Federal Judge Blocks the CV Jab mandate for Fed Contractors

wait ... so the reason the cv vaxed/infected numbers are up is because they are "programmed for Alpha" ... and not the Delta ... but still have 1/2 the cases of covid19 with a substantial part of the population cv jabbed.

But the cv jab is more effective than natural immunity?

huh?

 

just seems to me you're arguing both sides of this for the best estimation of the cv vax, Jon.

You declare that the reason 1/2 of the current/last 3-4 months cases' being cv jabbed is because the jab is for the alpha strain and they're getting infected by the delta variant.

but how can natural immunity to delta be inferior to the cv jab immunity when the cases are evenly split between the TWO conditions? I'm just analyzing your own posts ... I'm actually taking your word for it ... but the math isn't adding-up.

 

every engagement we've had ... you've staunchly supported the cv vax. Perhaps even hyperbolizing it's pluses and virtually disregarding its minuses.

Are you telling me I was wrong in understanding the previous points you made? 1/2 of the current cases are because the jab was for alpha ... but the jab has superior immunity than natural immunity?

given 1/2 of the current cases are cv jabbed, it doesn't seem like "the jab is working."

See here's the thing ... and I'll stipulate this part I have yet to find a reasonable answer ... we don't know why the virus more easily infects some than others.

But likewise ... we have no mechanism for even guessing which of the 3 responses the immune system will have to the cv jab; let alone efficacy.

I'll stipulate something else ... this talking point about 'reduced symptoms.' OK ... so of the cases which are cv jabbed, the symptoms aren't as harsh as the non-cv jabbed.

But the non-cv jabbed have only the virus with which to contend. Not the virus PLUS the cv jab's risks -- which I know you minimize, but it's pretty clear it's not nothing. Not even close to nothing. Not even close to nothing using nothing as extreme hyperbole.

It's something ... it's substantial for a lot of folks and no one should be compelled to take something which can't be undone.

If the reaction by the immune system is "hyper" ... and the immune system starts attacking the body (most of the results of the near immediate deaths by the cv jab) ... how is that stopped?

This thing is LITERALLY playing russian roulette but having 4 bullets in the 6 shooter rather than 1. Perhaps 2 hollow point and 2 blanks --- which will do sufficient damage to disable ya. 3 things can happen and two of 'em aren't good. But don't let Alec Baldwin load it ... the odds change then!

 

OK . I apologize. I thought you were the one who exempted the cv jab's failure because we have delta and that's upped the cv jabbed to about 50% of the cases the last few months.

I'd be more interested in the death rate of those unvaxed who aren't >65 with comorbidities & dutifully abided by the "approved" protocol vice those in that same demographic who took action themselves with one of the "alternatives" like budesonide

There's no question to any but those who accept the CDC data on the adverse effects of the cv jab ... it's a significant risk just to take the jab, regardless of efficacy. 95%/2% whatever.

and I think this is revelation of accepting the CDC's numbers on the vax and on last year's accounting of cv deaths.

agreed.

 

but the cases are just about evenly split cv jabbed to non over the last 6 weeks. The ONLY argument which can't really be refuted because there's not that data ... is the degree of symptom and whether those hospitalized ever did anything but what the WHO/CDC/AMA approved protocol said to do.

 

because it would validate what I and many with my view on the treatment protocol have been saying ...

it's part of the problem and why there was this manufactured crisis to "get a shot developed YESTERDAY"

we'd still benefit from A vaccination in targeted segments of our population, but we'd have had time to do that development and more of us would have already recovered from the alpha establishing the baseline for effective immunity from SARSCOVi2.

But we'll never know because we got scared into lockdowns et al. And the govt took over.

 

ha.

well if the cases were 10% ... reflecting the advertised 90% effective ... then that'd check. But it's FAR higher than that AND ... introduce the risk of adverse effects as I've been saying ... and which have been grossly underrepresented in policy making. Well, that's just not a good bet.

 

... nevermind having to take ANOTHER jab every 6 months to keep that advertised (if perhaps not accurate) 90% efficacy number.

 

huh? you've corrected my 97% number from the "clinical trials."

I think you're putting too much faith in the accuracy of these reports and overlooking the setup for the legitimate deaths we've experienced from the disease --- the terrible treatment protocol.

... and while it may be a narrow window, there have no doubt been folks who have gotten jabbed with an infection in progress ... died ... and been called "un vaxed" cause they didn't make it two weeks passed their "fully vaxed" date.

part of that jabbing with the pandemic in progress problem.