As someone who relies quite heavily on the Seroprevalence data in my own analysis - I don't know that I can argue with your conclusion that it's becoming something that's not worth what it used to be. Not only is there a time dependent peak and fade in antibodies in even the S protein (with no mention similar to the N antibodies), their shift from 4 to 12 week sampling (and once monthly reporting) is mystifying to me in a report that it all about looking at the recent timeframe. If I were a suspicious man, I'd say it's to use the peak antibody levels from 8-10 weeks back to mask a rapidly fading level in their oldest populations long enough to get the booster campaign really going. I suspect it might have been stealth enough that many of their target demographic weren't really aware of it.
Their new antibody level charts do show some evidence of their silent booster campaign, but it really isn't marked at the moment aside from the 70-84 year-old group.
But this all adds up to the data possibly undergoing more manipulation that was originally the case. And data manipulated before it gets to us in unknown ways is kind of useless for analysis.
I really really wish you were wrong, but I've got a sneaking suspicion that you aren't.
Excellent reading - thank you Brian. I apologize that I will have to read more than once in order to fully digest. I keep going back to Footnote #13. Your surmising is supported by Peter Doshi https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563 who articulates evidence of SARS-CoV-2 T-Cell reactivity in US blood specimens between 2015 and 2018. If you REALLY want to find out whether you caught it, https://www.t-detect.com/ allows for T Cell testing. Sadly, mine was negative. But I was happy to know either way.
Yes, there was definitely pre-existing cellular immunity via coronavirus - but there might have also been pre-existing priming for antibody dependent enhancement via coronavirus.
So if you aren't "updated" to SARS-CoV-2's changed model in a gradual way, you get "updated" in the harsher way. The gradual way can lead you to T Cell protection without measurable antibodies (against SC2). On a regional level, conditions might either be 1) not ideal for SC2 to proliferate without repeated small exposures via travel, due to predominance of other coronaviruses 2) ideal for SC2 to proliferate due to no competing coronaviruses, with ADE due to unfamiliarity with SC2 3) both ideal for SC2 to proliferate but no ADE due to passing through a long period of 1 + small exposures.
In my vague, tentative "early leak" mental model, repeated brushes with the viruses (as would happen if you were in California during 2018-19, or if you were elsewhere and just got lucky enough to be around tourist-introduced strains multiple times) generate tiny tiny updates to T Cell motifs that lead to a measurable "recognition" end point.
T Cells, I think, are a pretty fluid correlate to memory immunity. One day X T Cell recognition is enough to prevent infection and the next day it isn't. Just like with auto-immunity, a lot of people are in a gray area.
*"and the next day it isn't" for example if because other coronaviruses in your region are no longer prevalent, increasing the amount of SC2 you encounter so that it crosses the threshold of what T Cells can put out. At that point, symptomatic infection leading to antibodies for a more full-spectrum memory immunity response.
I agree that the UKHSA statement has been amplified and expounded upon too greatly. It’s vague and non-quantitative (paraphrasing egm).
And that it’s tempting to write off the world as a place where you can choose your own reality and go live in it. But this is highly unsatisfying - the internet is a huge junkpile but there is useful stuff in there if we keep digging. We will find parts that fit together, explain observable reality, and predict future trends. Let’s have the courage to continue to look for truth and not get discouraged by all the bad, sensationalized factoids out there.
The real scandal is why the scientific “community” (wow I dislike that word) isn’t looking for the definitive set of conditions which enables us to eject individuals from this never-ending pandemic game. What do you have to do in order to be able to quit playing and go to the kitchen to make yourself a sandwich? We’re not going to get out of this as a group, all at once, but rather as one “immune”person at a time.
My intuition is that the lowest-mortality path to acclimating to SARS-CoV-2 would have been to not pay attention to it. Seems to be what played out in California (essentially the Chinese middle-class's university campus) - by moving and mixing around obliviously in 2019, we built up a non-measurable intrinsic immune competence. So there was never even an outbreak here in spring 2020 despite Santa Clara supposedly being ground 0 for the US (and staying open for two weeks). But would full reopening go as smoothly now, after the vaccines have futzed with who-knows-what? It's probably still preferable (from the mortality perspective; from the political perspective it is essential).
