You aren't the only one here who thinks anyone who no longer has much or any protection from their long ago shot should still be put in the "vaccinated" column.
You take some comfort from playing abstract word games while ignoring what the studies show: the vaccines reduce the impact of the infection and its aftermath and therefore the load on the healthcare system, and boosters are required to maintain their effectiveness.
You're welcome to quit those word games and join the real world any time you can face it.
The long term effects of these gene therapy shots sold as vaccines are not going to go away with your studies that play word games about who is considered "vaccinated". 14 days before vaccinated status hides all the anaphylaxis deaths in 1-2 days reactions caused by the vaccines in the unvaccinated column.
As representative adverse effects of LNP, anaphylaxis, compaction activation-related pseudoallergy reaction (CARPA), and autoimmune disease will also be investigated, along with their mechanisms. Finally, we consider strategies for improving or impairing the immune effects of LNPs. Throughout the course of this review, readers will have the opportunity to thoughtfully evaluate techniques that can control and exploit the immunological activity of lipid nanoparticles.
The lipid nanoparticles toxicity isn't going to disappear either. As this article states a negative side effect of LNP is autoimmune disease. When long term studies are completed and cohorts compared to those that never got a shot put in their arm I think we will see a very different picture.
You are free to maintain your position that someone who has lost their protection against the virus should still be counted as protected. Refusal to acknowledge what's going on in the real world is not uncommon here in OmegaCanada.
all the anaphylaxis deaths in 1-2 days reactions
A rather grand statement. Do you have any numbers?
However pretending "acquired immunity" means Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in a paper that makes no mention of the human immunodeficiency virus demonstrates clearly that you are out of your depth. You are free to believe it, of course, but no one has to take you seriously.
You show a tendency to string together unsupported opinions about a wide variety of topics given that this started with a mistaken statement about tapeworms and wound up at claiming something about AIDS based on a paper that doesn't mention it.
Yes AIDS was Fauci's other favourite - took it out
Is it possible to reverse autoimmune disease?
Generally speaking, there are currently no cures for autoimmune diseases. Doctors use a variety of methods — including medications , surgery, and lifestyle changes — to control symptoms, sometimes referred to as “flares.” Researchers still do not know the main causes of autoimmune diseases.
Man made nanoparticles are a concern, for sure. As well as the lipid nanoparticles you mention there are "Carbon-based nanoparticles, such as fullerenes, nanotubes, the oxides of metals such as iron and titanium, and natural inorganic compounds, including asbestos and quartz, can have biological effects on the environment and human health." They are in the air we breathe and the water we drink, and the ground we grow our food in.
This is whatabboutism. This means you are trying to dismiss the article by taking about something else, which means the nature article is accurate and you wish to fool others.
The nature article talks about LNP side effects. Are you saying we should ignore them?
The definition of "unvaccinated" is very important. You can be "unvaccinated" if you miss one of now 8 shots in Canada.
It should be measuring those that received any shot vs those that received no shot.
Otherwise the studies are just more propaganda.
According to little 'ol you ...
You aren't the only one here who thinks anyone who no longer has much or any protection from their long ago shot should still be put in the "vaccinated" column.
You take some comfort from playing abstract word games while ignoring what the studies show: the vaccines reduce the impact of the infection and its aftermath and therefore the load on the healthcare system, and boosters are required to maintain their effectiveness.
You're welcome to quit those word games and join the real world any time you can face it.
The long term effects of these gene therapy shots sold as vaccines are not going to go away with your studies that play word games about who is considered "vaccinated". 14 days before vaccinated status hides all the anaphylaxis deaths in 1-2 days reactions caused by the vaccines in the unvaccinated column.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-023-01086-x
The lipid nanoparticles toxicity isn't going to disappear either. As this article states a negative side effect of LNP is autoimmune disease. When long term studies are completed and cohorts compared to those that never got a shot put in their arm I think we will see a very different picture.
You are free to maintain your position that someone who has lost their protection against the virus should still be counted as protected. Refusal to acknowledge what's going on in the real world is not uncommon here in OmegaCanada.
A rather grand statement. Do you have any numbers?
Man made nanoparticles are a concern, for sure. As well as the lipid nanoparticles you mention there are "Carbon-based nanoparticles, such as fullerenes, nanotubes, the oxides of metals such as iron and titanium, and natural inorganic compounds, including asbestos and quartz, can have biological effects on the environment and human health." They are in the air we breathe and the water we drink, and the ground we grow our food in.
However pretending "acquired immunity" means Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in a paper that makes no mention of the human immunodeficiency virus demonstrates clearly that you are out of your depth. You are free to believe it, of course, but no one has to take you seriously.
You show a tendency to string together unsupported opinions about a wide variety of topics given that this started with a mistaken statement about tapeworms and wound up at claiming something about AIDS based on a paper that doesn't mention it.
Yes AIDS was Fauci's other favourite - took it out
This is whatabboutism. This means you are trying to dismiss the article by taking about something else, which means the nature article is accurate and you wish to fool others.
The nature article talks about LNP side effects. Are you saying we should ignore them?
https://www.berkshireeagle.com/ap/factcheck/covid-19-vaccines-don-t-cause-immunodeficiency-syndrome/article_a20224cc-5a8b-11ec-8321-fffd42633c44.html