11,407 karma · joined June 11, 2013
Autocrine vitamin D signaling switches off pro-inflammatory programs of cells: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-021-01080-3
1. This says nothing about Vitamin D as a cure once you got infected. It might work, or it might not, but this study simply does not address the question at all.
Huh? Everyone I know who thinks vitamin D might be helpful says you need to supplement with it on a consistent, ongoing basis, not try to take big catch-up doses once you get sick or wind up in the hospital. Given how safe and cheap it is (and that adequate vitamin D levels may be associated with a range of other improved health outcomes as well), even a 25% reduction in those risks would be a big deal.
Your entire framing of these policy choices as inevitable and the only option is baseless. Australia and New Zealand used to be held up as the shining lights of "just act fast enough and you can avoid the need for any sustained restrictions" and now we are seeing just how well kicking the can in that way actually works, and the lengths that must be gone to keep kicking it.
I'm just curious, did you happen to pick up that term from Jasun Horsley?
Vaccines have been quite effective at preventing cases of COVID-19 that lead to severe illness and death, but none has proved reliable at blocking transmission of the virus, Jones noted. Recent evidence has also made clear that the immunity provided by vaccines can wane in a matter of months.
The result is that even if vaccination were universal, the coronavirus would probably continue to spread.
Mae Brussell's entire back catalog is easy to find if you're looking for something along these lines without the compromised elements. Dave Emory also has a massive library and is still going strong, doing great work on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 in particular. For modern-day parapolitical podcasts there's The Liminalist, Subliminal Jihad, The Farm, Psyop Cinema, and many others.
I know at least a couple of nurses who were able to get around the flu shot requirements, probably because it was pretty well understood they only reduce transmission marginally at best.
It wasn't just laypeople, it's trivial to go back and find prominent public health officials promising that vaccinated people will not transmit the disease, the vaccines will be 100% effective against death, etc. They shouldn't have been saying that given that what you say about the trials is true, but hey, they haven't paid any price for getting it wrong since this whole thing began so why would they now?
In general I have noticed there's this pattern where the public will sometimes be clearly and strongly led to believe a certain thing, but if it later turns out to be false, 100% of the blame is placed on the masses. If there's any rebuke for the officials or institutions which led them into error it's always in the most vague and general terms, with no one ever indicted (or, heaven forbid, punished) by name.
"The only thing that stands between the new way of life and the current way of life is, frankly, hesitancy to vaccinations," he said.
Imagine still believing this after what's happened in Singapore, Denmark, Israel, on college campuses in the US, etc ....
As far as the cases go the eugyppius post deals with all the supposed caveats and speculations raised in your fact check link. Very funny how they only get raised when the reported case rates are higher in the vaccinated, and not when it was time to kvetch about a "pandemic of the unvaccinated."
It even supports my natural immunity theory at one point:
> Plus, COVID-19 infections among the unvaccinated in the prior four-week reporting period may be “artificially reducing” the case rate for that group in the latest report.
None of these gymnastics would be necessary if the vaccines were genuinely preventing infections at a rate of 6x.
In the UK every age group over 30 is seeing a higher case rate in the vaccinated. I think this is probably explained by a higher prevalence of natural immunity in the unvaccinated cohort but it also shows the vaccines are not providing a high level of prevention of infection: https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/ukhsa-efficacy-stats-death-...
Not only that, but you can't actually get the approved Comirnaty version of the Pfizer shots. The "legally distinct" EUA injections are still the only ones available. The FDA's "approval" is a bait-and-switch.
There's also the question of biodistribution. Do the spikes from the vaccine wind up in more sensitive, easily damaged cells than the ones which occur from a SARS-CoV-2 infection? Anecdotally, most of my close contacts who were vaccinated spent more time out of commission and had a far worse time than I did with COVID (although I did start treatment early on the second day of symptoms with the FLCCC ivermectin protocol). Theoretically all the vaccine is doing is creating a bunch of spike protein -- if the dose is so much lower why does it affect people so much more?
I still see so much discussion premised on the idea that there is still some tradeoff to be made between mutually exclusive outcomes of "get vaccinated" or "get infected" and it's simply not the case.
> Like the COVID vaccines, sweet
More gaslighting. The publications from the manufacturers themselves are chock full of unanswered questions and risks they say we must wait years for the answer to.