This sounds like a fear pushing article for views. Anyone care to chime in? We need to look closely as medical data can be twisted to suit narratives.
As some commentators have pointed out, the conclusion of this article is very weakly (if at all) supported by the raw data. For one thing, the authors are working solely off infection rates, comparing between vaxed and unvaxed, and infection (based, presumably on a positive covid test) does not demonstrate a failing immune system. For another, the other metrics of emergency care admittance and death numbers clearly show that the vaxed are protected (very significantly) against serious adverse outcomes.
I have had some respect for this website in the past, but am now questioning its credibility.
Perhaps, in the future, we will know of the immune depleting effects of the vax. But this article does not support that conclusion at all (and the more it is cited, i fear, the more vax-cautious folks will be regarded as kooks-with good reason.)
When I read this a few days ago I thought maybe they were conflating immune system with anti-body levels.
In the latest UK report they did mention n-antibody levels were less in vaccinated individuals after infection compared to unvaccinated. In other words, the vaccine is preventing the immune system from developing a normal immune response, which could be an indicator for acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
The data from the official NHS UK WuFlu reports shows categorically that the vaccinated's protection has been getting weaker and weaker each week, to the point where some vaccinated age groups are now twice as likely to catch the WuFlu as the unvaccinated.
However, that isn't the same as AIDS obviously as AIDS is specifically defined as losing your immune system due to HIV.
However, to the vaccinated who were tricked into destroying their immune systems, it doesn't really matter how they lose their immune system, the end result is the same. The name we refer to it by, doesn't change the fact that they have ruined their immune system, probably irreparably.
That comment doesn't seem to question the data, just the conclusions made from it.
My quick scan of the data in the linked documents indicates a mixed outcome. But I didn't read the reports in their entirety (in the links). I suppose I should have spent more time scanning the reports to verify the trends in the article.
One thing I did notice is that the data changes over time, and it seems to be trending in the wrong direction to support the conclusions of the last report, which suggests the vaccines are preventing infections and covid mortality. The conclusion is correct insofar as the data presented (within the specified time frame), but the trends are important.
This sounds like a fear pushing article for views. Anyone care to chime in? We need to look closely as medical data can be twisted to suit narratives.
When I read this a few days ago I thought maybe they were conflating immune system with anti-body levels.
In the latest UK report they did mention n-antibody levels were less in vaccinated individuals after infection compared to unvaccinated. In other words, the vaccine is preventing the immune system from developing a normal immune response, which could be an indicator for acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
The data from the official NHS UK WuFlu reports shows categorically that the vaccinated's protection has been getting weaker and weaker each week, to the point where some vaccinated age groups are now twice as likely to catch the WuFlu as the unvaccinated.
However, that isn't the same as AIDS obviously as AIDS is specifically defined as losing your immune system due to HIV.
However, to the vaccinated who were tricked into destroying their immune systems, it doesn't really matter how they lose their immune system, the end result is the same. The name we refer to it by, doesn't change the fact that they have ruined their immune system, probably irreparably.
That comment doesn't seem to question the data, just the conclusions made from it.
My quick scan of the data in the linked documents indicates a mixed outcome. But I didn't read the reports in their entirety (in the links). I suppose I should have spent more time scanning the reports to verify the trends in the article.
One thing I did notice is that the data changes over time, and it seems to be trending in the wrong direction to support the conclusions of the last report, which suggests the vaccines are preventing infections and covid mortality. The conclusion is correct insofar as the data presented (within the specified time frame), but the trends are important.
I think it’s true. It’s on the internet.
Finally...someone who gets it. ; )