What Is COVID Actually Doing to Our Immune Systems?

[akvanden]

30 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Poor Deepfaggot and his flock of sheep.

 

 

Wonder when the insurance companies are going to figure this out with their army of underwriters. No mention of this in any forward looking guidance OR asked (like do you smoke) on questionnaires . Good thing this “top analyst” found this because you’d think they’d want to price in that 35% increase in risk in those individuals!

 

[ArcticCrusher]

50 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

You didn't post shit for data, but some numbnuts morons incorrect summary.  

Posted this more than a week ago.  

https://i.imgur.com/207a9kW.png

 

You were too stupid to understand it of course.  Definitely shows your 7% mortality increase per shot in the US.

 

Even read what your dumbass link states.  "If you took all 5 that would be a 35% increase...."

First off, terrible math which coming from you is not a surprise but more importantly if it is a 35% increase why don't we see it anywhere?

 

Germany has a 36% increase in excess deaths right now idiot.

The UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc

Keep your head shoved up your ass.

[ArcticCrusher]

53 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

You didn't post shit for data, but some numbnuts morons incorrect summary.  

Posted this more than a week ago.  

https://i.imgur.com/207a9kW.png

 

You were too stupid to understand it of course.  Definitely shows your 7% mortality increase per shot in the US.

 

Even read what your dumbass link states.  "If you took all 5 that would be a 35% increase...."

First off, terrible math which coming from you is not a surprise but more importantly if it is a 35% increase why don't we see it anywhere?

 

BTW, that chart is garbage.

 

[ArcticCrusher]

52 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

How about I say this more clearly, so you can understand.  If you can't find all sorts of death with a 35% mortality rate and you STILL believe it to be true you are a special kind of special needs case.  

Maybe the insurance company is paying out claims for nothing.  Lol.

This was also called out by Ed Dowd over a year ago as seen by several insurance Co's.

Get a clue.

[ArcticCrusher]

Why oh why.

 

 

[ArcticCrusher]

Sorry doesn't cut it.

 

 

 

[akvanden]

3 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Good now do the surge in excess deaths.  It's not from covid.

 

17 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Why oh why.

 

 

[Jimmy Snacks]

Wow..the rare 5 in a row…take a breath shitbird.

[Deephaven]

43 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Maybe the insurance company is paying out claims for nothing.  Lol.

This was also called out by Ed Dowd over a year ago as seen by several insurance Co's.

Get a clue.

Says the guy who claims 35% mortality rate with a shot but can't find a mortality.  More fake BS from you.  Wake up.

As for the 36% in Germany.  You aren't sharing data but quoting someone who is as much of a crackpot as you are.  Completely made up and fabricated.

[Highmark]

20 hours ago, akvanden said:

The entire slate article is documenting what happens to your immune system in severe cases of covid infection, and potentially some mild cases. There’s a difference between predictable immune responses via vaccine vs an unknown/uncontrolled response via infection. It’s no different than any other vaccine such as polio (which I’m only using for illustrative purposes). The polio vaccine gives you a predictable immune response while getting it naturally can wreak havoc on your body, hence getting immunity through vaccine is better. Your body is still reacting in a similar manner by creating antibodies, but with predictably different outcomes. Would you imply that getting a polio vaccine is on par to getting it naturally, since technically there’s a chance the vaccine could give you an unpredictable response? It can/does happen.
 

No, I doubt you would make that claim. But you are now, stating there’s “equal concern” implying the predictable immune response is the same, which it’s not.

Its laughable you are comparing the Polio vaccine to the mRNA Covid vaccine. (Even for illustrative purposes)  Polio's fatality rates were exponentially higher than that of COVID.  The mRNA vaccine doesn't stop infection and likely does very little to stop severe infection especially with anything after the original variant all while possibly fucking up your immune system to boot.     

From what has been published in the article there should be equal concern if not greater that the vaccine is causing immune deficiency issues.   There are billions and billions of people worldwide that have taken it and we ZERO clue as to what its effects on the body will be long term.

