Since the COVID vaccine roll out began early this year, all the Greenteeth Digital Publishing blogs and news sites including this blog, The Daily Stirrer, Original Boggart Blog and Basil Hallward at Minds have been publishing warnings about the safety of the vaccines that have come from highly respected virologists and immunologists including Wolfgang Wodarg, Sucharit Bhakdi, Elizabeth Bastian, Mike Yeadon, Peter McCulloch, Janci Chunn Lindsay, Robert Malone and Ulrike Kämmerer, many of whom are signatories of an open letter sent under the heading "Doctors for COVID Ethics," to the Eurpean Medicines Agency. Before listening to members of the Vaccine Messiah cult who are always quick to dismiss such well credentialled and highly respected people as cranks and quacks because they dare to go off - message (the message being that only experimental, improperly tested caccines can sabe us from a virus that causes illness in very few people and kills only the veery old or very sick (or people who bare both very olkd and very sick,) we should remember that before vaccines were given provisional approval "for emergency use only" the manufacturers were covering their arses by telling us their products would not immunise people against the virus but might, omly might, in some cases limit the severity of symptoms.
Being called a bunch of far - right conspiracy theorists was the mildest of the abuse hurled at us. but now it seems likely that on a long timeline the conspiracy theorists have been right (as usual) all along. It's not that we, and the people like us are particularly smart but that The Powers That Be and the simpletons who unquestioningly believe the government / mainstream media propaganda are particularly stupid. This makes their machinations extraordinarily transparent.
Results from the biggest study yet to assess the efficacy of the four experimental COVID vaccines only approved for emergency use but being deployed in mass vaccination projects around the world has just been published by the University of Oxford and UK Office for
National Statistics, and unsurprisingly it found that the efficacy rates
for the Pfizer and Moderna are significantly lower than the 90%+ rates
first advertised from the initial controlled trials. (It is worth noting here that we have reported the figures for vaccine take up, claiming up to 98% penetration rate, are likely overstated too.)
According to the effinciency study, a preprint of which was published on Thursday, while the Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca jabs still offer "good" protection against new infections, their efficacy has been reduced compared with Alpha. While having two doses of either vaccine still provides "at least the same level of protection as having had COVID-19", those who were vaccinated after already being infected demonstrated even higher levels of protection than those who either weren't infected and only received the jabs, or were infected, but didn't receive the jabs.
"We’re seeing here the real-world data of how two vaccines are performing, rather than clinical trial data, and the data sets all show how the delta variant has blunted the effectiveness of both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs," said Simon Clarke, an associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading.
Despite this mealy mouthed attempt to big up vaccines which clearly are not working well,, even after receiving two doses of a jab, those infected with delta showed much higher peak levels of the virus than those infected with alpha, or some other variant.
The study also highlighted differences between between vaccines: for example, the Moderna jab had "similar or greater effectiveness" against the delta variant as a single dose of the other vaccines. And while the Pfizer and Moderna jabs showed greater initial efficacy against infection than the AstraZeneca jab, this protection premium erodes after only 4-5 months.
data also showed that the Delta variant increases transmissibility more than other
COVID varients, even among the vaccinated, which backs up a recent
assessment made by the American CDC. In the interests of separating propaganda from hard scientific facts it should be noted that no SARS-COV2 virus, either in its original form or in any variant, has yet been isolted from the host cell and purified: also the antibodies used to diagnose "cases" of COVID are identical to those the body produces in an immune response to the many common cold or influenza variants of coronavirus.
These results fuel doubt s
about the possibility of ever achieving herd immunity via vaccination,
said Sarah Walker, a professor of medical statistics and epidemiology at
Oxford, who helped lead the study. That's not exactly a surprise.What does surprise us however, not to mention the way it has destroyed the credibility of the medical professions, is the way that natural immunity has been ignored and even denied by so many alleged "experts" who have followed the official line that immunity can only be achieved through vaccines. The surprise here lies in the fact that although the vaccine raged for 12 months before vaccines began to be rolled out, at that point 95% of us had not been touched by the virus. Also surprising is the way that medical professions, health authorities and academics have beeen eager to promote dodgy vaccines while trying to censor information about several long established drugs that have proved more effective (and cheaper) in protecting against, and curing COVID-19.
One important piece of the puzzle that’s still missing is the data relating to hospitalizations and severe cases of COVID, according to Penny Ward, a visiting professor in pharmaceutical medicine at King’s College London, who wasn’t involved with the study, and spoke to Bloomberg about its results. It's possible the findings could support "cross-vaccination" with different types of jabs, which could offer more comprehensive protection, she saied.
The results of the study were reported by Bloomberg: