I'm going to go over a few things in this post so ya might wanna pour a drink and have a seat.
There's a paper that I have been watching since it was posted back in July.
You'll note the title: "Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads..."
Also note the date 7-31-2021. That is version one. Since then it has gone through 4 revisions and is now:
Note the change in the header to "Shedding of infectious SARS-Cov-2 Despite Vaccination".
See the first title was more direct and to the point but ALSO undermined the narrative. So they've been doing all kinds of stuff to the article in order to hide the unchanged results:
"We observed low Ct values (<25) in 212 of 310 fully vaccinated (68%) and 246 of 389 (63%) unvaccinated individuals. Testing a subset of these low-Ct samples revealed infectious SARS-CoV-2 in 15 of 17 specimens (88%) from unvaccinated individuals and 37 of 39 (95%) from vaccinated people. "
For those unaware, the lower the ct value the *more* virus is in the sample. ct values are the cycles of a PCR test commonly used to detect Wuhan (haven't said that in a while).
One of the things they did to the paper was to link to a recently published paper on Covid infections in Israel.
Note that this paper was published on Oct 14th. This shows just how long they've been messing with the "same viral load" paper. They don't want to approve of the paper and are doing everything they can to dilute it's findings. But let's look at a claim in the Israel study.
"In all 37 case patients for whom data were available regarding the source of infection, the suspected source was an unvaccinated person; in 21 patients (57%), this person was a household member. Among these case patients were two married couples, in which both sets of spouses worked at Sheba Medical Center and had an unvaccinated child who had tested positive for Covid-19 and was assumed to be the source. In 11 of 37 case patients (30%), the suspected source was an unvaccinated fellow health care worker or patient; in 7 of the 11 case patients, the infection was caused by a nosocomial outbreak of the B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant. These 7 patients, who worked in different hospital sectors and wards, were all found to be linked to the same suspected unvaccinated index patient who had been receiving noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation before her infection had been detected."
Maybe it's just me but I don't like the fact that they said "suspected" rather than confirmed. We know that we have a narrative that the "unvaccinated" are responsible for infecting the "vaccinated". Let's put aside that such a claim utterly destroys the "effective" argument in regards to the shot. For example, there was a large measles outbreak in NYS. How many hospital workers (all of whom would have had a measles shot from when they were children) had a measles infection?
Heck, did anybody even look into it?
Why not?
Exactly.
So lets take a look at the above paragraph:
"he suspected source was an unvaccinated person; in 21 patients (57%), this person was a household member."
OK. How do we know this? Were they tested PRIOR to the hospital staff? How do we know the household member wasn't infected by the hospital staff member? After all they admit that many of their cases were totally asymptomatic. If I were writing the piece I would have said "we confirmed that the source was a household member". Look, these people don't use words by accident.
Similarly they suspect that others got infected from other [unvaccinated] co-workers, yet again, they do not establish or show in the paper whether that is *actually* the case.
Then there's the patient with the "non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation" . They said her infection had not been detected. OK? Why was she receiving ventilation? How long had she been in the hospital prior to her positive case being discovered? Are we certain that she wasn't infected *In* the hospital and transmitted that infection to the other workers? Did they test this patient after the others had been found positive? If so, how do we know they did not pass their infection TO the patient rather than the other way around?
I suppose we should just take them at their word.
Sure.
You may come to a different conclusion.
Next we have some CDC information.
So this impressive looking chart looks pretty good:
Basically, by this chart if you're unvaccinated, you're fucked. I mean look at that huge hump and that barely a blip for deaths.
Now never mind that the CDC corrupted it's own data:
Oh yeah, at some point the CDC moved this document and placed a redirect to a totally different subject. Do not expect the above link to be working for too long.
But let's put aside the data manipulation, what happens when you change that chart to, say, age:
So that huge hump is 80+ year olds.
Oh.
Next one is 65-79 year olds.
Oh.
So anyone under 49 who is not "vaccinated" has a better chance than any 80 year old. Wow. Did we not know this in say, March 2020?
You know what else goes up as you age? Number of co-morbidities, some of which are quite "silent' until they aren't. I've shown that data shows that co-morbidities are the numero uno predictor of bad outcomes here and here. The CDC knows this as well. They have left that out of their pretty charts because, well, it's not important; right?
I will say this: if you're in a vulnerable group, it does look like taking a shot may be in your best interest. But I wouldn't depend on it like I would the childhood vaccinations. Ask Colin Powell.
