Vaccination is supposed to trick your immune system into thinking your body is being attacked without producing the bad outcomes that the actual disease can produce.

Vaccination is supposed to trick your immune system into thinking your body is being attacked without producing the bad outcomes that the actual disease can produce. You get the protection, but not the potential bad outcomes from infection itself.

That is the entire point of vaccination; to evade the possible bad outcomes from infection.

Since a traditional vaccine (which this is; inactivated whole virus) cannot replicate it should never produce the bad impacts from disease itself. That is, the only "dose" your body gets from an inactivated vaccine is what is in the syringe; no more, no less.

Unfortunately what this study shows is that a material number of these bad effects from infection come from vaccination as well. That's unexpected and hideous, especially some of the markers that showed up -- including most-specifically A1c.

It is of particular note that A1c did not return to baseline over 90 days post jab. In fact, it remained elevated with some formerly-healthy people now being in the "pre-diabetic" category. This cannot be understated in terms of what it means: Diabetes is arguably the most-serious morbid condition you can contract. To take a person with a healthy A1c level and turn them into a pre-diabetic by telling them to take the jab is criminally insane.

If you are healthy and thus not at any special risk from Covid-19 you'd be out of your damned mind to accept that risk with certainty by taking the shot and if you are coerced into it the proper response is to be placed right between the coercing party's eyes.

Additional durable deterioration was found in both potassium (electrolyte balance) and creatinine, which is a kidney damage marker. I remind you that unlike your liver which can regenerate you only have two kidneys and if they fail you're ****ed.

What's particularly ugly is that if you get hammered with a so-called "breakthrough" infection later on these deteriorations, which appear to be durable, may well screw you down the road. Both are serious co-morbid factors that radically increase the risk of getting screwed if you get Covid-19.

Now to be fair this study is on a whole, inactivated vaccine. It therefore may -- or may not -- generalize to the mRNA jabs.

Indeed since the jabs used in the US (and Europe) all "program" the body to produce the spike protein, and we know the spike is pathogenic, it is entirely reasonable to believe that these impacts not only exist with mRNA and viral vector jabs they may in fact be materially worse than those from whole, inactivated virus.

More to the point shouldn't we have run this sort of testing and thus known, by published studies, before we jabbed 200 million Americans and threatened the rest?

If this sort of durable damage does happen how often does it happen and how-severe is it?

Folks, the change in immune markers along with creatine and A1c is flat-out nasty. Let me quote from the study itself:

And while some of those returned to baseline over the subsequent 90 days renal dysfunction and diabetes markers DID NOT.

So to "evade" the risk of Covid-19's serious outcomes you deliberately damage the immune response for at least some period of time against all manner of other things, some of which are at least as dangerous as Covid-19 is.

Bluntly put in the period following taking the jab you appear to be at much-elevated risk from other infections. Nobody knows but that the jabs impair your immune response on at least a temporary basis for a month or two appears to be established.

Much worse some of those markers, even three months in, do not return to their former values. Specifically, electrolyte levels (potassium in particular), A1c and creatinine. The latter two, markers for diabetes and kidney damage are extraordinarily serious. That they do not return to normal within 90 days implies the damage vaccination causes may well be permanent.

Especially for an infection that is (1) not certain and (2) if you do get it, and beat it, you may not get these ugly outcomes.

I do not know about my creatinine level being changed due to infection -- said infection definitely did happen, but without data on both sides of the event I cannot discern if there was an impact or not. I know short-term electrolyte level disruption occurred because of the symptoms I experienced in the middle of the course of the disease. What I also know is that it did not damage my blood sugar profile, because I have a meter (no 'script required, just money and not having to use it all the time not much money either) having used it to check such things years ago when I decided to go keto as a lifestyle and, having in-date strips for it I did check a couple of times during the course of the disease and did not see anything notable - and a couple of random checks since showed nothing interesting either. In short I see no evidence of insulin resistance now and it has not changed from before. Its been years since I checked A1c specifically. Perhaps I shall.

But if I got jabbed against Covid-19 and it resulted in a durable elevation of my average blood sugar level such that it took my normal A1c level and turned it into a prediabetic one, given the hideous long-term consequences of diabetes, I would cut off the head of the person who did that to me and **** down their neck. Never mind elevation of the risk of renal failure, which is a very reliable and nasty way to die as well.

This needs to be run down for the mRNA and viral-vector jabs now and until it is, conclusively, this crap must be immediately halted. If you vaccinate a single child before proving these things do not happen with the jabs we use here in America you should hang for it -- by your genitals.

