"But the vaccine also makes people less transmissible?“
That’s what some studies claimed, yes.
But at what point in time did they measure this effect?
The jabs initially trigger your immune system.
But what if the effect fades and you walk around bar any mucosal protection?
Here's proof that the effects do fade over time. Very strong correlations in data and academic journal articles
Strong data correlation between increased covid cases and vaccination between various countries (comparing infections per million persons per capita
to doses per million persons per capita):
Strong data correlation between waning protection of the vaccine and it only offering short lived protection:
(Note the parabolic rise in
cases post 51% of population vaccinated in Cypress from the start to the end of June 2021)
Risk of myocarditis from covid jabs is 20 to 120 times higher than that which was expected according to the CDC's and
Pfizer's own internal documents
(Does the CDC's and Pfizer's own internal documents count as misinformation too?). That's a very high risk profile, and a very bad risk to benefit
ratio. Compared to the side effects of HCQ or Ivermectin which have been around for decades, are extremely well studied in terms of known safety,
dosage profiles and side effects (compared to no studies on the the long term effects of the jabs and no active placebo/control groups), and both HCQ
and Ivermectin are mass prescribed drugs with some of the safest drug profiles of currently prescribed drugs today.
Conclusive proof from peer-reviewed academic journal articles that vaccination is irrefutably linked to reduced Th1
antibody responses in infants, children and adults, and poorer outcomes to all infections vs. unvaccinated persons.
(If you care about
everyone's health, then you ought to do your due dilligence to read at least this link and read the academic journal articles cited in the post, and
you should share it to everyone whom you know and care about):
I encourage everybody to read and share the post in the above link as well as the peer-reviewed academic journal articles which are cited in the above
link. The information cited in the above link is entirely based on peer reviewed academic journal literature. Many scientists have no other choice but
to post this information on 4chan because it doesn't actively censor information and scientists reputation and livelihood is at risk by speaking out?
Many scientists have openly come out and said this. The disclaimer on 4chans website is on there purely for liability reasons, if anyone seeks to
discredit the information on the basis of where it is posted (whilst having complete disregard to the actual substance of the post)
One may argue that there being a greater amount of vaccinated hospitalised persons compared to unvaccinated means that the vaccines are unsafe, only
in circumstances where the pool of subjects is equal on both sides of the divide (or if the vaccine were 100% effective). Otherwise there will always
be a breakeven point once the number of vaccinated people exceeds that of unvaccinated. . The effectiveness of the vaccine was supposedly 90%
effective at reducing hospitalizations caused by the initial variant. There's the unknowns of how many people from each group are at what level of
risk, what age, etc etc.
Pro jab shills will selectively cherrypick parts of my argument to address, either because of cognitive dissonance or because they're paid, and they
will stonewall and not give any response the contentious issues that they have no good reply to, such as the reduced t-cell counts observable in
serology tests, which are not disputable, not based in opinion and they are objective measures of health. The serology and antibody lab tests are
objective measures of evidence, not opinion based, and they conclusively prove immune system deficiencies post vaccination.
Pro jab shills will fail to address the fact "unvaccinated" individuals in covid statistics contain a large representation of persons who have
received covid injections, which immediately invalidates all the assertions you made because the data you based those assertions is based on
"unvaccinated" risk, when the "unvaccinated" demographic of persons are conflated with persons who received a jab but were then infected 2 weeks
before the jab had time to take full effect.
Shills are pro vaccinating kids when theres neurological issues and birth defects and miscarriages linked to vaccination? When kids have the least
likely chance to have poor outcomes of the disease (0.005% or less?) and theres no long term data on their safety? Look how long it took for asbestos
related diseases caused by asbestos exposure over 30 years in the past to be analysed and understood, over 30 years. They think giving kids AIDS or a
1 in 300 risk of myocarditis in young boys is worth the risk? for a virus that has a 0.005% chance of death? Source:
My daughter had covid with symptoms of the flu and nothing else, she was perfectly fine. My grandmother who is nearly 90 years old had it and she
survived, so did my aunt contract covid and survive who is a type 2 diabetic and she is bordering obese. They ate well, had sunlight, took vitamin D,
Zinc, vitamin C and Quercetin. They also didn't go to a hospital and get ventilated and killed from ventillation tearing their inflammed lungs and
preventing them from coughing up phlegm and exosomes which need to come out of the body and lungs, due to an invasive ventilation tube being crammed
and obstructing the asophagus, leading to suffocation. So I've lived with it and dealt with it, i'm not just talking out of my asshole.
5-10-2021 by natoshis because: (no reason given)