The Israel data has told us both what pharma did, what they probably knew, but also how to get out of the box.
And yes, there's a way out of the box.
A reminder: The spike protein that is part of Covid-19, and which all the current vaccines instruct your body to produce is, by itself, pathogenic. This was first published as a pre-print, it came out before we went on a wild jabbing spree, the original study that set off the alarm bells came in September of 2020 and when the study work was done it was dismissed by many as being "not peer reviewed" (who remember, endorsed a whole bunch of other bullshit such as masks, denial of early treatments and so on.)
Well, that excuse is gone now. Two articles, both now published, and which I originally discussed as pre-prints before we mass-jabbed people are now out in public and published form here and here.
Both demonstrate quite-conclusively that the spike protein alone, absent the rest of Covid-19 "the virus", is pathogenic.
Again, in case you missed it further up near the top, all of the current vaccines deliberately produce that spike protein, which by itself causes disease, specifically clotting-related disease, in your body. Deliberately causing your body to produce that pathogen (which then elicits the antibody response) is how all of them work.
This means there is no safe way to vaccinate against this disease because introducing the spike into your body, no matter how you do it, inherently runs the risk of serious clotting-based disorders. You might or might not get nailed but there is no avoiding the risk. That same risk is what kills you, most of the time, if you actually get Covid-19 and die but the premise that you avoid that risk when taking a jab is a lie. You cannot; the risk is inherent in introducing the spike into your circulation and there is no way around that with an IM injection because the muscles of the body are very well-perfused (that is, there's a lot of blood flow in them) even if the person who performs the injection does not hit a blood vessel, and they might.
These facts are not up for debate on a scientific basis any longer. They also fully explain the myocarditis, pericarditis and myriad other so-called "rare" events that occur with these jabs such as strokes, heart attacks and other clotting-based disorders. In addition the data is that the 2nd shot in the 2-shot series is much more dangerous than the first, which implies an exponential expansion of risk.
Whether that expansion of risk bleeds back off over a couple of months or so is entirely unknown as it has not been studied. Without a data set of hundreds of thousands (so as to get statistical significance) and both baseline and follow-up d-Dimer testing, at minimum, we will never be able to put numbers on this, nor get a decay rate on the risk if it decays, and nobody is doing those studies.
That's the bad news; if you take repeated shots and the risk does not bleed off then eventually you will kill yourself. If, for example, the risk on the first shot is 1/100,000 (extremely rare), on the second 1/10,000 (that's a bad pattern) and the risk does not bleed off over the space of three or four months then the risk from the third is 1/1,000 (that's 0.1% and quite nasty) while the risk from a fourth jab rises to 1% at which point you're in the ballpark for a severely morbid person when it comes to Covid-19 infection itself killing them. The fifth jab would put the risk of getting screwed at ten percent, which is approximately the rate of death from the original SARS and the sixth would be odds-on as literal suicide.
How many jabs did you say you're willing to risk taking again?
You cannot get your health back if you ruin it by being stupid. The younger you are the worse the risk is in terms of years of enjoyable life lost. To take that sort of risk when you're 85, fat, diabetic, you have an almost-10% risk of death in the next year from all causes and the Coof is 10% likely to kill you is very different than to take that same risk to your health when you're 17, male, have a BMI under 25, there's not a damn thing wrong with you medically, your all-cause risk of death (most of it by violence) is 7/10,000 and your risk, by the CDC's numbers, of Covid-19 killing you if infected is approximately 1/100,000.
No two people are the same in terms of risk and medical status but this much is certain: That anyone is contemplating, say much less jabbing, the public with a now proved pathogen on a repeated basis without doing this scientific work first is worthy of immediate and summary execution as if they're wrong people are going to die in huge numbers as a direct result of that willful blindness, advocacy and action.
We knew all of the above before the first of 2021 and before any material number of jabs went into arms. What were dismissed as "pre-print" follies have now been published formally and have turned into scientific fact.
Never mind the now-documented risk of evasion and even enhancement due to ordinary viral mutation. This too is now scientific fact. There is no possible way to reformulate and re-jab everyone fast enough to stay ahead of this; even Pfizer's CEO has said it will take 95 days to reformulate their jab and then you must produce and deliver it, which of course cannot happen with the flick of a wand. The virus can and does mutate faster than you can adapt the jabs to it which means you are now taking risk without benefit since the odds of evasion to each "new" formulation you work on during the time in question approach 100%, especially if you test the new versions for excess risks unlike the original trials. Like it or not that's the data; Mother Nature is faster than we are and there's nothing we can do about it.
But remember, I said we also now know there is an exit ramp, and there is. That knowledge is newly-developed and can greatly limit the damage if we use it instead of, once again, denying scientific fact and continue down a road that we now have every reason to believe, based on the data currently available, is very likely to lead to ruin for hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans.
