25% of COVID Vaxxed Now Have VAIDS, Cambridge Scientists Warn

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

My query was around where does it say VAIDS?

who had Pfizer Covid jabs experienced unintended immune response

The telegraph says no adverse effects recorded, so VAIDS is an unintended imune response with no adverse effect.

That is very reassuring thank you. Was starting to worry as it sounded quite ominous.

originally posted by: MemeLord
What percent of non-vaxxed people have this issue? Oh right..

What percentage of non-vaxxed people have Vaccine Induced Aquired Immune Deficiency?

Uh ... 0% ... Because they are not vaxxed.

I know, the math is kinda hard. It's ok...

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

My query was around where does it say VAIDS?

who had Pfizer Covid jabs experienced unintended immune response

The telegraph says no adverse effects recorded, so VAIDS is an unintended imune response with no adverse effect.

That is very reassuring thank you. Was starting to worry as it sounded quite ominous.

Yeah, sudden death is an unintended immune response with no adverse effects, as well, so no worries there, either.

Whew, we were wrong all along!

originally posted by: AwakeNotWoke

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

My query was around where does it say VAIDS?

who had Pfizer Covid jabs experienced unintended immune response

The telegraph says no adverse effects recorded, so VAIDS is an unintended imune response with no adverse effect.

That is very reassuring thank you. Was starting to worry as it sounded quite ominous.

Yeah, sudden death is an unintended immune response with no adverse effects, as well, so no worries there, either.

Whew, we were wrong all along!

Sudden death sounds adverse.

I would expect that would be counted, but would be grateful if you can show me my assumption is wrong?

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

If we're going to pretend that VAIDS is "an unintended immune response with no adverse effects," let's just pretend it's all good.

originally posted by: AwakeNotWoke
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

If we're going to pretend that VAIDS is "an unintended immune response with no adverse effects," let's just pretend it's all good.

I was not planning a game of pretense, perhaps later that would be fine diversion.

The link clearly states no adverse effects recorded in the paper, based on the title of this discussion it seems that the 25% were VAIDS, so VAIDS appears to be reaction with no adverse effects.

If my reasoning is at fault I would greatly appreciate an explanation for my own education.

This could be another coincidental "Fauci" connection. ☠️

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

I cannot seem to find where in the Telegraph it says 25% have VAIDS. Can you assist?

One in four who had Pfizer Covid jabs experienced unintended immune response

1 in 4 means 25%.

Unintended immune response is not the same as autoimmune response.

What the study is saying is that the unintentionally produced protein produced an immune response by itself that was separate from the immune response to the spike protein. Meaning that the individuals produced antibodies that attacked the unintentional protein. Which is exactly what you hope would happen when a foreign protein shows up inside your body--it's basically just another antigen and should get attacked if your immune system is functioning properly.

An autoimmune response is when you present the body with an antigen from some virus (whether flu, Covid, polio--whatever) and instead of just producing antibodies for that virus, your body mistakenly produces antibodies that attack some of your body's naturally occurring cells.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: AwakeNotWoke
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

If we're going to pretend that VAIDS is "an unintended immune response with no adverse effects," let's just pretend it's all good.

I was not planning a game of pretense, perhaps later that would be fine diversion.

The link clearly states no adverse effects recorded in the paper, based on the title of this discussion it seems that the 25% were VAIDS, so VAIDS appears to be reaction with no adverse effects.

If my reasoning is at fault I would greatly appreciate an explanation for my own education.

The main problem is that VAIDS is not a thing.

The AIDS in VAIDS stands for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. It's caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). The HIV is a retrovirus which has the ability to reverse transcribe its genetic code into human cells, which then disables the immune response and causes those cells to be unable to fight off a large number of infections that might come along--including the HIV infection itself, and Kaposi's sarcoma, for example. That's what makes an immune system "deficient". The fact that you get AIDS from an infection by the HIV is what makes it "acquired".

You can't get get an immunodeficiency syndrome from a vaccine, unless the vaccine happened to contain a live retrovirus of the type that would wipe out your immune system. For obvious reasons, none of them do.

a reply to: FlyersFan

i'm wondering if this or vice a versa were the same study.

i think it's funny how they put the word but in the title.

