A COVID Reversal

a reply to: igloo

Whoa! I'm not going to beat you over the head with it, but this reply was very important to me on many levels. I thank you very much, it was very very helpful...

originally posted by: SwampFox999
a reply to: TheMirrorSelf
I do not understand viral shedding. I will add my little story. My lady and I are for all tense and purpose hermits. We have a few friends(all 3 vaxxed) well wouldnt you know shortly after having 2 of them visit, I have all the covid symptoms. Turns out after said pokey you have to isolate for 2 weeks. But the ones giving the jab arent giving that info out.

Well isn't that bitch! I haven't heard the 2 weeks thing before, so no, they're certainly not telling people. You know, I tried to be very clear in my OP that viral shedding was something that I was hearing a lot of talk about, but that I did not know really much about it, but as precautionary measure I took the action I did. I did this specifically because I didn't want someone chiming in with "links, articles, proof, video, etc etc". It was a personal decision on my part based upon a reasonable doubt. But hearing stories like yours and igloo and visitedbythem are extremely helpful to me, both in physical health as well as emotional. I do appreciate you...

a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

LOL.

Even if there were any 'viral shedding' going on, you are only likely to get COVID-19 from someone who is infected.

Yes, vaccinated people can be infected too, but they incubate the virus for shorter periods, and in smaller amounts.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

LOL.

Even if there were any 'viral shedding' going on, you are only likely to get COVID-19 from someone who is infected.

Yes, vaccinated people can be infected too, but they incubate the virus for shorter periods, and in smaller amounts.

Ok, just quickly and then I'm done with you. If you want to speak from a position of intellectual authority where someone might actually listen to you and maybe learn something (learning is something I'm ALWAYS open to, I don't mind being wrong), then you should realize that it kind of kills the mood when you start it off with laughing at someone like they're stupid and inferior to you. I assure you I am not.

Secondly, I am completely unafraid of COVID. That was in no way my concern, nor was it ever stated to be such, so that was a wrong-headed supposition on your part.

a reply to: chr0naut

Which still spreads the virus and probably spreads a mutated vaccine escape variant.
With the host having no knowledge, which is helpful to the virus and not the population at large. Unless you are going for the organic herd immunity.

Please remember the definition of a vaccine is no longer what it was.

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

CDC Removes Critical Words From Vaccine Definition
To fully understand the importance of the change, it’s crucial to note that, before the COVID pandemic, the definition of a vaccine had been relatively stable for nearly a couple decades with minor word changes occurring every few years. All through that time the intent of a vaccine — to give you immunity by protecting you from a specific disease — had remained basically the same.

For example, according to an archived snapshot of the CDC’s website, the definition of a vaccine February 24, 2011, was:7

“A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.”

By July 2015, the wording had changed to:8

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed in the nose.”

The wording was the same in June 20179 and likewise in June 201910 and June 2020.11 By August 26, 2021,12 however, the definition had changed slightly to add the words “to produce immunity”:13

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

Then, less than a week later, just days after the FDA gave final approval to Pfizer’s mRNA jab, the definition changed again, September 1, 2021 — this time, significantly. The definition of a vaccine now reads:14

“A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

As you’ll note, the second sentence remains the same. It is the first part of the definition that has dramatically changed. In the latest definition, a vaccine:

Is no longer a “product” but instead is a “preparation”
No longer directly stimulates the immune response, but is used to stimulate the system
Does not produce immunity
Stimulates the immune response against diseases, not against a specific disease
No longer protects a person from the disease
These dramatic changes were likely created to allow the CDC, FDA and other governmental agencies to call the genetic therapy experiment being administered worldwide a “vaccine” — while they knew full well the so-called “vaccine” was not created to either produce immunity or prevent transmission of disease. In fact, by any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, this jab is not a vaccine.

cdc

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

LOL.

Even if there were any 'viral shedding' going on, you are only likely to get COVID-19 from someone who is infected.

Yes, vaccinated people can be infected too, but they incubate the virus for shorter periods, and in smaller amounts.

Ok, just quickly and then I'm done with you. If you want to speak from a position of intellectual authority where someone might actually listen to you and maybe learn something (learning is something I'm ALWAYS open to, I don't mind being wrong), then you should realize that it kind of kills the mood when you start it off with laughing at someone like they're stupid and inferior to you. I assure you I am not.

Secondly, I am completely unafraid of COVID. That was in no way my concern, nor was it ever stated to be such, so that was a wrong-headed supposition on your part.

The post was written with no such attitude. Please re-read my post without assuming I am trying to denigrate anyone. It was a simple restatement of uncontested facts.

a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

Im afraid it would be unavoidable. If a risk of spike protein shedding from the vaxxed becomes fact, you will come into contact with spike protein one way or another. May as well spend your time with whomever you want to be around. And thats not to say your life is in any sort of danger whatsoever. Just saying you should do whatever makes you happiest.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: chr0naut

Which still spreads the virus and probably spreads a mutated vaccine escape variant.
With the host having no knowledge, which is helpful to the virus and not the population at large. Unless you are going for the organic herd immunity.

