Former anti-vax Edson woman shares husband's COVID-19 ICU horror story.
(edmontonjournal.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
So 1 In 50. IOW 2%. IOW a 98% survival rate. However CDC states an over 99.5% survival rate.
Why develop a jab for a pathogen with a 98% survival rate at worst? Flu A and B kill more people a year.
If the jab made it so one was basically set for life (a la measles and chicken pox) that’s one thing.
Turns out these infusions are “leaky” vaccines. They are driving the evolution of coronavirii sars cov2 in directions it would never have done with natural in the wild herd immunity, with the injection letting the “original” version of sars-cov2 “escape” from the jabbed because it didn’t completely render the body able to mount a 100% defence and consume the pathogen.
Meanwhile, what’s the best “jab” to take? Why it’s something that has around 27x the effect of the existing jabs, natural immunity. This is virology/immunity 101.
I’ve already had the Rona naturally. I won’t get it again.
I’m not 85 so it’s not a concern for me or is things like the flu or colds. If anyone wants to take the poke, knock yourself out, none of my biz. Everyone that is terrified, go take the poke, then you’re covered against the scary “I vaxxed!” me who is covered with natural immunity 27x against you getting it again with a shot that’s only 30% effective and giving it to me… and we’re both covered so everyone stop worrying and get back to sanity.
Got a link for that?
Because when enough people have the virus the hospitals are flooded can't treat people with regular problems.
Got a link for that?
Which you get by surviving the virus, which takes us back to the flooded hospitals.
No law, yet, against infecting people who do happen to be vulnerable.
“I’m not 85 so it’s not a concern for me”
No law, yet, against infecting people who do happen to be vulnerable.
Should there be a law against infecting people who are “vulnerable”?
What law would you make if you were PM?
Jabs mandatory for every last man, woman child and youngest of babies?
How would one prove I’m a court of law whom the ‘infector’ was? Shall this cover just the current ‘Rona or however many “variants” ? 1 of 50 people in the coffee shop each day.
“Vulnerable” to what? The Rona? If a person is so terrified of succumbing to a bug with an IFR of 0.05%, then perhaps that person has bigger issues, such as extreme age, an autoimmune disorder, morbid obesity, etc.
One person is not responsible for another random persons health. We are not helpless babies. Knowingly giving someone HIV is one thing (hello legal in California!) locking thousands of folk down for a glorified influenza just in case a 55 year old clinically obese fat diabetic women walks past someone with a undefined sniffle without a mask on at a Denny’s is another.
Perhaps we should extend this law to other diseases? Or just Corona?
I appear to have touched a nerve.
Are you worried about being held responsible for contributing to the load on the healthcare system?
no, not at all. Why would I be worried about spreading a bug that has an IFR of 0.03% ? (source: HM Gov UK Office of National Statistics)
Should I worry about spreading an influenza? That kills more frail elderly every year than the Rona does, flu deaths are easily findable for prior years.
Would you care to expand on your sentence: “No law, yet..” appears to imply you would like one. If that is not the case please make clear to the forum where you stand.
And how, precisely is one going to be “held responsible”? What law or enforcement should be made?
Sure. Here ya go.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
CDC IFR tables, it’s about half way down the page under a lot of text. They have changed it from a simple percentage to out of a million. Odd thing to do. Quick bit of maths and 500 people dying “from” the Rona is 500 out of 1m. That’s still 0.05% IFR, Survival rate of 99.95%.
To extrapolate this IFR to other countries is not illogical nor unreasonable. Indeed, the English Office Of National Statistics easily found data shows a national IFR statistically even less- 0.003%
The leaky vaccines, links below. well.. turns out since Pfizer/Moderna et al have now quietly changed their official effectiveness from earlier this year from much dinosaur media copious praise of a miraculous 95% stopping the coof in its tracks to: the current version is now the mouthful of humble pie of: ‘the jabs still work but just reduce severity of symptoms”, this now thing in pharmaceutical clinicians circles of a ‘leaky vaccine’ ‘
Here’s some bits from 2 things talking about how vaccines can become “leaky.”
https://www.futurity.org/viruses-leaky-vaccines-968692/ “When a vaccine works perfectly, as do the childhood vaccines for smallpox, polio, mumps, rubella, and measles, it prevents vaccinated individuals from being sickened by the disease, and it also prevents them from transmitting the virus to others,” says Andrew Read, a leader of the research team and professor of biology and entomology and biotechnology at Penn State.”
