The Mega-Thread for COVID Evangelists


'“[The vaccines] continue to work well with [the] Delta [variant] with regard to severe illness and death, but what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said on CNN over the summer.

'That makes natural immunity the more important piece, according to Bhattacharya, even as federal health officials like Fauci and Walensky focus on vaccinations.'
 

'“[The vaccines] continue to work well with [the] Delta [variant] with regard to severe illness and death, but what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said on CNN over the summer.

'That makes natural immunity the more important piece, according to Bhattacharya, even as federal health officials like Fauci and Walensky focus on vaccinations.'
As long as animals can contact a virus, it will always be with us.
 

'“[The vaccines] continue to work well with [the] Delta [variant] with regard to severe illness and death, but what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said on CNN over the summer.

'That makes natural immunity the more important piece, according to Bhattacharya, even as federal health officials like Fauci and Walensky focus on vaccinations.'
I'm curious about how you advocate one acquires natural immunity to COVID. Are you suggesting we all just become exposed and infected by the virus to acquire natural immunity? Isn't that a bit of a Russian Roulette type suggestion?
 
I'm curious about how you advocate one acquires natural immunity to COVID. Are you suggesting we all just become exposed and infected by the virus to acquire natural immunity? Isn't that a bit of a Russian Roulette type suggestion?
Less Russian Roulette than with the vaccine, and no babies have to die for it. If you had been reading the last few posts, then you would see the risks of harm from infection are miniscule to non-existant for the vast majority of the population.

The risks I take are my choice.

But . . . your vaccine will not prevent infection. Now it's a therapy, and there really is nothing to commend it above HCQ and Ivermectin therapies.

But if you feel more secure with a shot, and your conscience is clear with the use of dead babies, get the jab.

Even before my case, I wanted to get infected and get through it, and I thought it safer and less harmful overall than lockdowns and superstitious mask mandates. I think you would find an overwhelming majority of Americans would agree.
 
Last edited:
Pox party at Ekklesian's!
Actually, a risk-stratified approach was suggested by a number of epidemiologists. It's going to spread, and it isn't going to do a lot of harm to the vast majority of us. In fact, it would do less total harm than the specious 'mitigation' efforts. The strategy was to let it spread far and wide while protecting the higher risk segments.
 

'A group of federal workers and contractors filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government over COVID-19 vaccination mandates that were announced earlier this month by President Joe Biden.
'The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Washington district court, is asking a court to declare unlawful Biden’s executive order and a Department of Defense memorandum in August mandating all military members get the vaccine.
'Lawyers argue that members of the Christian faith are required “to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her informed conscience comes to this sure judgment,” and it further stipulates that “naturally acquired immunity provides greater protection than vaccines.”'
 
Fun facts for those who shun facts:
 
It's really about health.

 

An interview worth the trouble to watch.

What do we do about the durability of the immunity with vaccinated people? Because we're interested in protection, and we're interested in durable or longterm protection. And we know the following:
Number one, protection against the illness is more robust and more durable, longer lasting from a natural recovery after the infection than it is from a vaccine in an uninfected individual. That is factually true and inarguable although 'people' try to distort that. And why do I say that? Because of the data, and the data is very good from Israel that shows that there is a 13-fold to 26-fold ... of symptomatic cases in people who have been vaccinated but never infected when they get eventually infected, versus people who have had an infection in the past, never been vaccinated--they're more protected.
And we never hear about this from the people who are mandating vaccines and everybody blindly saying everyone must get a vaccine without regard for the natural immunity. And this is a huge public health--not just 'error--disgrace, really that our CDC and our White House 'leaders of task forces' are not talking about basic immunology.
We know this is true for other viruses. We know it's true for SARS1. Seventeen years after people who have had SARS1--we look at their blood samples--and it still has robust immune response to SARS2. ... The point is seventeen years later.
We know from the Spanish Flu. Ninety years afterward we see people have protection against that virus, an immune response.
This is not new ground. This is not something shocking. It would be shocking to think that people who have recovered from the viral illness do NOT have long term protection. THAT would be the shock.
And everybody who is a credible scientist knows that, but 'somehow' we have disregarded all the information that we used to know.
 
There's another point I'd like to make about the measure of the protection. Antibodies decline after an infection over months typically. That's common. That's not a cause for alarm. We don't give a booster shot or a vaccine...on the basis of antibodies. We do it on the basis of protecting somebody from a serious illness. We're not... proudly displaying our antibody levels, we want to make sure people don't get sick. And when we look at that concept, we always seem to forget--or 'we' don't forget. I don't forget, but the press and some of the most visible faces of public health on TV never educate the public about something very important, which is that when your antibodies decline...that does NOT mean necessarily that your protection is gone, because you have a long term immune system in your body.
This is not new. This is medical student first year--college, really--level science, is that you have stored in your both T cells, that people have talked about, as well as memory B cells that are in your bone marrow that provide protection for years, and there is evidence that this virus has shown that. It would be a shock if it didn't.
There's just a lot of misinformation, again, and a lot of incomplete information, a lot of hysteria being unfortunately promulgated by people who should know better. If you don't know this stuff, you shouldn't be in the CDC. If you don't know this stuff you should not be advising the President of the United States. And if you don't know this stuff you certainly should not be on TV talking to the American public.
 
The data has been in now for a year and half that children do not significantly spread the disease. And we know this from data all over the world. We know it from Austria, Sweden, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the U.K., on and on and on, including places like Sweden who kept their schools open, 1.8 million children, no masks, no social distancing, and no secondary impact from that. We know that teachers do not have a higher incidence in those settings of the infection compared to other careers, and we know that when cases occur, in schools they almost always seem to come in from the adults carrying them into the school, not from the children.
And that argument is over as far as I'm concerned, because no matter how often people insist the earth is flat, it's round, and the earth does not change it's shape, because more people keep insisting the earth is flat. So I'm not going to waste a lot of people's time playing that. If these people are refractory to fact, then they're hopeless.
The disease is not significantly spread by children. The risk to teachers is not high, it's low. It's a low risk environment. There is zero excuse for teachers to not teach in person. And there's a bigger issue ... that is worth saying, and that is that--
To me it's unconscionable that a society uses it's children as shields for adults. Children do not have significant risk from this illness. Are we a society--a civilization--where we are using our children, even if they did spread it, as shields? We're going to inject our children with an experimental drug that they don't have a significant benefit from to shield ourselves?
My role as a parent is to protect my children. My role is not, and I will never use my children as shields to somehow protect me. That's really just a heinous violation of all moral principles, in my view
In terms of ethical considerations, I really have to wonder about the ethics of a human subjects committee in an institutional review board, which has to approve all protocols, I'd have to worry about the ethical input into those people to design a clinical trial for vaccines on young children under five--who have extremely low risk from this disease--injecting these children with drugs. I think our society has fallen remarkably low--frightenly low--if that is the level we have sunk to.
 
 
Unbelievable. Follow the link and download the pdf while you can. Incredible.
 
 
 
Back
Top