if you have had covid and recovered, you have acquired resistance. such resistance from SARS1 has lasted DECADES. there is no evidence that this is different here and STRONG REASON to suspect it will be similar. cd4 and 8 based immunity is strong, broad based, and durable.
immunity driven by recovery from live infection is as strong or STRONGER than vaccinated immunity.
there is no evidence at all or even reason to suspect that getting vaccinated adds ANY additional protection for those who have recovered from covid. NONE.
the risk posed by covid to those vaccinated is SO SMALL that this idea of “needing to protect others” is ridiculous. if you want protection, get vaccinated (ask your doctor). the RESIDUAL RISK afterwards is already less than 1/20th your annual risk of death from flu. this is not a risk level humans have historically striven to mitigate. no one owes anyone 100% safety.
this is not public health policy, it’s medical malpractice in the service of crony capitalism and rampant statism.
it may be normal to have questions, but it is NOT normal to have all the answers be twisted facts, relentless gaslighting, and outright fabrications.
this kind of baseless fear-mongering and alarmist charlatanry has no place in public policy, health related or otherwise.
this is a disgrace. in any sort of just world, careers would end over this. agencies would be censured over this.
instead, they’ll probably get an attaboy and a budget bump from governor hairdo.
Beware of anybody who goes by the name SCIENCE. Also beware if they acuse others of being without data followed by stating these others are factually incorrect without providing any data themselves.
I feel dumb continually thanking the author. But, I need to see these ongoing posts. The sheer mass of misinformation emanating from the government is staggering, and my family and friends are buying it all.
The picture of Stitch is how I feel on a daily basis when I hear of friends who had covid getting the shot and seeing those in their cars, masked....I wish more people could actually think or get their brains in at least idle mode by reading your article!
The mRNA vaccine: mRNA enters your cell. It uses the cell to make the C19 spike protein, sort of like the mRNA virus that causes it. Only the cell does not make more viruses.
The Adenovector uses a DNA to enter your cells to do the same thing.
Both work like the virus only do not make more viruses.
The proteins are displayed on the cell surface and your B cells and T cells respond. They make the anti body which is measured but not needed.
Immunity is based on B and T cells, the antibodies they make are metabolized over time. The cell memory retains.
I know a 70 odd (we don't talk about age north of 60) woman who had it in Jan '21, and has gotten a vaccine. Her husband is not vaccinated and did not catch it from her! I understand her husband, better!
So what are our betters going to say when excess deaths become a death dearth? (As they will in late 2021 or 2022, since Covid has, mostly unnecessarily, killed a large number of old people, who therefore won't die later.)
Four possibilities:
1. Oh. We did this wrong. We should have protected those most at risk and not tortured those least at risk (and we should have known this after Bergamo).
2. Up the cycles in PCR so we can keep finding more cases.
There are many doctors and others in the field who believe "vaccination" after infection is very dangerous. The details of the potential risks of "vaccination" with or without prior infection are outlined in this back and forth between Doctors for Covid Ethics (Yeadon, Bhakdi, et al) and the European Medicines Agency. https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/doctors-for-covid-ethics-signatories-15878f9ff76
Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270-0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33219229/
You should really provide sources for your information because much of what you post is very factually incorrect. You have lots of nice pretty graphs that seem to be sourced out of thin air and not a single peer reviewed publication to back up your opinions. Unfortunately most of your followers do not seem to be able to decipher your lies because you ostensibly seem to be able to piece together sentences that create nice sound bites but are unfortunately not back up by actual verifiable data.
Yikes. That article is all sorts of poor conclusions and assumptions. It does not even read like a doctor wrote it. Nearly half of the citations in the piece are to news articles or opinion pieces. The evidence is very clear that the vaccines are indeed effective and much safer than serious COVID infection.
The argument we *can* have, however, is whether or not people who have already been previously infected with SARS-COV-2 need (or should) be vaccinated. Or whether or not they should be mandatory (I'm in favor of education and encouragement over force).
Setting up a straw man in an attempt to discredit the vaccines does not do anyone any favors.
The people who created Doctors for Covid Ethics are giants in their fields who have retired and are not subject to the forces silencing many in the medical world. They are not quacks. And they have paid a heavy price for speaking out. The article was written to the general public insofar as they can understand it. Their back-and-forth with the EMA is far more technical. I recommend you read it.
Dr Michael Yeadon: Joint Honours in Biochemistry and Toxicology, PhD Pharmacology, Formerly Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer Allergy & Respiratory, Pfizer Global R&D.
