for the hundred time/ the vaccine CANNOT STOP OR PREVENT COVID

a reply to: AaarghZombies

If you know three gang bangers who were shot by rivals it doesn't count as a Vax death.

Exactly right! That's a covid death.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Is there source to back up your assumption?

a reply to: whereislogic

What we need here now, is in vitro tests on the Delta variant of the Corona virus, to see if the 'vaccines' help with making antibodies that can break down/destroy viral particles of that particular type (we are in the Delta dominant period, granted, mutations do not cause huge changes to a virus, it is not likely that an antibody that is effective against the Alpha variant is not also effective on the Delta variant; the way HCQ functions definitely ensures that it will work on all variants and other viruses that enter your cell via the ACE-2 receptor, such as the flu/influenza, and it will also inhibit viral transport, viral replication and viral shedding for all variants, cause HCQ doesn't target the virus, but it alters your cell membranes and ACE-2 receptors, and inhibits the operation of the machinery in your cell involved in viral transport, viral replication and viral shedding, and those machines, including ACE-2 receptors and cell membranes, are always the same, if a mutation occurs in your DNA or if there is an error in the RNA derived from that DNA, your body will cancel the process from RNA > protein, and break the wrong/faulty RNA or protein down, and start over to get it right; mutations and errors that are not repaired like that cause problems in the long term, they do not lead to beneficial evolution as some evolutionary philosophers claim concerning mutations acted upon by so-called "natural selection", that would be a myth/false story*).

Those (in vitro tests) are the easiest to do to see if it's working, if the right type of (effective) antibodies are made. Cause once antibodies are made by the auto-immune system, they are not easily modified (because of the way proteins are and how they are folded, once they are in their final confirmation form, you can't change them anymore, the body can't just replace an amino acid in them with another one, it'll have to make an entirely new one if it isn't the right one, i.e. if it cannot destroy viral particles of the Delta variant Corona virus, and because the antibodies do appear functional to the body's error-checking machinery, they won't break them down to re-use the material, it will likely even continue making them even when not effective for that specific Corona virus variant). So your auto-immune system will have to start from scratch again, while now being hampered by the production of the wrong type of (ineffective) antibody (wasting energy and material, so it'll have to work twice as hard, causing higher body temperatures, i.e. more severe fevers with all the results you get from those; tip: fevers will lower the level of activated vitamin D3 in your body, which helps with regulating the fever and other related things, mitigating it, so replenish your activated D3 during and after a fever, you can activate D3 supplements by sunlight on bare skin after you've taken them, focus on the breast, back and abdomen, cause those get the least sunlight when out in the sun during the fall and winter, unless it's cold outside, then you can sit behind a window. You can also get already activated D3 from your doctor, who can then first test what your current level of D3 is and how much needs to be replenished).

*: some examples of how various types of DNA repair machinery responds to various types of mutations that aren't missed/overlooked by the error-checking mechanisms in the cell (it's truly remarkable and impressive technology, it says something about the designer and creator of this machinery and technology, as described at Psalm 139:14):

Context in playlist exposing evolutionary mythology (concerning mutations in particular, the video that follows the video linked below):

DNA Repair Machinery

You may want to start with this video though (in that playlist, so you have some background):

[HD] THE CENTRAL DOGMA -synra edition- English Narration

Or the first video in that playlist (so you can see that everything works exactly as the creator and designer of these machines and these systems of machinery and technology intended it to work, and mutations screw that up, but luckily, He also made some error-checking and DNA repair machinery for that, although it doesn't catch everything):

Molecular Machinery of Life

originally posted by: YongSu
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

R value is very difficult to estimate even with a super computer. A lot of disease are latent. Flu has virtually 0 R value in summer than come winter boom everyone gets it. So R value is not a good indicator of how fast a virus spread.

Yes correct for Covid it is a fluid number since there is still much learning being done on it. The more info we gather the better we'll be able to calculate. The Flu however is generally in the 1.3-1.5 range if I recall and so many strains so it's hard to have an accurate value on a given season.

Others like Polio and Measles are more defined because of years of data.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: spacemanjupiter

It's like you really are living on Jupiter. Even Biden understands the vaccine doesn't work
when he says "we have to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated".

Unbelievably ignorant.

Your logic is faulty, it would have worked better if you had added the following expression:

'Even Biden understands the vaccine doesn't work as advertized when he says "we have to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated".'

