"Or are they merely enjoying hubris before nemesis in the form of a renewed and more deadly "vaccine"-induced epidemic?
Isn't neutral to whether they were stampeded into this in the first place. If the numbers were gamed when it was to the advantage of our rulers, they can be gamed again now in terms of vaccine effectiveness. I'm not sure what's really happening now, no matter what the numbers say. What if the vaccine is water, a placebo, used to give credit for ending the pandemic to the pharmaceutical companies, Bill Gates, and so forth, and to ensure the masses pay for and use regular vaccines from now on? What about another incident you reported of a nursing home of vaccinated people suffering a sudden onset of covid regardless? What if the higher than expected mortality really was due to the suffering of the lock downs and so forth, and as these ease (as indeed they've begun easing in many, many places, concurrent with the vaccination programs and therefore not based on vaccination effectiveness anyway)and peoples' subjective experiences associate this with vaccination effectiveness? When we speak of cases in the above-cited tables, are we still speaking of the PCR-positive "cases"? Does it suddenly not matter PCR testing for this is ridiculous? Also, this data as presented above is poorly sorted. We don't need to repeat the various ways morbidity is now known to be stratified according to a variety of factors. In the tables, these are opaque as far as I can tell. What is Public Health England? Why are they suddenly at the forefront of knowing the effectiveness of the vaccinations? Sounds like a private company...Who funds it and how? Also, and maybe I'm dense, but I always thought vaccination was a way of preventing infection, not treat it. When did that change? Or, please give me another example of a vaccination used as a treatment or a treatment (and cure) being referred to as a vaccination by medical authorities or others who command the terminology of their profession better than me. (Is this a case where authorities are divided on terminology and we are only hearing the terminology of a selected sector as per mass media censorship and propaganda?)
Good critique of the data I posted yesterday. As a former scientific person I should have offered my own evaluation, i.e., that lacking operational definitions of terms such as "case," which could be anything from a sniffle to a positive but meaningless 45-cycle PCR test, it is impossible to assign definite meaning to the data.
As for Public Health England, its web pages appear under the Gov.UK logo, so they are a public agency. And, according to their Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of Immunisation:
"The latest data continue to show that both vaccines in use in the UK are still providing really good levels of protection against COVID-19. As well as reducing cases, if vaccinated people catch COVID-19, they are less likely to get serious illness and die."
This confirms your point that the novel RNA "vaccines" being used in the UK do not necessarily, or maybe ever, prevent infection, but can ameliorate the disease.
This, as vanden Bossche argues, is what creates conditions conducive to rapid viral evolution and the creation of new and perhaps deadlier viral strains.
Specifically, he claims that because the "vaccine" induces the production of antibodies specific for only one or two viral proteins while suppressing constitutive broad-rage immune responses, it creates a conditions for the free multiplication of Covid mutants that lack the antigen upon which the effectiveness of the "vaccine" depends. Thus, administered during an epidemic, the novel mRNA vaccines may induce the creation of a multitude of "vaccine"-resistant strains, some of which are likely to be deadlier than the original strain.
Whether vanden Bossche is correct I'm not sure. I find his original paper fairly obscure, but this new presentation may be easier to follow.
"Or are they merely enjoying hubris before nemesis in the form of a renewed and more deadly "vaccine"-induced epidemic?
ReplyDeleteIsn't neutral to whether they were stampeded into this in the first place. If the numbers were gamed when it was to the advantage of our rulers, they can be gamed again now in terms of vaccine effectiveness. I'm not sure what's really happening now, no matter what the numbers say. What if the vaccine is water, a placebo, used to give credit for ending the pandemic to the pharmaceutical companies, Bill Gates, and so forth, and to ensure the masses pay for and use regular vaccines from now on? What about another incident you reported of a nursing home of vaccinated people suffering a sudden onset of covid regardless? What if the higher than expected mortality really was due to the suffering of the lock downs and so forth, and as these ease (as indeed they've begun easing in many, many places, concurrent with the vaccination programs and therefore not based on vaccination effectiveness anyway)and peoples' subjective experiences associate this with vaccination effectiveness? When we speak of cases in the above-cited tables, are we still speaking of the PCR-positive "cases"? Does it suddenly not matter PCR testing for this is ridiculous? Also, this data as presented above is poorly sorted. We don't need to repeat the various ways morbidity is now known to be stratified according to a variety of factors. In the tables, these are opaque as far as I can tell. What is Public Health England? Why are they suddenly at the forefront of knowing the effectiveness of the vaccinations? Sounds like a private company...Who funds it and how? Also, and maybe I'm dense, but I always thought vaccination was a way of preventing infection, not treat it. When did that change? Or, please give me another example of a vaccination used as a treatment or a treatment (and cure) being referred to as a vaccination by medical authorities or others who command the terminology of their profession better than me. (Is this a case where authorities are divided on terminology and we are only hearing the terminology of a selected sector as per mass media censorship and propaganda?)
Good critique of the data I posted yesterday. As a former scientific person I should have offered my own evaluation, i.e., that lacking operational definitions of terms such as "case," which could be anything from a sniffle to a positive but meaningless 45-cycle PCR test, it is impossible to assign definite meaning to the data.
DeleteAs for Public Health England, its web pages appear under the Gov.UK logo, so they are a public agency. And, according to their Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of Immunisation:
"The latest data continue to show that both vaccines in use in the UK are still providing really good levels of protection against COVID-19. As well as reducing cases, if vaccinated people catch COVID-19, they are less likely to get serious illness and die."
This confirms your point that the novel RNA "vaccines" being used in the UK do not necessarily, or maybe ever, prevent infection, but can ameliorate the disease.
This, as vanden Bossche argues, is what creates conditions conducive to rapid viral evolution and the creation of new and perhaps deadlier viral strains.
Specifically, he claims that because the "vaccine" induces the production of antibodies specific for only one or two viral proteins while suppressing constitutive broad-rage immune responses, it creates a conditions for the free multiplication of Covid mutants that lack the antigen upon which the effectiveness of the "vaccine" depends. Thus, administered during an epidemic, the novel mRNA vaccines may induce the creation of a multitude of "vaccine"-resistant strains, some of which are likely to be deadlier than the original strain.
Whether vanden Bossche is correct I'm not sure. I find his original paper fairly obscure, but this new presentation may be easier to follow.