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?
This is whatabboutism. This means you are trying to dismiss the article by taking about something else
That's rich coming from someone who started with misinformation about ivermectin and tapeworms, turned to the cost of drugs, disputed the definition of 'vaccination', claimed everything is happening according to the government's plans, tried to shoehorn AIDS into a paper that doesn't mention it, and injects unsourced quotes ("Is it possible to reverse autoimmune disease?") without explaining why they're there.
The nature article talks about LNP side effects. Are you saying we should ignore them?
I refer you to the comment you are replying to: "Man made nanoparticles are a concern, for sure."
Thank you for that 2 year old media report that "research shows the available COVID-19 vaccines provide recipients with increased protection against the coronavirus". Why did you supply it?
"Whataboutism" indeed. You hop from topic to topic regularly,and don't always explain why, but acknowledging that nanoparticles are a major concern in response to your comment on them is somehow changing the topic.
That's rich coming from someone who started with misinformation about ivermectin and tapeworms,
No I shared an article on tapeworms (a parasite ) and cancer. Then asked why would the government make anti parasite drug ivermectin a drug used for parasites generally you googled tapeworm control wouldn't be affected by ivermectin.
turned to the cost of drugs,
A very important topic for parasite control which would help people possibly overcome cancers caused by parasites.
disputed the definition of 'vaccination',
Why wouldn't I question the decision to include something that now includes gene therapy and lipid nanoparticles which have nothing to do with traditional vaccines suddenly need to be redefined to include various unrelated therapies?
claimed everything is happening according to the government's plans,
Not sure what you mean by that. I did say the government knew about lipid nanoparticles side effects [which should have been disclosed when pushing gene therapy as a vaccine to millions of people using an emergency declaration as justification with no long term testing].
tried to shoehorn AIDS into a paper that doesn't mention it,
Aids and auto immune disease both cause changes to a persons immunity so I'm right that similar outcomes can occur. For example:
and injects unsourced quotes ("Is it possible to reverse autoimmune disease?") without explaining why they're there.
Maybe you could answer that question? Is it possible to save people who have taken lipid nanoparticles and now have symptoms that will affect their lives forever or is there a way to reverse it?
I'm reminded of those who say "If you can't beat them with brains try baffling them with bullshit."
A good example is linking to a paper about vaccines that says nothing about AIDS but claiming that it's relevant, and justifying that claim by linking to a page about AIDS and autoimmune diseases that makes no mention of vaccines.
You think you see a connection between vaccines and AIDS but it's only you so far. You can't find a paper to support your claim that there's a connection.
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
That's rich coming from someone who started with misinformation about ivermectin and tapeworms, turned to the cost of drugs, disputed the definition of 'vaccination', claimed everything is happening according to the government's plans, tried to shoehorn AIDS into a paper that doesn't mention it, and injects unsourced quotes ("Is it possible to reverse autoimmune disease?") without explaining why they're there.
I refer you to the comment you are replying to: "Man made nanoparticles are a concern, for sure."
Thank you for that 2 year old media report that "research shows the available COVID-19 vaccines provide recipients with increased protection against the coronavirus". Why did you supply it?
"Whataboutism" indeed. You hop from topic to topic regularly,and don't always explain why, but acknowledging that nanoparticles are a major concern in response to your comment on them is somehow changing the topic.
No I shared an article on tapeworms (a parasite ) and cancer. Then asked why would the government make anti parasite drug ivermectin a drug used for parasites generally you googled tapeworm control wouldn't be affected by ivermectin.
A very important topic for parasite control which would help people possibly overcome cancers caused by parasites.
Why wouldn't I question the decision to include something that now includes gene therapy and lipid nanoparticles which have nothing to do with traditional vaccines suddenly need to be redefined to include various unrelated therapies?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine
Not sure what you mean by that. I did say the government knew about lipid nanoparticles side effects [which should have been disclosed when pushing gene therapy as a vaccine to millions of people using an emergency declaration as justification with no long term testing].
Aids and auto immune disease both cause changes to a persons immunity so I'm right that similar outcomes can occur. For example:
https://www.verywellhealth.com/aids-and-autoimmune-diseases-5113376
Lipid nanoparticles cause many of the same ailments as aids because in both cases they affect a person's immune system.
For example: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/idiopathic-thrombocytopenic-purpura/symptoms-causes/syc-20352325
Both HIV and Lipid nanoparticles can cause Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) a very serious problem that can lead to spleen removal. Also lymphocytopenia.
https://www.healthline.com/health/lymphocytopenia#causes
Maybe you could answer that question? Is it possible to save people who have taken lipid nanoparticles and now have symptoms that will affect their lives forever or is there a way to reverse it?
Confidently incorrect on just about everything.
I'm reminded of those who say "If you can't beat them with brains try baffling them with bullshit."
A good example is linking to a paper about vaccines that says nothing about AIDS but claiming that it's relevant, and justifying that claim by linking to a page about AIDS and autoimmune diseases that makes no mention of vaccines.
You think you see a connection between vaccines and AIDS but it's only you so far. You can't find a paper to support your claim that there's a connection.