A more contagious but less harmful variant is just natural evolution, known fact for 100 years until just now :)

One that's more harmful also.. probably manmade

Yes, they didn't say it was more deadly, just that it's more contagious and gets around the vaccine. Which isn't a surprise since delta already has the same fatality rate whether or not vaccinated. With Delta, if you look at the population occurrence of covid deaths it's the same rate for vax and novax population. There are fewer "cases" for vax but a higher CFR!

But quick, get the vax before you get lambda anyway!

Re John's thread.. interesting that he was claiming that trump would win in spite of everything, but that their goal was to get supermajority in the Senate. But the opposite occurred.

Does anyone know how satellites would be used to alter an election? Routing internet around the nsa guarded terrestrial cables? I would think there are easier solutions to that problem. I've heard this stuff about satellites before but never understood what it meant.

Yeah, also, vax good or banhammer.

Funniest thing is though, even though you can't say trust the plan, they believe that trump is still in power via devolution. Living on a nuclear sub off the coast of Florida? I actually think Wictors theories are plausible... But no matter what, DO NOT TRUST THE PLAN.

I used to think rcv was a good idea, until 2020. The problem with it is that it is very impractical to do without computers. And I no longer trust the computers.

Thanks for sharing your experience. Have you seen this article:

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075

Take a look at the supplementary materials, which show the result of sampling blood from subjects post-shot and measuring concentration of the spike protein.

In almost every case (of only 13 subjects given Moderna) spikes or parts of spikes were measurable in the blood at various points in time. This data shows that shedding is not an ongoing or permanent phenomenon, but that it could happen to some degree, for brief periods.

Given it only tested 13 people, it also does not rule out that some people could happen to respond differently to the shot and perhaps churn out spikes like crazy.

I like your theory that what you observed was an immune reaction to the spikes, primed by a prior infection. This might happen even with a brief exposure, and would explain why this phenomenon is observed, but isn't observed more frequently.

I feel for your situation and echo others here that this is a red flag for the relationship, but I also would agree with some posters that you should try to better understand the motivations behind his actions. Whatever the situation, in some ways you're stuck with him and the legal system is a nightmare (and our position on the covid vax is not held by TPTB!)

On the topic of vax shedding, based on my research, it is likely not a problem in most cases. There are anecdotal reports of people observing issues that appeared to be caused by shedding, and I believe that it probably does happen for some people. But there is also strong evidence that it does not typically happen.

Part of what makes these shots hard to understand is that by their nature, the effects vary widely across the population and also based on chance. Because the nanoparticles can invade literally any cell in the body that they contact, the "attack surface" of this vector is extremely broad. This is one thing that makes its behavior completely different from a real SARS-Cov infection: the real virus only attacks cells with ACE2 receptors.

Next problem is that while the injection is supposed to "mostly" stay at the injection site, it doesn't, and the amount that makes it to the bloodstream is totally down to chance, and possibly the skill of the person giving the shot.

So, the material that gets in the bloodstream, goes everywhere, and can hijack any cell in the body. My theory is that some cell types, in some people, react differently to the mRNA and instead of using the mRNA template once to construct a spike and "display" it on the cell membrane like they are supposed to, somehow they just sit there churning out spike proteins into the bloodstream.

Churning out spikes could definitely lead to shedding and probably a lot of other problems.

HOWEVER, if you look at this paper (the relevant info is in the 'supplementary materials') it seems that this is not typical.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075

This paper took 13 subjects who were given the Moderna shots, and measured the level of spikes in their blood over time. It showed that most of the subjects had measurable quantities of the protein in their blood at some point, but it was more like a 'blip' than a constant level. It also showed considerable variation among subjects in this regard.

Bottom line - there's a lot of variation in response, but in 13 subjects none of them showed consistent levels that would be needed to "shed". However - it's only 13 people. 1% of people could have a totally different response and this study would miss it. But it suggests that your fiance is very likely not shedding. In my personal experience I haven't encountered problems being around vaxxed people (where I live almost everyone is, including my parents, sadly, and I have spent a lot of time with them indoors, etc.). Some people have, and I don't disbelieve it - I think maybe it is just fairly rare.

That said, you definitely want to wait a couple months because the data in that paper did show measurable levels at various points in time up to a few weeks post shot 2. Note this is for Moderna and I don't know how the other shots behave. And I would not fault you for waiting until after weaning because nobody really knows. I guess I would just say that there's some evidence that it's not as bad as some people believe.

The saddest thing about this story is that the rise of the delta variant makes the vax discussion moot. Delta is rapidly outcompeting the other variants and is much more mild.. and the vax doesn't work on it anyway except to stop symptoms in milder cases. So at this point it's literally 100% risk and no reward!

I hope you can keep your son from doing this. If you are looking for more source material, I found this site useful (here is a discussion of the risk/reward for vaxxing young people)

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=242766

What about the cost of toothpicks?

It should also have a card about there is no treatment, ivermectin is dangerous. That's a critical false narrative

The argument for masks is actually stronger for vaccinated people since they are more likely to be asymptomatic. But that would be a logical viewpoint.

The real tragedy is, how many of those people who died were offered ivermectin?

But .. you could win a million dollars!

