The Vax Is Forcing Natural Selection

So I was typing this as a reply to someone, and I decided I need to create this thread so I get more pushback on my argument. That way I can see if it holds as much water as I think it does.

So I am going to use some made up numbers for a moment. Lets say the vax is 90% effective, so you get 10% breakthrough. What is breaking through and why? Logically, the 'strongest' would breakthrough. The mutations that have evolved to become MORE contagious would be the vast majority of breakthrough cases because they would still have to spread to people with heightened immunity. So you get the 10% of wild virus that is able to bypass the vax, its then THAT virus strain that survives and spreads in the vaxxed. The strain it prevents does not die, it lives in the unvaxxed who get natural immunity. So you end up with both variants still all over the place, but the vaxxed are much more likely to be carrying more infectious or evolved/mutated strains ACCORDING TO DARWIN. NATURAL SELECTION WIKIPEDIA

According to Darwin, the more we vax, while using a vax that is not ready to be rolled out, the more we will REDUCE the weak strains each time in the general population, and naturally select the strongest strains to survive in the vaxxed population. So every rollout of boosters, IF EFFECTIVE against current strains, but not 97%+, will once again naturally select the strongest of that mutated strain, basically accelerating evolution.

Here is a good analogy. We all use antibiotic soap. That kills 99.9% of germs on contact. What happens to the people who actually catch that 0.1% of bacteria that can survive? They get MRSA because the soap only lets the strongest bacteria live. Thats not population altering due to the limited way bacteria spreads. Imagine if the way we evolved MRSA, happened to something airborne with severe overuse of 99% effective vaxxes.

We are doing the exact same thing to COVID, and because it is from a lab, and not from nature, it is evolving/mutating much faster than what we are used to, while morons push vaxxes much faster than we normally roll them out. It mutates faster out of a lab because it did not evolve through the natural crucible that builds viruses over time. When it hit all of the variables in nature, most of them ity encountered for the first time. Thats why we had a thousand variants in 2020. We are driving the variants down to the strongest ones.

It seems to me to be a perfect storm to increase the infectiousness of COVID, isolate the strongest mutations, and repeatedly kill off only the weaker variants. What will happen to the people who do not vax when you get to the tenth generation of the vax booster? How about the 20th? At a certain point we need to know that we need to stop. We cant play these games with these huge numbers outside of a lab and just hope for the best.

If you think I am wrong, WHY? What scientific theory proves me a loon, and Darwin's theory of natural selection wrong? Mathematically, it makes more sense to me than even leaning on Darwin. This exact same argument could be made without pointing to Natural Selection.

The CDC has ZERO RECORDS of anyone who has caught COVID and recovered spreading COVID to anyone ever this entire time. The medical data does not exist. Vaxxed do spread it.

Vax for everyone is an argument born out of ignorance. If the gov wants to go all NAZI on people and push vaxxes, the scientific way would be to exclude the people who can produce a test that shows natural immunity based on the CDCs own data. Thats assuming no one is allowed to be in control of their own health anymore. The risk of the vax is not zero, and long term risks are unknown. You do not perform unnecessary medical procedures on people and put them at ANY RISK because YOU are scared. That's a cowards argument. The people in charge are old cowards, they are NOT following science, only a bunch of gullible people believe that. They want to get rich, and they dont want to catch COVID from the unclean masses.

The corporate greedy way is to not let anyone exclude themselves for any reason so you sell as many vaxxes as possible, while also destroying any control groups, which then makes proving side effects and other harmful outcomes exponentially harder, if not impossible to actually nail down later on and hold anyone liable for being so stupid.

The scariest thing about all this is that by the numbers COVID was never actually a very deadly pandemic if you look at death rates for all past pandemics, but our response to it may turn it into a really deadly pandemic. If that happens, you wont need to tell people to wear masks or social distance. People will be hiding in the woods and scared to death hoping they live.

I really hope that is not where the useful idiots just doing their jobs or 'saying the line' land us.

a reply to: TrollMagnet

Pretty much what this guy says:

Geert Vanden Bossche received his DVM from the University of Ghent, Belgium, and his PhD degree in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany. He held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany.

After his career in Academia, Geert joined several vaccine companies (GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals) to serve various roles in vaccine R&D as well as in late vaccine development.

Geert then moved on to join the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle (USA) as Senior Program Officer; he then worked with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva as Senior Ebola Program Manager. At GAVI he tracked efforts to develop an Ebola vaccine. He also represented GAVI in fora with other partners, including WHO, to review progress on the fight against Ebola and to build plans for global pandemic preparedness. Back in 2015, Geert scrutinized and questioned the safety of the Ebola vaccine that was used in ring vaccination trials conducted by WHO in Guinea. His critical scientific analysis and report on the data published by WHO in the Lancet in 2015 was sent to all international health and regulatory authorities involved in the Ebola vaccination program. After working for GAVI, Geert joined the German Center for Infection Research in Cologne as Head of the Vaccine Development Office. He is at present primarily serving as a Biotech/ Vaccine consultant while also conducting his own research on Natural Killer cell-based vaccines.

So every rollout of boosters, IF EFFECTIVE against current strains, but not 97%+, will once again naturally select the strongest of that mutated strain, basically accelerating evolution.

a reply to: TrollMagnet

Exactly and they will keep making more and more money and establish more control via continuing boosters.

a reply to: TrollMagnet

Flip side logic:

The 10% who have been vaccinated, yet suffer an infection, do so because their immune response to the virus, even with the vaccine (and booster-shot), was insufficient to protect them.

