The Covid-19 Jabs are an Insult to Real Vaccines - Look How Fast Their Efficacy Plummets.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: face23785

Can you link to a study on severity of illness in natural immunity cases? Fairly sure your claim is correct and don't see any reason why a re-infection would pose a realistic risk of serious illness or death myself just haven't been able to find any scientific papers on the subject. 10% of those with mild Covid don't develop any immunity in the above studies so would still face the same risk of severe illness they did prior to Covid infection but outside that group I see no reason why they wouldn't have far better survival odds providing they're not over 75 or under 75 and severely immuno-comprimised.

I've tried searching a few journals this year but found nothing, AFAIK there haven't been any relative risk ratio studies measuring or assesing the risk of vaccine induced adverse health effects vs absolute risk posed by re-infection in those with natural immunity so very interested in reading any you know of.

Here's one that was specifically done on the delta variant.

Here's a summary of it on Johns Hopkins' website:

Summary of Main Findings Overall, infections were very rare in all of the groups studied, and only 1.5% or less of study participants were infected in any of the analysis groups, regardless of how immunity was derived; there were no deaths in any group.

Model 1 compared 16,215 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=19, 0.12%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 8 in the vaccine arm and 1 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 2 compared 46,035 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups, and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=108, 0.23%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 21 in the vaccine arm and 4 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 3 compared 14,029 people in both the natural immunity and infection-vaccine groups and found that cases in the infection-vaccine group (n=20, 0.14%) had about half the risk of experiencing a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=37, 0.26%). There was one hospitalization in the natural immunity group.

Again, the key takeaway here is that the risk in the natural immunity group is so small that even though the risk of complications from the vaccine is also small, it's not worth it.

You don't take a risk, even a small one, to protect yourself against something that's also a vanishingly small risk.

This same argument applies to children and healthy young adults. Mandating them to get the vaccine is irresponsible and NOT following the science.

Sorry I can't see where in your link it saysy the risk from being vaccinated outweighs the benefits if previously infected?

Nowhere, nor did I claim it said such. You're not getting the point, and I'm not sure how else to explain it. I've had this conversation with a number of people, you're the only person who has failed to understand it.

It does say this

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Mhm, but again, that doesn't negate or refute anything I said. That extra protection isn't needed when your risk is already so small.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Your link is from October 20?

Open the link and read the letters dated October 6, 2021 and September 28, 2021.

Got any more excuses?

This is a one doctor's experience alone with what she is witnessing in her ICU unit as it relates to vaccine injuries. There are countless of other doctors who all discuss their own personal experiences along with their patients' adverse reactions to the Covid vaccine here:

www.medscape.com...

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: face23785

Can you link to a study on severity of illness in natural immunity cases? Fairly sure your claim is correct and don't see any reason why a re-infection would pose a realistic risk of serious illness or death myself just haven't been able to find any scientific papers on the subject. 10% of those with mild Covid don't develop any immunity in the above studies so would still face the same risk of severe illness they did prior to Covid infection but outside that group I see no reason why they wouldn't have far better survival odds providing they're not over 75 or under 75 and severely immuno-comprimised.

I've tried searching a few journals this year but found nothing, AFAIK there haven't been any relative risk ratio studies measuring or assesing the risk of vaccine induced adverse health effects vs absolute risk posed by re-infection in those with natural immunity so very interested in reading any you know of.

Here's one that was specifically done on the delta variant.

Here's a summary of it on Johns Hopkins' website:

Summary of Main Findings Overall, infections were very rare in all of the groups studied, and only 1.5% or less of study participants were infected in any of the analysis groups, regardless of how immunity was derived; there were no deaths in any group.

Model 1 compared 16,215 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=19, 0.12%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 8 in the vaccine arm and 1 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 2 compared 46,035 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups, and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=108, 0.23%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 21 in the vaccine arm and 4 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 3 compared 14,029 people in both the natural immunity and infection-vaccine groups and found that cases in the infection-vaccine group (n=20, 0.14%) had about half the risk of experiencing a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=37, 0.26%). There was one hospitalization in the natural immunity group.

Again, the key takeaway here is that the risk in the natural immunity group is so small that even though the risk of complications from the vaccine is also small, it's not worth it.

You don't take a risk, even a small one, to protect yourself against something that's also a vanishingly small risk.

This same argument applies to children and healthy young adults. Mandating them to get the vaccine is irresponsible and NOT following the science.

Sorry I can't see where in your link it saysy the risk from being vaccinated outweighs the benefits if previously infected?

Nowhere, nor did I claim it said such. You're not getting the point, and I'm not sure how else to explain it. I've had this conversation with a number of people, you're the only person who has failed to understand it.

It does say this

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Mhm, but again, that doesn't negate or refute anything I said. That extra protection isn't needed when your risk is already so small.

You said this.

Again, the key takeaway here is that the risk in the natural immunity group is so small that even though the risk of complications from the vaccine is also small, it's not worth it.

Key takeaway suggested that was in the paper you linked. If its just your opinion fair enough, however I don't think the evidence necessary supports it.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your link is from October 20?

