The issue with the spikeshot is that it had, for practical purposes, no testing. They ran a single 90 day trial and then injected the control group so anything remiss could never be discovered. Up until this absurd COVID event, virtually every putative vaccine was tested for TEN YEARS before being released. Even some released with tha…
The issue with the spikeshot is that it had, for practical purposes, no testing. They ran a single 90 day trial and then injected the control group so anything remiss could never be discovered. Up until this absurd COVID event, virtually every putative vaccine was tested for TEN YEARS before being released. Even some released with that testing were taken off the market when there were side effects far fewer than from the spikeshots.
It is one thing to give such an experimental shot to those over 80 (remember that the average age of COVID death is still older than the expected lifespan -- it is over 80) because as a chronologic matter they have relatively few life-years left and because, since March of 2020, we have known that they are far and away those likely to suffer serious consequences from this virus (or most any virus, but that's a different distraction). So deferring serious disease/death in these people for 60 or 90 days so that, perhaps, the body can itself cope is defensible and likely good medicine. If there are long-term effects they will be less likely to impact this group for obvious reasons.
On the other hand, children are at virtually zero risk from COVID -- also known since March of 2020. The death rates are so low that, in effect, no death rate can be calculated -- but assume that under 20 you are more likely to die from a lightening strike. But there are clearly risks to the spikeshot that have shown themselves already -- you have surely seen pieces on myocarditis, but there are other risks that seem obvious in VAERS (the "vaccine" reaction recording site, for all its issues) that will come out from further studies. So even prima facie it is wrong to be injecting the children.
What is worse, of course, is that no one knows the longer term effects of this mRNA which, while clever, does many things we were promised it did not: it goes to all organs, especially concentrating in the sex organs (we were told it stayed in the arm). It incorporates into the nuclear DNA (we were told it would not). And who knows what else. With luck, most such effects will fade or be insignificant, but it seems entirely plausible that there will be longer lasting immune effects that will show over the next few years. (It is already clear that repeat infections with COVID are directly correlated with the number of boosters you have had -- that is not a good immune sign.)
So those are the biologic compromises to which I was referring. There are some short term (like myocarditis, clotting, others) but it is likely that there will be far more widely spread longer term issues since NONE of them were ever studied. The approval of these drugs has been a fraud in virtually every way -- the best example of regulatory capture ever. Ignore anything that might be negative and just report on antibody levels to a spike that has not been seen for two years by anyone, anywhere. And then approve it. So the downside is yet to come. It does not matter a lot for 85 year olds, but it DOES matter a lot for children with decades of expected life span. I fervently hope that nothing too serious happens, but I expect that is wishful thinking. Only time will tell.
I hope this was helpful. Let me know if I failed to be responsive.
The issue with the spikeshot is that it had, for practical purposes, no testing. They ran a single 90 day trial and then injected the control group so anything remiss could never be discovered. Up until this absurd COVID event, virtually every putative vaccine was tested for TEN YEARS before being released. Even some released with that testing were taken off the market when there were side effects far fewer than from the spikeshots.
It is one thing to give such an experimental shot to those over 80 (remember that the average age of COVID death is still older than the expected lifespan -- it is over 80) because as a chronologic matter they have relatively few life-years left and because, since March of 2020, we have known that they are far and away those likely to suffer serious consequences from this virus (or most any virus, but that's a different distraction). So deferring serious disease/death in these people for 60 or 90 days so that, perhaps, the body can itself cope is defensible and likely good medicine. If there are long-term effects they will be less likely to impact this group for obvious reasons.
On the other hand, children are at virtually zero risk from COVID -- also known since March of 2020. The death rates are so low that, in effect, no death rate can be calculated -- but assume that under 20 you are more likely to die from a lightening strike. But there are clearly risks to the spikeshot that have shown themselves already -- you have surely seen pieces on myocarditis, but there are other risks that seem obvious in VAERS (the "vaccine" reaction recording site, for all its issues) that will come out from further studies. So even prima facie it is wrong to be injecting the children.
What is worse, of course, is that no one knows the longer term effects of this mRNA which, while clever, does many things we were promised it did not: it goes to all organs, especially concentrating in the sex organs (we were told it stayed in the arm). It incorporates into the nuclear DNA (we were told it would not). And who knows what else. With luck, most such effects will fade or be insignificant, but it seems entirely plausible that there will be longer lasting immune effects that will show over the next few years. (It is already clear that repeat infections with COVID are directly correlated with the number of boosters you have had -- that is not a good immune sign.)
So those are the biologic compromises to which I was referring. There are some short term (like myocarditis, clotting, others) but it is likely that there will be far more widely spread longer term issues since NONE of them were ever studied. The approval of these drugs has been a fraud in virtually every way -- the best example of regulatory capture ever. Ignore anything that might be negative and just report on antibody levels to a spike that has not been seen for two years by anyone, anywhere. And then approve it. So the downside is yet to come. It does not matter a lot for 85 year olds, but it DOES matter a lot for children with decades of expected life span. I fervently hope that nothing too serious happens, but I expect that is wishful thinking. Only time will tell.
I hope this was helpful. Let me know if I failed to be responsive.