I warned everyone.
They write that some variants that have emerged over the past few months "show a reduced susceptibility to *******-acquired immunity, though none appears to escape entirely."
But they caution that these variants emerged "before vaccination was widespread," and that "as *******s become more widespread, the transmission advantage gained by a virus that can evade *******-acquired immunity will increase."
In a word: Duh.
I know I've been banging on this drum since *****-19 started but it is no-less important today, especially in the context of holding people accountable for killing several hundred thousand Americans and the economic destruction they brought upon the nation.
To be sterilizing a ******* must prevent infection. Since you never get infected you never replicate the virus and thus do not shed it. If you do not shed it the potential path of the viral life-cycle for that particular infection ends with you and thus you cannot pass on or cause a mutation. You are sterile against that disease; from the point of view of the virus you are a lifeless rock. Among commonly-used sterilizing *******s are MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), Varicella (chicken pox), OPV (oral polio) and others. The only time that such a ******* fails is when you do not build immunity (such as due to immune compromise.) This is extremely rare and the protection from such *******s tends to be either decades-long or lifetime.
A ******* that is not sterilizing permits the virus to infect you and replicate and as a result you can infect others. Technically it is not a ******* at all (which by definition prevents infection); it is a prophylactic therapy. Such a "*******" instead acts to reduce or eliminate symptomatic disease. You don't know you're sick and you don't get sick. You don't go to the hospital and you don't die. Unfortunately since you don't know you're sick but are infected and the virus is both replicating in you and shedding you are more-likely to spread the infection to others. All of the current ***** jabs are in this category and so is, for that matter IPV (injected polio ******* -- the original Salk discovery.)
During the original ******* trials in the summer and fall of 2020 they deliberately did not test any of the recipients for asymptomatic infections. Only a person who developed a significant illness was tested. This has continued post roll-out with the CDC specifying that a close contact of a known case who was vaccinated did not need to quarantine or be tested until and unless they became symptomatic. They knew damn well, in other words, that the jabs were not sterilizing but did not want that data up for public debate because then those who have read history would be likely to make the connection to the present day and thus they did their level best to hide it. That has now blown up in their face with it being conclusively known that jabbed people in fact not only get infected but spread the virus to others.
The problem with non-sterilizing *******s is simply this: There is no safe means of mass-use of non-sterilizing *******s so long as transmission within the community does or is likely to exist.
There are no exceptions.
This was known to public health officials and virologists seventy years ago and is why the United States used both IPV (injected polio *******) and OPV (oral polio *******) in sequence for polio until the 1990s. OPV produced sterilizing immunity but IPV did not. OPV had a very small (but non-zero, about 1 in a million) risk of causing polio because it was a codon-deoptimized live virus which, on rare occasion, would mutate back to its virulent form in the human body. So to mitigate that risk you got IPV first in the US (to prevent systemic infection; this was non-sterilizing), then OPV which is sterilizing -- that is, it prevents not only getting sick from polio but also replicating and shedding the virus, thus giving it to others along with preventing the promotion of mutations that WILL eventually escape the *******.
Had we done with polio what we're doing now with ***** -- IPV (non-sterilizing) use only with virus circulating in the United States -- it is very likely the virus would have mutated, escaped the ******* and killed millions in America. Every single so-called expert knows damn well why we didn't do that with polio and how dangerous it is to attempt it. Indeed where polio still circulates but money is scarce they use OPV only (which is sterilizing) and accept the risk of the rare but possible active case it can cause for this exact reason.
Again: This is not a "new idea"; it was in fact the only rational path of action and known decades ago, forming the very basis of our polio vaccination strategy. This combination strategy was necessary for polio but not for measles, for example, as the measles ******* is sterilizing.
ONLY A STERILIZING ******* IS SAFE TO USE ON A MASS POPULATION BASIS WHEN A PARTICULAR PATHOGEN IS CIRCULATING IN THE ENVIRONMENT.
THIS IS NOT THEORY -- IT IS DECADES-OLD KNOWN MEDICAL FACT.