The long and short of it is since the Rona jabs don’t stop the bug cold the vast majority of the time, according to pathology 101, this can drive unnatural evolution of stronger bugs. Not unlike the virus /jab version of antibiotic resistance. Traditional real vaccines (not gene “therapies” like the Rona shot ) drive virus evolution the other way. Weaker.
Original paper talking about leaky vaccines here: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198 Appears to be some biology journal of imperial college London.
“Vaccines that… do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing evolution of hotter pathogens... This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine. When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could… allow hot strains to emerge and persist. …experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease”
“Which you get by surviving the virus, which takes us back to the flooded hospitals.”
You raised the point about getting the Rona naturally. If you are strong. Relatively healthy and relatively young (or even old and strong) then just taking ones chances and getting Corona by chance is still the best way to build natural immunity - by a factor of x27 or so from any jab that may be developed.
If you are positing that folk in hospitals are getting it naturally well maybe they are. This raises more questions however:
If Corona has an IFR of 0.05%, this means it kills rarely. Then what are they in hospital for? Plenty of Ilnesses are non fatal and may or may have unpleasant symptoms. True. There is some diseases that are usually non fatal but highly infectious and can leave you bedbound and is very inconvenient for the patient. mono, for Eg in children- that sometimes require isolation in a hospital.
So what are these “Rona” patients dying of then?
If they are not dying, then all is well.
If they are dying, then either they are dying of something else or the Rona all by itself, if the latter, the CDC and ONS is either incompetent, lying or perhaps both.
If they have had the double double pokey and get admitted to hospital “with” the Rona, then (according to Pfizer/Moderna et al) basically sorry you still got it, the symptoms will be way less you should be fine.
Okay fine. But why take 2 (3, now 4) jabs for a pathogen with an IFR of 0.03 to 0.05%?
That’s akin to taking a jab for influenza, Athletes foot Or the common cold. Why bother?
Perhaps the “variants”? Are more pathogenic? Now why would that be? Unnatural evolutionary drives of jabs that allow the virus or bacterium to not quite get stopped 100%. Leaky vaccines again.
This whole thing has more elephants in rooms being ignored than an understaffed zoo.
The projections in Box 1? where it says "They are not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19." How are they relevant? Or am I looking in the wrong place?
It was clearly stated when they were released that whether they would maintain their initial effectiveness was unknown. Nothing "quiet" about determining that a) they lose some over time, and b) results with the Delta variant might be different.
What does this have to do with vaccines that never claimed to work perfectly, only reduce the load on the healthcare system?
They never claimed to. What would be the state of our healthcare system - and economy - if they had never been introduced.
I have a hard time understanding why some people are so unhappy that a 100%-effective-vaccine-guaranteed-to-protect-everyone-from-any-damage-at-all has not appeared. So many of them fail to think about where we would be if waited for that.
Box 5. If CDC data is not your cup of tea then perhaps HM gov UK ONS data showing 0.03% IFR?
How about Canada? Their IFR is 0.07%. Of course, it’s a lot harder to find the average age of deaths and how many cormobidities they had. Curious.
However 99.6% of all Rona deaths in BC are in Long term care homes. Vast majority of hospitalised are around 80. The average age of non accident deaths in Canada is 85. (Source: HM Gov Canada https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html )
Quibbling about effectiveness and the timescale of the u turn is a side show.
If to “reduce severity of symptoms”, then what are the symptoms?
Mono nucleosis has worse symptoms and is way, way more infectious than the Rona is, yet no vaccine exists for that - despite requiring isolation in hospital for children for bad cases. It’s not usually fatal though.
You required proof of the difference between leaky and non leaky vaccines, I found it and supplied it, showing by clinical therapeutics definition, the Rona jabs are leaky.
Seeing as they have dropped to 30% effective, would a better way to be treat the frail elderly symptoms only if they come into hospital, much like we do if elderly/frail do with influenza?
Are you positing we should continue with a jab that has dropped to 70% ineffective?
Finally, care to reveal to the forum as to your status of receiving the holy anointing of the mystery infusion or not? Aka the Rona jab.
Also. Will you get the 3rd? And the fourth?