What I've been thinking about more frequently is whether much of this was actually due to the need for that second dose, and to argue that a second dose was required to be "fully vaccinated". It sort of seems like the game was flawed from the start given that the timeframe between the first and second dose seem to be so close to one another. Unfortunately I don't think we'll have any data on people who abstained from the second dose or of anyone who waited a few months before the second dose, so we really can't tell but I can't see how the timing and persistent activation can't be playing a role.
Since Hep B is given at 0,1 months and a bunch of others at 2,4 months it seems like it's still specific to the mRNA here.
*edit: I thought I remembered the H2N2 vaccines being given 3 weeks apart, and see that this was so in at least one trial. It was in response to low antibodies after the first. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2027672/
I probably should have specified that my thoughts revolved around the effects being exacerbated with the mRNA in particular. Maybe this effect may be occurring with Hep B too then but maybe was never investigated? It does seem like something unique may be happening with the mRNA and I don't mind entertaining the idea that this platform paired with the timing of doses may have been a bad combination.
Wait. Do I have this correct? Big Pharma has a drug that can ameliorate the problems caused by the modRNA gene therapy that was forced on lots of people?
Isn’t part of the problem with the drug is that it suppresses the immune system, so that would naturally lead to other problems cropping up, unless you could figure out it only needs to be taken for a fixed amount of time to stop the conversion permanently?
I should edit my report on the study to clarify that point. There is only a modest reduction in overall IgG, and it's more with the TNFi groups. So dupilumab (the anti-IL4) gives you IgG4 suppression with no overall decrease vs. the IMID+ controls - Fig 1
Monkey pox- no bueno. I was losing it when I heard my neighbor took Paxlovid for her covid- someone please get us off Ozzy’s Crazy Train...I’m thinking also what happens when everyone takes Paxlovid for every new strain...
That would be my concern as well, but Big Pharma is probably working on a drug to ameliorate the problems caused by the previous drug that was created to ameliorate ...
Full marks for correcting previous offerings when new data are found. The random selection of dosages mention in the references shouts loudly that such a casual approach may, just may have had a more deliberate intent.
Of interest is a, so far, single non reviewed - so unconfirmed report that the mRNA materials used in the trials and subsequently offered to all the trial participants differed perhaps significantly to the mRNA materials injected in the roll out to the public. If this is confirmed or in any way correctly substantiated then what the general public were injected with was completely without trial and informed consent was impossible. That the trial results were not available for that mRNA material the first 'type' produced and only began dribbling out around March 2022 well after the massive push with the 'unknown' second production mix or type, the implications of what can only be described as probably deliberate actions to deceive are huge.
Before anyone starts yelling about this however caution requires that all this MUST be very carefully examined and confirmed before conclusions can be drawn. The picture is not looking good but is unclear. The inplications, horrendous.
It's essentially correct in that the manufacturing process of the first batches were never going to reflect what obtains when scaled up to a full roll-out. This is reflected in the DNA plasmid contamination.
Still means that what was given to the public did not match the trials and possibly in very important respects (details is where the devil lives). So clearly NO VALID CLAIMS possible re 'Safe and Effective' nor on 'Full Disclosure' nor with 'Informed consent'. It wss and si a scam and potentially a crime on a mass scale unlike any in all history.
The Salk polio vaccine wasn't actually very different. Francis Jr hid polio cases that followed trial vaccination from the review board in his analysis, and the private suppliers were working under more relaxed standards than used for trial product at Pittsburg, and so right away you had the Cutter incident because Cutter wasn't successfully disaggregating little tiny clumps to get formaldehyde to all virus. Bigger scandal than the Covid vaccines at the time, and yet soon all but forgotten.
And then today, any official summary of the current vaccine schedule, claims it uses the Salk vaccine (because the scandal was forgotten) when actually it uses enhanced IPV that was only trialed on a few hundred babies in an era without any wild polio to actually evaluate infection results, just a subset who received OPV after eIPV to infer protection (they weren't protected). So this is still more of a sham than the Covid vaccines. When there is a giant explosion of polio in people born after 2000 it will all be very obvious in retrospect.
The differences between trial subject injected materials and the first widespread publicly injected materials should not be lightly considered especially considering the history of this practice as you have pointed out. Nothing new under the sun.
What occurred with the mRNA is reported by a Israeli Pharmaceutical manufacturing scientist I believe in referring to Process One mRNA for the trial subjects and then Process Two product in public injections being potentially quite different. Pertinent to Israel as the government there signed in secret deal with Pfizer without public fore knowledge or explicit public agreement that the Israeli population would be subjects in a mass injection of Process Two mRNA in exchange for all their medical data. Thus people who had ancestors used in Nazi experiments in multiple murders and maiming were given up to 'private for profit' interests to use in a medical experiment without their knowledge or expressed consent by their own Israeli government. Could this be a definition of evil?
What I've been thinking about more frequently is whether much of this was actually due to the need for that second dose, and to argue that a second dose was required to be "fully vaccinated". It sort of seems like the game was flawed from the start given that the timeframe between the first and second dose seem to be so close to one another. Unfortunately I don't think we'll have any data on people who abstained from the second dose or of anyone who waited a few months before the second dose, so we really can't tell but I can't see how the timing and persistent activation can't be playing a role.