The quoted statement from Biden is understandable once you consider what I described as a possibility in my 2nd paragraph in my response to jidnum, as a reality (consider that it really does work that way and not as a mere possibility). So in other words, if the 'vaccines' do help your auto-immune system to make antibodies that are effective in breaking down/destroying viral particles of preferrably all Corona variants, but in particular now the Delta variant. Which could very well be the case (but hard to confirm when the researchers that are supposed to check this have proven to be so unreliable and uncooperative, and prefer to be busy marketing the vaccines for those who design them, and those who design them also being greedy materialists not interested in accurately reporting on what they designed and their own in vitro tests to check for functionality for different variants, or at least one variant; I'm OK with the habit of assuming that if it works on one variant, it'll work for the others as well; then again, if you get that much research money, you might as well check for all variants as soon as they appear). Especially because standard types of antibodies are very versatile, and if that's all the vaccines do, trigger the production of standard types of antibodies that are already effective against all Corona variants, then it works as described in my 2nd paragraph in my response to jidnum, i.e. mitigate or inhibit the more severe symptoms, duration of infection and viral shedding (your ability to infect others). I probably shouldn't have used the expression "right type of antibody" in my commentary so far, that's confusing, but it's too much to change now. It is true however that the auto-immunesystem can make different standard types of antibodies, and you do want the right one that is actually the most effective against Corona viruses, but you may need more than 1 type for maximum effectiveness (and possibly in different quantities).

But that's not what they are saying in their advertisements (published papers and news reports about them) about the so-called 'vaccines'.

The best method to deal with the Corona pandemic remains treatment with HCQ + zinc + Azithromycin (or possibly Doxycycline) + lots of vitamin C + D3 as much as needed to have the right level, keeping it at that level; with an optional escalation with prednisone if all else fails (without stopping with the earlier mentioned substances); avoiding intubation at all costs and supplying people with oxygen at home if needed (which is just for the symptoms, not the cause, i.e. the virus; just talking about the oxygen now and to avoid intubation, the oxygen threshold currently used in hospitals to determin whether to intubate someone, is way too high as well, oxygen can drop much lower before intubation is worth it, especially with an effective treatment like I just mentioned; there also less invasive methods to assist patients with their breathing that are not used for the most ridiculous illogical and cowardly reasons you can imagine, but I won't get into that now, see link at 1:58 - 2:30 or 3:42, although she doesn't mention why it's such a ridulous illogical cowardly and deliberately deceptive argument by those who write the protocols and know better, because they're doing the bidding of those who want to make things worse for the patient so they can make more money by having patients on the ICU and longer in the hospital, for them, the more sick a patient is, the more damage is done to the patient, the more money they can make, hospital owners and those with a succesful career in those hospitals who have influence on the succes or failure of the careers of others working in the medical industry, like those writing the protocols who are thus pressured into writing protocols that are the most beneficial to these people with their fingers on the buttons; I've done so in April-Jun 2020 in this forum, there's even a very expensive machine that can pump oxygen into your blood directly, bypassing the lungs, making it very useful cause Covid-19 causes your blood to have difficulty carrying oxygen that is mixed into it via the lungs-heart mechanism responsible for that, and this machine can just keep on pumping oxygen into the blood until you reach the desired level, or at least can get closer than your lungs-heart mechanism can). When having trouble sleeping during the disease, melatonin can also help (both with sleeping and all the benefits you get from that and melatonin itself, which you get from a good night sleep). But 100% effectiveness in preventing death and hospitalization means nobody can make any money on the Corona pandemic anymore (it would be over in no time, or not cause any problems anymore for people that are easily and effectively treated), which now includes those selling gas and energy, who have constricted the supply to up the price, and kept their production low even till well after the lockdowns ended for that purpose, to make more money because they are "lovers of money" and "lovers of themselves" (2 Timothy 3:1-7).

If you use that treatment or have quick access to it (i.e. over the counter at supplement stores or pharmacies, with a nice label telling you not to take too much HCQ*), you also don't need HCQ + zinc for prophylaxis. (*: and if they still take too much then, it's their own damn fault for not reading the label, not an excuse for not making it available over the counter, just like antibiotics should be made available over the counter for the same reasons; i.e. it's a bad argument for not making it available over the counter, the argument that says that they can't make it available over the counter cause people might overdose and harm themselves with it; an argument made by those more worried about legal repercussions than the health of the community or their potential customers, so instead they sell products that are less effective or non-effective for what they are advertized for, and can easily be obtained with the right type of food or in nature, and do not require complicated synthetic chemistry: quercetine, vitamin C, vitamin D3, melatonin, zinc, etc., supplements, not designer drugs).

originally posted by: Direne one's own decision to be or not to be vaccinated, which equals to the decision of infect or not infect others.

really? so unvaccinated automatically equals infected and contagious?

wrong. these conflations are why this sh*tshow even exists. i say again, WRONG.