Its simply amazing you can't even for a second look at this and think we may have jumped the gun.   Honestly do you work for Pfizer or Moderna?     

[akvanden]

48 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Its laughable you are comparing the Polio vaccine to the mRNA Covid vaccine. (Even for illustrative purposes)  Polio's fatality rates were exponentially higher than that of COVID.  The mRNA vaccine doesn't stop infection and likely does very little to stop severe infection especially with anything after the original variant all while possibly fucking up your immune system to boot.     

From what has been published in the article there should be equal concern if not greater that the vaccine is causing immune deficiency issues.   There are billions and billions of people worldwide that have taken it and we ZERO clue as to what its effects on the body will be long term.

Its simply amazing you can't even for a second look at this and think we may have jumped the gun.   Honestly do you work for Pfizer or Moderna?     

So you took “for illustrative purposes” to mean literally. Hmmm, thought I made that clear. How about, for illustrative purposes of course, we use the flu vaccine, or ANY vaccine, because the logic doesn’t change. The immune response is more predictable from ANY vaccine than it is from getting the disease itself. You’re implying that because the immune system in both scenarios starts building antibodies that they are, therefore, no different on impact to the body. That makes zero sense. And if it did more harm than good, you’d see higher rates of vaccinated in the hospital with Covid. But that hasn’t happened either. No sense.

 

If/when the facts change, my opinion will change. In the meantime I’ll stay on the side of logic and data. I won’t take a stance of “well I don’t know what’s going to happen 10 years from now so I’m going throw shade.”
 

And no I don’t work for Pfizer or Moderna, nor did I take their vaccines, nor do I own their stock, not am I connected to dominion voting systems, nor am I connected to Lockheed Martin.
 

Really confusing, isn’t it. 
 

 

[Highmark]

2 hours ago, akvanden said:

So you took “for illustrative purposes” to mean literally. Hmmm, thought I made that clear. How about, for illustrative purposes of course, we use the flu vaccine, or ANY vaccine, because the logic doesn’t change. The immune response is more predictable from ANY vaccine than it is from getting the disease itself. You’re implying that because the immune system in both scenarios starts building antibodies that they are, therefore, no different on impact to the body. That makes zero sense. And if it did more harm than good, you’d see higher rates of vaccinated in the hospital with Covid. But that hasn’t happened either. No sense.

 

If/when the facts change, my opinion will change. In the meantime I’ll stay on the side of logic and data. I won’t take a stance of “well I don’t know what’s going to happen 10 years from now so I’m going throw shade.”
 

And no I don’t work for Pfizer or Moderna, nor did I take their vaccines, nor do I own their stock, not am I connected to dominion voting systems, nor am I connected to Lockheed Martin.
 

Really confusing, isn’t it. 
 

 

Not really.   The infection can fuck up your immune system and the vaccine can fuck up your immune system.  Great for the people who had the infection AND were vaccinated.   Considering that the jab NEVER prevented infection and they knew that from the start is very disturbing.  They likely knew from the start the impact mRNA vaccines had on peoples immune system as well.  

Again from the first paragraph of the study published by the NIH.  Pretty much comes down to the study was valid or not because if valid what its saying is concerning. 

In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell's palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines questions them as positive contributors to public health.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Highmark

[akvanden]

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

The infection can fuck up your immune system and the vaccine can fuck up your immune system.  Great for the people who had the infection AND were vaccinated.

Are you implying the risk is the same?

 

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

Considering that the jab NEVER prevented infection and they knew that from the start is very disturbing.  They likely knew from the start the impact mRNA vaccines had on peoples immune system as well.  

What do you mean by NEVER prevented infection? Never as in never 100%? Or never as in zero? Of course it helps prevent, even you know that as evidenced by hospitalizations and death rates.

