shortlink: t.ly/Yl7R
The MSM dam is starting to show more and more cracks, despite all the mop-up talk and tweets from science editors (today underlined once again door Maarten Keulemans). Als een gezaghebbende Amerikaanse krant als The Wall Street Journal tot tweemaal toe durft te schrijven 'Pfizer and Moderna's claims are misleading', dan gaan we de goede kant op, zeker in het land waar makkelijk gesued wordt. Het is 'slechts' opinie van een wetenschapsredacteur maar ook in Nederland lijken stemmen van zelfs columnisten als Leon de Winter, Ronald Plasterk en Marianne Zwagerman steeds meer gehoor te krijgen. Onderstaand artikel is vertaald uit Wall Street Journal, een internationaal toonaangevend blad uit het land waar fors voor medicijnen wordt geadverteerd. Ik vind het bijzonder!
The data is on the table, the problem now is: how do we get it integrated into decision-making? Keep pushing then, of which note.
You may have heard a radio commercial warning that if you've had Covid, you may get it again and experience even worse symptoms. The post, sponsored by the Health and Human Services Department, claims that updated bivalent vaccines will improve your protection. This is misleading advertising. But the public health agencies' praise for the bivalent vaccines should come as no surprise. Federal agencies took the unprecedented step of ordering vaccine manufacturers to produce those vaccines and then touting them without data supporting their safety or efficacy.
(Striking: exactly in accordance with the scenario as described in articles by February 2022 and June 2021. Ed.)
The idea of updating mRNA Covid shots every season originally seemed promising. An advantage of the mRNA technology would be that manufacturers could modify the genetic sequence and quickly produce new vaccines for new variants. Hence the bivalent boosters aimed at the variants BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron and the original Wuhan strain.
But three scientific problems have arisen. First, the virus is evolving much faster than the vaccines can be updated. Second, the vaccines have strengthened our immune system against the original Wuhan strain, so we produce fewer antibodies that neutralize the variants of the updated vaccines. Thirdly, antibodies decrease rapidly after a few months.
Recent NEJM studies
Two studies in this month's New England Journal of Medicine showed that bivalent boosters increase neutralizing antibodies to the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, but not significantly more than the original boosters. In one study, antibody levels after the bivalent boosters were 11 times higher against the Wuhan variant than against BA.5.
De auteurs stellen dat immuunimprinting "een grotere uitdaging kan vormen dan momenteel wordt aangenomen voor het opwekken van robuuste immuniteit tegen SARS-CoV-2-varianten". Dit is niet uniek voor Covid- of mRNA-vaccins, hoewel boosters het effect kunnen versterken. Onze eerste blootstelling als kind aan de griep - door infectie of vaccinatie - beïnvloedt onze toekomstige reactie op verschillende stammen.
The original Covid vaccines and boosters trained our memory B cells to make antibodies against the Wuhan variant. As Paul Offit of the University of Pennsylvania explains in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, werden eerder gevaccineerde mensen die de bivalente booster kregen "voorgeprogrammeerd" om te reageren op de Wuhan-stam en kregen zij een inferieure antilichaamrespons op andere varianten. (and possibly more far-reaching immune problems that can lead to infections, disease and development of cancer. Ed.)
Vaccine propaganda turns out to be incorrect
The findings of the studies contradict press releases from Pfizer and Moderna from November, which claims that their bivalents produce a response to the BA.4 and BA.5 variants that is four to six times larger than that of the original boosters. These claims are misleading. Neither vaccine manufacturer conducted a randomized trial. They tested the original boosters last winter, long before the BA.5 wave and 41/2 to months after the trial participants received their third jab. The bivalents, on the other hand, were tested after BA.5 began to rise, 91/2 to 11 months after the recipients received their third jab.
A longer interval between injections would increase antibody elevation against the BA.5 variant. The same applies to a previous infection with the BA.5 variant. In other words, people who received the bivalent boosters in August would have been primed to produce more antibodies in response to BA.5.
De vaccinmakers ontwierpen hun studies om de resultaten te krijgen die ze wilden. Volksgezondheid autoriteiten trokken geen wenkbrauwen op - waarom zouden ze? Zij hebben een gevestigd belang in het promoten van de bivalenten.
The Food and Drug Administration ordered vaccine manufacturers in June to update the boosters against BA.4 and BA.5 and rushed to approve the bivalents in late August before clinical data were available. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pushed the bivalents toward all adults without any evidence that they were effective or necessary.
Vaccine manufacturers could have conducted small randomized trials last summer and early fall comparing the bivalent agents to the original boosters and a placebo group. The results could have been available by the end of September. But the public health authorities didn't want to wait and now we know why.
CDC and FDA are still trying
The CDC published in November a study die schatte dat de bivalenten slechts 22% tot 43% effectief waren tegen infectie tijdens de BA.5 golf - hun piek effectiviteit. Toen de antilichamen afnamen en nieuwe varianten het later in de herfst overnamen, daalde hun bescherming tegen infectie waarschijnlijk tot nul. Een andere CDC Study, in December, reported that seniors who received bivalents were 84% less likely to be hospitalized than unvaccinated people, and 73% less likely than those who received two or more doses of the original vaccine.