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation

originally posted by: YongSu
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

R value is very difficult to estimate even with a super computer. A lot of disease are latent. Flu has virtually 0 R value in summer than come winter boom everyone gets it. So R value is not a good indicator of how fast a virus spread.

Yes correct for Covid it is a fluid number since there is still much learning being done on it. The more info we gather the better we'll be able to calculate. The Flu however is generally in the 1.3-1.5 range if I recall and so many strains so it's hard to have an accurate value on a given season.

Others like Polio and Measles are more defined because of years of data.

R depends on how many people are exposed to it. H1N1 had R more than 10 when it first appeared.

a reply to: scrounger

Only the uniformed believe vaccines will eliminate Covid-19.

The informed know only natural immunity will reduce Covid-19 to levels that make the illogical hysteria go away.

For that to happen, only (ONLY!) as many people contracting and recovering from the virus as possible, will get the job done.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5

originally posted by: Direne one's own decision to be or not to be vaccinated, which equals to the decision of infect or not infect others.

really? so unvaccinated automatically equals infected and contagious?

wrong. these conflations are why this sh*tshow even exists. i say again, WRONG.

Very few people get covid, both vax and unvax. The virus is greatly exaggerated to make profit.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: jidnum

... I've not even seen the proponents of HCQ describe it in the factual/truthful manner that I just described it, and they genuinely seem like people who want to do the best for their patients. Apparently even they are either under the wrong impression as to the function of antibodies and so-called 'vaccines' designed to assist in making antibodies before viral infection, or also think that 'the ends justify the means' when they tell falsehoods or lies about what the 'vaccine' actually does and in what way they may or may not be helpful to patients (because that's how they've been indoctrinated and conditioned in their medical education, that's it's OK to misrepresent the situation or let people continue to get the wrong impression about these type of 'vaccines' by not correcting them, letting people know that that's not how they work, because the 'vaccines' may be helpful if they help the auto-immune system to make the right type of antibodies, which is a real possibility; ...

...I'm hoping I put it in a somewhat understandable manner for everyone to understand these basic facts of biology that for the moment, aren't honestly admitted to by most people in the medical industry, either out of having the wrong impression themselves or being taught that the end justifies the means, those means being lying about it if they do know better; then it's called a lie rather than a falsehood or something that is incorrect)

“But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.”—Rom. 3:4.
...
“Let God Be Found True” (1965)

Coming back to the phrase "the end justifies the means", here's one paragraph about that argument from the article at the end there:

...—Rom. 3:5-8.

So let us today not fool ourselves. The end does not justify the means. If we do bad things just because we like bad things, and then if we try to excuse ourselves by saying that in the long run good will come from such bad things, we shall not escape. God’s righteous judgment will be executed against us just the same.

But you may want to read the context before that to get a better grasp of what Paul was talking about there right after Romans 3:4, quoted earlier.

Also note what I said to Randyvine2 concerning what I was thinking of when using the expression "right type of antibody":

I probably shouldn't have used the expression "right type of antibody" in my commentary so far, that's confusing, but it's too much to change now. It is true however that the auto-immunesystem can make different standard types of antibodies, and you do want the right one that is actually the most effective against Corona viruses, but you may need more than 1 type for maximum effectiveness (and possibly in different quantities).

That is different quantities in the right amounts and ratios again. So perhaps more of type A then type B, which in turn you want more of than type C, so you get the ratio of 6:3:1 for type A, B and C respectively. And you want approx. that ratio, and not a completely different ratio, for Corona viruses specifically. I know of no research being done to find out the most effective ratios like that. They might have done this before deciding how to design their 'vaccines' as to which antibodies to focus on (if they can do that in the first place, I guess they don't have that much control over that aspect of the auto-immune system, they can only tell it: 'go make antibodies, you figure out which ones and in what ratios', so to speak, and doing so by mimicking the virus, so that the auto-immunesystem starts its autopilot procedures for any virus with spike proteins; yeah, that sounds more like the way they did it).

