« first day (3673 days earlier)      last day (1436 days later) » 

LаngLаngС
LаngLаngС
09:11
How lovely this community behaved again: skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/50460
Punishment for a good Q, because it might shatter a weltanschauung, praise for a bad A that shows no insight into the subject matter, smears the person, with bad language, and does only come up with one egregiously propagandistic 'fact-checker'.
While in reality, we see studies showing that sterile immunity hasn't even been a design goal, infection susceptibility really does increase after the first jab, that after the first neutrophiles go down, massively, immunosenescence questions any efficacy in the elderly who in one-third fail to produce any antibodies.
A recent nature paper even shows that the idea to focus on only one epitope structure, the spike protein , was an achilles heel from the start. Natural infection presents the immune system a lot of information, and against all of those structures defenses could be built. If the bug mutates on S, there are still the others. Which is the reason why many had a level of pre-existing immunity from pre2019 against the 'new' CoV.
This cross-immunity is by definition lacking or much weaker if S is mutated and a weakened body only had 'vaccines' to battle. In Nature we see that blood from reconvalescents shows good immunity against mutants (with few exceptions) and that vaxxed blood is virgin soil for those mutants.
That's the funniest thing about this: those criticising VanderBosche are effectively denying evolution. His point is that we create a large evolutionary pressure on the bug, but leave a barn door wide open and in sight. So, are vaccine-fanatics really a new form of creationists? They surely ignore the lack of scientific evidence in favour of the current vaccines.
Data-dredging in the trials to then still only show a benefit of 1% absolute risk reduction, a manipulated two early unblinded trial with large dropiout numbers and still an efficacy of 19–29%? Dependent on only one single structure that while slower than flu could easily mutate away is in the prcess of doing so on a great scale?
And yet, meanwhile on this site we see the fanatics being all so overjoyed that a perverted braindead idea like vaccinating ex-covid-patients gets much more love as a question? That is sick!
So let me say that very clearly: I firmly protest that this fear porn answer gets +15 votes while being so low in quality, measured on things like quality standards for answers here are supposed to be required. A deplatform-voted Q means that the 15 UVs on the A are all from regulars? That is quite a disgrace and showing nothing but ideological echo-chamberism.
 
4 hours later…
LаngLаngС
LаngLаngС
13:46
Just for laughs: "Anti–spike IgG causes severe acute lung injury by skewing macrophage responses during acute SARS-CoV infection. / Vaccine-induced S-specific immunity resulted in severe ALI in SARS-CoV infected Chinese macaques."
"And for what, again" I hear you say? ["Since most SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in development use only the spike protein as immunogen, we also analyzed whether peptides from the spike alone can yield broad CTL coverage over the global population.
Based on our analysis, the immunogenic spike peptides alone are unlikely to provide such broad coverage from the standpoint of CTL responses. Therefore, to get broad CTL coverage, an immunogen consisting of other SARS-CoV-2 proteins might be necessary. This is potentially significant if antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 prove not to be durable, as reported …
You want to inject what? "Minimal levels of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can cause cell fusion"
Even when your immune system likely has some prior natural immunity, cross immunity to be precise? "Importantly, we detected SARS-CoV-2-reactive CD4+ T cells in ∼40%–60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating “common cold” coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2."
 
4 hours later…
LаngLаngС
LаngLаngС
18:05
@odd You ealize that your latest edit on my post removes part of an accurate summary of the situation? Based on flags by fanaticised people who demonstarted in comments that they cannot read properly? That 'the second shot is currently very unlikely to be worth it' is not a subjective statement made by me, but a paraphrase from the RKI statement/assessment?
So why is that removed?
This site let's smearyTrump-derision stand when the question askes for risk/benefit of diluted bleach, never mentioning Trump? This site let's personalised source attacks stand when an ex-GAVI employee discusses a valuable theory about immune evasion and viral escape without any shred fo reliable reference visible in an answer?
That has a certain aroma of added excrement to tip already unequal scales. Those flags were evidently nothing but motivated reasoning without base in reality. That the message contained is backed up by a host of reliable references seems not to matter when the content is just so inconvenient for the fanboys. Vaccines should protect us. Not we should protect the vaccines. Please register my protest against that practice.

« first day (3673 days earlier)      last day (1436 days later) »