In addition natural infection with *****-19 is sterilizing. Being infected and recovering conserves the nasal and respiratory mucosal response which is where the virus enters the body. Natural infection also conveys both "N" (nucleocapsid) and "S" (spike) antibody knowledge and T-cell recognition but the "N" knowledge is much stronger as coronaviruses have evolved to evade the immune system with the "S" portion through millions of years. This is why they can infect you in the first place. The "S" portion undergoes mutation at a quite-rapid rate while the "N" portion is conserved. It was thus expected that prior infection would lead to durable (years to decades) of resistance and indeed that's exactly what we have found thus far. Indeed in a small study it was found that this recognition extended to the bone marrow in a large percentage of cases and in those people is likely to confer decades-long if not lifetime protection. This is not true for "S" induced immunity as it wanes rapidly and, far worse that is where the mutation is taking place and thus where escape risk lies.
It was acceptable to issue EUAs for potentially non-sterilizing jabs to be used only by very high-risk individuals -- such as those in nursing homes -- with the understanding that they will fail to provide anywhere close to complete protection and might, over time potentiate worse outcomes. But with actual informed consent and on a limited, not population-wide basis, that was defensible. This, of course, leaves aside the adverse event risk -- which we also know is much higher in these jabs, by a factor of 100x or more, than we have ever tolerated in any mass-use shot before.
It was ridiculously and grossly negligent entering into the territory of depraved indifference to mass-vaccinate the population with non-sterilizing jabs. We knew very early on that eradicating *****-19 was impossible; there are animal reservoirs, specifically felines (of all sorts), ferrets and likely others (now believed to include deer.) We have never eradicated rabies and never will for this reason; as long as there are animal reservoirs you cannot eradicate a virus as it always has a host and a means of transmission outside of human control.
As such there was never, and will never be, a safe means to use non-sterilizing *******s against this virus or any other coronavirus and the more jabs we deliver and attempt to compel the use of the worse the problem will get.
Eventually we are very likely to get a mutation that entirely evades the jabs. That mutation will be caused by those who are jabbed since they are the only ones placing such mutational pressure on the virus. An unvaccinated person who gets infected places no such mutational pressure on the virus where a vaccinated person not only does they provide the exact pathway that virologists use to intentionally select for more-transmissible, virile or both mutations -- serial passage through cells that does not kill the host.
What is potentially worse is that there is a developing body of evidence that those who previously had ***** and then get vaccinated may destroy their "N" protein recognition by doing so, ruining their previous nearly-perfect immunity. That we did not specifically prove that this did not happen before giving these shots to anyone with prior infection is outrageous. While the data on this is quite thin at present that there is a higher breakthrough rate in persons with prior infection than those who were infected but did not get vaccinated is what the data currently shows, which strongly implies that vaccination after infection actually screws you.
The people who did all of this did so intentionally either by willful blindness or worse, with actual knowledge -- and the so-called "public health" authorities who continue to push this instead of banning it are intentionally doing so as well. Vander**** is just one example of this insanity but hardly alone -- Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Mayo, Cleveland -- they all know this is true, never mind the researchers at Ft. Detrick, the CDC and NIH.
Until and unless we prove a ******* against ***** (or anything else that is circulating) is sterilizing it cannot be safely used on a mass-population basis. That's the beginning and end of the discussion. There are no exceptions, ever, period. This was not even attempted to be demonstrated in the summer and fall 2020 ***** ******* trials as the time period was too short to do so. We now know, factually that in fact there are zero sterilizing and effective options among the *******s in use -- whether here in the US or otherwise.
The only means to combat a pathogen absent sterilizing vaccination is to hit infections early and hard with whatever you have for the purpose of reducing viral load so as to produce durable, sterilizing immunity via infection. If you reduce viral load you reduce both the risk of pathology seriously injuring or killing the infected person and also reduce the forward transmission rate, Rt, of said virus.
Only sterilizing immunity cuts off mutation and exerting mutational pressure via non-sterilizing *******s not only promotes mutation by removing the signal an infected person has to self-isolate and reduce transmission risk (since you don't feel ill) it nudges the virus toward codons that will escape the protection in whole or part.