I become more-convinced by the day that my decision to risk natural infection, and attack it immediately with drugs, garnering natural immunity in the process, was the correct choice.

“Dude”
______________
ransomnote is a Dudette not a Dude, and she is merely quoting Denninger, so maybe Denninger is the Dude whom you are referencing. Perhaps Denninger is reading too much into the study as you say, but I understood his point to be that “we don’t know” about these vaccines that are being forced on us. I got your point about it being an inactivated vaccine which Denninger points out also. I understood the idea of the original paper to be an attempt to find a clinical data basis for harsh Covid-19 outcomes. This is important to understand: Two people infected at the same time in the same way yet one dies horribly and the other is mild or asymptomatic. New technology described allows them to test before and after infection or vaccination. Reported results suggest an explanatory hypothesis not only for harsh virus outcomes but also for credible reports of vaccination adverse reactions.
That only 11 healthy volunteers were helping in this way would be no matter at all, if we were in the normal atmosphere of testing and development of any other vaccine. Nobody is suggesting this is the last word of course. Please correct me with my thanks.

Karl Denninger’s use of “emphasis” is ridiculous! What is wrong with him??!! Why can’t he just use exclamation points and ALL CAPS like the rest of the internet??!!

Dude.

There is so much horribly wrong with your reasoning in this post that I can't even begin to try to help you.

You might want to start by noting I didn't write the article, and perhaps take it up with the author, Karl Denninger. Offer to 'help him' because that's the best way to engage in productive discussions.

Never mind that it's only 11 patients in the "study," and that's it 11 "healthy" Chinese volunteers at that.

That was a Phase I trial; those always consist of a daring handful of (trusting) volunteers. Phase I finds out if the treatments etc. are too harmful to progress to phase II. Phase 1 uses healthy volunteers because it's actually hoping to make it to phase II and doesn't want potential medication or procedure trials to fail based on 'noise' created by one or more co-morbidities in such a small trial.

It's simply foolhardy to extend any conclusions from such a small and severely homogeneous patient population to the diverse and huge USA, or any group really.

You seem to think this was a phase III trial deciding whether or not a vaccine works. This was a phase I trial exploring the concept of mimicing an illness with a vaccine to create immunity. Phase I is kept very small and uses a healthy volunteers because of the very high risk various treatments could result in fatalities for all involved. In this case, Ac1 remains high so the patients are in a pre-diabetic state. Had they skipped trials I and II they would then be expected to test at minimum 30,000 people with something that would leave them pre-diabetic.

I'll put a screen capture here, and the research writers encapsulate the information they are seeking in their Phase I trial in the first sentence:

But the biggest problem in your analysis,

not mine....

...is that you predicate all your conclusions on the idea of an mRNA vaccine, and not a "real" vaccine--one using attenuated (weakened or inactivated or dead) virus--and you use the data in this "study" for that.

I don't see where you arrived at that assertion. Karl notes that this is a attenuated vaccine.

But this "study" actually uses a "real vaccine," an attenuated vaccine--the Sinopharm "Vero Cell" vaccine (it's in the freaking report, if you read it). So all of your conclusions about how bad mRNA vaccines are, drawn from this "study," are worthless.

I don't believe you understood the study or Denninger's concern about the results.

Denninger: "Vaccination is supposed to trick your immune system into thinking your body is being attacked without producing the bad outcomes that the actual disease can produce. You get the protection, but not the potential bad outcomes from infection itself."

So Denninger is dismayed to see that the vaccinated experienced the same harm (e.g., Ac1) as those who had the illness.

Here's a screen capture from the study that supports his concern:

So why mimic an illness with a vaccine if you end up with the harm caused by the illness?

All this "study" says is that some of those 11 healthy chinese volunteers that got the weakened virus vaccination responded just as if they had been actually infected. So maybe it just means the vaccination worked, or maybe that the weakened virus in the vaccine was less inactivated than they thought.

SMH.

20 posted on 11/4/2021, 9:21:16 AM by Notthemomma ( )

As I said, I don't believe you understood the study or the article.

Karl notes that the vaccination strategy of mimicing an illness with an inactivated virus resulted in causing some of the same significant harm as the illness itself.

Denninger then says vaccinations for Covid should stop until the mRNA and adeno virus vaccines now in use are also tested for these negative impacts. In particular, no one should vaccinate a child with vaccines which mimic Covid until this kind of testing is done to ensure you're not making children pre-diabetic etc.

Denninger: "This needs to be run down for the mRNA and viral-vector jabs now and until it is, conclusively, this crap must be immediately halted. If you vaccinate a single child before proving these things do not happen with the jabs we use here in America you should hang for it -- by your genitals."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.