Open the link and read the letters dated October 6, 2021 and September 28, 2021.

Got any more excuses?

This is a one doctor's experience alone with what she is witnessing in her ICU unit as it relates to vaccine injuries. There are countless of other doctors who all discuss their own personal experiences along with their patients' adverse reactions to the Covid vaccine here:

www.medscape.com...

That link is to an online comments section.

I think we have already covered anecdotes.

Your first link opens a paper from Oct 22. If you want me to Look at something different then link to it directly.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'll just leave this here, a reference from the above mentioned article.

Interpretation A prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed five months following primary infection. This is the minimum likely effect as seroconversions were not included.

15. Hall V Foulkes S Charlett A et al.
Do antibody positive healthcare workers have lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates than antibody negative healthcare workers? Large multi-centre prospective cohort study (the SIREN study), England: June to November 2020.
medRxiv. 2021; (published online Jan 15.) (preprint).
The actual reference link

Cheers - Dave

Your link shows people with previous infection are better protected than than those who haven't been either previously infected or vacinated.

I don't think anyone doubts that.

I thought there was some doubt there, apologies if I misread ;-) It's like the "Spanish Flu" I think, they have found B and T cells in people who recovered from the Spanish Flu, so it was still in their systems, 80 years later. It seems some people are denying the efficacy of the recovered immunity over the jab.

Cheers - Dave

All the numbers I have seen suggest recovered from covid gives excellent protection.

So does being vaccinated.

I don't think we know conclusively which is better and it almost certainly varies by individual.

Some studies suggest having both is even better.

It seems the pro-jab studies are coming from the jab manufacturers or their paid shills and are fully supported by the traitorous mass media and their talking heads. If the jab was in fact better, why is it stated that it is a "leaky" jab? Why can you still get and re-transmit the alleged disease? The original definition, pre 2020 of a vaccine are that it:

a. Does not allow infection of the targeted disease (and)
b. Does not allow re-transmission of the targeted disease.

I am not anti-vaccine, I have had every common real vaccine, plus a few from when I was in Africa. My problem is that I have been involved in medical research for the NRC and private companies specifically in the area of mRNA/rDNA transport systems, genome correction and life extension, so I can say with 100% certainty, these mRNA/rDNA jabs are NOT vaccines and fall into the realm of genetic medical therapy. BTW, no sense in living forever if you can't make perfect cell copies, right?

As far as individual responses to covid, with a less than 10% infection rate because of widespread natural immunity and a less than 1% mortality rate of those infected (less than 0.1% total), this alleged scary disease is less worrisome than the yearly flu. Couple that with a requirement that in 99% of the cases, a co-morbidity is necessary to result in death, possibly even 100% of the time since they aren't doing autopsies.(*)

As far as jab response, there seems to be 5 result vectors based on the individual's genetics, age, lifestyle, co-morbidities and shot positioning near arterial capillaries or veinous capillaries. Veinous leakage is > 75% from the Japanese/other studies and has been estimated at upwards of 85-90%+. Depending on needle positioning, veinous leakage can be as high as 99%.**

1. Instant death, meaning within say 60 minutes. Could be Anaphylaxis, could be an overwhelming clotting response if the jab was injected into a vein or larger veinous capillary, or a cytokine response creating sepsis and massive organ failure, 90-99% veinous leakage. I know personally of three***.
2. Short term death, meaning within 2 days. Could be a clotting response due to jab positioning, a cytokine response creating sepsis which creates massive organ failure, 85-90% veinous leakage. I only know of four personally***.
3. Median term death, meaning 2 weeks. Likely moderate clotting response or a cytokine response creating sepsis resulting in accelerated single organ failure, 80-85% veinous leakage. I know of eight personally***.
4. Moderate term death, meaning 2 months. Likely moderate clotting response resulting in accelerated multiple organ failure, 75-80% veinous leakage. I only know of six***.
5. Long term death, meaning 1-3 years. The ultimate goal of multiple bodily systems failures that make it difficult to pinpoint actual cause as the failures would be long term and systemic, 60-75%. None yet, not long enough.

* I don't know anyone who has died from covid and I only know a few people that have had this alleged covid.
** Don't ask me for peer reviewed clinical data because this is just what I am seeing based on people I know and by extrapolating existing data. Genetics, age, lifestyle, co-morbidities and shot positioning are real and are determining factors.
*** I know of 21 dead by jab so far.

If you know how the immune system works in response to the spike proteins created by the jab/mRNA and the destruction of the endothelial cells (as well as others), the issues become apparent rather quickly as to why accelerated death is the only reasonable conclusion. The alleged Covid is a respiratory disease. The jab is in the closed vascular system and if you destroy the capillary ends of the vascular system, you create global destruction throughout the body. You know, 38 trillion human cells and 10-20 trillion mRNA programming nano-modules, what could go wrong?