Remember, the falsehoods or lies I'm talking about, is giving the impression that vaccines designed to assist or trigger the auto-immunesystem to make antibodies, can prevent infection (viral entry into the cell). That part I didn't quote from my previous comment now. Those type of 'vaccines', have 0% effectiveness in preventing viral entry into the cell (the correct terminology for which is "infection"). So they are 0% effective in preventing infection, not 95% as claimed for Pfizer in the media and papers from marketeers posing as scientists (who are very good at being vague about that by using terms such as "effectiveness" in the title of their paper, and only having the caveats for what it actually is effective for or against, in the fineprint much further down, not even in the abstract sometimes, or missing some important details there; and then when the media interprets and changes it to 'effective in preventing infection', they stay quiet, they don't correct them and stress that they should present the situation differently, presenting it in the manner I described it in the 2nd paragraph in my response to jidnum, I'll repeat it below).

If however the 'vaccines' do make the right type of antibodies, it will give your auto-immune system a head start on the virus, and it will help in preventing higher viral loads on average, and a shorter duration of infection, which will prevent more severe symptoms you would have had without that head start, and because your auto-immune system can get rid of the virus more quickly, it will also mitigate viral shedding (i.e. your ability to infect others).

That's what these 'vaccines' can do if they work as intended. Antibodies can never prevent infection, cause their function only starts after the virus has entered your cell (so after infection). I think that was the point of the OP. But sadly was changed to give the impression that they don't work at all, also not in the manner described and bolded above. For a good balanced presentation, you need to present both (all) sides of the issue (and not just focus on the picture you want to impress people with, your view of the matter). From the article linked in my signature:

“A fool will believe anything.”—PROVERBS 14:15, TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION.

THERE is a difference—a big difference—between education and propaganda. Education shows you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think. Good educators present all sides of an issue and encourage discussion. Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.

Be selective: A completely open mind could be likened to a pipe that lets just anything flow through it—even sewage. No one wants a mind contaminated with poison. Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, warned: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15) So we need to be selective. We need to scrutinize whatever is presented to us, deciding what to accept and what to reject.

However, we do not want to be so narrow that we refuse to consider facts that can improve our thinking. How can we find the right balance? By adopting a standard with which to measure new information. Here a Christian has a source of great wisdom. He has the Bible as a sure guide for his thinking. On the one hand, his mind is open, that is, receptive to new information. He properly weighs such new information against the Bible standard and fits what is true into his pattern of thinking. On the other hand, his mind sees the danger of information that is entirely inconsistent with his Bible-based values.

Use discernment: Discernment is “acuteness of judgment.” It is “the power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another.” A person with discernment perceives subtleties of ideas or things and has good judgment.

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter. But how can you discern when something is misleading?

Put information to the test: “Beloved ones,” said John, a first-century Christian teacher, “do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions.” (1 John 4:1) Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us.

But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. No matter what you are reading or watching or listening to, test to see whether it has propagandistic overtones or is truthful.

Moreover, if we want to be fair-minded, we must be willing to subject our own opinions to continual testing as we take in new information. We must realize that they are, after all, opinions. Their trustworthiness depends on the validity of our facts, on the quality of our reasoning, and on the standards or values that we choose to apply.

Ask questions: ...

Do not just follow the crowd: ...

Btw, what counts for propagandists also counts for marketeers (advertizers of other products than philosophy, religious philosophies, religion, and political ideologies or positions).

originally posted by: whereislogic
...From the article linked in my signature:

...

How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.

...

Those "tricks" are discussed in more detail on the previous page for that article (other than the tricks already discussed at the start of the page above):

The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

The page linked in my signature goes into how "to evaluate any message or information that comes your way." As it says there.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
If you use that treatment or have quick access to it (i.e. over the counter at supplement stores or pharmacies, with a nice label telling you not to take too much HCQ*), you also don't need HCQ + zinc for prophylaxis. (*: and if they still take too much then, it's their own damn fault for not reading the label, not an excuse for not making it available over the counter, just like antibiotics should be made available over the counter for the same reasons; i.e. it's a bad argument for not making it available over the counter, the argument that says that they can't make it available over the counter cause people might overdose and harm themselves with it; an argument made by those more worried about legal repercussions than the health of the community or their potential customers, so instead they sell products that are less effective or non-effective for what they are advertized for, and can easily be obtained with the right type of food or in nature, and do not require complicated synthetic chemistry: quercetine, vitamin C, vitamin D3, melatonin, zinc, etc., supplements, not designer drugs).

