[INFJ] - Fully Vaccinated are rapidly developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome | INFJ Forum

[INFJ] Fully Vaccinated are rapidly developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

Status
Not open for further replies.
From the 'theexpose' article:
The eight previous Public Health England / UK Health Security Agency ‘Vaccine Surveillance’ reports on Covid-19 cases show that double vaccinated 40-79 year olds have now lost lost 50% of their immune system capability and are consistently losing a further 4-5% every week (between 3.7% and 7.9%).[1]

This is not true. The ‘theexpose’ article pretends that these UK government ‘Vaccine Surveillance’ reports show a loss of ‘immune system capability’ after taking the vaccine. What they actually discuss is decreased protections of the vaccine itself over time:

‘Several studies of vaccine effectiveness have been conducted in the UK which indicate that 2 doses of vaccine are between 65 and 95% effective at preventing symptomatic disease with COVID-19 with the Delta variant, with higher levels of protection against severe disease including hospitalisation and death. There is some evidence of waning of protection against infection and symptomatic disease over time, though protection against severe disease remains high in most groups at least 5 months after the second dose.’[2]

This just means that the vaccine’s increased protection decreases over time, not that it somehow damages people’s intrinsic ‘immune system capability’. In fact, the Vaccine Surveillance reports provide estimates of prevented cases and deaths:

‘The latest estimates indicate that the vaccination programme has directly averted over 230,800 hospitalisations. Analysis on the direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality, suggests the vaccination programme has prevented between 23.7 and 24.1 million infections and between 119,500 and 126,800 deaths.’[3]

And:

‘High levels of protection (over 90%) are also seen against mortality with all 3 vaccines and against both the Alpha and Delta variants (7, 11, 3). Relatively limited waning of protection against mortality is seen over a period of at least 5 months.’[4]

This means that if you’re vaccinated, you are ten times less likely to die from Covid, or in other words, your hitpoints go from 100 to 1,000.

The article also alleges:

Projections also now show that 30-49 year olds will have zero Covid / viral defence at best, or a form of vaccine mediated acquired immunodeficiency syndrome at worst, by the first week in January and all double vaccinated people over 30 will have completely lost that part of their immune system which deals with Covid-19 in the next 18 weeks.

Again, the Vaccine Suirveillance reports do not show this; they simply report the decline in efficacy of the vaccines over time, which is why booster shots have been mooted. On all measures they show that the vaccinated are much less likely to catch Covid, and if they do they are much less likely to be hospitalised, and if they are they are much less likely to die.

The conceit at the core of the article is a simple misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what the Vaccine Surveillance reports relate about declining efficacy. The article pretends that they show how people’s immune systems are being destroyed by vaccines; the reality is that they show that the vaccines slowly lose their efficacy over time, and need to be topped up.

Again, and as is always the case, this is misinformation easily disproven by simply following the actual sources.



[1] https://theexpose.uk/2021/10/30/gov-reports-show-fully-vaccinated-and-children-developing-ade/
[2]https://assets.publishing.service.g...992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf, p. 3.
[3] Ibid., p. 4.
[4] Ibid., p. 6.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
giphy.gif
 
@Deleted member 16771
As far as I can see this article simply compares vaccinated to unvaccinated (numbers provided by the british government or an organization very close to it), therefore this is the central part:
====
A vaccine effectivenessof +50% means that double vaccinated people are 50% more protected from Covid than unvaccinated people. It means that the Delta case rate in the vaccinated is half the delta case rate in the unvaccinated.

A Vaccine efficacy of -50% means that unvaccinated people are 50% more protected from Covid than doubly vaccinated people. It means that the delta case rate in the vaccinated is double the Delta case rate in the unvaccinated.

A Vaccine efficacy of 0% means that doubly vaccinated people are 0% more protected from Covid than unvaccinated people. It means that the delta case rate in the vaccinated equals the Delta case rate in the unvaccinated. It means the vaccines have lost all their effectiveness.
===

So, given that the numbers are correct, we are not only talking about waning "vaccine" efficiency here, we are talking about an obvious loss of immune system capability which the "vaccinated" originally had BEFORE they were "vaccinated", as the unvaccinated perform much better. Then the degradation of the immune systems of the vaccinated are extrapolated into the future to determine when they will have lost all immunity (against covid-19, variants and possibly against all coronaviruses - aka common flu, influenza etc.). They can get the next booster shot, yes, this will artificially create immunity for a short period of time, at the cost of more damage to the natural immune system. As far as I remember a german guy named Clemens Arvay published some information about the immune system damage and referred to a study.

Thanks for your input.
 
A bit of what used to be common sense though usually applied to tech was always to wait till after a reasonable time for what issues early adopters would have and the same applies to this so no surprise there are real issues with all this. I can see elites just laughing their asses off being the social Darwinists they are plus they've made billions from vax.
 
  • Like
Reactions: puzzledheart
@Deleted member 16771
As far as I can see this article simply compares vaccinated to unvaccinated (numbers provided by the british government or an organization very close to it), therefore this is the central part:
====
A vaccine effectivenessof +50% means that double vaccinated people are 50% more protected from Covid than unvaccinated people. It means that the Delta case rate in the vaccinated is half the delta case rate in the unvaccinated.

A Vaccine efficacy of -50% means that unvaccinated people are 50% more protected from Covid than doubly vaccinated people. It means that the delta case rate in the vaccinated is double the Delta case rate in the unvaccinated.

A Vaccine efficacy of 0% means that doubly vaccinated people are 0% more protected from Covid than unvaccinated people. It means that the delta case rate in the vaccinated equals the Delta case rate in the unvaccinated. It means the vaccines have lost all their effectiveness.
===

So, given that the numbers are correct, we are not only talking about waning "vaccine" efficiency here, we are talking about an obvious loss of immune system capability which the "vaccinated" originally had BEFORE they were "vaccinated", as the unvaccinated perform much better. Then the degradation of the immune systems of the vaccinated are extrapolated into the future to determine when they will have lost all immunity (against covid-19, variants and possibly against all coronaviruses - aka common flu, influenza etc.). They can get the next booster shot, yes, this will artificially create immunity for a short period of time, at the cost of more damage to the natural immune system. As far as I remember a german guy named Clemens Arvay published some information about the immune system damage and referred to a study.

Thanks for your input.
Again, the original sources so not show this.

The article has fabricated its findings hoping that people like yourself will take on faith what is being claimed.

The UK government's 'Vaccine Surveillance' reports are available online from the '.gov' website. I urge you to look them up and see for yourself (you can follow my link above if you like).
 
Havent looked into this further in the meantime, but the question remains, where the "fabrication" is supposed to be. Just broadly stating it is somehow fabricated does not convince me. I compared a few numbers and did not find discrepancies.

In the meantime they wrote a new report, citing a new study:
https://theexpose.uk/2021/11/06/uk-...-fact-covid-19-vaccinated-are-developing-ade/
(that governments are lying - thats really unheard of ;-), when did this EVER happen in the history of mankind??? lol)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.