Dr Sucharit Bhakdi MD, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Former Chair, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene
What proof do you have that these "vaccines" work? We are in the middle of a massive global clinical trial. The risk/benefits are being evaluated as we speak. You should know that this organization warned the EMA about the risk of clotting and bleeding disorders on March 1. Shortly thereafter, several European countries halted the Aztrazeneca vaccine because of rare clotting and bleeding disorders. Several countries still ban the Astrazeneca vaccine, which uses the same technology as the J&J. We are in the middle of a global clinical trial. You are in the trial group (I gather) and I am in the control arm.
The CDC and WHO agree that this virus has an IFR of about 0.14-0.15%. It's the equivalent to a bad flu in terms of mortality but spares infants and children. We know who has the greatest risk (elderly, obese, diabetes, heart disease). We have cross protection from prior exposures to/infections with other coronaviruses.
I don't know the AMA's current position on Ivermectin, but it is being used by doctors all over the world to treat early C19 disease.
Most doctors understand that Vitamin D deficiency has played a dramatic role in this pandemic. People above the 35th parallel are far more likely to be deficient, especially people with darker skin. Supplementation with Vitamin D and zinc is recommended during the cold and flu season.
And, I have to ask...why do you think Pfizer is developing an oral antiviral drug to treat C19 if "vaccines" are the answer? HCQ and Ivermectin are anti parasitic drugs with antiviral properties. How is that any different?
Children's Health Defense has been keeping track of the VAERS and EUDRA. You won't find this information in the mainstream media. Call me crazy, but I don't believe the CDC when they claim all these events and deaths are unrelated the the injections. I've also heard the VAERS has a significant backlog, perhaps hundreds of thousands of reports, but I haven't been able to confirm this.
WRT injection after infection, there are many doctors who believe it is unnecessary and possibly dangerous. When have you ever heard anyone in the medical field advocating for vaccination after an infection? That's a red flag. Dr. Hooman Noorchasm is one of those doctors. Unlike Yeadon and Bhakdi, he doesn't oppose the "vaccines" and has been vaccinated himself. https://noorchashm.medium.com
"The evidence is very clear that the vaccines are indeed effective and much safer than serious COVID infection."
How, exactly, do you know that the "vaccines" are safer than a serious C19 infection? You don't. You can't. The Pfizer trial doesn't end until 2023.
Why are they conducting a mass "vaccination" campaign with an experimental genetic therapy using an experimental technology for a virus with and IFR of 0.14-0.15% and known high risk groups?
The EUAs for Moderna and Pfizer both state that they do not claim to prevent infection or transmission only to mitigate serious disease with infection. So, just as your mask doesn't protect grandma neither does your "vaccination".
There is no reason for healthy young adults, let alone infants and children, to take an experimental injection for a virus that doesn't threaten them and will not prevent them from becoming infected with the virus or transmitting it.
I should also note that Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, etc., could not receive an Emergency Use Authorization if a viable treatment for C19 existed...by law.
Could that explain the mysterious explosions/fires at the US plant that manufactured HCQ or the Indian plants that produced precursors?
Could that explain the nonsense spread through the media about HCQ...a drug that has been used for decades and is OTC in many countries...or Ivermectin...a drug that won its inventor a Nobel Prize just a few short years ago?
Big Pharma can't make any money from off patent drugs...but fear not...'cause Pfizer coming out with a shiny new antiviral at the end of the year...and they can make lots of money off that.
I work for no one. I am not American and well educated and understand how to analyze data. Happy to engage on the science vs economics of Covid but to constantly call out public health officials as fear mongering and then to only present a very biased portion of the literature is very misleading.
Beware of anybody who goes by the name SCIENCE. Also beware if they acuse others of being without data followed by stating these others are factually incorrect without providing any data themselves.
I feel dumb continually thanking the author. But, I need to see these ongoing posts. The sheer mass of misinformation emanating from the government is staggering, and my family and friends are buying it all.
The picture of Stitch is how I feel on a daily basis when I hear of friends who had covid getting the shot and seeing those in their cars, masked....I wish more people could actually think or get their brains in at least idle mode by reading your article!
The mRNA vaccine: mRNA enters your cell. It uses the cell to make the C19 spike protein, sort of like the mRNA virus that causes it. Only the cell does not make more viruses.
The Adenovector uses a DNA to enter your cells to do the same thing.