I'm sure they figured it out after he disappeared. So the leak isn't really important

I agree on the lab leak thing possibly being an excuse for war, and I hope that does not happen, but nonetheless the evidence (i guess if you assume that covid exists) is strong.

As for an act of war though, if covid was fake, china faked it. And the fake-out still fucked us over roaylly. I'm afraid we're already at war with china and there's not much we can do about it at this point.

I think the disappearance of the flu is due to a few factors:

1. people presenting symptoms were not tested for flu, they were tested for covid, using a test with a very high false positive rate. If they had symptoms and a positive test, that ended the investigation. I'm not sure, they have have even used antibody tests which would identify a past infection and called it a day.

2. people with symptoms were afraid to go to a doctor unless they were dying, so no flu test

3. it's possible that because flu is less transmissible than covid, extreme social distancing etc. stopped the flu to a great extent, even though it had virtually no effect on covid

But the covid numbers exceeded the "normal" flu numbers (although the test did have a lot of false positives). And many of the symptoms of covid are distinct from flu - all the clotting, heart attacks, strokes, vascular damage, etc. that are caused by the spike protein wreaking havoc.

Re the death stats, do you have a source? I wanted to find death stats for 2020 from SSA or some other non-health related source to verify the actual death counts for 2020 vs 2019. I know some of the analyses of this based on preliminary data were actually wrong because of reporting delays, if you look at weekly or monthly stats that are too recent you will see an abnormal falloff that is not real. But by this point the data on 2020 should be pretty final.

The virus is real. But they jacked up the numbers and hid the facts that 80% of the population is naturally immune / mild symptoms and that there are now many viable treatment protocols with high success rates.

The so called vaccine is an attempt at a vaccine but is quite dangerous and more so than the disease for healthy people who would be given treatment if infected.

Any nobody knows the long term effects

Saying the virus doesn't exist is unhelpful IMO and makes us look like idiots.

Exactly.. but to be fair the last few years have been a lot worse

Thank the Lord.... Vaccinating kids is probably the most transparently stupid part of this whole nightmare, and that's saying a lot.

Any scientific minded person who supports giving this to kids is a liar and a monster.

6 months... Lulz

I think it is going to have this randomized profile even if all the lots are the same. Several factors..

1. It's supposed to stay at the injection site where it's relatively harmless. But it doesn't, and the degree to which it enters the bloodstream and goes everywhere is down to luck and possibly skill of the person administering it.

2. Which tissues take up the particles is random. Note that most viruses are targeted to specific receptors and therefore have a predictable attack surface, but these particles can invade any cell indiscriminately. If a lot goes to very important tissues, that is bad.

3. Ultimately your body mounts essentially an auto immune response against cells that took up the particles. How that goes can vary. It could be fine, it it could set up a chronic condition.

4. Some people / some cell types may have unusual responses to this. Since any cell can be affected it's impossible to do meaningfully complete testing of this.

Everything about this leads to a very diffuse and varied set of weird, sometimes fatal side effects... Which is what we in fact see.

That's just the side effects... before you get into the intended effect on your immune system!

It's also got plenty of glyphosate!

Thank you for the explanation!

It sounds like ivermectin could help people with the vaccine to some extent, although it also seems like there may be a lot of negative side effects other than the direct impact of the spike.

I'm not sure I understand how Ivermectin works (though, it clearly does work). If there is a problem with the vaccine, I'm not sure there is reason to think Ivermectin helps.

The vaccine does produce spikes in the bloodstream (See this paper for an analysis of free floating spikes post vaccination: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075 ) But this seems to happen only briefly and not in huge concentrations. The spikes do cause damage and kill some people, but this only the immediate effect.

My other concern about the vaccine is that it produces antibodies specific to the spike, that are unique to vaccinated people. A second virus could be designed to exploit those antibodies (via antibody dependent enhancement) and kill only vaccinated people. Funny how China does not allow these vaccines, but provided the vaccine makers with the spike coding and suggested how to use it to make a vaccine.

I don't think there is reason to think that the treatments for COVID would necessarily work against this other virus; it could be a completely different virus that includes a feature that binds to a vaccination induced antibody, and uses that as a way to exploit the immune response.

Hopefully this is not possible for some reason, but it sounds possible to me.

Is this the better choice? Allowing early treatments to be suppressed to allow part 1 of a 2 part bioweapon to be deployed on some of the best parts of your domestic population?

Whereas Ivermectin would have just stopped it in its tracks as we now have proof of from India and elsewhere.. but this was known for months.

I'm glad the vaccine isn't mandatory. But, that doesn't make this "plan" very well thought out. The epidemic had burned itself out after the second wave, before the vaccination program even started.

If instead the focus was on approving viable treatments like Ivermectin, the epidemic would have been brought to heel, blunting the second wave, and there would be no possibility of EUA vaccines.

I realize what he was up against (look at what happened with HCQ) but the vaccine is strictly worse and a lot of people already died as a result. I really hope the damage from the vaccine is limited to ~20000 deaths and disablements (plus the unnecessary deaths from suppression of treatments), and not a 20% death rate from ADE on a new virus. Honestly this strains my credulity thinking it's part of the plan.