"How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System"

[admin]

[added video on 10-4-21]
After Google/YouTube bans the video in the following player you can access it at bitchute on this link:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/5aHm9JSPUdTU/


[end edit]

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/how-covid-vaccine-can-destroy-immune-system

"How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System"
November 11, 2020
by Dr. Joseph Mercola

According to a study that examined how informed consent is given to COVID-19 vaccine trial participants, disclosure forms fail to inform volunteers that the vaccine might make them susceptible to more severe disease if they’re exposed to the virus."

The study,1 “Informed Consent Disclosure to Vaccine Trial Subjects of Risk of COVID-19 Vaccine Worsening Clinical Disease,” published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice, October 28, 2020, points out that “COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated.”

“Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE),” the paper states.

“This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”

What Is Antibody-Dependent Enhancement?

As noted by the authors of that International Journal of Clinical Practice paper, previous coronavirus vaccine efforts — for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — have revealed a serious concern: The vaccines have a tendency to trigger antibody-dependent enhancement.

What exactly does that mean? In a nutshell, it means that rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine actually enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated.2

This is the exact opposite of what a vaccine is supposed to do, and a significant problem that has been pointed out from the very beginning of this push for a COVID-19 vaccine. The 2003 review paper “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Virus Infection and Disease” explains it this way:3

“In general, virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection.

The ADE of virus infection is a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies enhance the entry of virus, and in some cases the replication of virus, into monocytes/macrophages and granulocytic cells through interaction with Fc and/or complement receptors.

This phenomenon has been reported in vitro and in vivo for viruses representing numerous families and genera of public health and veterinary importance. These viruses share some common features such as preferential replication in macrophages, ability to establish persistence, and antigenic diversity. For some viruses, ADE of infection has become a great concern to disease control by vaccination.”

Previous Coronavirus Vaccine Efforts Have All Failed

In my May 2020 interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began in 2002, following three consecutive SARS outbreaks. By 2012, Chinese, American and European scientists were working on SARS vaccine development, and had about 30 promising candidates.

Of those, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. In the video below, which is a select outtake from my full interview, Kennedy explains what happened next. While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they all became severely ill and died.

The same thing happened when they tried to develop an RSV vaccine in the 1960s. RSV is an upper respiratory illness that is very similar to that caused by coronaviruses. At that time, they had decided to skip animal trials and go directly to human trials.

“They tested it on I think about 35 children, and the same thing happened,” Kennedy said. “The children developed a champion antibody response — robust, durable. It looked perfect [but when] the children were exposed to the wild virus, they all became sick. Two of them died. They abandoned the vaccine. It was a big embarrassment to FDA and NIH.”"

The cited video:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/10/is-there-a-vaccine-for-coronavirus.aspx

[madbadger]

Good discussion about the gene therapy trial that is being mislabeled as a "vaccine" by Judy Mikovits and Dr. Mercola -- about an hour long but worth the listen.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/TUkiTFI8vHDB/

[admin]

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-study-shows-vaccines-must-be
New studies show that the COVID vaccines damage your immune system, likely permanently
The vaccines are making it more likely you'll be infected with Omicron 90 days after you are fully vaccinated. To keep vaccine effectiveness high against omicron, vaccination every 30 days is needed."

"What the paper said in detail

First, the link in the tweet is to the outdated version of the paper. The current version can be found here.

Start at the comments, both from social media and also from medrxiv readers.

Check out the social media portion of the comments

Here are some comments (on old and new version of the paper):

    So assume the results you like (high VE for recent vaccination) are causal, but hand wave confounders at results you don't like (negative VE for distant vaccination)? Science?

    This is a superb paper, especially the careful approach to CNV calling and the Bayesian methods used throughout.

    Looking at the graphs, I see both vaccines lose all effectiveness at 90 days, but worse, actually drop into strong negative effectiveness after that time.

    This would mean that these vaccines *increase* one's chances of infection after the initial 90 days "honeymoon" period.

    Am I getting this right?

    If so, why are governments pushing third doses as Omicron is becoming dominant?

The key material is in the full PDF:



The graphs above tell the story. Negative VE means the vaccine is helping the virus, not you.

So at 60 days, the protection is close to zero, so if you want to maintain protection, getting vaccinated every 30 days is required.

This isn’t a vaccine at all. This is basically stimulating your immune system so it is already “geared up” to fight the virus. That’s not what a vaccine is supposed to do.

Furthermore, the negative VE after 90 days means you are hooked for life and I would guess (based on the mechanism of action), that we will need shorter and shorter dosing intervals for every booster you get (since it kills off your immune system every time).

So it could very well be monthly boosters after the 2nd dose, weekly boosters after the 3rd dose, and perhaps daily boosters after the 4th dose to maintain your “immunity.”

You can’t stop after that because if you stop, you’re in worse shape than if you never started.
The stunning conclusion of the paper

    In light of the exponential rise in Omicron cases, these findings highlight the need for massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations.

All I can say is “wow.” The people who wrote this paper are clearly drinking the Kool-Aid on their interpretation of what their study means.

They also wrote this (which is purely speculative with no data behind it as noted in the italics were my addition):

    The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals.

This paper should be a wake up call: the vaccines do not work. Stop repeating the insanity.

Early treatments like the Fareed and Tyson protocol are 10X better than any new therapy, they don’t “hook you,” and they don’t cause disability or death.

If doctors started prescribing the Fareed and Tyson protocol, we’d have virtually no deaths, and few hospitalizations. But they can’t do that since medical board will take away the licenses of any physicians who prescribe ivermectin, etc. This is happening now.

We are in this mess because the NIH, CDC, FDA are corrupt and incompetent and they will not hold themselves accountable in an open debate. This has been going on for 20 years in the vaccine space… it’s nothing new. The book “Evidence of harm” documents all of this. Kirby was deliberately neutral in his presentation (being non-judgmental like reporters are supposed to be), but any neutral thinking person will side against the authorities.
Why the paper went viral

So, the reason this paper went viral is because

    It is well done,

    It was done by PhDs in infectious disease and epidemiology,

    The results show what is really happening, and

    Nobody has been able to attack the paper with a credible argument, even on Twitter.

    It confirms what my team of experts has been saying about negative VE

Here are some of the ridiculous attempts to discredit the paper:

click here for more:
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/i/45986919/what-the-paper-said-in-detail

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/reuters-fact-check-of-the-denmark

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/negative-vaccine-efficacy-example