The researchers then examined immune responses in 20 people who got the AstraZeneca vaccine and 21 who got the Pfizer vaccine. Blood samples from about one-third of the Pfizer recipients showed an immune reaction to the frameshifted proteins, whereas none of the samples from AstraZeneca recipients did. None of the people reported any side effects from their particular vaccine, and there is no evidence, the researchers say, that the frameshifted protein is harmful.
mRNA vaccines may make unintended proteins, but there’s no evidence of harm

dollars to doughnuts that's where all them blood clots were coming from. no evidencde my ass.

What happened to Violater?

Wasn't he the one that always posted hoax websites about COVID and vaccines?

A couple months ago, my dad was talking to one of my cousins. I think she is 70. She told him she was diagnosed with aids. It was not acquired sexually. I didnt understand how she could get it, but my dad said other things could cause it too. We had thought she passed on the vaccines. That was what she said after they were available. She did eventually get 2 shots. Im not sure which ones. We both suspected that it was the MRNA injections.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: FlyersFan

Slaynews.com is on one of the lists of sites that intentionally publish hoaxes and disinformation.

Ignoring the study by dismissing the messenger is a fine example of a lack of intellectual curiosity. But thats exactly what the puppet masters want. Dont question them, just bend the knee and fall in line with the approved narrative..

a reply to: navigator70

Well, when it's clear who and what the messenger is.

If you wish to entertain the anti-vax mumbo-jumbo that's up to you.

As to puppet masters, and what "they" want, do tell?

Question whatever you please but its real tangible facts and evidence you require to support the argument that 1 in 4 people have your vaids nonsense.

Slaynews.com or the Telegraph article presents or proves nothing of the sort.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: navigator70

Well, when it's clear who and what the messenger is.

If you wish to entertain the anti-vax mumbo-jumbo that's up to you.

As to puppet masters, and what "they" want, do tell?

Question whatever you please but its real tangible facts and evidence you require to support the argument that 1 in 4 people have your vaids nonsense.

Slaynews.com or the Telegraph article presents or proves nothing of the sort.

This is just more deflection from the study. But for those who fell for the 'safe and effective' lies, ignorance is probably the safest bet. The placebo effect is a real thing.

originally posted by: navigator70

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: navigator70

Well, when it's clear who and what the messenger is.

If you wish to entertain the anti-vax mumbo-jumbo that's up to you.

As to puppet masters, and what "they" want, do tell?

Question whatever you please but its real tangible facts and evidence you require to support the argument that 1 in 4 people have your vaids nonsense.

Slaynews.com or the Telegraph article presents or proves nothing of the sort.

This is just more deflection from the study. But for those who fell for the 'safe and effective' lies, ignorance is probably the safest bet. The placebo effect is a real thing.

Deflection from the study that doesn't say anything about VAIDS?

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise


Deflection from the study that doesn't say anything about VAIDS?

They dont have to for those of us with an once of intellectual curiosity. I just wonder how they determined that the mysterious proteins causing immune system flair-ups are harmless? Since when are fiber neuropathy and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome harmless? We all know they lied through their teeth when they told us it was safe and effective, not sure why people continue to fall for it.

a reply to: navigator70

This is just more deflection from the study.

If you say so.

But hardly an answer as to what you think the puppet masters want.

But for those who fell for the 'safe and effective' lies, ignorance is probably the safest bet.

Safe bets in this world are few and far between.

The placebo effect is a real thing.

So is paranoia and mental illness.

Sites like slaynews.com, who choose to host and pander to stories like this clearly understand that well.

Hence they play to a very specific target audience.

originally posted by: navigator70

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise


Deflection from the study that doesn't say anything about VAIDS?

They dont have to for those of us with an once of intellectual curiosity. I just wonder how they determined that the mysterious proteins causing immune system flair-ups are harmless? Since when are fiber neuropathy and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome harmless? We all know they lied through their teeth when they told us it was safe and effective, not sure why people continue to fall for it.

So the study not actually mentioning yet alone supporting the claim in the title isn't important?

That is intellectual curiosity?

originally posted by: andy06shake



So is paranoia and mental illness.

Haha comparing the placebo effect to paranoia and mental illness?

Thats a pretty good illustration of some serious confusion.