It doesn't mean that the virus has become a stronger version of itself, just that some people, even though apparently healthy otherwise, have immune systems that are more susceptible to this type of virus.

Furthermore, if your hypothesis had any merit, the mutation(s) necessary for the virus to exhibit such evolving "strength" would be showing up not only in viral assays, but as a steady increase in the number of COVID19 deaths; a "death spike" if you will.

And, although the number of cases may be increasing (likely due to seasonal impetus and a still large pool of unvaccinated individuals), the death rates have not increased dramatically.

a reply to: TrollMagnet

Digging up the vax past I came across a book written by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1889 titled "VACCINATION Proved Useless & Dangerous" from 45 years of Registration Statistics. It covers the statistics from England & Wales of vaccine failures including an increase in death from other diseases once the blood has been tainted by vaccination. They cover the health of the vaccinated vs the UNvaccinated.....bad news for the vaccinated...they were dying more from other diseases such as measles, mumps, smallpox and diphtheria because of weakened immune system from vaccines.

Excerpt:

52-page PDF

In the early 1880s, Wallace was drawn into the debate over mandatory smallpox vaccination. Wallace originally saw the issue as a matter of personal liberty; but, after studying some of the statistics provided by anti-vaccination activists, he began to question the efficacy of vaccination. At the time, the germ theory of disease was very new and far from universally accepted. Moreover, no one knew enough about the human immune system to understand why vaccination worked. When Wallace did some research, he discovered instances where supporters of vaccination had used questionable, in a few cases completely phony, statistics to support their arguments.

Always suspicious of authority, Wallace suspected that physicians had a vested interest in promoting vaccination, and became convinced that reductions in the incidence of smallpox that had been attributed to vaccination were, in fact, due to better hygiene and improvements in public sanitation.
Wiki

132 years later and here we are.🙃

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: TrollMagnet

Flip side logic:

The 10% who have been vaccinated, yet suffer an infection, do so because their immune response to the virus, even with the vaccine (and booster-shot), was insufficient to protect them.

It doesn't mean that the virus has become a stronger version of itself, just that some people, even though apparently healthy otherwise, have immune systems that are more susceptible to this type of virus.

Furthermore, if your hypothesis had any merit, the mutation(s) necessary for the virus to exhibit such evolving "strength" would be showing up not only in viral assays, but as a steady increase in the number of COVID19 deaths; a "death spike" if you will.

And, although the number of cases may be increasing (likely due to seasonal impetus and a still large pool of unvaccinated individuals), the death rates have not increased dramatically.

First things first here. You do not blame the people who get sick after going along with this half baked vax they were suckered into taking. Do you look in the mirror and think about how that sounds? You are literally blaming the people who got sick, and some died, who were promised protection by all the alphabet networks. They most likely took the shot through a combination of fear and coercion without all the facts. Then, instead of blaming the companies who claim the shots are safe and effective, you blame the person they could not protect by calling them weak. That is so wrong and backwards, no one should have to point that out. Vaccines are supposed to protect the weak. Thats the point.

As for you arguing it is not mutating effectively because more people aren't dying fast enough, death rates do not need to increase. That is in no way how you measure the success of a virus. Viruses that kill their hosts do not thrive very well. Think Ebola. They usually adapt to do less short term damage, but can have other problems, like what HPV does to people with increased cancer rates and other things over the course of decades with little to no symptoms. Doesn't kill them, extremely successful virus.

But you are here arguing that the virus is killing the same people who were counted as protected by the vax 6 months ago because they are weak, not because we are naturally selecting the strongest or most contagious strains. Which explanation makes more sense to you? Which one follows known evolutionary laws? What rules are you taking into consideration when assuming viruses need to kill more to be more successful?

A virus can become stronger by being more transmissible, therefore harder to eradicate, that is success in all organisms. Easier transmission is exactly the type of trait we would be accidentally selecting. The layman would call that stronger, so would the people trying to create the latest boosters to slow it. So then if you get sick with the booster, you are isolating strains another generation of meds stronger. It would have mutations that benefit it by letting it spread easier, replicate faster, become more infectious through more vectors, thats because the ones that are most likely to spread to people who got the vax, booster, both, are strains that are better at those things. If thats not true, then the vax offers zero protection and vaxxed people can catch all strains just as easily. If it offers protection, logic says it would take stronger strains to get them sick. Therefore in that population, you would have strains that spread much more easily, and most likely require a much smaller viral load (less exposure) to make you sick. That would increase cases, but not necessarily deaths. Deaths are not what the vax would select for, because those strains die with the host more frequently.

Your last paragraph argues these things for me, if you understood my argument you would see that.

Do you have any other questions about my theory?

a reply to: Mantiss2021
The all cause death rate is increasing sharply. No deaths because of the flu?? There is something wrong with the death toll numbers. No I don't give the link to the official graph about the death rate because I did that in another threath.

a reply to: zandra
I live on a main road and the other day I went out and there were people working on my neighbors drive.....an ambulance went screaming by.
One of the workers said "that's the 10th today'.

I just found this:

Call handlers are dealing with about 10,000 more 999 calls a month than last summer. The impact is being felt by patients as they wait for hours for medical help

www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: TrollMagnet

In Singapore they have the worst outbreak yet with 80% vaccinated. So what does that tell you?
Singapore Outbreak Worsens With 80% Vaccinated

a reply to: nOraKat

It tells me they are successfully isolating more infectious COVID strains and killing off the ones that don't spread as easily by preventing their transmission.