How Does One Explain This?

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   19 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 18 total)
  • Sun, Nov 21, 2021 - 08:59am

    #1
    Mike from Jersey

    Mike from Jersey

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 22 2018

    Posts: 1642

    count placeholder14

    How Does One Explain This?

I check the Google News page every morning to see what narrative lines are being pushed. Today – to my astonishment – I saw this:

The risk of developing acute coronary syndrome (ACS) significantly increased in patients after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to a report presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2021, held from November 13 to 15, 2021.

Increase In Acute Coronary Markers After Vaccination

Not only did they report that the risk of “acute coronary syndrome” increased, but the article states that the vaccine increased the risk “significantly.”

Now, no one regularly visiting this site would find this surprising. But the fact that it was reported on the Google News front page is not just surprising – it is astonishing.

The question is “why is this being reported?”

My guesses included:

1) An algorithm tracked my prior clicks and sent me article which had not been censored by accident.

2) A human dissident at Google slipped this into the news stream.

3) It is being discovered that the extent of mRNA vaccine related cardiac problems is monumental and – since it will not be possible to hide it  – a limited hang out is starting.

In regards to number “3,” I was watching the Penn State – Rutgers football game yesterday and they had a brief segment on a Penn State player who had to quit football due to “heart problems.”

That was the only college football game that I watched. So, you might say “something suspicious was found in one out of one of samples observed.”

  • Sun, Nov 21, 2021 - 09:14am

    #2
    Friedrichs_teeth

    Friedrichs_teeth

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2019

    Posts: 1043

    count placeholder5

    How Does One Explain This?

Maybe ppl are waking up. It is interesting the study setup. The thing that I noticed was this:

By the time the report was published, changes had persisted for 2.5 months or more after the second vaccine dose.

  • Sun, Nov 21, 2021 - 10:03am

    #3
    sketchypoodle

    sketchypoodle

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 16 2020

    Posts: 102

    count placeholder5

    How Does One Explain This?

Interesting that such info would show up on a google feed.
I come to the same conclusions as to why.
I wonder if there will be any further clarification…
In the meantime, do not feed the google trolls

  • Sun, Nov 21, 2021 - 10:17am

    #4

    Jim H

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1751

    count placeholder16

    Normalization…. a play on door #3

As we all know from reading the news reports and twitter feeds, there does exist a cohort of parents who are so deeply propagandized, suffering from this new Covid-specific sub-category of Stockholm syndrome, that they will acknowledge their kid in the hospital with “mild”, aka the kid didn’t die, myocarditis/pericarditis, and literally say, “It was still worth it”, or “I would do it again”.

Now, while this is absurd and sad given the current risk vs benefit profile of these shots for the smallest kids, who almost never, outside of comorbidities, get sick enough with Covid-19 to be hospitalized… If we listen carefully to GVB, and especially to his most recent interview with Del Bigtree, the apparent risk vs benefit ratio as it relates to Covid-19 may be about to shift.  What do I mean by this?

By listening a few times to the critical section near the end of the Del Bigtree interview where Dr. Vanden Bossche discusses “The Children” and the catastrophe he sees coming .. I think I am finally understanding something he has pointed to for quite some time, but never really explained in a way I could understand or develop a more intuitive framework for.  Del and Geert discuss the difference between an asymptomatic vs symptomatic infection.. in the  asymptomatic case, one’s immune system has short lived antibodies and it doesn’t undergo the degree of training (memory cells) that are the hallmark of robust, long-lived natural immunity.  Acquired immunity is not kicking in.

Healthy kids are incredibly well protected from Covid-19 because their innate immunity is so active, and so effective against SARS-CoV2 during the early respiratory phase.  That’s today.. but as we start jabbing more and more littler and littler kids, causing their bodies to develop longer lived antibodies to yesterday’s S-protein, these antibodies are going to hamper their innate immunity.  “We will take away this capacity for sterilizing (innate) immunity” from this population of kids says Dr. Vanden Bossche,  “These people are going to have their innate antibodies completely suppressed, and their acquired antibodies, through vaccination, completely worthless”. This is the recipe for disaster.

The bottom line is were are going to have more and more kids getting sick, getting hospitalized, and literally dying from Covid-19.  If we don’t trumpet this now, and even if we do, the mainstream media propaganda machine is going to spin this as new variants, and use it to force even more jabs on the unwilling, through continued inversion of the truth.

The risk vs reward equation for kids is about to change because their risk of Covid-19 is going to explode thanks to the jabs.  I am convinced that this is understood and that this has been war gamed out prior.  The powers behind the lockstep coordination are so evil that most normal people are unwilling to grasp what I am suggesting here – but consider it we must;  It’s always been about making the virus more scary than it really is by using incredibly evil and deceptive means to exacerbate the damage and death counts;

–  Putting sick elders back into nursing homes to seed more infections there

–  Approving Remdesivir in a trial that had the goal posts changed more than once (away from mortality) to create the illusion of efficacy, then stopping the trial early for “ethical” reasons to create a dramatic flourish and allow Fauci to get his “it’s a game changer” headline.  Then it helps kill the intubated in hospitals.

–  Suppressing early treatment options in myriad ways, including a completely faked study meant to convince us that HCQ causes significant cardiac death in hospitalized patients.

On, and On, and On goes the list.  But now we are about the see the next phase of “The Narrative” and it will be our jabbed kids getting sick and dying.  But it won’t be blamed on the jab… NO WAY… it’s going to blamed on variants or a variant.  Once kids are really dying, what parent wouldn’t risk a (maybe) 1:1000 chance of myocarditis when kids really are getting sick and dying in rapidly increasing numbers.  This is what I see coming, and we need to find ways to discern the signal that may already exist in, for instance, the jabbed vs unjabbed 12-18 year old cohort today.
 

 

  • Sun, Nov 21, 2021 - 10:28am

    #5
    Mike from Jersey

    Mike from Jersey

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 22 2018

    Posts: 1642

    count placeholder10

    Reply To: How Does One Explain This?

Jim H.,

You wrote:

Healthy kids are incredibly well protected from Covid-19 because their innate immunity is so active, and so effective against SARS-CoV2 during the early respiratory phase.  That’s today.. but as we start jabbing more and more littler and littler kids, causing their bodies to develop longer lived antibodies to yesterday’s S-protein, these antibodies are going to hamper their innate immunity.

I, also, understood GVB to be saying that. One thing he did not say – which would support his thesis – is that vaccine induced antibodies have greater affinity (pathogen binding ability) than innate immune responses. That means by inoculating children, their innate responses could be displaced by vaccine induced antibody responses.

Not only are vaccine induced responses less protective than innate responses, the vaccine induced responses will become useless as the virus mutates.

GVB basically argues that we are removing children’s immunity and replacing it with susceptibility.

  • Sun, Nov 21, 2021 - 01:09pm

    #6
    Brian Z

    Brian Z

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 14 2021

    Posts: 24

    count placeholder5

    Reply To: How Does One Explain This?

GVB basically argues that we are removing children’s immunity and replacing it with susceptibility.

Which works perfectly for their plan of people becoming dependent on Pharma.  It seems to me they want to become the Netflix of immunity, no streaming device needed, that the government will pay for.  This scenario does not align with the depopulation agenda, as killing your customers reduces your income.  Perhaps there is more than one agenda in play, or they want to make hay while the sun shines.  So far, the depop agenda is moving at a slow pace, perhaps it will ramp up this winter or over the next few years, once they have as many people as possible on the immunity subscription.

At this point I see more evidence for the pharma subscription thesis.  The deaths may be a cost of doing business, as the immune system and tech around it is complex and they may not have a complete handle on it yet, but they now have a pretty much guaranteed and large R & D budget and a world full of test subjects to fine tune it to their purposes.

  • Sun, Nov 21, 2021 - 01:43pm

    #7
    Kat43

    Kat43

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 10 2020

    Posts: 843

    count placeholder5

    How Does One Explain This?

One thing he did not say – which would support his thesis – is that vaccine induced antibodies have greater affinity (pathogen binding ability) than innate immune responses. That means by inoculating children, their innate responses could be displaced by vaccine induced antibody responses.

Not this time, but GVB has said exactly that many times before.

  • Sun, Nov 21, 2021 - 01:47pm

    #8

    Jim H

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1751

    count placeholder7

    How Does One Explain This?