There's another motive for not making certain medications available over the counter, cause then as a patient, you don't need a Doctor's prescription anymore, putting them out of that particular business (you can still use the Doctor to find out what you need, but once you know, you don't need the Doctor anymore everytime you need a prescription for a re-occuring problem, which under the current system, often results in being prescribed something that doesn't actually work or work all that well, requiring you to make an appointment with a specialist only to finally get what does work much better; I've experienced this myself recently, very annoying, and ka-ching for the Doctor and the specialist, the latter could have just told me over the phone right away, mitigating costs for an appointment; although I guess he possibly needed to have a closer look at my problem to come up with the right solution that apparently my Doctor didn't know about, since he came up with the wrong medication after looking at it; actually, come to think of it, it happened twice with 2 different problems, the 2nd problem being even more costly and easier fixed, especially since the first wrong solution was applied twice at very high hospital costs with 6 nurses asking me the same questions, having to pay for a hospital bed for an entire day of mostly waiting for an operation, anesthesia specialist, and multiple doctors and nurses to make a cut of about half a centimeter, then more nurses to take care of me afterwards, and more time in the hospital bed having to wait for the anesthesia to wear off, they even wanted to keep me overnight the 2nd time I went through the whole process following protocols designed to increase the costs and profits for the hospital; while in the end, all I needed was one person sticking a needle in me and sucking out the problem, after which, the problem did not return, so that was the 3rd time I had the problem; now I have a small scar that wasn't needed from the cut, and the Doctor could have done it as well, which he ironically said that he used to make these sort of cuts himself, until they changed the procedure and assigned it to the expensive hospital, and he obediently went along with that, 3 times; until finally someone at the ER had the bright idea of using a simple needle to suck and push out the problem, which wasn't even painful, no anesthetic used; the problem itself was more painful. But ER is expensive again).

originally posted by: CANONCITYPATRIOT
If anyone is still looking for Ivermectin you can get the Austro brand Ivermectin 6 mg tablets at reliablerxpharmacy.

www.reliablerxpharmacy.com...

They are going fast, so stock up while you can.

Are you, by any chance, pushing this product for any selfish motive?

Sounds like marketing push to me.

originally posted by: CANONCITYPATRIOT
If anyone is still looking for Ivermectin you can get the Austro brand Ivermectin 6 mg tablets at reliablerxpharmacy.

www.reliablerxpharmacy.com...

They are going fast, so stock up while you can.

I would prefer to get my hands on HCQ. Can anyone think of a good analogy to compare something that's very effective (HCQ) to something that is much less effective (Ivermectin)? I was thinking about a Fiat Panda (Ivermectin) and a Ferrari (HCQ). But Ferraris are luxury items. I guess Ferraris are more effective at reaching higher top speeds than Fiat Pandas. HCQ is also much more versatile than Ivermectin. HCQ can do more useful functions in the treatment and prophylaxis of Covid-19 (inhibiting viral entry, viral transport, viral replication, viral shedding and the cytokine storm by targeting IL-6), whereas Ivermectin does only one function if it works as advertized (inhibiting viral replication, which I guess in the end also affects viral shedding, but not directly like HCQ inhibits the machinery involved specifically with the viral shedding step). In that sense, Ivermectin is much more like zinc+zinc ionophore (to get the zinc into the cell), which also only inhibits viral replication.

I have to say though, that I haven't really looked into whether Ivermectin can also do more than only inhibiting viral replication, as soon as I got that impression (which was after I studied the mechanism of HCQ and realized how effective and versatile it was), I sort of lost interest (when I was watching Dr. Been's video about ivermectin's mechanism of action*).

*: I wanted to link the video here but it seems it has been removed from his channel, which does seem to suggest that it works as advertized for Covid-19 (inhibiting viral replication) cause youtube only removes videos with useful information concerning medications that are a threat to the profits of the pharmaceutical companies and the medical industry (their puppets at hospitals, laboraties and research companies and such), i.e. medications that work too well so we don't need crap like Remdesivir or 'vaccines' that are only beneficial for a short while anymore. Not sure exactly how long the vaccines have some decent benefit (in giving you a head start on the virus as explained in my earlier commentary).