I don't really see how to escape the paradox of the choose-your-own-reality world. Every conclusion is determined by the choice of what to look out. It's almost certain that some of this data is no longer even legitimate; but there's no way to know which.
interesting as always - but here is the deal. UK data is missing 2 very important pieces of data. The percentage of patients with prior infection AND All Cause Mortality. Those 2 uncertainties make conclusions very difficult.
So why doesnt the UK publish all cause mortality for the Vax and Unvaxed populations?
Especially all cause mortality by age group. The data from Scotland in June was really quite shocking for the older groups - there's a discount because the virus (+ lack of effective treatment) hit the most close-to-death hardest. That doesn't mean the vaccine isn't incredibly deadly to the not-close-to-death, especially physically healthy elderly, just that they are "competing" with a statistical distortion to the normal churn of life.
Cant ignore prior infection. If the vaccines are 60% VE for death in GB right now and 40% of the patients are protected from prior immunity...do the math. From a health standpoint, I would say that it would make sense to vaccinate the elderly. But there is likely no benefit in those less than 50 years...
I’m bored with Berenson. His appearance on Bro Rogaine (Joe Rogan) was lackluster. Then he attempted to be spooky about vaccines on Tucker. It’s almost as if he is making the media rounds for upcoming book(not buying it) release. He seems preoccupied with being the one who finally puts the coffin nail into c19 vaccines. This will never happen and is a waste of time. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn he is triple jabbed. Writers like eugyppius, although thoughtful, are swept up in this dialogue which ultimately underwhelms. The data that does come out is convoluted. Made more so as individuals like elgatomalo apply their hands to it with more math. At this point the pro vax crowd is all in. If you told them the vaccines would kill them in 18 months but they wouldn’t get c19 the uptake would likely be the same. Our situation now is one of wait and see. As you mentioned I’m more concerned about mandates causing loss of work and then eventually civil war.
If Berenson red-pills the parents of a few thousand 5-11 year-olds, I'm fine with whatever his personal and business interests are. As for the rest, I think there is a tendency to galaxy-brain at "viruses don't want to kill their host" and then groove everything else into talking points, akin to a Biological Libertarianism. I don't object to that kind of intuitive approach, but the intuition is wrong. Viral genes kill hosts to survive. There's a budget for it. How else could phages even exist. If you can't admit that, you'll only drive people to confusion in the end.
This actual virus has become irrelevant to the story- except the unknowns that will later reveal themselves from its manufacturing. But for now, I agree, the concerning factors in this are the jab related harms and Molnupiravir use this winter. If humanity manages to escape skyrocketing increases in vascular diseases, cancer, reproductive and neonatal consequences... it will be the equivalent of hell freezing over.
A lot of people here in the US at least were enjoying the pursuit of their goals, some for the first time - it's amazing how willingly they gave that up. That is the most striking feature of the reaction. I'm talking about the days before the official lockdown. When SXSW shut down, when people stopped going to restaurants (not me). Their choice was made.
I am taking a liberty, for sure - specifically you appear to me (in relation to hot virus variants, etc) to be staying calm and stoic. ie "Keeping your head when all about you are losing theirs".
Oh - well, my belief that economic collapse is around the corner notwithstanding, I think so. Humans who live through this era will not remember the virus itself as anything even conceivably worth worrying about. Even those who are afraid of it now will hardly remember that fear; it will seem like a passing fever dream. I’m just trying to skip to the end.
ADE is what everyone is expecting, but the storm is often not what is expected. Those facing a hurricane fear the wind but more often drown.
Thanks for your unique perspectives. I share your concerns with regard to cancer, and I can find no real-time source for cancer diagnosis numbers so it appears we will be reliant on anecdote until the 2021 numbers are compiled in January. Cancer is increasingly appearing as a topic in John Michael Greer's weekly covid discussion board.
Here's a comment I shared there this week, as food for thought for your upcoming cancer post.
-------
I would not expect the vaccines to directly cause mutations leading to cancer, but they could easily cause the immune system to miss nascent cancers or to be weakened in its fight against existing cancers. In fact I would not be at all surprised if this is an unfortunate side effect of genetic vaccines in general.
Consider that within the innate immune system are cells (natural killer cells and killer T cells) whose mission includes patrolling the body for cancer cells and destroying them. The signal they are searching for is unusual proteins on the cell surface.