So my position on this is quite easy to understand. The jab is showing at present either no effect in combating the alleged target disease, jab'd to unjab'd death and hospitalization rates are either the same or worse for the jab'd. Which means at best the jab is no better than off-the-shelf cough medicine or at worse the jab is contributing to accelerated death rates which you will see as the narrative changes to WAVE N+1,2,3,etc., over the next 2-4 months. Or maybe Gates/GAVI/the WHO will launch the Marburg pandemic talked about on the GAVI pages.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: ScepticScot

That link is to an online comments section.

I think we have already covered anecdotes.

Your first link opens a paper from Oct 22. If you want me to Look at something different then link to it directly.

LOL! Sure, you'll listen to the scientists, but you don't want to read first hand experiences from doctors who are actually working out in the field everyday witnessing what's really going on. So typical of your type.

My link to the letter from Dr. Patricia Lee is just a .pdf document showing a scanned copy of her original letter along with a follow-up letter from her legal representative. I don't see anything dated October 22nd. I think you're just making more excuses so you don't have to address what's written in her letter of observation.

Here's another link to the letter provided by U.S. Senator Ron Johnson that he has linked to his website...

www.ronjohnson.senate.gov...

a reply to: carewemust

Is an insult to educated and concern Americans, they are selling snake oil and is all good an dandy, , by now people should have become aware that is not about the virus but the jab.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'll just leave this here, a reference from the above mentioned article.

Interpretation A prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed five months following primary infection. This is the minimum likely effect as seroconversions were not included.

15. Hall V Foulkes S Charlett A et al.
Do antibody positive healthcare workers have lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates than antibody negative healthcare workers? Large multi-centre prospective cohort study (the SIREN study), England: June to November 2020.
medRxiv. 2021; (published online Jan 15.) (preprint).
The actual reference link

Cheers - Dave

Your link shows people with previous infection are better protected than than those who haven't been either previously infected or vacinated.

I don't think anyone doubts that.

I thought there was some doubt there, apologies if I misread ;-) It's like the "Spanish Flu" I think, they have found B and T cells in people who recovered from the Spanish Flu, so it was still in their systems, 80 years later. It seems some people are denying the efficacy of the recovered immunity over the jab.

Cheers - Dave

All the numbers I have seen suggest recovered from covid gives excellent protection.

So does being vaccinated.

I don't think we know conclusively which is better and it almost certainly varies by individual.

Some studies suggest having both is even better.

It seems the pro-jab studies are coming from the jab manufacturers or their paid shills and are fully supported by the traitorous mass media and their talking heads. If the jab was in fact better, why is it stated that it is a "leaky" jab? Why can you still get and re-transmit the alleged disease? The original definition, pre 2020 of a vaccine are that it:

a. Does not allow infection of the targeted disease (and)
b. Does not allow re-transmission of the targeted disease.

I am not anti-vaccine, I have had every common real vaccine, plus a few from when I was in Africa. My problem is that I have been involved in medical research for the NRC and private companies specifically in the area of mRNA/rDNA transport systems, genome correction and life extension, so I can say with 100% certainty, these mRNA/rDNA jabs are NOT vaccines and fall into the realm of genetic medical therapy. BTW, no sense in living forever if you can't make perfect cell copies, right?

As far as individual responses to covid, with a less than 10% infection rate because of widespread natural immunity and a less than 1% mortality rate of those infected (less than 0.1% total), this alleged scary disease is less worrisome than the yearly flu. Couple that with a requirement that in 99% of the cases, a co-morbidity is necessary to result in death, possibly even 100% of the time since they aren't doing autopsies.(*)

As far as jab response, there seems to be 5 result vectors based on the individual's genetics, age, lifestyle, co-morbidities and shot positioning near arterial capillaries or veinous capillaries. Veinous leakage is > 75% from the Japanese/other studies and has been estimated at upwards of 85-90%+. Depending on needle positioning, veinous leakage can be as high as 99%.**

1. Instant death, meaning within say 60 minutes. Could be Anaphylaxis, could be an overwhelming clotting response if the jab was injected into a vein or larger veinous capillary, or a cytokine response creating sepsis and massive organ failure, 90-99% veinous leakage. I know personally of three***.
2. Short term death, meaning within 2 days. Could be a clotting response due to jab positioning, a cytokine response creating sepsis creating massive organ failure, 85-90% veinous leakage. I only know of four personally***.
3. Median term death, meaning 2 weeks. Likely moderate clotting response or a cytokine response creating sepsis resulting in accelerated single organ failure, 80-85% veinous leakage. I know of eight personally***.
4. Moderate term death, meaning 2 months. Likely moderate clotting response resulting in accelerated multiple organ failure, 75-80% veinous leakage. I only know of six***.
5. Long term death, meaning 1-3 years. The ultimate goal of multiple bodily systems failures that make it difficult to pinpoint actual cause as the failures would be long term and systemic, 60-75%. None yet, not long enough.

* I don't know anyone who has died from covid and I only know a few people that have had this alleged covid.
** Don't ask me for peer reviewed clinical data because this is just what I am seeing based on people I know and by by extrapolating existing data. Genetics, age, lifestyle, co-morbidities and shot positioning are real and are determining factors.
*** I know of 21 dead by jab so far.