When the trials were being done last fall I found it utterly astonishing that both Moderna and Pfizer had set their dosing to produce extremely high antibody titers -- 10x, 100x or more than produced by natural infection. That looked at the time to have been a truncated series of dose:response trials undertaken in the interest of Warp Speed; that is, "be fast rather than accurate." Obviously you do not want to err on the low side (you get no protection) so if you're going to screw it up the direction to do so is on the high side, assuming toxicity at that level is reasonable It turns out the decision wasn't reasonable, however, because doing that wildly increased the risk of the above reactions, since to produce that sort of high antibody titer you needed to put more spike into the body and we now know the spike, standing alone, is dangerous. (Incidentally the CDC still claims the spike is harmless, despite two peer-reviewed and published papers documenting otherwise and all the in-field adverse events which dovetail exactly with what those papers describe.)
But, as Israel has now shown with conclusive data antibody titers from vaccination wane at 40% a month while those from infection decrease at a much slower rate and in fact broaden in terms of recognition to the virus over time.
Why?
The broadening is indicative of B-cell recall, which is utterly crucial for lasting immunity. Antibodies do not circulate forever in the blood and other tissues; they eventually degrade and are replaced -- if your body's immune system has been trained. Your B-cells are largely responsible for this, along with T-cells and a whole cadre of other components of the immune system. This is why monoclonal antibody infusions protect you right now, when infected, but do not provide lasting immunity on their own. The infection itself does, but not the infusion. If you give the infusion to a non-infected person you wasted it; they have protection for a short period of time but it goes away.
The evidence from these now-published decay rates is that B-cell training does not happen with any of these vaccines. This is important and, it would appear, both Pfizer and Moderna (along with J&J) either knew or should have known this. In fact they all may have deliberately rigged their studies to be submitted for EUAs knowing the failure to produce a durable immune response was not going to be discovered due to time considerations. This cannot be proved without a bevvy of subpoenas of course but it is a reasonable and rational explanation for setting the dose and produced titer where they all did.
You can bet the vaccine makers will all do everything in their power to evade disclosure of what they knew and when in this regard because if in fact they knew that B-cell induction did not happen and deliberately set dosing to produce a result intended to game the EUA process that is quite-arguably intentional misconduct which is the bar that must be cleared to void their legal immunity for all of the adverse events PLUS all those who got infected as the defectively-produced immunity waned.
Consider a 40% per month decay rate for these injections and a natural infection that produces a titer of "100" (units don't matter for this purpose, nor does the actual number -- just the ratio.)
If the jab produces an original titer of 1,000 (10x as much) you get the following titer level on a monthly basis for the jabs:
0: 1,000
1: 600
2: 360
3: 216
4: 129
5: 77
6: 46
At six months you're probably below the protection threshold. Note that it takes 12 months, starting from 100 with a 5% monthly decay for natural infection, to reach the same titer.
So why does the titer decay so much slower if you get infected? Simple: It doesn't actually go away; natural infection trains your B-cells which is a durable response and thus capable of immediately restoring protection if you get challenged with the virus again, which you will. This is why the Cleveland Clinic, following their employees who got infected, found zero re-infections over more than a year's time among more than 1,000 infected and recovered individuals. It is also why a recent study found that natural infection and recovery was 13x as protective as the jabs.
This is how every other virus works and with natural infection by this virus most of the titer is to the "N" protein which cannot mutate materially and still be a virus capable of infecting and replicating in humans. The vaccines do not include any part of the "N" protein and thus cannot produce a response to it. In other words all of the "escape" and even "enhancement" concerns with the vaccines don't happen if you get naturally infected and beat the bug.
This is, incidentally, why humans and all other animals exist on this rock; our immune system has evolved over millennia to prefer targeting future protection, post-infection and recovery, toward the parts of a virus that don't change very much if at all. In addition that recall capacity frequently migrates into the marrow where it becomes decades-long if not permanent and we already know that happens with Covid-19 because a small study was done that proved it. These parts of the immune system and actions by it confer a survival advantage and thus were naturally selected for over the space of hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Disbelieving that which is the very reason you survived your first few months after being born, and why humans and all other animals exist, is flat-out stupid.
The vaccines, it appears, fail to produce this B-cell response; that is a very reasonable explanation for why their antibody titers decay so fast. The manufacturers may have known this, which if true explains why they set the dosing where they did. Had they set dosing to produce a titer equivalent to natural infection within three months protection, by the Israel data, would have all but disappeared and the EUA-generating trials would have failed as there would have been no statistical difference in infection rates between those who got the actual shot and placebo by the end of the trial.
