Having failed to destroy our immune systems completely with a covid "vaccine", the scientists are going to try again with RNA vaccines for everything. Good luck, everyone!

submitted by iamonlyoneman from eurekalert.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Your last sentence is on a false premise. Leaving that aside.

igg4 is a kind of antibody you use to tell your immune system "nothing to see here, we don't need to kill this". Not all antibodies are the same. The ones you want see an invading germ or w/e and tell the immune system "kill this".

jabbyboosties produce THIS kind of antibody response to the (potentially fatal, wildly contagious) sars-ncov-2 virus which is actively replicating inside them. You don't even have to do your own research, just look what others have written, if you would like to learn about this grave vaccine damage.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Your last sentence is on a false premise. Leaving that aside.

Don't leave that aside. What's the premise and your evidence that it's false?

You don't even have to do your own research, just look what others have written, if you would like to learn about this grave vaccine damage.

I have.

https://www.globalvaccinedatanetwork.org/blog/Vaccine_Victory_How_COVID-19_shots_slash_all-cause_mortality_and_outshine_misinformation

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

LMAO

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

tee hee.

What's the premise and your evidence that it's false?

Or should I interpret "LMAO" as your acceptance that vaccines decrease all cause mortality.

I read up a little bit on IgG4. "nothing to see here, we don't need to kill this" is not really the case, and it's also overstating our understanding. I does appear to be a response to reduce inflammation, which might be necessary since covid infection and (to a lesser extent) the covid vaccines are related to a small increase in myocarditis.

But no study has ever shown that the vaccine increases the susceptibility to the infection. The protection was well over 95% for the initial variants of CoVID against hospitalization and death from infection. Some of the variants that spread well later were ones that evaded a lot of that protection. But it never got close to zero, and certainly not negative.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

vaccine doesn't increase susceptibility

Comrade, the negative efficacy after a few months is extremely well established

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You'll be able to link to a meta analysis or systematic reviewer showing that then, instead of only having your word that's it's extremely well established.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

oh look, here's some new numbers to ignore! https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.27.24306378v1.full.pdf

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I see that you're so desperate to find any supporting evidence that you're linking to preprints.

If peer review is fatal to your thesis, your thesis is wrong.

Leaving that aside, what's the premise and your evidence is false in they last sentence of the GGGP comment?

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

peer review, in the world where 10,000+ papers a year are retracted, is shit

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sure. There's a lot of paper mills out there that have shit peer review.

So you have to look for both peer review and a prestigious journal.

Preprints are neither.