If you know how the immune system works in response to the spike proteins created by the jab/mRNA and the destruction of the endothelial cells (as well as others), the issues become apparent rather quickly as to why accelerated death is the only reasonable conclusion. The alleged Covid is a respiratory disease. The jab is in the closed vascular system and if you destroy the capillary ends of the vascular system, you create global destruction throughout the body. You know, 38 trillion human cells and 10-20 trillion mRNA programming nano-modules, what could go wrong?

So my position on this is quite easy to understand. The jab is showing at present either no effect in combating the alleged target disease, jab'd to unjab'd death and hospitalization rates are either the same or worse for the jab'd. Which means at best the jab is no better than off-the-shelf cough medicine or at worse the jab is contributing to accelerated death rates which you will see as the narrative changes to WAVE N+1,2,3,etc., over the next 2-4 months. Or maybe Gates/GAVI/the WHO will launch the Marburg pandemic talked about on the GAVI pages.

Cheers - Dave

Completely unsupported and I suspect completely inccurate as well.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: ScepticScot

That link is to an online comments section.

I think we have already covered anecdotes.

Your first link opens a paper from Oct 22. If you want me to Look at something different then link to it directly.

LOL! Sure, you'll listen to the scientists, but you don't want to read first hand experiences from doctors who are actually working out in the field everyday witnessing what's really going on. So typical of your type.

My link to the letter from Dr. Patricia Lee is just a .pdf document showing a scanned copy of her original letter along with a follow-up letter from her legal representative. I don't see anything dated October 22nd. I think you're just making more excuses so you don't have to address what's written in her letter or observation.

Here's another link to the letter provided by U.S. Senator Ron Johnson that he has linked to his website...

www.ronjohnson.senate.gov...

My personal experience is after getting vaccinated I got laid. The vax clearly made more attractive...

Or put it another way personal anecdotes are really really bad way of coming to a conclusion.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: ScepticScot

That link is to an online comments section.

I think we have already covered anecdotes.

Your first link opens a paper from Oct 22. If you want me to Look at something different then link to it directly.

LOL! Sure, you'll listen to the scientists, but you don't want to read first hand experiences from doctors who are actually working out in the field everyday witnessing what's really going on. So typical of your type.

My link to the letter from Dr. Patricia Lee is just a .pdf document showing a scanned copy of her original letter along with a follow-up letter from her legal representative. I don't see anything dated October 22nd. I think you're just making more excuses so you don't have to address what's written in her letter or observation.

Here's another link to the letter provided by U.S. Senator Ron Johnson that he has linked to his website...

www.ronjohnson.senate.gov...

Or as an alternative response I know dozens of medical professionals and not a single one supports your claims.

First hand experience and the data telling me the same thing.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: face23785

Can you link to a study on severity of illness in natural immunity cases? Fairly sure your claim is correct and don't see any reason why a re-infection would pose a realistic risk of serious illness or death myself just haven't been able to find any scientific papers on the subject. 10% of those with mild Covid don't develop any immunity in the above studies so would still face the same risk of severe illness they did prior to Covid infection but outside that group I see no reason why they wouldn't have far better survival odds providing they're not over 75 or under 75 and severely immuno-comprimised.

I've tried searching a few journals this year but found nothing, AFAIK there haven't been any relative risk ratio studies measuring or assesing the risk of vaccine induced adverse health effects vs absolute risk posed by re-infection in those with natural immunity so very interested in reading any you know of.

Here's one that was specifically done on the delta variant.

Here's a summary of it on Johns Hopkins' website:

Summary of Main Findings Overall, infections were very rare in all of the groups studied, and only 1.5% or less of study participants were infected in any of the analysis groups, regardless of how immunity was derived; there were no deaths in any group.

Model 1 compared 16,215 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=19, 0.12%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 8 in the vaccine arm and 1 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 2 compared 46,035 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups, and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=108, 0.23%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 21 in the vaccine arm and 4 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 3 compared 14,029 people in both the natural immunity and infection-vaccine groups and found that cases in the infection-vaccine group (n=20, 0.14%) had about half the risk of experiencing a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=37, 0.26%). There was one hospitalization in the natural immunity group.

Again, the key takeaway here is that the risk in the natural immunity group is so small that even though the risk of complications from the vaccine is also small, it's not worth it.

You don't take a risk, even a small one, to protect yourself against something that's also a vanishingly small risk.

This same argument applies to children and healthy young adults. Mandating them to get the vaccine is irresponsible and NOT following the science.

Sorry I can't see where in your link it saysy the risk from being vaccinated outweighs the benefits if previously infected?

Nowhere, nor did I claim it said such. You're not getting the point, and I'm not sure how else to explain it. I've had this conversation with a number of people, you're the only person who has failed to understand it.

It does say this

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Mhm, but again, that doesn't negate or refute anything I said. That extra protection isn't needed when your risk is already so small.

You said this.

Again, the key takeaway here is that the risk in the natural immunity group is so small that even though the risk of complications from the vaccine is also small, it's not worth it.

Key takeaway suggested that was in the paper you linked. If its just your opinion fair enough, however I don't think the evidence necessary supports it.

