Commenter MikeyinFl has recommended an article by a Swedish doctor. I'm going to excerpt portions of the article because I believe it contains a useful and lucid, although incomplete, discussion on issues that are before us currently. First of all, however, I excerpt the following from the doctor's self presentation:
I work as a junior physician in Stockholm, Sweden. I studied medicine at the Karolinska Institute and graduated in January 2020.
I am a proponent of evidence based medicine. In other words, I think that medical diagnosis and treatment should be guided by the scientific evidence, not by expert opinion or personal anecdote, and certainly not by salespeople working for pharmaceutical companies.
Unfortunately, much of what is written on the topic of health and medicine on the internet is just plain wrong. That applies even to much of what is written on supposedly serious medical web sites.
Next, I want to point out that most of what Dr. Rushworth has to say relates to more or less "traditional" vaccines--not to the current Covid "vaccines", which are, in fact, gene therapy medications. As such, the goal of the these gene therapies is not actually "immunity" to infection, but mitigation of the disease symptoms. This explains why the PCR test settings were abruptly changed once the "vaccines" came out. It also explains the recommendation that the vaxxed/medicated population should continue with masking and distancing. Finally, it also explains the phenomenon of reinfection--which shouldn't happen with vaccines or natural immunity.
With that in mind, read what Dr. Rushworth has to say and relate it to what's going on in the public discussion of Covid these days:
Does it make sense to vaccinate those who have had covid?
One of the strangest things about the last few months on planet Earth has been the relentless drive to vaccinate everyone, regardless of what their individual risk from the virus is, and whether or not they’ve already had the disease. It was well known long before covid came along that people who have had an infection are usually at least as well protected as those who get vaccinated. The whole point of vaccination is, after all, to mimic infection so as to stimulate immunity. If you’ve had measles, you don’t need to take the measles vaccine. If you’ve had hepatitis A, you don’t need to take the hepatitis A vaccine. If you’ve had chickenpox, you don’t need to take the chickenpox vaccine. Yet if you’ve had covid, you should supposedly still take the covid vaccine. Strange.
Yet many people who should know better have been happy to play along with the “everyone needs to be vaccinated” mantra, in spite of the fact that it runs counter to the stated goal of governments and public health agencies. ...
A few months back I wrote about a study, published in The Lancet in April, that showed a 93% decreased risk of re-infection in people who had already had covid. That would make prior infection equivalent to the most effective vaccines, in terms of its ability to protect against covid (which is as we would expect).
For those who remain unconvinced that prior infection is at least equivalent to vaccination, however, a very interesting study was recently posted on MedRxiv. This was a retrospective cohort study of the 52,238 employees of the Cleveland Clinic, who were followed from December 16th 2020 (when the Cleveland Clinic started vaccinating its staff) until May 15th 2021. The objective of the study was to compare the relative rates of infection between four groups of employees: Those who had had covid and been vaccinated, those who had had covid but not yet been vaccinated, those who had not had covid but had been vaccinated, and those who had neither had covid nor been vaccinated.
A PCR test was used to diagnose covid in the study. The Cleveland Clinic was not engaging in any screening of asymptomatic staff during the study period, so tests were in almost all cases carried out when participants developed symptoms suggestive of covid. In other words, the method used to diagnose covid in this study was equivalent to the method used in most other studies, and also the method that is used in the real world.
So, what were the results?
There were 2,139 new covid infections among the 52,238 participants. In other words, 4.1% of the participants in the study developed covid during the five month period. 99.3% of these infections were among participants who had neither had covid nor been vaccinated. The remaining 0,7% were among participants who hadn’t had covid but had been vaccinated.
2,579 participants had already had covid at the start of the study. Not a single one of them developed covid during the five month period. This includes both the 1,229 with prior infection who were vaccinated, and the 1,359 who weren’t. What that means is that prior infection was associated with a 100% reduction in the relative risk of infection. That was true regardless of whether the person with prior infection was vaccinated or not. Vaccination did not provide any additional benefit to those who had already had covid.
What can we conclude?
Prior infection is highly effective at protecting against covid. There is thus no need for people who have already had covid to get vaccinated. When governments do vaccinate people who have already had covid, they are wasting taxpayers money and putting people at risk of side effects for no good reason.
A few observations.
It is also well known that people who have been exposed to other coronavirus diseases--including the common--typically exhibit significant cross immunity.
Everything that Rushworth says here is well known in the scientific world. Yet, as Rushworth points out, many who should--in fact, who do--know better have remained silent and "played along" with the propaganda onslaught in favor of this vast medical experiment.
Finally, this should confirm that we are, in fact, witnessing a vast experiment utilizing a largely untested gene therapy medication. It should be obvious that getting the public accustomed to the concept of regular receipt of gene therapy medications is the point.
I hope this isn't a dumb question, but I have wondered: if the goal of gene therapy isn't actual immunity, but mitigation once the infection occurs, does gene therapy vaccination actually contribute to herd immunity? Since we're not actually immunizing people, I don't see how.ReplyDelete
I obviously am not qualified to give a scientific answer, however ...Delete
Reputable and highly qualified scientists in this field (Yeadon, Bhakdi, etc.) are concerned that the use of these gene therapies could circumvent true "herd immunity" because the gene therapies are very narrowly targeted, rather than broadly targeted.
For the sake of time as this entire saga is mind-boggling, here is a quote from a recent, well-researched article about herd immunity that is relevant:Delete
"Dr. Christopher Murray, the director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington says “there is no doubt in my mind” that “vaccinated” Americans are helping spread the Indian Delta variant as Los Angeles and New York City see cases surge by up to 165% in a week. He added, “It could explain why states with high vaccination rates such as California, Illinois, New York and Washington are seeing a rise in cases.”In New York City, where 63% of all adults have completed their vaccine series, new cases have risen by 295 since June 24.
Since June 25, COVID-19 infections have jumped 84 percent from 1,747 cases to 3,216 recorded July 9th, according to data from the Scottish Government. ‘You cannot explain the explosive epidemic in Scotland, in a pretty highly vaccinated population, if they’re not playing a role in transmission,’ Murray said.
Here’s what the article is not telling us. These cases are rising in areas of the unvaccinated as well. Remember that it’s already been acknowledged that those who are inoculated are shedding the spike proteins and infecting non-inoculated."
Thanks. This tends to bear out what eminent critics have been warning about. I'll check those out.Delete