When a supposed independent committee with ties to pharma makes decisions on vaccines without having all the data or considering safety signals it's really just regulatory theater.
In your 3rd point you affirm that immunity from the mRNA injections wane quickly. My question for you is, are you certain that the injection provided any protection in the 1st place? Every study that I have read on the efficiency of the mRNA shots excludes the 1st 14 days after the injection from the calculation. This was done because Pfizer and Moderna assert that it takes 14 days for their product to become effective. However true this may or may not be, the reality is that a significant number of people that were injected got covid like illness during those 14 days. These were typically included in the unvaxxed camp, thus skewing the data. As time passes, and more vaxxed people got sick, the significance of the numbers sick in the 1st 14 days wanes. As a result, the VE appears to wane, but is actually simply what would be expected mathematically even if the injections had a constant VE=0.
This is a great question. The mRNA injections are inducing an antibody response but it is certainly not neutralizing. That's why I don't call these 'vaccines'. Producing any type of immune does not make it a vaccine. In general, upon exposure to an antigen antibody production can start as soon as 10 days after infection and generally peaks by day 21 post infection. At some point during this timeframe, there is a class switch from IgM antibodies to IgG antibodies. The half life an IgG antibody is roughly 24 days which means the antibody titer halves every 3 weeks. Antibodies are actually not the best measure of protective, lasting immunity for many virus infections. What antibodies tell us is there was a recent infection or exposure to a pathogen. So you are correct in that these injections are not providing any protection against infection given the type of immunity that is being programmed.
I found this article very informative, so thank you. However you do use the term “vaccine” throughout, albeit with the qualifier “genetic” in front of the word. I did take note an it bothered me. Best not to further their crusade by using their revised wording.
For example, this study of over 1 million people in the UK found that an almost unbelievable 33% of the injected people developed covid like symptoms in the 1st 7 days after being injected. So close to covid were these symptoms, in fact, that the authors concluded: "Post-vaccination symptoms per se cannot be differentiated from COVID-19 with clinical robustness, either using symptom profiles or machine-derived models."
This is also a valid observation and concern. The adverse events experienced from the injections are similar to what has been couched as COVID. It is my professional opinion that COVID is an immune dysregulation.
Thank you for your important writings!
Hi. I think you hit all the points. I think I agree with most everything you said. The world has gone mad. Thank you for covering this.
In your 3rd point you affirm that immunity from the mRNA injections wane quickly. My question for you is, are you certain that the injection provided any protection in the 1st place? Every study that I have read on the efficiency of the mRNA shots excludes the 1st 14 days after the injection from the calculation. This was done because Pfizer and Moderna assert that it takes 14 days for their product to become effective. However true this may or may not be, the reality is that a significant number of people that were injected got covid like illness during those 14 days. These were typically included in the unvaxxed camp, thus skewing the data. As time passes, and more vaxxed people got sick, the significance of the numbers sick in the 1st 14 days wanes. As a result, the VE appears to wane, but is actually simply what would be expected mathematically even if the injections had a constant VE=0.
This is a great question. The mRNA injections are inducing an antibody response but it is certainly not neutralizing. That's why I don't call these 'vaccines'. Producing any type of immune does not make it a vaccine. In general, upon exposure to an antigen antibody production can start as soon as 10 days after infection and generally peaks by day 21 post infection. At some point during this timeframe, there is a class switch from IgM antibodies to IgG antibodies. The half life an IgG antibody is roughly 24 days which means the antibody titer halves every 3 weeks. Antibodies are actually not the best measure of protective, lasting immunity for many virus infections. What antibodies tell us is there was a recent infection or exposure to a pathogen. So you are correct in that these injections are not providing any protection against infection given the type of immunity that is being programmed.
I found this article very informative, so thank you. However you do use the term “vaccine” throughout, albeit with the qualifier “genetic” in front of the word. I did take note an it bothered me. Best not to further their crusade by using their revised wording.
For example, this study of over 1 million people in the UK found that an almost unbelievable 33% of the injected people developed covid like symptoms in the 1st 7 days after being injected. So close to covid were these symptoms, in fact, that the authors concluded: "Post-vaccination symptoms per se cannot be differentiated from COVID-19 with clinical robustness, either using symptom profiles or machine-derived models."
See:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00493-4/fulltext
Thus, all VE studies ignoring the 1st 14 days are functionally useless, no?
This is also a valid observation and concern. The adverse events experienced from the injections are similar to what has been couched as COVID. It is my professional opinion that COVID is an immune dysregulation.
How is this annual shot justified? Annual emergency??
Nobody from main stream media cares to ask I guess.
I like your post Jen and agree with most of it