Now let's inject an mRNA or viral vector vaccine that hijacks thousands of cells so that they produce strange surface proteins.
This will have two likely outcomes, both of them bad:
1. The killer cells are overwhelmed by the sudden appearance of thousands of aberrant cells, and in the chaos they fail to find new developing cancers or to fight existing cancers.
2. The body recognizes a large-scale self-attack and downregulates the killer cells or signals them to back off, assuming some sort of autoimmune dysfunction is underway. This would fall under the umbrella of "tolerance" and would also lead to a weakened immune response to nascent and existing cancers which could last well beyond the departure of the spike protein from the body.
--------
Now combine immune tolerance/exhaustion with widespread deployment of a directly mutagenic new drug, and we might unfortunately have a perfect storm on our hands.
I'm leaning toward a shotgun theory for the mechanism, which would include Killer T Cell knockout, tolerance maybe, antibodies to anticancer proteins that are suggested by computer modeling apparently, and my own extremely out-there view!
My perspective is that anti-autoimmunity (i.e. tolerance) is a more important factor here than autoimmunity. The reason why people with autoimmune diseases have weaker immune systems is not directly because of the autoimmunity, but because the body recognizes a self-attack and downregulates the immune system accordingly.
Some people - particularly those with pre-existing autoimmune conditions - are likely to respond to cells producing the spike protein by creating cross-reactive auto-antibodies that cause lingering autoimmunity issues. However, tolerance mechanisms in ALL people are going to *perceive* the attack on spike-bearing cells as an autoimmune attack and are going to respond accordingly, essentially inducing the autoimmune-typical lab profile that Dr. Thompson observed.
In other words, it doesn't matter if the shots actually induce long-term autoimmunity. The fact that the body *thinks* they are inducing autoimmunity is enough to trigger immune suppression with implications for cancer and vulnerability to future infections. I would be very interested to see how long after injection this effect lasts, and if it eventually returns to normal.
As for antibodies to anti-cancer proteins, I'll be interested to see what you write but I'll caution that antibodies bind to all manner of things, and computer modeling of binding reveals an even wider range of potential interactions. Most of the time this binding either doesn't really occur in vivo, or even if it does it often proves to be inconsequential. Always interested in your out-there views as well!
Yes, I agree computer modeling for peptide similarities is not prima facie convincing. But it's good that outsiders are using it to point out all the etiologies for vaccine-induced autoimmunity (including via residue cell culture proteins) that the experts refuse to acknowledge.
I'm still ambivalent on the signal for long term depressed immunity. Lots of anecdotes that the non-vaxxed are feeling the same pain - possibly just general immune debt from isolation? Possibly an effect of spike "shedding"? The "nice" thing about the general immunodeficiency question is that it will probably become much more clear with time. As I mentioned below - you can't not notice it.
Trying to read between the lines to see if it's hype, seeing something that isn't actually there, or perhaps somewhat true. I know you've commented numerous times on gleaning information from noisy and/or faulty data, so when they are purposefully trying to hide the ball, the challenge is even greater to realize what's really happening.
The Long Term Killer T Cell Deficiency? possibility obviously can't be ruled out, since no one is looking at it. If it turns out to be the case, Cole / the Exposé's description of the condition as a novel form of AIDS will be appropriate.
But the reversal in infection efficacy in of itself doesn't add evidence that (prolonged) T Cell knockout is the mechanism for that reversal. And, most of the changes in "efficacy" displayed on those charts are due to changes in the less reliable unvaccinated infection rates; the Covid-vaccinated infection rates aren't changing very much until the very last weeks (possibly because school-teachers are both middle-aged and highly vaccinated, so there is a lot more screening).
Even short-term T Cell knockout could be a very serious problem - leading to cancers, as Cole suggests. In that case it doesn't matter if the T Cells come back later. But if they do bounce back, then regular immunity should come with it (notwithstanding some detriment to innate immunity due to residual antibodies for SC2, as vanden Bossche proposes; I still think this is the best explanation for why there are more cases post-vax). Otherwise if T Cells didn't recover I think we'd be seeing more cases of scabies etc by now. Like, literally everyone who got Covid-vaccinated would have scabies. It would be hard to miss. Either way, long term testing should precede any conclusions.