 

What infowars/ivermectin/doesn’t know Australia’s vaccination rate/quack Peter McCullough is saying in the study is not playing out in the real world. If the vaccine did more to harm your immune system then good, you would not see the disparities between the two cohorts in the hospital/death that we do. If you’re immune system was compromised, you would be in the hospital more.

And if you want, Google the “study” and see all the rebuttals that have been published in response.

 

 

Who do you work for, America’s Front Line Doctors?!? 

[Highmark]

33 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Are you implying the risk is the same?

 

What do you mean by NEVER prevented infection? Never as in never 100%? Or never as in zero? Of course it helps prevent, even you know that as evidenced by hospitalizations and death rates.

 

What infowars/ivermectin/doesn’t know Australia’s vaccination rate/quack Peter McCullough is saying in the study is not playing out in the real world. If the vaccine did more to harm your immune system then good, you would not see the disparities between the two cohorts in the hospital/death that we do. If you’re immune system was compromised, you would be in the hospital more.

And if you want, Google the “study” and see all the rebuttals that have been published in response.

 

 

Who do you work for, America’s Front Line Doctors?!? 

There is ZERO proof the vaccine ever prevented infection or transmission from the pharma companies.  Sure it may have been effective against disease severity.  Do you agree they lied about it preventing infection or transmission?  It went on for a couple years it being pushed yet last year they admitted that was never even part of the original trials.    

Peter McCullough was not the sole author of the study.   It also included someone from MIT and others.

You do realize that now more people vaccinated are dying from covid than unvaccinated?  Yes there are factors that play into those numbers but still not exactly the bill of goods we were sold.   6 in 10 deaths are now people that are vaccinated. (As of August 2022 according to the CDC). 

The impacts of the vaccine on the immune system won't necessarily be immediate with certain diseases.  No different than the virus itself impacting peoples immune system.  I think for some things its a waiting game as you all are the long term test subjects. 

I think the question here regards to the study is whether or not the current data suggests further examination (which is stated in the study) and a different approach to whom should get the vaccine or boosters.         

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Highmark

[ArcticCrusher]

16 hours ago, akvanden said:

 

 

What % of covid deaths are with covid vs from covid.

Start there moron

 

[ArcticCrusher]

4 hours ago, Highmark said:

Its laughable you are comparing the Polio vaccine to the mRNA Covid vaccine. (Even for illustrative purposes)  Polio's fatality rates were exponentially higher than that of COVID.  The mRNA vaccine doesn't stop infection and likely does very little to stop severe infection especially with anything after the original variant all while possibly fucking up your immune system to boot.     

From what has been published in the article there should be equal concern if not greater that the vaccine is causing immune deficiency issues.   There are billions and billions of people worldwide that have taken it and we ZERO clue as to what its effects on the body will be long term.

Its simply amazing you can't even for a second look at this and think we may have jumped the gun.   Honestly do you work for Pfizer or Moderna?     

At the recent FDA meeting it was revealed that any claims the vax had that made the disease less severe was all wishful thinking.

 

[ArcticCrusher]

43 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Are you implying the risk is the same?

 

What do you mean by NEVER prevented infection? Never as in never 100%? Or never as in zero? Of course it helps prevent, even you know that as evidenced by hospitalizations and death rates.

 

What infowars/ivermectin/doesn’t know Australia’s vaccination rate/quack Peter McCullough is saying in the study is not playing out in the real world. If the vaccine did more to harm your immune system then good, you would not see the disparities between the two cohorts in the hospital/death that we do. If you’re immune system was compromised, you would be in the hospital more.

And if you want, Google the “study” and see all the rebuttals that have been published in response.

 

 

Who do you work for, America’s Front Line Doctors?!? 

Most of those who died from the vax did so within the first 14 days of getting jabbed.  They are counted as an unvaxxed death.

Have you figured out the adverse reaction rate for the vax yet moron?

 

 

[Jimmy Snacks]

It always a sure sign of intellect and success when someone ends every post by calling someone a moron or idiot.

