9 Comments
May 12Liked by James Lyons-Weiler

The study adhered to all necessary ethical guidelines, ...

No, injecting a bioweapon into people is the antithesis of ethical.

Expand full comment
author

Agreed!!! Especially under the mandate

Expand full comment

The 0 -1 prior doses is interesting - why not look at 0 doses? Maybe not enough folks for that category alone. Many of the folks that took just one dose of the 2 dose shots, probably did so because they had adverse effects. In the 2-3 phase trials for Pfizer - I believe there was a relatively large number that did not go back for the 2nd dose and the shots given in those trials involved a different manufacturing process than the ones injected into the masses.

Expand full comment

I would love to have my mother read this but know she will deny it all and double down onto her 7th booster. She has had them all and thinks her health is great because of all of them. My brother and I have both tried. The tv is on almost all day and she thinks all vaccines are great. I can proudly say my young adult kids understand what is really going on and won’t take any vaccine ever again. To keep peace and not make things worse I can’t say anything to my mom. Sad.

Expand full comment

Link to source?

Expand full comment

The very best gift to our mothers is the gift of Knowledge and wisdom. Sometimes, we truly are the only people they listen to and hopefully respect us enough to heed our advice!

Expand full comment

Here is the reference:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.27.24306378v1.full-text

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38465901/

[It's a second study from Cleveland clinic suggesting more doses equals more covid]:

“The multivariable analysis also found that compared to receipt of 0 or 1 prior vaccine doses, risk of COVID-19 was increasingly higher with receipt of 2 prior doses (HR, .1.46; 95% C.I., 1.12-1.90; P < .005), 3 prior doses (HR, 1.95; 95% C.I., 1.51-2.52; P < .001), and more than 3 prior doses (HR, 2.51; 95% C.I., 1.91-3.31; P < .001). If number of prior vaccine doses was not adjusted for in the multivariable model, the 2023-2024 formulation of the vaccine was not protective against COVID-19 (HR 1.01, 95% C.I. .84 – 1.21, P = 0.95).”

“Consistent with similar findings in many prior studies [3,8,10,12,18–20], a higher number of prior vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19. The exact reason for this finding is not clear. It is possible that this may be related to the fact that vaccine-induced immunity is weaker and less durable than natural immunity. So, although somewhat protective in the short term, vaccination may increase risk of future infection because the act of vaccination prevents the occurrence of a more immunogenic event. Thus, the short-term protection provided by a COVID-19 vaccine comes with a risk of increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in the future. This understanding suggests that a more nuanced approach to COVID-19 is necessary. Although some individuals are at high risk of complications from COVID-19, and may benefit from receiving a vaccine frequently, the wisdom of vaccinating everyone with a vaccine of low effectiveness every few months to prevent what is generally a mild or an asymptomatic infection in most healthy persons, needs to be questioned.”

Expand full comment

Wonder who is still taking this stuff? I have a loved one in a very good skilled nursing facility and watch as the staff approaches the frail elderly with the offer of an injection at next weeks "covid clinic." Fortunately I'm able to refuse for my family member. As a retired NP, I'm horrified by the continuation of this obscene scam on the aged.

Expand full comment