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort, sorry you got confused. The data demonstrates what I said pretty clearly though. You don't need a PhD, you don't need to be a doctor, an epidemiologist, or anything else to understand it. All you need is some basic math skills and a little bit of critical thinking.

In a study of over 76,000 people with natural immunity to Covid who were subsequently reinfected, six required hospitalization. That's a 0.008% chance of being hospitalized from Covid. None died.

It's perfectly logical to conclude that people with natural immunity have a negligible risk from Covid. You don't get vaccines for something you're not at risk from. Obviously there can be exceptions on a person-by-person basis, which is exactly why this decision should be left up to individuals at the advice of their doctor.

I'm not particularly concerned that you don't agree, because your disagreement isn't based in logic. At this point, it's more out of pride than out of any objective view of the data. After our interactions so far in the thread, I suspect you're emotionally incapable of looking at the data and agreeing with me, no matter how obvious the conclusion is.

a reply to: ScepticScot

My personal experience is after getting vaccinated I got laid. The vax clearly made more attractive...

Or put it another way personal anecdotes are really really bad way of coming to a conclusion.

Quit changing the subject and go read the letter of observation by Dr. Patricia Lee regarding her patients affected by the Covid vaccine.

I know you're afraid to, but ignorance isn't really bliss.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'll just leave this here, a reference from the above mentioned article.

Interpretation A prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed five months following primary infection. This is the minimum likely effect as seroconversions were not included.

15. Hall V Foulkes S Charlett A et al.
Do antibody positive healthcare workers have lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates than antibody negative healthcare workers? Large multi-centre prospective cohort study (the SIREN study), England: June to November 2020.
medRxiv. 2021; (published online Jan 15.) (preprint).
The actual reference link

Cheers - Dave

Your link shows people with previous infection are better protected than than those who haven't been either previously infected or vacinated.

I don't think anyone doubts that.

I thought there was some doubt there, apologies if I misread ;-) It's like the "Spanish Flu" I think, they have found B and T cells in people who recovered from the Spanish Flu, so it was still in their systems, 80 years later. It seems some people are denying the efficacy of the recovered immunity over the jab.

Cheers - Dave

All the numbers I have seen suggest recovered from covid gives excellent protection.

So does being vaccinated.

I don't think we know conclusively which is better and it almost certainly varies by individual.

Some studies suggest having both is even better.

It seems the pro-jab studies are coming from the jab manufacturers or their paid shills and are fully supported by the traitorous mass media and their talking heads. If the jab was in fact better, why is it stated that it is a "leaky" jab? Why can you still get and re-transmit the alleged disease? The original definition, pre 2020 of a vaccine are that it:

a. Does not allow infection of the targeted disease (and)
b. Does not allow re-transmission of the targeted disease.

I am not anti-vaccine, I have had every common real vaccine, plus a few from when I was in Africa. My problem is that I have been involved in medical research for the NRC and private companies specifically in the area of mRNA/rDNA transport systems, genome correction and life extension, so I can say with 100% certainty, these mRNA/rDNA jabs are NOT vaccines and fall into the realm of genetic medical therapy. BTW, no sense in living forever if you can't make perfect cell copies, right?

As far as individual responses to covid, with a less than 10% infection rate because of widespread natural immunity and a less than 1% mortality rate of those infected (less than 0.1% total), this alleged scary disease is less worrisome than the yearly flu. Couple that with a requirement that in 99% of the cases, a co-morbidity is necessary to result in death, possibly even 100% of the time since they aren't doing autopsies.(*)

As far as jab response, there seems to be 5 result vectors based on the individual's genetics, age, lifestyle, co-morbidities and shot positioning near arterial capillaries or veinous capillaries. Veinous leakage is > 75% from the Japanese/other studies and has been estimated at upwards of 85-90%+. Depending on needle positioning, veinous leakage can be as high as 99%.**

1. Instant death, meaning within say 60 minutes. Could be Anaphylaxis, could be an overwhelming clotting response if the jab was injected into a vein or larger veinous capillary, or a cytokine response creating sepsis and massive organ failure, 90-99% veinous leakage. I know personally of three***.
2. Short term death, meaning within 2 days. Could be a clotting response due to jab positioning, a cytokine response creating sepsis creating massive organ failure, 85-90% veinous leakage. I only know of four personally***.
3. Median term death, meaning 2 weeks. Likely moderate clotting response or a cytokine response creating sepsis resulting in accelerated single organ failure, 80-85% veinous leakage. I know of eight personally***.
4. Moderate term death, meaning 2 months. Likely moderate clotting response resulting in accelerated multiple organ failure, 75-80% veinous leakage. I only know of six***.
5. Long term death, meaning 1-3 years. The ultimate goal of multiple bodily systems failures that make it difficult to pinpoint actual cause as the failures would be long term and systemic, 60-75%. None yet, not long enough.

* I don't know anyone who has died from covid and I only know a few people that have had this alleged covid.
** Don't ask me for peer reviewed clinical data because this is just what I am seeing based on people I know and by by extrapolating existing data. Genetics, age, lifestyle, co-morbidities and shot positioning are real and are determining factors.
*** I know of 21 dead by jab so far.

