Hint: if you really want to convince an infectious disease countermeasures scientist that there is alternative research out there conducted independently of the scientific community, it is up to you to produce the references. And I mean real research, with written research protocols, valid experimental methods, data collection and analysis, etc., not some pseudoreview that merely takes the scientific literature and cherry picks phrases that can be presented out-of-context to scare the scientifically illiterate.
Also, I imagine the names Lapado and Paxton mean nothing to you?
Ladapo (NOT "Lapado") is a scumbag who, despite a stellar Harvard education and former position as a professor at New York University then at UCLA, decided to start lying to people about the safety of Covid vaccines. He is not the first physician to throw away a respectable career in order to peddle snake oil. It's sad that that happens.
And Paxton--are you talking about the Texas lawyer/politician who has decided to jump on the medical misinformation/conspiracy bandwagon because he has judged that as a way to get ahead politically? Personally, I think that is a bad career move for any politician. The fact that misinformation has been targeted specifically at conservatives and those who believe it are annoying loud about it does not mean that all conservatives have rejected medical science. A majority of us still accept the validity of science.
The vaccine injection absolutely ends up in the blood and seems to induce the liver and gonads to produce the spike proteins.
That's a pretty incredible claim, not to mention highly improbable. Do you have a link to the original research study published in a reputable medical journal and indexed in Pubmed to back that up?
One of the reasons the vaccinated keep getting COVID is that the body keeps producing the spike protein and the immune system eventually stops responding to it as an infection.
Oh, my. You have absolutely NO understanding of how the immune system works. You don't keep immunity by keeping pathogens in your body. That isn't how it works at all, not even close. I'll help you out a bit. Here's a Khan Academy article on immune function which isn't overly technical and has plenty of illustrations: Adaptive immunity.
If you read that educational article, you will notice that nowhere does it say the immune system retains immunity by keeping antigens around. Nowhere.
That said, I will point out an example where the pathogen does stick around. In these cases, the continued presence of the pathogen acts as a sort of booster to keep up immunity against the pathogen. For example, your body never gets rid of the varicella virus after you have chicken pox. That virus enters your nerves and stays there for the rest of your life. As long as your immune system is working adequately, that virus cannot do anything because any time a virus particle emerges from the nerve, the immune system destroys it immediately. Your immune system will *never* stop responding to the varicella as an infection. What happens is that the immune system weakens and its ability to fight all pathogens decreases. Then the varicella virus can cause shingles. This usually happens in older people (over age 65) because the immune system weakens as you age, but can also happen if the person has stress (which impacts the immune system) or takes medications or develops a disease which affects immune function.
Plus there is plenty of research showing that the shots initially depress the immune system and any protection fades very quickly.
Again, where are the references published in the medical/scientific literature? Vaccines do not "depress" the immune system, and immunity against many pathogens does not last for long. This is why there are boosters for most vaccines. No vaccine can cause the immune system to become permanently immune to pathogens when it naturally loses immunity over time.
And yes, everyone around me who was vaccinated gets COVID continuously.
Really? Lab-confirmed Covid? And they are still alive after multiple bouts, despite not having a functional immune system? Once again, high levels of skepticism here. I've seen that claim made several times by people trying to push an antivax agenda. They use almost the same words you do. Another claim they like to make is that they personally know several people who experienced serious adverse effects from the vaccine, which is statistically impossible. I'm surprised you haven't tried to make that claim, as well.
Because of the nature of a Covid infection, I seriously doubt anyone can survive multiple bouts of it. A person can only handle so much damage to the heart or lungs before they give out. Furthermore, if a person's immune function is so weak that a Covid vaccine does not give them immunity, how on earth are they going to fight off a Covid infection? It takes a functioning immune system to survive Covid!
The garbage people like you keep posting means nothing next to my own experience and research.
Your experience? Questionable. Your research? Have you written a research protocol and conducted your own study? Did you conduct some clinical trials? Have you done a comparative study measuring protective antibody titers following vaccination or lab-confirmed Covid? Did you isolate and sequence SARS-CoV-2 viruses to identify the predominant circulating strain? Have you even done an extensive medical literature review on anything related to Covid? (And by "medical literature" I mean literature published in a high quality journal and indexed in PubMed or another reputable database, not some questionable "review" posted online at a fake journal website.)
Only if you believe the Pfauci cover-up on the rate of adverse events.
And you may have noticed, nobody is buying your lies anymore: having several friends get sick and/or die from the clot shots, means you suddenly stop trusting "official" sources.
You've eaten all the seed corn on an entire industry's credibility.
Dingbat.
Did you work in his lab, too, like you did Dr. Malone's?
First of all, you are not a scientist. You are a high priest of sciencistan. You are not seeker after knowledge, you see yourself as a source of knowledge.
I worked for a scientific institution, and there were definitely two types. Real scientists latch on the intellectual puzzles and when you engage them in conversation what you get out of them are all the questions they are trying to answer. When you ask them a question they aren't satisfied unless they can impart understanding. They are consumed by curiosity.
The other type has no curiosity at all. Instead, they spew irrelevant examples of their own knowledge just to prove how much they know. They retreat to the jargon of their field and use it as a cloak to hide from questions in the hope that you will go away. The root of this type's motivation is arrogance.
Far from being curious, you are dogmatic. You don't ask questions, you suppress them. When questioned, you put on your priest hat and start doing an authority dance.
Here are a few. But you won't read them or even consider the title with an ounce of curiosity. Instead you will strut around with your authority dance and huff about how the unwashed don't have the knowledge or background to understand the science or you will proclaim the researchers are "not real scientists" or some other excuse not to open your mind and start educating yourself past your own little authoritarian view of the subject. Because if you ever admit you don't know everything, you might have to lose that fancy science priest hat you have fitted yourself with.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9250827/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2796427
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(23)00366-3/fulltext
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-023-00742-7
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/prca.202300048