Oh yeah, and Azithromycin (Zithromax; or Doxycycline, also not available over the counter), cause that does seem to enhance the effectiveness of HCQ in the treatment of Covid-19 quite a bit (see Marseille study of around March 17-20 2020, where they compared HCQ vs HCQ + Azithromycin).

Just in: Moderna does not meet criteria for FDA approval on booster shot... (DUN DUN DAH).


One of the things that triggers mutations in a virus is meeting resistance and trying to overcome it. The Vax might be just making a more deadly Covid in the attempt to make an easier to transmit, reproduce and infect new host...the equilibrium that all virii try to reach. Because killing the host before reproduction and transition to new host is a detriment to its continuing survival.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Just in, where? Source?

I've overlooked one important aspect of antibodies though that changes my commentary considerably.

Antibodies on the surface of the virus can prevent the virus from invading more cells. So they can inhibit further infection of more cells. Which is of course important for halting an infection from damaging further cells.

So it's not 0% as I implied earlier. Just realized that I had to look that up first, if their function is limited to within cells after infection. Which was the thinking my earlier commentary was based on. I was quite wrong, jumping to conclusions because of the dishonesty I've seen in the medical community concerning HCQ and the exaggerated advertizing claims of 95% efficacy which doesn't count for everyone or in all situations, which the scientific papers usually get into in the fineprint (or graphs that most lay people don't get to see when they hear the media only report the 95% number, talking about Pfizer).

If you have antibodies in your blood (outside the cell) it will inhibit the number of cells that get infected (there will probably still be a few cells that are infected though, but because the more antibodies you have outside cells it will stop the infection in its tracks, also when a virus is coming back out of an infected cell to infect other cells).

Maybe someone here should have put me straight right away after my first comment, so that I didn't have to embarass myself so much for getting it wrong about how antibodies function (I didn't actually check, just realized I should check whether antibodies function inside or outside the cell, I always had the impression they functioned on the inside of cells, perhaps they do both, or certain types for the inside and other types on the outside, for now, I'm getting the impression they only function on the outside of cells, which changes everything I said about vaccine effectiveness in preventing infection).

These vaccines will inhibit further infection and the virus' ability to infect others or other cells, much more than unvaccinated people. Still, only if it works as advertized by sources that have already proven to be unreliable concerning the topic of HCQ, or like to promote numbers such as 95% efficiency, when those only apply according to the advertizers in the most ideal circumstances, and they use other numbers for older people for example.

Well, at least I have the excuse of not being a medical student. And the difficulty of figuring out who to trust. But that's no excuse for checking before I based all my commentary on that wrong impression, that was really dumb and hasty of me, sorry. Even went as far as accusing people of possibly lying or inadvertently spreading falsehoods because they supposedly had the wrong impression, while I had the wrong impression because I didn't check (I do remember wanting to check, but figured I didn't need to because of being overconfident that I knew where antibodies did their thing).

If only I could edit after 4 hours, I could remove all the commentary based on that wrong impression, which is a lot.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: jidnum

Your experience sounds like the 'vaccines' may be making the wrong type of anitbodies. ... [So that] your auto-immune system [will] use up its biomaterials to make the wrong type of antibody and continues to use up biological material to make more of the wrong type of antibody, meaning it's too busy making the wrong antibodies to spend much effort and biomaterial to make the right antibodies, and therefore your anti-immune system becomes overtaxed. Something that would not happen if you had had no 'vaccine', cause then your auto-immune system can focus on making the right antibodies and spend all necessary biomaterial on that.

If however the 'vaccines' do make the right type of antibodies, it will give your auto-immune system a head start on the virus, and it will help in preventing higher viral loads on average, and a shorter duration of infection, which will prevent more severe symptoms you would have had without that head start, and because your auto-immune system can get rid of the virus more quickly, it will also mitigate viral shedding (i.e. your ability to infect others). Those in opposition to the 'vaccines' should also try to be honest about that possibility (...). Of course, this all depends on whether the 'vaccines' are causing your auto-immune system to make antibodies (as well as learning you auto-immune system to do this in the future once the antibodies are gone or almost gone from your body) that can actually [help in fighting the virus]. The problem of course is finding out whether or not that's the case with so many unreliable sources in the medical industry ... . ... the 'vaccines' may be helpful if they help the auto-immune system to make the right type of antibodies, which is a real possibility; but difficult to check since for that type of information we are reliant on the researchers in the medical industry that have already proven to be unreliable ... marketeers ...; ...that is the crucial information we need to determin whether or not the 'vaccines' are helpful or not, or even hurtful by keeping your auto-immune system busy with the wrong type of antibody, i.e. ineffective ones; if your antibodies were made by entirely natural means, there is hardly any to no risk that they will be ineffective, and from then on, your auto-immune system knows what to make by experience, it becomes part of the programming).