Both work like the virus only do not make more viruses.
The proteins are displayed on the cell surface and your B cells and T cells respond. They make the anti body which is measured but not needed.
Immunity is based on B and T cells, the antibodies they make are metabolized over time. The cell memory retains.
I know a 70 odd (we don't talk about age north of 60) woman who had it in Jan '21, and has gotten a vaccine. Her husband is not vaccinated and did not catch it from her! I understand her husband, better!
So what are our betters going to say when excess deaths become a death dearth? (As they will in late 2021 or 2022, since Covid has, mostly unnecessarily, killed a large number of old people, who therefore won't die later.)
Four possibilities:
1. Oh. We did this wrong. We should have protected those most at risk and not tortured those least at risk (and we should have known this after Bergamo).
2. Up the cycles in PCR so we can keep finding more cases.
3. See? Masks and isolation work!
4. Silence.
There are many doctors and others in the field who believe "vaccination" after infection is very dangerous. The details of the potential risks of "vaccination" with or without prior infection are outlined in this back and forth between Doctors for Covid Ethics (Yeadon, Bhakdi, et al) and the European Medicines Agency. https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/doctors-for-covid-ethics-signatories-15878f9ff76
American Dr. Hooman Noorchasm, MD, has made similar warnings. https://noorchashm.medium.com
Also, pretty sure governor hairdo is a vampire.
And, of course, masks don't stop airborne transmission...and...asymptomatic transmission is not a thing...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102
Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270-0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33219229/
You should really provide sources for your information because much of what you post is very factually incorrect. You have lots of nice pretty graphs that seem to be sourced out of thin air and not a single peer reviewed publication to back up your opinions. Unfortunately most of your followers do not seem to be able to decipher your lies because you ostensibly seem to be able to piece together sentences that create nice sound bites but are unfortunately not back up by actual verifiable data.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Obviously you're new here "science".
If you'd been following Gato on Twitter and then Gab, you'd know that he posts TONS of sources for his information.
And apparently you missed the three links in the first paragraph of his post that provide references to studies which support his information.
Oh yea... since when does expressing a different opinion based on scientific studies constitute "lying"?
Oh yea... that's right... since uninformed people like you started doing that BS about a year ago.
Gato has more verifiable sources than the CDC and the state of California who is putting out this garbage. Perhaps you are accusing the wrong side.
If you're not allergic to a few more clicks, you'll find that the first hyperlink will lead you to Painter et al (2021) - https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.21.440862
Second hyperlink leads to: Goldberg et al (2021) - https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670
Third hyperlink is the same as the second.
You're welcome.
oops, the third link should have been to a different page. got the pointer wrong. fixed now. thanks for catching.
And this...which has multiple citations...
https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/covid-vaccines-necessity-efficacy-and-safety-b1d8bfbc9d2
Yikes. That article is all sorts of poor conclusions and assumptions. It does not even read like a doctor wrote it. Nearly half of the citations in the piece are to news articles or opinion pieces. The evidence is very clear that the vaccines are indeed effective and much safer than serious COVID infection.
The argument we *can* have, however, is whether or not people who have already been previously infected with SARS-COV-2 need (or should) be vaccinated. Or whether or not they should be mandatory (I'm in favor of education and encouragement over force).
Setting up a straw man in an attempt to discredit the vaccines does not do anyone any favors.
The people who created Doctors for Covid Ethics are giants in their fields who have retired and are not subject to the forces silencing many in the medical world. They are not quacks. And they have paid a heavy price for speaking out. The article was written to the general public insofar as they can understand it. Their back-and-forth with the EMA is far more technical. I recommend you read it.
(https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/doctors-for-covid-ethics-signatories-15878f9ff76)
Dr Michael Yeadon: Joint Honours in Biochemistry and Toxicology, PhD Pharmacology, Formerly Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer Allergy & Respiratory, Pfizer Global R&D.
Dr Sucharit Bhakdi MD, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Former Chair, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene
What proof do you have that these "vaccines" work? We are in the middle of a massive global clinical trial. The risk/benefits are being evaluated as we speak. You should know that this organization warned the EMA about the risk of clotting and bleeding disorders on March 1. Shortly thereafter, several European countries halted the Aztrazeneca vaccine because of rare clotting and bleeding disorders. Several countries still ban the Astrazeneca vaccine, which uses the same technology as the J&J. We are in the middle of a global clinical trial. You are in the trial group (I gather) and I am in the control arm.