If you know how the immune system works in response to the spike proteins created by the jab/mRNA and the destruction of the endothelial cells (as well as others), the issues become apparent rather quickly as to why accelerated death is the only reasonable conclusion. The alleged Covid is a respiratory disease. The jab is in the closed vascular system and if you destroy the capillary ends of the vascular system, you create global destruction throughout the body. You know, 38 trillion human cells and 10-20 trillion mRNA programming nano-modules, what could go wrong?

So my position on this is quite easy to understand. The jab is showing at present either no effect in combating the alleged target disease, jab'd to unjab'd death and hospitalization rates are either the same or worse for the jab'd. Which means at best the jab is no better than off-the-shelf cough medicine or at worse the jab is contributing to accelerated death rates which you will see as the narrative changes to WAVE N+1,2,3,etc., over the next 2-4 months. Or maybe Gates/GAVI/the WHO will launch the Marburg pandemic talked about on the GAVI pages.

Cheers - Dave

Completely unsupported and I suspect completely inccurate as well.

Maybe you could point out the inaccuracies and the unsupported information, please use non-mainstream media sources ;-) I do realize that is the way a lot people proceed these days. Make the person providing the information show all their links and support info because the person demanding it is too biased or lazy to do their own research.

Then after they show all their links and support info, the person demanding the links call in bunk anyway. I ain't your momma, you're not living in my basement or attic, so do your own research if you think mine is wrong.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: ScepticScot

Or as an alternative response I know dozens of medical professionals and not a single one supports your claims.

First hand experience and the data telling me the same thing.

Likewise, I know dozens of medical professionals who DO support my claims. So, first hand experience, studies, and other data that's been provided that you haven't read, are telling me that my claims of vaccinated injuries are supported by many.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: face23785

Can you link to a study on severity of illness in natural immunity cases? Fairly sure your claim is correct and don't see any reason why a re-infection would pose a realistic risk of serious illness or death myself just haven't been able to find any scientific papers on the subject. 10% of those with mild Covid don't develop any immunity in the above studies so would still face the same risk of severe illness they did prior to Covid infection but outside that group I see no reason why they wouldn't have far better survival odds providing they're not over 75 or under 75 and severely immuno-comprimised.

I've tried searching a few journals this year but found nothing, AFAIK there haven't been any relative risk ratio studies measuring or assesing the risk of vaccine induced adverse health effects vs absolute risk posed by re-infection in those with natural immunity so very interested in reading any you know of.

Here's one that was specifically done on the delta variant.

Here's a summary of it on Johns Hopkins' website:

Summary of Main Findings Overall, infections were very rare in all of the groups studied, and only 1.5% or less of study participants were infected in any of the analysis groups, regardless of how immunity was derived; there were no deaths in any group.

Model 1 compared 16,215 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=19, 0.12%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 8 in the vaccine arm and 1 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 2 compared 46,035 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups, and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=108, 0.23%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 21 in the vaccine arm and 4 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 3 compared 14,029 people in both the natural immunity and infection-vaccine groups and found that cases in the infection-vaccine group (n=20, 0.14%) had about half the risk of experiencing a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=37, 0.26%). There was one hospitalization in the natural immunity group.

Again, the key takeaway here is that the risk in the natural immunity group is so small that even though the risk of complications from the vaccine is also small, it's not worth it.

You don't take a risk, even a small one, to protect yourself against something that's also a vanishingly small risk.

This same argument applies to children and healthy young adults. Mandating them to get the vaccine is irresponsible and NOT following the science.

Sorry I can't see where in your link it saysy the risk from being vaccinated outweighs the benefits if previously infected?

Nowhere, nor did I claim it said such. You're not getting the point, and I'm not sure how else to explain it. I've had this conversation with a number of people, you're the only person who has failed to understand it.

It does say this

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Mhm, but again, that doesn't negate or refute anything I said. That extra protection isn't needed when your risk is already so small.

You said this.

Again, the key takeaway here is that the risk in the natural immunity group is so small that even though the risk of complications from the vaccine is also small, it's not worth it.

Key takeaway suggested that was in the paper you linked. If its just your opinion fair enough, however I don't think the evidence necessary supports it.

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort, sorry you got confused. The data demonstrates what I said pretty clearly though. You don't need a PhD, you don't need to be a doctor, an epidemiologist, or anything else to understand it. All you need is some basic math skills and a little bit of critical thinking.

In a study of over 76,000 people with natural immunity to Covid who were subsequently reinfected, six required hospitalization. That's a 0.008% chance of being hospitalized from Covid. None died.

It's perfectly logical to conclude that people with natural immunity have a negligible risk from Covid. You don't get vaccines for something you're not at risk from. Obviously there can be exceptions on a person-by-person basis, which is exactly why this decision should be left up to individuals at the advice of their doctor.

I'm not particularly concerned that you don't agree, because your disagreement isn't based in logic. At this point, it's more out of pride than out of any objective view of the data. After our interactions so far in the thread, I suspect you're emotionally incapable of looking at the data and agreeing with me, no matter how obvious the conclusion is.