Please remember the definition of a vaccine is no longer what it was.

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

CDC Removes Critical Words From Vaccine Definition
To fully understand the importance of the change, it’s crucial to note that, before the COVID pandemic, the definition of a vaccine had been relatively stable for nearly a couple decades with minor word changes occurring every few years. All through that time the intent of a vaccine — to give you immunity by protecting you from a specific disease — had remained basically the same.

For example, according to an archived snapshot of the CDC’s website, the definition of a vaccine February 24, 2011, was:7

“A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.”

By July 2015, the wording had changed to:8

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed in the nose.”

The wording was the same in June 20179 and likewise in June 201910 and June 2020.11 By August 26, 2021,12 however, the definition had changed slightly to add the words “to produce immunity”:13

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

Then, less than a week later, just days after the FDA gave final approval to Pfizer’s mRNA jab, the definition changed again, September 1, 2021 — this time, significantly. The definition of a vaccine now reads:14

“A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

As you’ll note, the second sentence remains the same. It is the first part of the definition that has dramatically changed. In the latest definition, a vaccine:

Is no longer a “product” but instead is a “preparation”
No longer directly stimulates the immune response, but is used to stimulate the system
Does not produce immunity
Stimulates the immune response against diseases, not against a specific disease
No longer protects a person from the disease
These dramatic changes were likely created to allow the CDC, FDA and other governmental agencies to call the genetic therapy experiment being administered worldwide a “vaccine” — while they knew full well the so-called “vaccine” was not created to either produce immunity or prevent transmission of disease. In fact, by any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, this jab is not a vaccine.

cdc

The very first 'official' vaccine against smallpox was the vaccinia virus that caused cowpox. This wasn't a man-made product, but consisted of the pus from cow-pox lesions rubbed into cuts in the skin. It was the only vaccine made from vaccinia, but was not a 'product'. So, it wins in the accurate nomenclature, but it didn't always produce immunity (it wasn't 100% effective), and wasn't a product. One might argue that what was written on the CDC website back in 2011 wasn't even a good definition for even the very first vaccine.

Other vaccines, were for different diseases, and no longer used the vaccinia virus, and therefore calling them "vaccines" is entirely erroneous. Similarly, their effectiveness was less than 100%, so the CDC website's definitions for other later vaccines wanders further from fact.

And really, the dictionary definition is not a critical factor in medicine. It is a matter of language, and, in the case of the word "vaccines", idiom.

Modern mRNA vaccines also fit the earlier definitions just as well as the earliest vaccines did. Surely they could be described as both a "product" and as a "preparation"? Their high effectiveness, primarily caused by better adjuvants, causes better '"immunity" than earlier vaccines, too.

Also, with multi-agent vaccinations such as MMR, it makes sense to redefine a vaccine as being potentially against multiple diseases, rather than a singular one.

To expect that the English language should remain static with a 200 year-old 'definition' is ludicrous. To suggest that a dictionary definition (which this wasn't), has a real-world bearing on modern medicine, is similarly poorly reasoned.

a reply to: chr0naut

yes yes cowpox produced immunity to smallpox.

now

Is no longer a “product” but instead is a “preparation”
No longer directly stimulates the immune response, but is used to stimulate the system
Does not produce immunity
Stimulates the immune response against diseases, not against a specific disease
No longer protects a person from the disease

so just a slight difference in the original 1 dose you're protected from the disease intended now its many doses and waning protection to 0 and only a tiny marginal lowering of protection from the disease but add the adverse effects is there really any difference in mortality or long term health improvement

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: chr0naut

yes yes cowpox produced immunity to smallpox.

now

Is no longer a “product” but instead is a “preparation”
No longer directly stimulates the immune response, but is used to stimulate the system
Does not produce immunity
Stimulates the immune response against diseases, not against a specific disease
No longer protects a person from the disease

so just a slight difference in the original 1 dose you're protected from the disease intended now its many doses and waning protection to 0 and only a tiny marginal lowering of protection from the disease but add the adverse effects is there really any difference in mortality or long term health improvement

Right from the start, it was suspected that they would have to have periodic re-vaccinations, based upon a number of papers that showed a roll-off of antibody effectiveness of about 25% in as short a term as three months.

This wasn't unexpected, as many vaccines require boosters.

Also, a vaccine against a coronavirus was a fairly new thing, and we were learning as things unfolded, and still are.

You have to remember that the administration that thought a single vaccination would do the job, was the same one that a few months earlier said the COVID-19 would "just go away like magic".



Also, case-mortality numbers, after vaccination, has dropped markedly, even with a far more infectious strain prevalent now.

And since adverse reactions to the vaccines are actually very low, compared with the case mortality of the disease itself, it is clear that the panic merchants are not painting things in their true light.