Thank you for sharing this video. The increase in granulocyte count was shocking. Reminded me somehow of Royal Raymond Rife's work on nanobacteria. I do want to point out Dr. Thompson's patient was described as "can run a 5K now". Running causes an increase in inflammatory markers. Could this have made the patient more susceptible in that he was in a pro-inflammatory condition? Similarly, I have witnessed a family member who was double jabbed back in the Spring. By the late summer his rheumatoid arthritis (itself an autoimmune disease) had exacerbated to the point he was prescribed Methotrexate (an immunosuppressant - during a pandemic - I will never understand why). You can guess the rest. Factoring in inflammatory markers before administering the jabs would have prevented many post-jab deaths, when you think about it. But obviously there is a bigger agenda at play here.
I instinctually wince when anyone mentions jogging IRL. It's is torture on the body; I think weightlifting and interval workouts are way more pro-immune health.
Yes, to subsidize off-label production of the poison in other countries - user Tardigrade mentioned that. Which means we won't be able to do anything to stop them from continuing to use it if it turns out to "escape" into the wild like so many other drugs.
Great to get an alternative perspective on some of these "hot topics". It is comforting that you don't fear ADE but how to explain all the livestock that were felled by it during testing of earlier attempts at corona vaccine? Surely they could have been given therapeutics in any strength desired, if that would have been enough to mitigate it.
I'm not sure what the typical approach to responding to viral infections in livestock is - my impression is that they just sacrifice everything in sight. Nonetheless, the FLCCC protocols are the novel result of the last year of experimentation and overturning of myths that viral infections can't be treated, so they demand a reevaluation of how we react to (some types of) infections in livestock.
As someone who relies quite heavily on the Seroprevalence data in my own analysis - I don't know that I can argue with your conclusion that it's becoming something that's not worth what it used to be. Not only is there a time dependent peak and fade in antibodies in even the S protein (with no mention similar to the N antibodies), their shift from 4 to 12 week sampling (and once monthly reporting) is mystifying to me in a report that it all about looking at the recent timeframe. If I were a suspicious man, I'd say it's to use the peak antibody levels from 8-10 weeks back to mask a rapidly fading level in their oldest populations long enough to get the booster campaign really going. I suspect it might have been stealth enough that many of their target demographic weren't really aware of it.
Their new antibody level charts do show some evidence of their silent booster campaign, but it really isn't marked at the moment aside from the 70-84 year-old group.
But this all adds up to the data possibly undergoing more manipulation that was originally the case. And data manipulated before it gets to us in unknown ways is kind of useless for analysis.
I really really wish you were wrong, but I've got a sneaking suspicion that you aren't.
Excellent reading - thank you Brian. I apologize that I will have to read more than once in order to fully digest. I keep going back to Footnote #13. Your surmising is supported by Peter Doshi https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563 who articulates evidence of SARS-CoV-2 T-Cell reactivity in US blood specimens between 2015 and 2018. If you REALLY want to find out whether you caught it, https://www.t-detect.com/ allows for T Cell testing. Sadly, mine was negative. But I was happy to know either way.
Yes, there was definitely pre-existing cellular immunity via coronavirus - but there might have also been pre-existing priming for antibody dependent enhancement via coronavirus.
So if you aren't "updated" to SARS-CoV-2's changed model in a gradual way, you get "updated" in the harsher way. The gradual way can lead you to T Cell protection without measurable antibodies (against SC2). On a regional level, conditions might either be 1) not ideal for SC2 to proliferate without repeated small exposures via travel, due to predominance of other coronaviruses 2) ideal for SC2 to proliferate due to no competing coronaviruses, with ADE due to unfamiliarity with SC2 3) both ideal for SC2 to proliferate but no ADE due to passing through a long period of 1 + small exposures.
In my vague, tentative "early leak" mental model, repeated brushes with the viruses (as would happen if you were in California during 2018-19, or if you were elsewhere and just got lucky enough to be around tourist-introduced strains multiple times) generate tiny tiny updates to T Cell motifs that lead to a measurable "recognition" end point.
T Cells, I think, are a pretty fluid correlate to memory immunity. One day X T Cell recognition is enough to prevent infection and the next day it isn't. Just like with auto-immunity, a lot of people are in a gray area.
