Replies

Excess deaths are set to increase again because more people are no longer getting vaccinated and are, therefore, no longer protected.

Hi Dingbat.

Can we parse this bullcrap of yours?

"Excess deaths are set to increase again because more people are no longer getting vaccinated and are, therefore, no longer protected.".

Remember when I reminded you that Pfauci & Co. changed the definition of a "vaccine" to cover for the abysmal failure of the clot shots?

Lies like yours are why they had to do it.

let's review what the top leaders in industry, top government officals, and the like, said in public about the clot shots:

He have Dr. Anthony Fauci, saying in public, under his own name:

"When people are vaccinated they're not going to get infected."

I note that according to you, he has over 1,000 peer-reviewed publications.

Rochelle Walensky, MD (CDC Director) said "Vaccinated people do not carry the virus and don't get sick."

I note in passing she was an internal medicine doc from Hopkins, and only has an MPH from Harvard.

So by your hypothesis, we can rely on them.

By their words, if you have EVER been vaccinated, you should be forever immune from the virus.

So by definition, all of the new deaths must be resulting from

a) cases among the never-jabbed (Walensky, vaccinated people DO NOT CARRY the virus)

b) who either die from it directly

c) pass it on to other un-jabbed people who then die from it.

But you said "because more people are no longer getting vaccinated and are, therefore, no longer protected."

Nobody mentioned boosters you know. It was supposed to be one and you're done.

So you finally admit they were lying?

Or are you lying now?

Is that simple enough? Or do I have to try to explain it in kindergarten level language?

Dingbat. I had been going to post something else but this was just too easy of a target.

“Nobody mentioned boosters you know. It was supposed to be one and you’re done.”

That’s what “they” said at the beginning. Then the group of lawyers, doctors, statisticians, and scientists delved into the Pfizer documentation. Pfizer decreed that it would not be released for 70 years, but was forced to release it in 2020 or 2021 via lawsuit (maybe FOIA).

The sales pitch to investors literally compared it to software that would need to be “upgraded” forever. That would guarantee investors a constant income. Enter boosters. (Interesting the connection: software upgrade, vaccine boosters, and Bill Gates. )

Remember when I reminded you that Pfauci & Co. changed the definition of a "vaccine" to cover for the abysmal failure of the clot shots?

I don't remember you specifically repeating that claim, but I've seen it plenty of times. That claim, which consists of semantic word-play by professional antivaxxers does not change the scientific understanding of what a vaccine is or how the immune system adaptive response occurs.

The professional antivax working definition of a vaccine seems to be that it is a magical shield which completely protects everyone who receives it from getting sick with a vaccine-preventable disease. Professional antivaxxers imply that the vaccine is a substance which stays in the body forever (or at least for years) providing protection, and that if it doesn't completely protect everyone, it isn't a vaccine.

However , the professional antivax characterization of a vaccine does not match reality at all.

In reality, a vaccine is a vehicle to deliver an antigen in order to produce a specific adaptive immune response. An antigen is any protein that provokes the immune response. The result of the immune system activation is the maturation of T-cells and B-cells that recognize the antigen. The B-cells, in turn, make antibodies that attach to the antigen. The antigen itself does not remain in the body for more than a few days.

The adaptive immune response is just that: the production of antigen-specific T-cells, B-cells and antibodies.

No amount of word-play and obfuscation by professional antivaxxers can change what an immune response is.

The antigen in a vaccine doesn't have to come from a pathogen at all. The vast majority of vaccines are used to cause animals to make antibodies. Antibodies have many different uses in research. A subset of vaccines cause animals to make antibodies for medical or diagnostic use. Another subset of vaccines are intended to make humans (or domestic animals) make antibodies. While most vaccines used in humans or domestical animals are used to cause them to make antibodies against pathogens, some (still in research, I don't think any have attained FDA approval yet) are intended to cause humans to make antibodies against proteins that are prevalent on cancer cells.

The reason a vaccine against, for example, measles "works" is that it causes the body to make T-cells, B-cells, and antibodies against measles proteins. Later, if measles viruses enter the respiratory passages of the vaccinees, the antibodies attach to proteins on the outside of the measles virus. This both inhibits the virus's ability to attach to and enter cells. The antibodies also target the virus for destruction by other immune cells. Depending on how well the immune system responded to the initial exposure to the antigen from vaccination, the vaccinee's immune system will clear out the viruses without the person ever being aware that they inhaled virus particles.

Immunology textbook: Immunology: A Short Course, 8th Edition.

Overview of some uses of antibodies in research: Immunological Techniques in Research and Clinical Medicine.