It's been a bit of a rough day, but I'm finally catching up with things--well, with some things. The big Covid news today was a new Israeli study. Israeli, perhaps the most vaxxed country on earth, has developed into a sort of canary in the coal mine. Also, along with the UK, they've been pushing out some good quality data and analysis.
This is the study that has created a real buzz:
Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections
Here's a summary--but the long and short is simply that natural immunity is significantly superior to vaccine immunity (if that's the correct terminology):
SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.
In a comment early today I compiled some of Dr. Robert Malone's tweets with reference to this study. Malone sees this as a real breakthrough that may spell the end of the solid front narrative of the Covid Regime. In fact, however, we noted the other day that the rise of "breakthroughs" has led to increasingly open questioning of the official narrative--even in such MSM outlets as the BBC and Bloomberg. Clearly there's movement in the public forum. In any event, here are excerpts from Malone's tweeting:
Best comment of the day - "How about a vaccine IV drip?"
It seems like the wheels are coming off the universal vaccine policy bus. Which leaves me wondering who is going to get thrown under it.
Primary source. Here you go folks. Mike drop moment. In the land of the blind, Data is king.
When all is said and done, reality gets the last word. I think that's what Malone means when he says, Data is king.
Karl Denninger did a post on the Israeli study, as well. He draws out some further implications. The points he makes that really jump out are twofold, and I'll place them ahead of the excerpt:
1. These gene therapies operate, essentially, like monoclonal antibody therapy by a different mechanism--IOW, they cause a big spike in antibodies, but the the spike is shortlived. That's fine for a therapy for disease treatment (monoclonal) but not for a vaccine that's supposed to confer long term immunity--thus Malone's sarcasm re an "IV vaccine." So Alex Berenson tweets:Here’s another, from Israel Sunday. Antibody titers in vaxxed people started high but fell 40% a month (!). Natural titers fell 5% a month. More side effects up front PLUS plunging efficacy. Win win!
2. The evidence is that most of the "adverse events" with Pfizer happen after the 2nd injection--which is a warning sign that repeated injections could lead to even higher risks of injury.
Now here's an excerpt from KD's post--Israel Cracks The Code--in which he spells out his reasoning on this.
In other words the dosing they used, and the original titers, concealed the decay below effective levels which was not being tested for but would have shown up in infections among vaccinated people had the original level been lower.
That's bad; the question now becomes did Pfizer know this and do it deliberately, and if not, what is the logical explanation for the dosing used? Why not set dosing roughly identical to natural infection? Simple: If they did that before the four months of the study ran a crap-ton of people would have gotten infected since the antibody titer would have worn off.
It gets worse:
In our study, we show that following vaccination, the levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies decrease rapidly, indicating that BMPCs may not be created adequately and therefore anti-SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity might be transient (Ibarrondo et al., 2020; Seow et al., 2020).
If there is little or no B-cell recall then the vaccine is a failure as it cannot stimulate durable immunity at all. That is, the jabs are basically the same (via a different mechanism) to receiving monoclonal antibodies if you get infected; yes, you have an antibody titer but the jabs fail to train your immune system to recognize the infection in the future. As that titer wanes the protection becomes increasingly worthless and, since we know mutational binding changes are occurring the potential for vaccine-caused harm potentiating infections remains a distinct possibility as that occurs.
In addition, and perhaps most-damning of all, we also know that the vaccines have a very high significant adverse event rate -- much, much higher than any other commonly-used vaccine (such as MMR, varicella or the flu shot.) The really awful part of this is that most of the serious adverse events happened after the second jab, not the first one, implying that there is an accelerating risk with each successive injection. Whether that accelerating risk "bleeds off" over the next six months or so is a complete unknown since it was never tested for, but if it does not then attempting to buy successive six month periods of protection will, inevitably in everyone, cross over into being more likely to harm you than the virus itself and might even cross over to the point of inevitable harm or death if repeated enough times.
Any of this, standing alone, if identified before release would have almost-certainly caused these jabs to be scrapped. But that's not what happened and now we have the FDA that has actually passed on "licensing" the very same one that is the subject of this study.
Last, but certainly not least, is a post from a UK blogger that Mike Sylwester drew to my attention. As it happens, before I was able to read this closely I was discussing these topics over dinner with my wife--namely, what' up with this off season (summer) surge of a respiratory virus? I'll insert two graphs that should tell the story:
That's a "graphic" illustration of what has led increasing numbers of MSMers to raise questions about the official narrative. As Malone said the other day, there's a lot that just doesn't add up in that narrative. Or as The Blogmire puts it:
ADDENDUM: After I published I saw a new series of excellent Malone tweets:
Remember the legacy media hype because the pediatric wards were filling up. Lots of COVID hype. And then it started leaking out about how these cases were presenting like they were RSV. Then we learned that they were RSV. But you did not hear the media cover that.
When we finally get past all of this, the legitimacy of both the federal public health infrastructure and the legacy media will have been destroyed. And what happens then? Force your mind to think 9-12 months ahead. What do things look like then, based on current trends?
Then start preparing for that future.
Remember~ there will be a midterm election at that point.