In small groups of particularly high risk a non-sterilizing ******* may be worth it but any use of one raises the risk of mutational escape and thus while attempting to protect that small group you may screw others. Attempting to accurately determine who "deserves" to get protected while someone else gets screwed is a discussion that damn well ought to take place out in public as it is the public at large that is the recipient of the screwing if it occurs!
There remains a risk that drug resistance may arise which is why multi-drug regimes are important. As an example HCQ+Ivermectin which was formally registered as a trial and then never actually run, is (among other options) one such potential approach.
When it comes to respiratory viruses as was the case with polio you need immunity via whatever source to take hold at the point of both entry and emission by an infected person. This is why OPV worked on a sterilizing basis for polio where IPV did not. IPV was injected; OPV was consumed. As a result OPV produced mucosal immunity in the gut and thus prevented both colonization and forward transmission. IPV, on the other hand, prevented symptomatic disease in the person immunized but did not express sufficiently in the gut mucosa to prevent infection, shedding and transmission.
THE SAME APPLIES HERE WITH THE ***** JABS AND FOR THIS REASON THEY ARE AND ALWAYS WILL BE DANGEROUS, PROMOTING MUTATION AND ULTIMATELY VIRAL ESCAPE.
If you get ***** and beat it since the point of entry is your respiratory mucosa you have strong and broad resistance focused there. That's sterilizing in more than 9 out of 10 persons and far more-durable than jab-based immunity as well. That is what the data tells us.
It is wildly superior to a non-sterilizing ******* because you are not only very unlikely to get the virus again you are also nearly-certain to be unable to infect anyone else if you do. This and only this is what cuts off mutational pressure.
It's too late now; we're stuck with the stupid, particularly all the screaming harpies who went out and got jabbed despite being at very low risk of serious outcomes themselves, turning themselves into literal gain-of-function labs for the virus. If you took the jab, in short, unless you were at very high risk and thus it was justified on a personal mitigation basis you are, in fact, part of the body of individuals that are placing evolutionary pressure on the virus to evolve and ultimately evade the protection and screw not just others but you as well.
Those who are claiming "well, I got jabbed, I got infected, but it would have been much worse if I didn't get jabbed" are the worst of the psychotics. First, the majority of *****-19 infections are asymptomatic according to the CDC itself. Indeed they claim at least six people get infected for each detected infection. You may well have moved yourself from "I sneezed" to "I got pretty damned sick" by taking the shot. You don't know. But worse is that by taking the jab and then getting infected anyway you have now not just become a potential mutational factory you are one of the people causing what will ultimately become viral escape and the screwing of yourself and others because by definition if you got sick after vaccination the virus got into your system, it has now proved whatever occurred in you evaded the protection you had and then was emitted back out where others can catch it from you after that evasion took place.
You were either the mutational factory or an intermediate host that screws the next person you share the love with!
Not only did your protection against fail but, much worse, it's possible that said screwing will be enhanced by whatever residual antibody titer you may have since binding antibodies, if present (and which you intentionally put into your system) will still be present. Even more-seriously you put the spike protein and thus the antibody response not in your nose and throat but in your blood vessels and other organs where they can cause the exact disease progression that occurs when *****-19 kills people. If you get a "break though" infection I hope you have your d-Dimer levels immediately checked because if not you may be a walking heart attack or stroke somewhere in the not-so-distant future with no other warning as a direct result of intentionally loading your body full of "protection" in the wrong place.
This, and only this, is why I will not consent to such a jab under any circumstances until and unless there is hard science showing that a sterilizing option exists. That one, assuming the risk profile is reasonable, is one I might consider. Said jab today does not exist anywhere in the United States and I'm unaware of any scientific work showing that any of the current jabs are sterilizing irrespective of where they are manufactured and sold.
Without sterilizing immunization against this disease the only sane approach is to attempt to interdict the progress of disease at first suspicion and evidence of infection instead.
I am capable of reading both history and scientific papers, I know I'm right, the CDC, NIH, Vander****, Mayo, Cleveland and Johns Hopkins also knew for decades that I'm right and they have either all turned what formerly were scientific organizations into politically-driven soy-boy pieces of worthless and even harmful crap or, much worse, they're deliberately lying.
If you were among the conned the only remaining question is what are you going to do with and to those who conned you?
Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of "You're ****ed, fool."