I have posted I think 3 times now in this thread that it should be an individual decision based on their own circumstances.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'll just leave this here, a reference from the above mentioned article.

Interpretation A prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed five months following primary infection. This is the minimum likely effect as seroconversions were not included.

15. Hall V Foulkes S Charlett A et al.
Do antibody positive healthcare workers have lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates than antibody negative healthcare workers? Large multi-centre prospective cohort study (the SIREN study), England: June to November 2020.
medRxiv. 2021; (published online Jan 15.) (preprint).
The actual reference link

Cheers - Dave

Your link shows people with previous infection are better protected than than those who haven't been either previously infected or vacinated.

I don't think anyone doubts that.

I thought there was some doubt there, apologies if I misread ;-) It's like the "Spanish Flu" I think, they have found B and T cells in people who recovered from the Spanish Flu, so it was still in their systems, 80 years later. It seems some people are denying the efficacy of the recovered immunity over the jab.

Cheers - Dave

All the numbers I have seen suggest recovered from covid gives excellent protection.

So does being vaccinated.

I don't think we know conclusively which is better and it almost certainly varies by individual.

Some studies suggest having both is even better.

It seems the pro-jab studies are coming from the jab manufacturers or their paid shills and are fully supported by the traitorous mass media and their talking heads. If the jab was in fact better, why is it stated that it is a "leaky" jab? Why can you still get and re-transmit the alleged disease? The original definition, pre 2020 of a vaccine are that it:

a. Does not allow infection of the targeted disease (and)
b. Does not allow re-transmission of the targeted disease.

I am not anti-vaccine, I have had every common real vaccine, plus a few from when I was in Africa. My problem is that I have been involved in medical research for the NRC and private companies specifically in the area of mRNA/rDNA transport systems, genome correction and life extension, so I can say with 100% certainty, these mRNA/rDNA jabs are NOT vaccines and fall into the realm of genetic medical therapy. BTW, no sense in living forever if you can't make perfect cell copies, right?

As far as individual responses to covid, with a less than 10% infection rate because of widespread natural immunity and a less than 1% mortality rate of those infected (less than 0.1% total), this alleged scary disease is less worrisome than the yearly flu. Couple that with a requirement that in 99% of the cases, a co-morbidity is necessary to result in death, possibly even 100% of the time since they aren't doing autopsies.(*)

As far as jab response, there seems to be 5 result vectors based on the individual's genetics, age, lifestyle, co-morbidities and shot positioning near arterial capillaries or veinous capillaries. Veinous leakage is > 75% from the Japanese/other studies and has been estimated at upwards of 85-90%+. Depending on needle positioning, veinous leakage can be as high as 99%.**

1. Instant death, meaning within say 60 minutes. Could be Anaphylaxis, could be an overwhelming clotting response if the jab was injected into a vein or larger veinous capillary, or a cytokine response creating sepsis and massive organ failure, 90-99% veinous leakage. I know personally of three***.
2. Short term death, meaning within 2 days. Could be a clotting response due to jab positioning, a cytokine response creating sepsis creating massive organ failure, 85-90% veinous leakage. I only know of four personally***.
3. Median term death, meaning 2 weeks. Likely moderate clotting response or a cytokine response creating sepsis resulting in accelerated single organ failure, 80-85% veinous leakage. I know of eight personally***.
4. Moderate term death, meaning 2 months. Likely moderate clotting response resulting in accelerated multiple organ failure, 75-80% veinous leakage. I only know of six***.
5. Long term death, meaning 1-3 years. The ultimate goal of multiple bodily systems failures that make it difficult to pinpoint actual cause as the failures would be long term and systemic, 60-75%. None yet, not long enough.

* I don't know anyone who has died from covid and I only know a few people that have had this alleged covid.
** Don't ask me for peer reviewed clinical data because this is just what I am seeing based on people I know and by by extrapolating existing data. Genetics, age, lifestyle, co-morbidities and shot positioning are real and are determining factors.
*** I know of 21 dead by jab so far.

If you know how the immune system works in response to the spike proteins created by the jab/mRNA and the destruction of the endothelial cells (as well as others), the issues become apparent rather quickly as to why accelerated death is the only reasonable conclusion. The alleged Covid is a respiratory disease. The jab is in the closed vascular system and if you destroy the capillary ends of the vascular system, you create global destruction throughout the body. You know, 38 trillion human cells and 10-20 trillion mRNA programming nano-modules, what could go wrong?

So my position on this is quite easy to understand. The jab is showing at present either no effect in combating the alleged target disease, jab'd to unjab'd death and hospitalization rates are either the same or worse for the jab'd. Which means at best the jab is no better than off-the-shelf cough medicine or at worse the jab is contributing to accelerated death rates which you will see as the narrative changes to WAVE N+1,2,3,etc., over the next 2-4 months. Or maybe Gates/GAVI/the WHO will launch the Marburg pandemic talked about on the GAVI pages.

