Two opposite narratives.

The leading narrative is that mRNA flavored injections keep you safe from disease. Here is a recent article showing how much money the Australian government saved through their vaccine program. $181 BILLION dollars saved due to a safe and effective vaccine. www.hospitalhealth.com.au...

On the other side you have research that clearly does not fit within the leading paradigm. Here is a second article from recent days showing that for every shot taken, your risk of a reinfection grows higher.
www.eugyppius.com...

One of them is based on conjecture and computer modeling, while the other is based on real world data.

I submit to you that we live in a new dark age. Neodarkages. It is a time when the loudest voice is the truth. The age of consensus. The age of computer forecasts as opposed to real world measurements. The age of trust in algorithms. It is a turn for the worse.

originally posted by: Zenchuck
The leading narrative is that mRNA flavored injections keep you safe from disease. Here is a recent article showing how much money the Australian government saved through their vaccine program. $181 BILLION dollars saved due to a safe and effective vaccine. www.hospitalhealth.com.au...

On the other side you have the conspiracy theorists and anti-vax mob who are dangerous agent provocateurs for questioning the leading narrative. Here is a second article from recent days showing that for every shot taken, your risk of a reinfection grows higher.

(The second link is missing- ETA fixed now)

It's the only possible outcome when you deploy an ineffective "vaccine" in the middle of a pandemic. It was widely known that it was a terrible idea, but pharma wanted a vehicle to ram through the mRNA delivery which has never previously been proven safe through normal and transparent trials.

That COVID was of only minor risk to all but very specific risk groups was ignored, science was thrown out the window, and definitions were changed to allow an even worse therapeutic to be deployed during an active pandemic than traditional vaccines. Because we're governed by corporate puppets that thirst for power and who have used their financial tools to control "free" media any that challenged their narratives were silenced through a combination of emergency legislation abuse, psychological operations by intelligence agencies, and social engineering.

The best thing to do is ignore narratives while looking at data and evidence, much of which in broad disease science was already widely accepted and shown to be true through decades of observation.

originally posted by: Zenchuck
The leading narrative is that mRNA flavored injections keep you safe from disease. Here is a recent article showing how much money the Australian government saved through their vaccine program. $181 BILLION dollars saved due to a safe and effective vaccine. www.hospitalhealth.com.au...

On the other side you have research that clearly does not fit within the leading paradigm. Here is a second article from recent days showing that for every shot taken, your risk of a reinfection grows higher.
www.eugyppius.com...

One of them is based on conjecture and computer modeling, while the other is based on real world data.

I submit to you that we live in a new dark age. Neodarkages. It is a time when the loudest voice is the truth. The age of consensus. The age of computer forecasts as opposed to real world measurements. The age of trust in algorithms. It is a turn for the worse.

They're not hiding it either. In California medicine is now concensus based. If you disagree with the concensus you can lose your license. Kind of like when the majority thought the earth was flat, the concensus made it true, not science.

a reply to: Zenchuck

Your second link fails to mention something they mention in the paper - that those with multiple doses are usually those in the highest risk level.

Like teachers.

Or vendors. I'm a vendor at large conventions several times a year and you can bet I am sure that my vaccines are current. Although proof of vaccination has been required at all these events, there's always a small outbreak associated with each of them (we have no way of telling if the original source was an attendee or someone in the hospitality industry or someone else.

They didn't ask that data but noted that it would be a useful thing to know.

Nobody gets the shot for fun. You get boosters because you're in a situation where there's more than the usual amount of risk and you can't control it (unlike at home, where you can shop somewhere else, for example, or order from a store and have stuff delivered.)

a reply to: Zenchuck

What does the inventor of mRNA vaccines have to say on the matter?

a reply to: Byrd

They didn't ask that data but noted that it would be a useful thing to know.

This raises an important point. Why do we NOT collect data like this? How are we 3 years in and Pfizer just admitted they have never studied effects on transmission. Why have we not studied the effects? The paper I linked showed data that ran counter to the prevailing wisdom. Why WOULD the vaccinated be more susceptible to reinfection? You have pointed out a possible explanation, but it is a guess. It sounds possible. It feels like this was released into the public by very incompetent scientists, or there are people who know exactly what is going on.

It is clear now that the origin was a lab leak from a chinese/american partnership of gain of function research. JAN 6? Are you kidding me with the level of bull that goes on in this world. It's enough to send anyone to the nut house.

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: Zenchuck

Your second link fails to mention something they mention in the paper - that those with multiple doses are usually those in the highest risk level.

That's false, it is addressed with a quote from the study. Even the study authors discredited the idea because that data was not a feature of their cohort. It's either embarrassing that you're making excuses having not thoroughly examined it or shameful that you did read it and still hoped to discredit it with subterfuge.

A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of subjects in this study were generally young individuals and all were eligible to have received at least 3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, and which they had every opportunity to do.

The article again


You can use all the justifications you want for why you continue to engage in self-harm, but the data doesn't support it being for your benefit or the people around you. Wearing a magical anti-viral amulet would provide nearly the same amount of protection against whatever strain each booster is targeted to and would decrease your risk of future infection. This actually makes the magic amulet a stronger long-term option given COVID is endemic and will experience many novel future strains, all of which you have reduced ability to fight because of the widely acknowledged strain specific imprinting.

Keep your head in the sand if you want, but you're remaining up to date in spite of the evidence and not because of it. You are following a pop-fiction cult of fear, superstition, and science absent evidence. It's modern voodoo.

If you bothered to look at any public health literature prior to Fauci becoming beautified on the road to sainthood you'd see that the widespread use of public masking, vaccinating for coronavirus, vaccinating in a pandemic, mRNA, and nearly every other thing that was done in the name of safety, wasn't based on any kind of actual science.

a reply to: Byrd

Being a teacher or a vendor doesn't put you at higher risk.
Being fat, unhealthy, and elderly puts you at higher risk.