Can you follow all that? (...)

First comment adjusted for the wrong impression I had about where antibodies function. Makes it a lot shorter.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: whereislogic

What we need here now, is in vitro tests on the Delta variant of the Corona virus, to see if the 'vaccines' help with making antibodies that can [help fight that particular variant] (we are in the Delta dominant period, granted, mutations do not cause huge changes to a virus, it is not likely that an antibody that is effective against the Alpha variant is not also effective on the Delta variant; the way HCQ functions definitely ensures that it will work on all variants and other viruses that enter your cell via the ACE-2 receptor, such as the flu/influenza, and it will also inhibit viral transport, viral replication and viral shedding for all variants, cause HCQ doesn't target the virus, but it alters your cell membranes and ACE-2 receptors, and inhibits the operation of the machinery in your cell involved in viral transport, viral replication and viral shedding, and those machines, including ACE-2 receptors and cell membranes, are always the same, if a mutation occurs in your DNA or if there is an error in the RNA derived from that DNA, your body will cancel the process from RNA > protein, and break the wrong/faulty RNA or protein down, and start over to get it right; mutations and errors that are not repaired like that cause problems in the long term, they do not lead to beneficial evolution as some evolutionary philosophers claim concerning mutations acted upon by so-called "natural selection", that would be a myth/false story*).

Those (in vitro tests) are the easiest to do to see if it's working, if the right type of (effective) antibodies are made. Cause once antibodies are made by the auto-immune system, they are not easily modified (because of the way proteins are and how they are folded, once they are in their final confirmation form, you can't change them anymore, the body can't just replace an amino acid in them with another one, it'll have to make an entirely new one if it isn't the right one, i.e. if it cannot [help fight the Delta variant], and because the antibodies do appear functional to the body's error-checking machinery, they won't break them down to re-use the material, it will likely even continue making them even when not effective for that specific Corona virus variant). [the rest of the comment can stay the same]

Adjustments made to correct for my misunderstanding of the function of antibodies. Next comment (also making some edits that I already wanted to do but ran out of time for):

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Randyvine2

...
The quoted statement from Biden is understandable [if] you [assume that] the 'vaccines' do help your auto-immune system to make antibodies that are effective in [fighting] preferrably all Corona variants, but in particular now the Delta variant. Which could very well be the case (but hard to confirm when the researchers that are supposed to check this have proven to be so unreliable and uncooperative, and prefer to be busy marketing the vaccines for those who design them, and those who design them also being greedy materialists not interested in accurately reporting on what they designed and their own in vitro tests to check for functionality for different variants, or at least one variant; I'm OK with the habit of assuming that if it works on one variant, it'll work for the others as well; then again, if you get that much research money, you might as well check for all variants as soon as they appear). Especially because standard types of antibodies are very versatile, and if that's all the vaccines do, trigger the production of standard types of antibodies that are already effective against all Corona variants, then it works as described in my [adjusted comment above in response to jidnum, 2nd paragraph], i.e. mitigate the more severe symptoms, [shorten] duration of infection and [inhbit] viral shedding (your ability to infect others) [as well as inhibit the number of cells infected]. I probably shouldn't have used the expression "right type of antibody" in my commentary so far, that's confusing, but it's too much to change now. It is true however that the auto-immunesystem can make different standard types of antibodies, and you do want the right one that is actually the most effective against Corona viruses, but you may [will?] need more than 1 type for maximum effectiveness (and possibly in different quantities).

...

The best method to deal with the Corona pandemic remains treatment with HCQ + zinc + Azithromycin (or possibly Doxycycline) + lots of vitamin C + D3 as much as needed to have the right level, keeping it at that level; with an optional escalation with prednisone if all else fails (without stopping with the earlier mentioned substances); avoiding intubation at all costs and supplying people with oxygen at home if needed [the rest of the comment can stay the same]

Next comment: ignore everything after "Remember" till "From the article linked in my signature:".

The comments after that don't need any adjustments. Except where I said "laboraties" instead of "laboratories" (I have a bit of an issue with my keyboard and typing too fast).