Cheers - Dave

Completely unsupported and I suspect completely inccurate as well.

Maybe you could point out the inaccuracies and the unsupported information, please use non-mainstream media sources ;-) I do realize that is the way a lot people proceed these days. Make the person providing the information show all their links and support info because the person demanding it is too biased or lazy to do their own research.

Then after they show all their links and support info, the person demanding the links call in bunk anyway. I ain't your momma, you're not living in my basement or attic, so do your own research if you think mine is wrong.

Cheers - Dave

Hitchen's razor applies to you entire post.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: ScepticScot

Or as an alternative response I know dozens of medical professionals and not a single one supports your claims.

First hand experience and the data telling me the same thing.

Likewise, I know dozens of medical professionals who DO support my claims. So, first hand experience, studies, and other data that's been provided that you haven't read, are telling me that my claims of vaccinated injuries are supported by many.

Well done you seem to be getting why we shouldn't be relying on personal anecdotes on an anonymous site.

Unfortunately you still haven't provided any data.

On a side note, has anyone seen ANY studies about how many people are dying from the vaccine? I'm aware of the VAERS reports, but I mean an actual scientific study. I think the vaccines have been around long enough that someone should've tried to quantify this by now. Obviously it's not easy to directly link the vaccine to the deaths, but you'd think someone would've at least tried to do something.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: face23785

Can you link to a study on severity of illness in natural immunity cases? Fairly sure your claim is correct and don't see any reason why a re-infection would pose a realistic risk of serious illness or death myself just haven't been able to find any scientific papers on the subject. 10% of those with mild Covid don't develop any immunity in the above studies so would still face the same risk of severe illness they did prior to Covid infection but outside that group I see no reason why they wouldn't have far better survival odds providing they're not over 75 or under 75 and severely immuno-comprimised.

I've tried searching a few journals this year but found nothing, AFAIK there haven't been any relative risk ratio studies measuring or assesing the risk of vaccine induced adverse health effects vs absolute risk posed by re-infection in those with natural immunity so very interested in reading any you know of.

Here's one that was specifically done on the delta variant.

Here's a summary of it on Johns Hopkins' website:

Summary of Main Findings Overall, infections were very rare in all of the groups studied, and only 1.5% or less of study participants were infected in any of the analysis groups, regardless of how immunity was derived; there were no deaths in any group.

Model 1 compared 16,215 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=19, 0.12%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 8 in the vaccine arm and 1 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 2 compared 46,035 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups, and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=108, 0.23%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 21 in the vaccine arm and 4 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 3 compared 14,029 people in both the natural immunity and infection-vaccine groups and found that cases in the infection-vaccine group (n=20, 0.14%) had about half the risk of experiencing a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=37, 0.26%). There was one hospitalization in the natural immunity group.

Again, the key takeaway here is that the risk in the natural immunity group is so small that even though the risk of complications from the vaccine is also small, it's not worth it.

You don't take a risk, even a small one, to protect yourself against something that's also a vanishingly small risk.

This same argument applies to children and healthy young adults. Mandating them to get the vaccine is irresponsible and NOT following the science.

Sorry I can't see where in your link it saysy the risk from being vaccinated outweighs the benefits if previously infected?

Nowhere, nor did I claim it said such. You're not getting the point, and I'm not sure how else to explain it. I've had this conversation with a number of people, you're the only person who has failed to understand it.

It does say this

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Mhm, but again, that doesn't negate or refute anything I said. That extra protection isn't needed when your risk is already so small.

You said this.

Again, the key takeaway here is that the risk in the natural immunity group is so small that even though the risk of complications from the vaccine is also small, it's not worth it.

Key takeaway suggested that was in the paper you linked. If its just your opinion fair enough, however I don't think the evidence necessary supports it.

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort, sorry you got confused. The data demonstrates what I said pretty clearly though. You don't need a PhD, you don't need to be a doctor, an epidemiologist, or anything else to understand it. All you need is some basic math skills and a little bit of critical thinking.

In a study of over 76,000 people with natural immunity to Covid who were subsequently reinfected, six required hospitalization. That's a 0.008% chance of being hospitalized from Covid. None died.

It's perfectly logical to conclude that people with natural immunity have a negligible risk from Covid. You don't get vaccines for something you're not at risk from. Obviously there can be exceptions on a person-by-person basis, which is exactly why this decision should be left up to individuals at the advice of their doctor.

I'm not particularly concerned that you don't agree, because your disagreement isn't based in logic. At this point, it's more out of pride than out of any objective view of the data. After our interactions so far in the thread, I suspect you're emotionally incapable of looking at the data and agreeing with me, no matter how obvious the conclusion is.

I have posted I think 3 times now in this thread that it should be an individual decision based on their own circumstances.

That wasn't the disagreement to which I was referring. You said the evidence doesn't support what I described as the "key takeaway," that people with natural immunity have such a small risk from Covid that they don't need the vaccine. I think the numbers absolutely support what I said, and I think most people would agree. I think you'd probably agree under different circumstances. A 0.008% risk is negligible.

Is there a good vaccine for any coronavirus?