*"and the next day it isn't" for example if because other coronaviruses in your region are no longer prevalent, increasing the amount of SC2 you encounter so that it crosses the threshold of what T Cells can put out. At that point, symptomatic infection leading to antibodies for a more full-spectrum memory immunity response.
I agree that the UKHSA statement has been amplified and expounded upon too greatly. It’s vague and non-quantitative (paraphrasing egm).
And that it’s tempting to write off the world as a place where you can choose your own reality and go live in it. But this is highly unsatisfying - the internet is a huge junkpile but there is useful stuff in there if we keep digging. We will find parts that fit together, explain observable reality, and predict future trends. Let’s have the courage to continue to look for truth and not get discouraged by all the bad, sensationalized factoids out there.
The real scandal is why the scientific “community” (wow I dislike that word) isn’t looking for the definitive set of conditions which enables us to eject individuals from this never-ending pandemic game. What do you have to do in order to be able to quit playing and go to the kitchen to make yourself a sandwich? We’re not going to get out of this as a group, all at once, but rather as one “immune”person at a time.
My intuition is that the lowest-mortality path to acclimating to SARS-CoV-2 would have been to not pay attention to it. Seems to be what played out in California (essentially the Chinese middle-class's university campus) - by moving and mixing around obliviously in 2019, we built up a non-measurable intrinsic immune competence. So there was never even an outbreak here in spring 2020 despite Santa Clara supposedly being ground 0 for the US (and staying open for two weeks). But would full reopening go as smoothly now, after the vaccines have futzed with who-knows-what? It's probably still preferable (from the mortality perspective; from the political perspective it is essential).
I don't really see how to escape the paradox of the choose-your-own-reality world. Every conclusion is determined by the choice of what to look out. It's almost certain that some of this data is no longer even legitimate; but there's no way to know which.
interesting as always - but here is the deal. UK data is missing 2 very important pieces of data. The percentage of patients with prior infection AND All Cause Mortality. Those 2 uncertainties make conclusions very difficult.
So why doesnt the UK publish all cause mortality for the Vax and Unvaxed populations?
Especially all cause mortality by age group. The data from Scotland in June was really quite shocking for the older groups - there's a discount because the virus (+ lack of effective treatment) hit the most close-to-death hardest. That doesn't mean the vaccine isn't incredibly deadly to the not-close-to-death, especially physically healthy elderly, just that they are "competing" with a statistical distortion to the normal churn of life.
Cant ignore prior infection. If the vaccines are 60% VE for death in GB right now and 40% of the patients are protected from prior immunity...do the math. From a health standpoint, I would say that it would make sense to vaccinate the elderly. But there is likely no benefit in those less than 50 years...
I’m bored with Berenson. His appearance on Bro Rogaine (Joe Rogan) was lackluster. Then he attempted to be spooky about vaccines on Tucker. It’s almost as if he is making the media rounds for upcoming book(not buying it) release. He seems preoccupied with being the one who finally puts the coffin nail into c19 vaccines. This will never happen and is a waste of time. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn he is triple jabbed. Writers like eugyppius, although thoughtful, are swept up in this dialogue which ultimately underwhelms. The data that does come out is convoluted. Made more so as individuals like elgatomalo apply their hands to it with more math. At this point the pro vax crowd is all in. If you told them the vaccines would kill them in 18 months but they wouldn’t get c19 the uptake would likely be the same. Our situation now is one of wait and see. As you mentioned I’m more concerned about mandates causing loss of work and then eventually civil war.
If Berenson red-pills the parents of a few thousand 5-11 year-olds, I'm fine with whatever his personal and business interests are. As for the rest, I think there is a tendency to galaxy-brain at "viruses don't want to kill their host" and then groove everything else into talking points, akin to a Biological Libertarianism. I don't object to that kind of intuitive approach, but the intuition is wrong. Viral genes kill hosts to survive. There's a budget for it. How else could phages even exist. If you can't admit that, you'll only drive people to confusion in the end.
This actual virus has become irrelevant to the story- except the unknowns that will later reveal themselves from its manufacturing. But for now, I agree, the concerning factors in this are the jab related harms and Molnupiravir use this winter. If humanity manages to escape skyrocketing increases in vascular diseases, cancer, reproductive and neonatal consequences... it will be the equivalent of hell freezing over.
We can hope. A lot of medical assumptions about what is and isn't a death sentence would have to be defied, at least. But it has happened.