Mike from NJ said,

I, also, understood GVB to be saying that. One thing he did not say – which would support his thesis – is that vaccine induced antibodies have greater affinity (pathogen binding ability) than innate immune responses. That means by inoculating children, their innate responses could be displaced by vaccine induced antibody responses.

Not only are vaccine induced responses less protective than innate responses, the vaccine induced responses will become useless as the virus mutates.

I think Dr. Gert is saying this.. not just fully explaining.  He has been talking about the outdated S-protein antibodies “outcompeting” in the sense of stronger or more effective binding from the beginning of his rants.  What he better explains in the Del Bigtree interview, at least for me, is that in the case of kids, because their innate immune system mops things up so fast, they don’t have a chance to create a strong, natural antibody response.  Their immune system gets trained a little bit, but not a lot, and he imagines them building up even more broad acquired immunity over time through multiple, successive, mostly asymptomatic infections.

Del Bigtree, who like many of us has become an armchair immunologist, actually does a good job of helping Gerd explain why this is actually evolutionarily preferred vs. the alternative of producing a strong, more immediate, and specific antibody response.  If you understand the concept of original antigenic sin, then this weak response by the acquired immune system of a young kid, with some (like SARS-COV-2) mop ups being taken care of by the innate immune system, is a means to avoid too strong of a patterning, and in fact a sure case of original antigenic sin.

Brian Z said,

Which works perfectly for their plan of people becoming dependent on Pharma. It seems to me they want to become the Netflix of immunity, no streaming device needed, that the government will pay for.

I agree.  In fact, if you can put your evil hat on and allow the thoughts to percolate, you can imagine that this is why there have been no updates to the S-protein sequence in the shots.  The narrative is in a sense dying as long as the youngest cohorts don’t get vaccinated… but giving the youngest cohort, those with the strongest innate protection, these defunct, completely non-sterilizing, yesterdays S-protein shots, they will achieve their goal of lots of sick kids, which will be (mark my words) the premise for more tightening of the screws AND introducing, finally, updated shots that will “save” the world in their constructed narrative.  Marek’s achieved.  Subscription immunity achieved.

We must all become activists against injecting the elementary school kids.  We must talk to fellow parents and let them know that there does NOT exist scientific consensus regarding the safety and efficacy of these shots for little kids.  We need to be able to explain that their immune systems are different, and why these shots are an affront to their development.  We need passion here… this is the last mile.

  • Sun, Nov 21, 2021 - 02:07pm

    #9
    Mike from Jersey

    Mike from Jersey

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 22 2018

    Posts: 1642

    count placeholder3

    Reply To: How Does One Explain This?

Jim H,

You wrote:

… they will achieve their goal of lots of sick kids, which will be (mark my words) the premise for more tightening of the screws AND introducing, finally, updated shots that will “save” the world in their constructed narrative.  Marek’s achieved.  Subscription immunity achieved.

Yes, that is the plan. In fact, it is already being implemented:

White House pandemic adviser Anthony Fauci has acknowledged that COVID-19 hospitalizations are rising among those who are vaccinated and haven’t received the booster shot.

“What we’re starting to see now is an uptick in hospitalizations among people who’ve been vaccinated but not boosted,” Fauci said Tuesday…

Blaming it on not enough “booster shots”

In other words, “forget about what we told you six months ago, the vaccines only work if you keep on taking them over and over and over again. “

  • Sun, Nov 21, 2021 - 02:51pm

    #10
    Brian Z

    Brian Z

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 14 2021

    Posts: 24

    count placeholder2

    Reply To: How Does One Explain This?

Jim,

When you say Marek’s achieved, do you mean T cell lymphoma, immunosuppression, stronger variants or all of the above?  All the foregoing make Pharma’s business prospects even better.

The lymphoma will  lead to sales of chemo drugs and the stronger variants will require new vaccines which will have to be taken by the majority due to the now lower or mostly destroyed immunity.  There is also the new revenue from treatment of damage caused to cardiac systems and other forms of treatment that may become necessary in the coming months.

Whether it be due to the previous rounds of jabba or the general loss of immune function due to metabolic syndrome among other causes, immunity is becoming more significant than ever.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 18 total)

Login or Register to post comments