The CDC and WHO agree that this virus has an IFR of about 0.14-0.15%. It's the equivalent to a bad flu in terms of mortality but spares infants and children. We know who has the greatest risk (elderly, obese, diabetes, heart disease). We have cross protection from prior exposures to/infections with other coronaviruses.
WRT to alternative therapies, you may not be aware that the AMA quietly withdrew their restrictions on the off label use of HCQ for early C19 disease last year. (https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-10/nov20-handbook-addendum.pdf)
I don't know the AMA's current position on Ivermectin, but it is being used by doctors all over the world to treat early C19 disease.
Most doctors understand that Vitamin D deficiency has played a dramatic role in this pandemic. People above the 35th parallel are far more likely to be deficient, especially people with darker skin. Supplementation with Vitamin D and zinc is recommended during the cold and flu season.
And, I have to ask...why do you think Pfizer is developing an oral antiviral drug to treat C19 if "vaccines" are the answer? HCQ and Ivermectin are anti parasitic drugs with antiviral properties. How is that any different?
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/covid-2021-03-23/card/Ss4OlgFvulCNFA72j9Qa
Children's Health Defense has been keeping track of the VAERS and EUDRA. You won't find this information in the mainstream media. Call me crazy, but I don't believe the CDC when they claim all these events and deaths are unrelated the the injections. I've also heard the VAERS has a significant backlog, perhaps hundreds of thousands of reports, but I haven't been able to confirm this.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-significant-jump-reported-injuries-deaths-after-covid-vaccine/?fbclid=IwAR0-WNpqk6oBemgiGmZlCrKXsjnMDi796i9rM_-lgimx4t36BpI5vWFyJ8w
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/eu-vaccine-injury-reporting-eudravigilance-330000-adverse-events-covid-vaccines/
WRT injection after infection, there are many doctors who believe it is unnecessary and possibly dangerous. When have you ever heard anyone in the medical field advocating for vaccination after an infection? That's a red flag. Dr. Hooman Noorchasm is one of those doctors. Unlike Yeadon and Bhakdi, he doesn't oppose the "vaccines" and has been vaccinated himself. https://noorchashm.medium.com
"The evidence is very clear that the vaccines are indeed effective and much safer than serious COVID infection."
How, exactly, do you know that the "vaccines" are safer than a serious C19 infection? You don't. You can't. The Pfizer trial doesn't end until 2023.
Why are they conducting a mass "vaccination" campaign with an experimental genetic therapy using an experimental technology for a virus with and IFR of 0.14-0.15% and known high risk groups?
The EUAs for Moderna and Pfizer both state that they do not claim to prevent infection or transmission only to mitigate serious disease with infection. So, just as your mask doesn't protect grandma neither does your "vaccination".
There is no reason for healthy young adults, let alone infants and children, to take an experimental injection for a virus that doesn't threaten them and will not prevent them from becoming infected with the virus or transmitting it.
A master document collating all studies on early treatments for C19.
https://c19early.com
I should also note that Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, etc., could not receive an Emergency Use Authorization if a viable treatment for C19 existed...by law.
Could that explain the mysterious explosions/fires at the US plant that manufactured HCQ or the Indian plants that produced precursors?
Could that explain the nonsense spread through the media about HCQ...a drug that has been used for decades and is OTC in many countries...or Ivermectin...a drug that won its inventor a Nobel Prize just a few short years ago?
Big Pharma can't make any money from off patent drugs...but fear not...'cause Pfizer coming out with a shiny new antiviral at the end of the year...and they can make lots of money off that.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32636475/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-immunesystem-idUSKBN24B1D8
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200716101536.htm
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.27.433180v1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668444/
You should learn what a hyperlink is.
Hyperlinks are hard. "Science" is used to APA formatted reference sections.
Really, Science...Pfizer...Moderna...Gates...whoever you work for...needs to hire better trolls.
I work for no one. I am not American and well educated and understand how to analyze data. Happy to engage on the science vs economics of Covid but to constantly call out public health officials as fear mongering and then to only present a very biased portion of the literature is very misleading.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33353158/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33596446/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33571176/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7872858/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33021717/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497510/
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118.long
https://journals.lww.com/joem/Abstract/9000/Association_between_Implementation_of_a_Universal.97949.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7264640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7745952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7568194/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32543923/
I stand corrected. I refer you to my response to Cydney below.
thanks. doing this with paws is harder than it looks.