Your attitude reminds me of a poem by Rudyard Kipling. I appreciate it, as well as your articles.
We might very well be stooping and building up with worn out tools the broken things we gave our life to.
I was enjoying life, freedom and the pursuit of goals. Civil war does not appeal at all. Am expanding my mind by reading some Luttwak.
Which poem?
A lot of people here in the US at least were enjoying the pursuit of their goals, some for the first time - it's amazing how willingly they gave that up. That is the most striking feature of the reaction. I'm talking about the days before the official lockdown. When SXSW shut down, when people stopped going to restaurants (not me). Their choice was made.
I am taking a liberty, for sure - specifically you appear to me (in relation to hot virus variants, etc) to be staying calm and stoic. ie "Keeping your head when all about you are losing theirs".
Oh - well, my belief that economic collapse is around the corner notwithstanding, I think so. Humans who live through this era will not remember the virus itself as anything even conceivably worth worrying about. Even those who are afraid of it now will hardly remember that fear; it will seem like a passing fever dream. I’m just trying to skip to the end.
Yes, that would be efficient use of a time machine.
If - Rudyard Kipling
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
(formerly commented as dendroica)
ADE is what everyone is expecting, but the storm is often not what is expected. Those facing a hurricane fear the wind but more often drown.
Thanks for your unique perspectives. I share your concerns with regard to cancer, and I can find no real-time source for cancer diagnosis numbers so it appears we will be reliant on anecdote until the 2021 numbers are compiled in January. Cancer is increasingly appearing as a topic in John Michael Greer's weekly covid discussion board.
Here's a comment I shared there this week, as food for thought for your upcoming cancer post.
-------
I would not expect the vaccines to directly cause mutations leading to cancer, but they could easily cause the immune system to miss nascent cancers or to be weakened in its fight against existing cancers. In fact I would not be at all surprised if this is an unfortunate side effect of genetic vaccines in general.
Consider that within the innate immune system are cells (natural killer cells and killer T cells) whose mission includes patrolling the body for cancer cells and destroying them. The signal they are searching for is unusual proteins on the cell surface.
Now let's inject an mRNA or viral vector vaccine that hijacks thousands of cells so that they produce strange surface proteins.
This will have two likely outcomes, both of them bad:
1. The killer cells are overwhelmed by the sudden appearance of thousands of aberrant cells, and in the chaos they fail to find new developing cancers or to fight existing cancers.
2. The body recognizes a large-scale self-attack and downregulates the killer cells or signals them to back off, assuming some sort of autoimmune dysfunction is underway. This would fall under the umbrella of "tolerance" and would also lead to a weakened immune response to nascent and existing cancers which could last well beyond the departure of the spike protein from the body.
--------
Now combine immune tolerance/exhaustion with widespread deployment of a directly mutagenic new drug, and we might unfortunately have a perfect storm on our hands.
This is supported by the provocative "jaw dropped" video by Nathan Thompson - https://rumble.com/vnaocj-immune-system-lab-results-after-1st-and-2nd-jab.html.
I'm leaning toward a shotgun theory for the mechanism, which would include Killer T Cell knockout, tolerance maybe, antibodies to anticancer proteins that are suggested by computer modeling apparently, and my own extremely out-there view!
Thanks for sharing that video.
My perspective is that anti-autoimmunity (i.e. tolerance) is a more important factor here than autoimmunity. The reason why people with autoimmune diseases have weaker immune systems is not directly because of the autoimmunity, but because the body recognizes a self-attack and downregulates the immune system accordingly.
Some people - particularly those with pre-existing autoimmune conditions - are likely to respond to cells producing the spike protein by creating cross-reactive auto-antibodies that cause lingering autoimmunity issues. However, tolerance mechanisms in ALL people are going to *perceive* the attack on spike-bearing cells as an autoimmune attack and are going to respond accordingly, essentially inducing the autoimmune-typical lab profile that Dr. Thompson observed.
In other words, it doesn't matter if the shots actually induce long-term autoimmunity. The fact that the body *thinks* they are inducing autoimmunity is enough to trigger immune suppression with implications for cancer and vulnerability to future infections. I would be very interested to see how long after injection this effect lasts, and if it eventually returns to normal.