[akvanden]

26 minutes ago, Highmark said:

There is ZERO proof the vaccine ever prevented infection or transmission from the pharma companies.  Sure it may have been effective against disease severity.  Do you agree they lied about it preventing infection or transmission?  It went on for a couple years it being pushed yet last year they admitted that was never even part of the original trials. 

Are you implying the risk to the immune system is the same? That was the statement you started the thread with and now your jumping around.

They did test prevention, remember the original efficacy rates published against the original strain? And I’m sorry they didn’t test transmission rates. The FDA when they authorized the EUA on in Dec 20 clearly stated it doesn’t 100% stop transmission in the OFFICIAL public release. That’s an assinine idea that it would be the first vaccine in the history of vaccines to think it did 100% stop transmission, even if some afterwards implied it did. There have been many studies since that shows it helps. It only makes logical sense if you have a lower viral load and are shedding less of the virus.

 

38 minutes ago, Highmark said:

You do realize that now more people vaccinated are dying from covid than unvaccinated?  Yes there are factors that play into those numbers but still not exactly the bill of goods we were sold.   6 in 10 deaths are now people that are vaccinated. (As of August 2022 according to the CDC). 

You do realize 8 in 10 have been vaccinated?
 

40 minutes ago, Highmark said:

The impacts of the vaccine on the immune system won't necessarily be immediate with certain diseases.  No different than the virus itself impacting peoples immune system.  I think for some things its a waiting game as you all are the long term test subjects.

Ok, well, let us know when it is and stop implying the risks are the same when there’s no evidence of such.

 

42 minutes ago, Highmark said:

think the question here regards to the study is whether or not the current data suggests further examination (which is stated in the study) and a different approach to whom should get the vaccine or boosters.       

Absolutely, they should continue research and monitoring. As facts change, approach should change.

[ArcticCrusher]

13 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

It always a sure sign of intellect and success when someone ends every post by calling someone a moron or idiot.

Sorry if the truth hurts.  Anyone still pushing this nonsense today is a fucking moron and an idiot.

[akvanden]

35 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

 

What % of covid deaths are with covid vs from covid.

Start there moron

 

Apparently excess deaths are trending downwards with Covid deaths, the opposite what you said. Shocking.

 

 

[ArcticCrusher]

2 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Are you implying the risk to the immune system is the same? That was the statement you started the thread with and now your jumping around.

They did test prevention, remember the original efficacy rates published against the original strain? And I’m sorry they didn’t test transmission rates. The FDA when they authorized the EUA on in Dec 20 clearly stated it doesn’t 100% stop transmission in the OFFICIAL public release. That’s an assinine idea that it would be the first vaccine in the history of vaccines to think it did 100% stop transmission, even if some afterwards implied it did. There have been many studies since that shows it helps. It only makes logical sense if you have a lower viral load and are shedding less of the virus.

 

You do realize 8 in 10 have been vaccinated?
 

Ok, well, let us know when it is and stop implying the risks are the same when there’s no evidence of such.

 

Absolutely, they should continue research and monitoring. As facts change, approach should change.

No they did not test prevention or transmission.  Where do you have that from?

 

The original trial only tested a PCR result (170 ppl) thats it.  All fraud.  All bullshit.  Remember more died in the vax group (21) than the control (17).

Here is the FDA meeting where there is no data to support any claim of prevention of severe disease.

 

 

[akvanden]

16 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

It always a sure sign of intellect and success when someone ends every post by calling someone a moron or idiot.

 

2 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Sorry if the truth hurts.  Anyone still pushing this nonsense today is a fucking moron and an idiot.

 

7th graders must speak a lot of truth too.

 

Ummmm ummmm derrrr ummmm you’re a moron. 

[ArcticCrusher]

This is one of the reasons why your immune system is getting fucked and its not good.  This is why you don't rush products to market.

 

Unless of course you agree to being a lab rat.

 

 

 

[akvanden]

5 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

No they did not test prevention or transmission.  Where do you have that from?

Ok, I guess they didn’t test anything.