Share this comment
not trying to refute anything in this article (because I can't) but here is another:
https://palexander.substack.com/p/original-antigenic-sin-mortal-antigenic
The question I ask as a non-technical layperson in this field is not is OAS real but is there a need to get jabbed versus following something like FLCCC protocols? When I read an ar…
not trying to refute anything in this article (because I can't) but here is another:
https://palexander.substack.com/p/original-antigenic-sin-mortal-antigenic
The question I ask as a non-technical layperson in this field is not is OAS real but is there a need to get jabbed versus following something like FLCCC protocols? When I read an article like the below or see a summary of CDC/NIH flip flops and lies, you know something is not right.
OAS/AAS/BAS/CAS who cares! Is it safe and effective?
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/media-resources/the-pfizer-inoculations-for-covid-19-more-harm-than-good-2/
As I mention in footnote 2, there are plausible "non-OAS" concerns for whether vaccination sabotages the immune response that follows infection. But then you also have to ask if this tradeoff is still a net benefit for vulnerable groups - if the vaccine protects them against viremia. I think NO, because the vaccine essentially causes the same harms as viremia, by dispersing the script for spike throughout the body.
More complicated are the treatment protocols - they don't cause the harms that the vaccines do, but do they, by reducing symptoms, temper the immune response a bit, and is this possibly a net negative for some (i.e., if lifetime reinfections are higher after FLCCC treatment, are younger people better off roughing out the virus now? - this is my instinct, and partly why I didn't use any treatment during my likely-Omicron infection two weeks ago).
There's lots and lots of complexities to the issue - everything about immunity involves a built-in equilibrium, in which there's no free lunch, but deficiencies tend to self-correct over time. The OAS trope totally denies the latter reality which is why it gets my blood boiling.
If following a treatment protocol is the same as mild or asymptomatic infection, they may be ok?:
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31008-4?rss=yes
Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19
Right, though it's still "asymptomatic as suppressed by the innate immune system" instead of asymptomatic as suppressed by drugs that made the virus attack less aggressively. Memory immunity is a learning algorithm - so just because some people learn without as much "struggle," doesn't mean you can go ahead and hide the harder part of the math book from them without messing up their test scores, to veer off into total cartoon-biology-mode.
It would depend on whether the innate system is enhanced by the treatment protocol yeah? If it gets past that then whether the body works quickly or slowly shouldn't be a problem in terms of generating memory immunity - I would have thought?
I don't understand biology or the protocols well enough to see where the assistance is delivered - at the mucosal / innate level or below.
Well, if we're talking ivermectin then we're in theoretical "binds against literally everything from polyprotein to RdRp to spike" land, with in vitro "5000-fold reduction" of production of viral RNA, as summarized in the retracted Zaidi / Dehgani-Mobaraki review, though whether that happens in vivo is unknown.
If we're just talking about boosting innate immunity, I still have my qualms but they're in my super-luddite "no pain no gain" mental territory.