Geen van beide studies hield rekening met belangrijke verstorende factoren - bijvoorbeeld dat de kleine minderheid die bivalenten kreeg waarschijnlijk ook meer kans had dan degenen die geen bivalenten kregen om andere voorzorgsmaatregelen voor Covid te volgen of behandelingen te zoeken zoals Paxlovid.
FDA Commissaris Robert Califf tweette op 11 januari dat "COVID-19 vaccins have been linked met een aanzienlijke vermindering van het aantal ziekenhuisopnames en sterfgevallen" (mijn nadruk). Hij zou moeten weten dat correlatie geen oorzakelijk verband bewijst. Uit een studie bleek bijvoorbeeld dat niet-gevaccineerden een significant grotere kans hadden op car accidents, but that doesn't mean vaccines prevent accidents.
Many of the same experts who trashed observational studies supporting hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are now fluttering with intrinsically flawed studies on bivalent boosters.
After diligently promoting the bivalents, they may be looking for justification. But science is not about justification.
Covid vaccines reduced serious illnesses while most Americans also gained immunity from natural infection, which significantly increases protection. (This can be read as : Growing herd immunity was wrongly attributed to the vaccines. WSJ maybe went a little too far, Ed.). There is a growing consensus that we need better vaccines and treatments to protect those who are still at risk. But we also need honest public health leaders.
Epilogue
Tot zover WSJ. Dat allerlei artsen en specialisten het nog niet bevatten is -met veel moeite- misschien nog wel te begrijpen. Zij zijn net zo goed bedrogen. Maar EMA, Gezondheidsraad, rivm, dat systeem moet echt op de schop. En eigenlijk de betrokken politici ook - maar ja, democratie wordt gestuurd door de media en die buigen en knippen voor de overheid, zeker in een klein taalgebiedje als het onze, waar een kwalitatieve zelfstandige pers nu eenmaal niet meer levensvatbaar is.
De overheid is op haar beurt verantwoordelijk voor het gerotzooi van de gezondheidsinstituten en wenst dus geen subversieve toon in de media, waarmee de waakhond aan de leiband van de Capo ligt. De gezondheidsinstituten bestaan mede dankzij de betalingen die zij van de farmaffia ontvangen en onze politici hijgen achter de EU aan, waarmee de farma ook weer hechte banden onderhoudt. De farmaceuten houden zo een gigantisch afzetkanaal open terwijl ze ook over de middelen beschikken om de bevolking volgzamer te maken met doemscenario's en zo wast de ene hand de andere. Het cirkeltje is daarmee meer dan rond. Hoe gaan we hier ooit uitkomen?
N.B.: Op Wikipedia staat nu nog dat Wall Street Journal 'een invloedrijk internationaal dagblad' is. Die omschrijving zal wel aangepast worden... "Zie je wel: WSJ is niet te vertrouwen, kijk maar op Wikipedia."
As a child I was very impressed by the hollowed-out stone in the Prison Gate of The Hague. An erosion that, I was told, was caused by a steadily falling drop where, so the story went, this was also used as a torture method by fixing prisoners under these drops.
Let's hope that Cologne eventually succumbs to the steadily falling drops of scientific findings that, incidentally, are now beginning to form a clattering beam.
How are we going to get out of this? Simple. People have to decide not to participate anymore. One simply should not play along. Using health care in case of emergency. Nothing else. Think for yourself. Be your own doctor. Be your own (fckn) guru. The pharmaceutical companies may be able to talk like Brugman, but don't believe them. Study whether what they claim is correct. Take as few medications as possible. Only in case of emergency. If we do all that, it will stop automatically. Then we get small pharmaceutical companies, who make useful medicines, and make a little money from them. Be healthy. Eat healthy. Biological. Do some sports. An apple a day keeps the doctor away. And so it is. In any case, I am not participating.
Hello, but in my family, it is still believed what Mr. K-mans writes. According to my family, he is a journalist, who does proper research. Well, it's better not to enter into a discussion with that. And they are highly educated people.
Highly educated is not the same as knowledgeable. Moreover, it is an authority argument, which refers to an unmasked authority – quacks.
We, the consumers, must send the current cabinet home in the upcoming provincial elections and demand new national elections.
Perhaps we will finally have a government that does what it has to do, which is to ensure that everything they do is based on the basic law of the duties and rights of all people and that is that every human being must ensure that all people can live freely, healthily, safely and happily.
Great work, Anton.
It is now time to finally acknowledge reality in the Netherlands as well. The reality of the demonstrated damage to the heart and brain from the mRNA. Causal, not just correlative. And, to give the message of McCullough and Malhotra also to the Dutch, freely translated: they are the vaccines, unless otherwise demonstrated. The nonsensical sweats of M. Keutel as well as the deafening silence in the Dutch MSM (plasterk and De Winter excepted) are toe-curling. Not to mention the (mis)conduct of our government; shame!
Unfortunately, the reach of VV and MdH is relatively small with little to no attention from MSM to these informative sites. I regularly send interesting links through family and friends in the hope that they will also look beyond the MSM nose.
The result is sad: the majority don't respond to it (there you have it again) and a few get angry because I'm spreading disinformation. In that respect, I respect the successful brainwash of most of the population... well done!!
Het mocht dan ook wat kosten! https://virusvaria.nl/de-mediacratie-2/
¨… en 4½ tot maanden nadat de deelnemers aan de proef hun derde prik hadden gekregen.