Since Hep B is given at 0,1 months and a bunch of others at 2,4 months it seems like it's still specific to the mRNA here.
*edit: I thought I remembered the H2N2 vaccines being given 3 weeks apart, and see that this was so in at least one trial. It was in response to low antibodies after the first. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2027672/
I probably should have specified that my thoughts revolved around the effects being exacerbated with the mRNA in particular. Maybe this effect may be occurring with Hep B too then but maybe was never investigated? It does seem like something unique may be happening with the mRNA and I don't mind entertaining the idea that this platform paired with the timing of doses may have been a bad combination.
Wait. Do I have this correct? Big Pharma has a drug that can ameliorate the problems caused by the modRNA gene therapy that was forced on lots of people?
Isn’t part of the problem with the drug is that it suppresses the immune system, so that would naturally lead to other problems cropping up, unless you could figure out it only needs to be taken for a fixed amount of time to stop the conversion permanently?
Especially if everyone is taking it together -- then we can all get monkeypox, great.
Also: do these drugs really address the problem: tolerance to the Spike protein?
Is the total amount of IgG the same on the immunosuppresive drugs, just IgG4 lower?
Or rather, all IgG is down, only IgG4 is downer?
I should edit my report on the study to clarify that point. There is only a modest reduction in overall IgG, and it's more with the TNFi groups. So dupilumab (the anti-IL4) gives you IgG4 suppression with no overall decrease vs. the IMID+ controls - Fig 1
Monkey pox- no bueno. I was losing it when I heard my neighbor took Paxlovid for her covid- someone please get us off Ozzy’s Crazy Train...I’m thinking also what happens when everyone takes Paxlovid for every new strain...
That would be my concern as well, but Big Pharma is probably working on a drug to ameliorate the problems caused by the previous drug that was created to ameliorate ...
It's Turtles all the way down. Great book, BTW.
Yes. Wouldn't probably work from a marketing standpoint. Better to just pretend nothing is wrong.
Full marks for correcting previous offerings when new data are found. The random selection of dosages mention in the references shouts loudly that such a casual approach may, just may have had a more deliberate intent.
Of interest is a, so far, single non reviewed - so unconfirmed report that the mRNA materials used in the trials and subsequently offered to all the trial participants differed perhaps significantly to the mRNA materials injected in the roll out to the public. If this is confirmed or in any way correctly substantiated then what the general public were injected with was completely without trial and informed consent was impossible. That the trial results were not available for that mRNA material the first 'type' produced and only began dribbling out around March 2022 well after the massive push with the 'unknown' second production mix or type, the implications of what can only be described as probably deliberate actions to deceive are huge.
Before anyone starts yelling about this however caution requires that all this MUST be very carefully examined and confirmed before conclusions can be drawn. The picture is not looking good but is unclear. The inplications, horrendous.
It's essentially correct in that the manufacturing process of the first batches were never going to reflect what obtains when scaled up to a full roll-out. This is reflected in the DNA plasmid contamination.
Still means that what was given to the public did not match the trials and possibly in very important respects (details is where the devil lives). So clearly NO VALID CLAIMS possible re 'Safe and Effective' nor on 'Full Disclosure' nor with 'Informed consent'. It wss and si a scam and potentially a crime on a mass scale unlike any in all history.
The Salk polio vaccine wasn't actually very different. Francis Jr hid polio cases that followed trial vaccination from the review board in his analysis, and the private suppliers were working under more relaxed standards than used for trial product at Pittsburg, and so right away you had the Cutter incident because Cutter wasn't successfully disaggregating little tiny clumps to get formaldehyde to all virus. Bigger scandal than the Covid vaccines at the time, and yet soon all but forgotten.
And then today, any official summary of the current vaccine schedule, claims it uses the Salk vaccine (because the scandal was forgotten) when actually it uses enhanced IPV that was only trialed on a few hundred babies in an era without any wild polio to actually evaluate infection results, just a subset who received OPV after eIPV to infer protection (they weren't protected). So this is still more of a sham than the Covid vaccines. When there is a giant explosion of polio in people born after 2000 it will all be very obvious in retrospect.
The differences between trial subject injected materials and the first widespread publicly injected materials should not be lightly considered especially considering the history of this practice as you have pointed out. Nothing new under the sun.
What occurred with the mRNA is reported by a Israeli Pharmaceutical manufacturing scientist I believe in referring to Process One mRNA for the trial subjects and then Process Two product in public injections being potentially quite different. Pertinent to Israel as the government there signed in secret deal with Pfizer without public fore knowledge or explicit public agreement that the Israeli population would be subjects in a mass injection of Process Two mRNA in exchange for all their medical data. Thus people who had ancestors used in Nazi experiments in multiple murders and maiming were given up to 'private for profit' interests to use in a medical experiment without their knowledge or expressed consent by their own Israeli government. Could this be a definition of evil?