottom of each graph. The VACCINE “effectiveness” is measured in WEEKS while the PREVIOUS INFECTION protection is measured in MONTHS! At a casual glance, the two graphs look similar, but if the scale of the vax graph (E) was the same as the previous infection graph (F), that would be measured in months instead of weeks, the downward slope of that graph (E) would look much worse. That means it would peak and immediately begin to fall as rapidly as it rose. One might think that the authors were trying to obfuscate that difference - or what some might call just being dishonest. In fact the authors state "The rapid decline in protection against omicron infection that was conferred by vaccination and previous infection provides support for booster vaccination." Well there's a surprise. Notice the protection of previous infection is HIGHER at 10 months than the vaccine ever was (and that vax protection begins to wane essentially immediately). How exactly do BOTH these graphs show "rapid decline"? Liars.
Also, notice here how much worse VACCINATED kids do against reinfection vs. NON-VACCINATED kids:
It appears the vaccine actually ERASES natural immunity! Understand what these graphs are saying; if a kid gets infected and does not later get vaxxed, he has very good immunity – lasting as long as about 15 months in graph “C”. But if a kid gets infected, and THEN gets vaxxed, his protection against reinfection disappears down to zero within a few months (maybe 5 months). So it appears that not only does the vax NOT add any protection, it actually DESTROYS whatever natural immunity one gained from being infected. I've discussed this before; it's a thing.
See that here from the same NEJM piece:
Refer to graph "C" above showing kids' natural immunity drops to about 50% after as much as 15 months post-infection. Now notice in graph "B" that in those same previously infected kids, once they get vaccinated, their immunity drops BELOW ZERO in about five months. About 50% protection at 15 months or negative 20% at five months. That negative efficacy means the vaccine is essentially CAUSING them to get infected. Sweet.
Combine this data with the CDC’s data above, and what you have is a picture of a vaccine that is more than just useless; it is injurious to your immune system. This is why you have roughly the same percentage of the population with three or four jabs ending up in the hospital – the vax provides, AT BEST, zero protection. I know some will shout about how these are older people so of course they end up hospitalized more (although you'd have to explain the difference in kids' hospitalizations in graphs E and F above), but that's exactly the point. The vaccine is SUPPOSED to protect these very people who have three or four shots, and it's not. If it doesn't work to protect "the most vulnerable" then who does it work for? The people who don't need it anyway?
So as the CDC itself will tell us that about 95% of the population has some immunity either from being infected (good) or being vaxxed (not so good), and there are all kinds of danger signals concerning actual harm from the vax; from myocarditis to reduced sperm counts to damaged immune systems, to, I don’t know, death, and more, why still the inexorable push to vaccinate everyone forever?
Today’s post most definitely NOT brought to you by Pfizer.
Comentários