I’ve watched the whole thing now, at 2x speed. We’ve also got your summary with time index.
There are a lot of points in there, and we could try to verify each one. Anything particularly salient that you’d like us to focus on first?
To call the vaccines harmful on net, we have to compare that to the alternatives. Even if we accept (for the sake of argument) that the vaccine is toxic, presumably an actual infection has the potential to be much worse, since it produces the same spike protein. In my view, a lot of this case hinges on the availability of an effective prophylactic option as an alternative to the vaccines, or on the possibility that mass vaccination is somehow worse than the risk of infection.
So, in particular,
is Ivermectin (or some cocktail containing it) effective enough to be a viable alternative to vaccination?
Is the risk of female reproductive harm from the vaccines any worse than the risk from infection?
As far as I understand, they claim think that since spike proteins in the actual virus particles are embedded in the particle (as opposed to “free”/”detached” when produced after getting the vaccine), they do not accumulate in the tissues, at least not to the same extent. Possibly, after a virus particle has been destroyed, some of its spike proteins circulate freely (or attached to some smaller segments of the virion) and then can get into tissues and accumulate.
The thing I wonder most is how we can work out whether or not the VAERS deaths can be mostly attributed to natural causes, and secondarily, whether there’s some way to tell if there is a strong underreporting of deaths (contrary to FDA regs) as Steve alleges (and, says Steve, OpenVAERS).
Is the risk of female reproductive harm from the vaccines any worse than the risk from infection?
That is a brilliant question.
Data from Israel and UK (both high vaccination rates) should reveal useful, but I do wonder how much data is required to make that claim.
In the UK (ONS) 1.7 males died for each dead female in the 15-45 age bucket. It’s 2.3 in the 20-25 age bucket.
This suggests female (young especially) are less prone to be badly affected, but it says nothing of other fertility-related adverse reactions.
Regarding Ivermectin, see my top level reply.
Also from the FLCCC website, it looks like there is still no data about taking IVM during pregnancy.
I’ve watched the whole thing now, at 2x speed. We’ve also got your summary with time index.
There are a lot of points in there, and we could try to verify each one. Anything particularly salient that you’d like us to focus on first?
To call the vaccines harmful on net, we have to compare that to the alternatives. Even if we accept (for the sake of argument) that the vaccine is toxic, presumably an actual infection has the potential to be much worse, since it produces the same spike protein. In my view, a lot of this case hinges on the availability of an effective prophylactic option as an alternative to the vaccines, or on the possibility that mass vaccination is somehow worse than the risk of infection.
So, in particular,
is Ivermectin (or some cocktail containing it) effective enough to be a viable alternative to vaccination?
Is the risk of female reproductive harm from the vaccines any worse than the risk from infection?
As far as I understand, they claim think that since spike proteins in the actual virus particles are embedded in the particle (as opposed to “free”/”detached” when produced after getting the vaccine), they do not accumulate in the tissues, at least not to the same extent. Possibly, after a virus particle has been destroyed, some of its spike proteins circulate freely (or attached to some smaller segments of the virion) and then can get into tissues and accumulate.
The thing I wonder most is how we can work out whether or not the VAERS deaths can be mostly attributed to natural causes, and secondarily, whether there’s some way to tell if there is a strong underreporting of deaths (contrary to FDA regs) as Steve alleges (and, says Steve, OpenVAERS).
That is a brilliant question. Data from Israel and UK (both high vaccination rates) should reveal useful, but I do wonder how much data is required to make that claim.
In the UK (ONS) 1.7 males died for each dead female in the 15-45 age bucket. It’s 2.3 in the 20-25 age bucket. This suggests female (young especially) are less prone to be badly affected, but it says nothing of other fertility-related adverse reactions.
Regarding Ivermectin, see my top level reply.
Also from the FLCCC website, it looks like there is still no data about taking IVM during pregnancy.