The bad part of this decay is being seen now with Mental Midget Fauci and others arguing over the "need" to get a third, fourth and so on jab and on what interval that will be required. Since we do not know if the risk of adverse events from those jabs compound on an exponential basis it is flat-out insane to suggest such a path forward even absent the antibody to circulating strain mismatch which we also know is a serious concern and raises the risk of both OAS and vaccine-driven enhancement of disease along with simple evasion of the antibody protection.
But the fact that B-cell recall appears to not be generated by the jab also means you can exit the jab highway and, while you will take a materially-higher risk of adverse outcome from infection than an unvaccinated person for a period of time, likely six to twelve months, it is not a lifetime risk since that mismatched B-cell training which would have screwed you on a durable basis did not, by the data thus far, happen.
Some of this is hypothesis at this point in time -- but it is a reasonable hypothesis as to what happened, why it happened, and what we had better do before we allow the wanton re-jabbing of people on an on-going basis with shots that intentionally produce a known-dangerous condition, by the now peer-reviewed science, in the human body.
First and foremost we must stop treating recovered people as if they need anything more; not only is that false it's dangerous as the data is that prior infection is roughly thirteen times as protective as vaccination. If you actually had Covid-19 and recovered there is no scientific evidence you need anything more -- not now, and not in the future. Yes, failures will occur; nothing is 100%, ever, in medicine. But you are far more-likely to be safe on a durable basis than via any number of jabs.
At the same time we must stop lying to those who we claimed had Covid-19 by crazy-high Ct PCR test but have no other evidence of infection. Many of those people didn't actually have the disease; they either had nothing or some other viral disease such as influenza. The CDC is now claiming that a "significant" percentage of people, biased toward young and high Ct value PCR tested individuals, did not seroconvert. The near-certain explanation for that is simple: They never had Covid-19 at all and the test readouts were false positives. To back this up if you believe that there was no influenza last year in America, which is what the CDC has repeatedly claimed, you're a flat-out nutcase. Further, as I pointed out in November of 2020 we knew the false-positive rate on these tests was nutjob-level high because by the CDC's data every single person in America was likely infected and that made the winter (and this summer's) surge mathematically impossible -- yet they both happened. The only explanation is that many of those who we claimed had Covid-19 by PCR test in fact either had nothing at all or some other viral infection.
An inexpensive antibody test will differentiate those individuals and must be made available on request for private, in-home use. These tests exist today but forcing people into a pharmacy where the price is 10x higher because you're paying the tech to stick your finger, where ID is required and the data is transmitted to the government is outrageous, especially after we lied to tens of millions of people in the first place. If you're not at risk you deserve to be able to know you have circulating antibodies as a matter of private, medical fact for no more than the cost of an at-home pregnancy test. If you are at risk because despite being told you had Covid-19 you never really did then likewise, you deserve to know on, again, a private medical basis. This technology exists right now, it is nearly 100% accurate, it is in most Krogers and many other locations right now, and must immediately and permanently be sold OTC on a "no questions asked, use at home as you wish" cash basis exactly as were the BinaxNOW tests sold in WalMart for a few weeks around here.
We must also stop ignoring both existing drugs that help blunt the virus' impact and continue work, where appropriate, on finding new ones. Simply put the jabs do not work to produce durable protection, they may over time enhance disease, they are much more-dangerous than any other common vaccine and we cannot possibly reformulate and distribute them faster, even without testing each new iteration which is ridiculously stupid by the way, than the virus can evolve to escape the cage we attempt to put it in. Both Zelenko and FLCCC, among others, have protocols that appear to work. I personally used a blend of a few of them and believe it was effective. Case studies are not proof but you'll no more convince me it didn't work than you will convince someone who got jabbed and then infected that it would not have been worse had they not taken the shot.
We must insist and enforce that doctors be doctors and thus act as advisors, not deciders. It's your ass and thus it must be your choice as to how and with what you use to treat this virus since you, and only you, are stuck with the consequences.
The only option we have is to live with the virus and learn how to treat it; natural immunity, even against all "variants" by the data works. The jabs do not; they produce non-sterilizing and temporary protection at the risk of severe adverse events up to and including death with an unknown and potentially-compounding exponent for each repeated jab. They should remain a personal choice but only with full and fair disclosure and full legal consequences for anyone concealing the facts as they develop.
In any event since we now know these jabs are non-sterilizing and their protection rapidly decays anyone attempting to mandate them needs to go to prison immediately as they are not mandating the induction of durable sterilizing immunity, which confers a public benefit, but rather are mandating the exponential accumulation of personal risk of serious medical events including heart attacks, strokes and death in the scientifically-proved absence of any public benefit.
That is legally a battery and it is occurring with the reasonable expectation of causing great bodily harm or death to the person being coerced.
That, on the science, fully-justifies the use of whatever level of force may be necessary to stop it immediately.