The vaccines are all very safe and very effective. But the general public is acting like the vaccines are supposed to be magic and are expecting a result that a vaccine cannot do. Vaccines, even safe ones, do have adverse reactions. They also aren't 100% effective, and so a breakthrough cases, and adverse reactions, really were not unexpected by medical authorities.

Even if herd immunity is obtained (and most of the world is getting very close now) the virus will not suddenly vanish. Just like with 'flu shots, or the eradication of smallpox, it takes time (years?) and good consistent coverage for a vaccination campaign to achieve its ends. For smallpox, it took 20 years.

originally posted by: musicismagic

1. Safety is in numbers
2. Don't associate or becomes to close with people that are mentally unstable
3. If possible keep a clear mind
4. Use your wits to stay healhty

Good advice for any lifestyle. Should be in the ATS T&Cs

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: musicismagic

1. Safety is in numbers
2. Don't associate or becomes to close with people that are mentally unstable
3. If possible keep a clear mind
4. Use your wits to stay healhty

Good advice for any lifestyle. Should be in the ATS T&Cs

Shazbot...if #2 were in the T&Cs, none of us would be allowed on ATS ever again...

I do think they are slightly toxic after getting vaxxed for a short time and I would prefer unvaccinated blood if I needed a transfusion (for long term). But you don’t have to fear hugging them or being around them.

I’m an energy reader and vaccinated people just have a…dirty feel now. I know that sounds terrible and I do not believe in feeling superior. It is just what I’ve noticed. I’m able to guess if they are vaxxed by reading their energy (I confirm if I am right by asking them or others that know them if they took it to test my feeling).

The energy is more hollow. I don’t know what they’ve done to people. Anytime I read into the vaccines and what they do I get that they create an ‘other’ in people. Like their bodies now have an other in them and that is causing an uneasy relationship inside them. It will cause a lot of future problems with the immune system later on (an AIDS like immune dysfunction). It is like the body notices something changed and it is causing confusion and this will have downstream effects in it dealing with problems in the future (illnesses, CANCER, protein production, etc)

originally posted by: AcrobaticDreams
I do think they are slightly toxic after getting vaxxed for a short time and I would prefer unvaccinated blood if I needed a transfusion (for long term). But you don’t have to fear hugging them or being around them.

I’m an energy reader and vaccinated people just have a…dirty feel now. I know that sounds terrible and I do not believe in feeling superior. It is just what I’ve noticed. I’m able to guess if they are vaxxed by reading their energy (I confirm if I am right by asking them or others that know them if they took it to test my feeling).

The energy is more hollow. I don’t know what they’ve done to people. Anytime I read into the vaccines and what they do I get that they create an ‘other’ in people. Like their bodies now have an other in them and that is causing an uneasy relationship inside them. It will cause a lot of future problems with the immune system later on (an AIDS like immune dysfunction). It is like the body notices something changed and it is causing confusion and this will have downstream effects in it dealing with problems in the future (illnesses, CANCER, protein production, etc)

This is very interesting. I'm glad that you chimed in as I believe this thread has probably just about run its course. I feel like there is a lot that I'd like to say/ask you, but nothing cogent and solid is coming right now. Suffice to say I do understand where you're coming from and definitely believe what you're saying. Well, you know, there is suspicion that this is changing the DNA of the vaxxed. Certainly that would alter their energy. Perhaps I'll PM you when my mind is working better...

a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

What have you felt from someone who has had covid?

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: TheMirrorSelf

What I find odd is the fact that someone can be so adamantly opposed to getting these experimental injections, even quoting the stats to back up their firm position.

Then, suddenly, out of the blue, they get the jab! I have seen this within my own circle of friends and acquaintances...like overnight!

I just think people need to consider the Mark of the Beast as we move forward, seriously. Even if you don't believe, that doesn't matter. I believe, but even absent that belief I also think that those wicked people who are the tools of orchestration of this calamity will use belief as a rouse to achieve certain goals, so pure faith is not prerequisite. Having said that, these are Mark of the Beast times we're in...ability to buy or sell being directly tied to obedience to a system of control. That is Biblical!

Well...you pretty much just stated what my response was going to be. In a post above, queenofswords mentioned they have also been noticing that more people who said they wouldn't take the jab are now taking it! I wanted to add that this may be the whole point of everything going on, imho. TPTB have an eons old agenda to fulfill. The vx at this moment is not IT (mark of the beast), but I think the goal they are shooting for is the mindset and allegiance of the people (to the worldly system) is the final preparation for IT.

I don't fault people for choosing how they want, but I think they need to be aware of where this all leads and be vigilant going forward. At some point in time, people are going to have to say no and be willing to give up their life in order to refuse the mark of the beast. The Bible even says in Matthew 16:25: For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.


Tough, emotional choices to be made by all of us.

Also, best wishes to you as you begin your van life adventures!