As for antibodies to anti-cancer proteins, I'll be interested to see what you write but I'll caution that antibodies bind to all manner of things, and computer modeling of binding reveals an even wider range of potential interactions. Most of the time this binding either doesn't really occur in vivo, or even if it does it often proves to be inconsequential. Always interested in your out-there views as well!
Yes, I agree computer modeling for peptide similarities is not prima facie convincing. But it's good that outsiders are using it to point out all the etiologies for vaccine-induced autoimmunity (including via residue cell culture proteins) that the experts refuse to acknowledge.
I'm still ambivalent on the signal for long term depressed immunity. Lots of anecdotes that the non-vaxxed are feeling the same pain - possibly just general immune debt from isolation? Possibly an effect of spike "shedding"? The "nice" thing about the general immunodeficiency question is that it will probably become much more clear with time. As I mentioned below - you can't not notice it.
Brian, would you care to comment on this:
https://theexpose.uk/2021/10/23/government-reports-suggest-fully-vaccinated-develop-ade-by-the-end-of-the-year/
Trying to read between the lines to see if it's hype, seeing something that isn't actually there, or perhaps somewhat true. I know you've commented numerous times on gleaning information from noisy and/or faulty data, so when they are purposefully trying to hide the ball, the challenge is even greater to realize what's really happening.
cheers,
The Long Term Killer T Cell Deficiency? possibility obviously can't be ruled out, since no one is looking at it. If it turns out to be the case, Cole / the Exposé's description of the condition as a novel form of AIDS will be appropriate.
But the reversal in infection efficacy in of itself doesn't add evidence that (prolonged) T Cell knockout is the mechanism for that reversal. And, most of the changes in "efficacy" displayed on those charts are due to changes in the less reliable unvaccinated infection rates; the Covid-vaccinated infection rates aren't changing very much until the very last weeks (possibly because school-teachers are both middle-aged and highly vaccinated, so there is a lot more screening).
Even short-term T Cell knockout could be a very serious problem - leading to cancers, as Cole suggests. In that case it doesn't matter if the T Cells come back later. But if they do bounce back, then regular immunity should come with it (notwithstanding some detriment to innate immunity due to residual antibodies for SC2, as vanden Bossche proposes; I still think this is the best explanation for why there are more cases post-vax). Otherwise if T Cells didn't recover I think we'd be seeing more cases of scabies etc by now. Like, literally everyone who got Covid-vaccinated would have scabies. It would be hard to miss. Either way, long term testing should precede any conclusions.
Thank you for sharing this video. The increase in granulocyte count was shocking. Reminded me somehow of Royal Raymond Rife's work on nanobacteria. I do want to point out Dr. Thompson's patient was described as "can run a 5K now". Running causes an increase in inflammatory markers. Could this have made the patient more susceptible in that he was in a pro-inflammatory condition? Similarly, I have witnessed a family member who was double jabbed back in the Spring. By the late summer his rheumatoid arthritis (itself an autoimmune disease) had exacerbated to the point he was prescribed Methotrexate (an immunosuppressant - during a pandemic - I will never understand why). You can guess the rest. Factoring in inflammatory markers before administering the jabs would have prevented many post-jab deaths, when you think about it. But obviously there is a bigger agenda at play here.
I instinctually wince when anyone mentions jogging IRL. It's is torture on the body; I think weightlifting and interval workouts are way more pro-immune health.
Agree. My own personal belief is that we are each born with a pre-determined number of heartbeats. Why waste them on a treadmill :)
The Gates foundation is donating $120MM to help increase use of Molnupiravir.
Yes, to subsidize off-label production of the poison in other countries - user Tardigrade mentioned that. Which means we won't be able to do anything to stop them from continuing to use it if it turns out to "escape" into the wild like so many other drugs.
Great to get an alternative perspective on some of these "hot topics". It is comforting that you don't fear ADE but how to explain all the livestock that were felled by it during testing of earlier attempts at corona vaccine? Surely they could have been given therapeutics in any strength desired, if that would have been enough to mitigate it.
I'm not sure what the typical approach to responding to viral infections in livestock is - my impression is that they just sacrifice everything in sight. Nonetheless, the FLCCC protocols are the novel result of the last year of experimentation and overturning of myths that viral infections can't be treated, so they demand a reevaluation of how we react to (some types of) infections in livestock.