Doctors Predict Epidemic of Prion Brain Diseases From mRna Jab

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: chr0naut

No, that is total BS. Numerous clinical studies showed a reduction in infection risk.

After all this time you still 'trust the science'? You don't believe any of the evidence on how the figures were manipulated to give the results they wanted? Good on you. It's better to have hope in your soul than soap in your.....well, nevermind.

I sincerely hope everything still continues to come up roses in your Covid world going forward.

Of course I trust the science.

Please present any evidence that the figures were manipulated. Real evidence, from credentialled and credible sources, not social media misinformation.

It's going to take a lot more than credible evidence to convince the pro-vaxx crowd so let's not waste each others time sidetracking my thread, K?

This thread is not about proving anybody right or wrong; it's about allegations of new evidence suggesting there may be a link between prion disease and the vaccine; something to keep in mind in the coming years as new data emerges.

If you want to have an argument over how safe and effective the vaccine is please create your own thread; I promise not to write post after post meant to change the narrative and derail your thread.

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: chr0naut

No, that is total BS. Numerous clinical studies showed a reduction in infection risk.

After all this time you still 'trust the science'? You don't believe any of the evidence on how the figures were manipulated to give the results they wanted? Good on you. It's better to have hope in your soul than soap in your.....well, nevermind.

I sincerely hope everything still continues to come up roses in your Covid world going forward.

Of course I trust the science.

Please present any evidence that the figures were manipulated. Real evidence, from credentialled and credible sources, not social media misinformation.

I'd challenge you to do the opposite, and define credentialed in today's world.

Someone who is credentialled has a qualification from an academic institution and usually also has the support of that academic institution and/or a large membership professional association such as the AMA. It is that simple.

In regard to their credibility, as a start, I would consider the scientific and academic publishers of papers with a strong peer-review process and a history of weeding out frauds, to be very credible.

In contrast, the following I would consider to be not-credible:

- Those who misquote from scientific peer-reviewed papers or studies, and/or draw conclusions that the credible authors did not make in those papers.

- Social media.

- Ad-hoc comments (even of credentialled scientists/academics).

- Anti-vax and COVID-conspiracy sites.

- Fake-news misinformation sites (especially ones that quote content primarily from other fake-news misinformation sites in an echo-chamber of fools).

- Politically extremist sites.

- video-sharing sites.

www.bbc.com...

I'm not sure why you included the above link. Are you saying that you believe it to be credible, or are you saying that you don't believe it to be credible?

(As it links to a credible peer reviewed paper, and is not really misquoting it, I would consider this particular article to be mostly credible).

We all know what's happening, what's going on with the information, and who's allowed to say what. How long can people live with their heads buried in sand?

There has always been misinformation and lies. Nothing has really changed in that regard.

The only change is the recent popularization of misinformation and "alternative facts" (which means lies) by a certain notorious American and his cronies in their political machinations.

Today's experts revoked a psychologist's degree for citing the materials he studied on gender misphoria as part of his degree. Gagged. Is that an intellectual decision in your opinion? For a differing opinion? That's science or cult?

Although I don't know of the specific case you refer to, revocation of a degree is only done for severe academic misconduct.

I bet the guy who's degree was revoked had obtained that degree by plagiarism and they also vilified a minority group by misquoting that plagiarised content out of context?

So, on one hand you expect these academic associations to be telling you the truth at all times, and on another you get upset when they move to remove a liar from their midst?

We all know this is propaganda and it's smothered in our faces and has ruined countless lives.

Which week of Fauci are you trusting in today?

What Fauci said was reasonably consistent (even in the light of the gathering of knowledge about a new disease). However, the reporting of what Fauci said was frequently re-worded, and extensively misquoted, in parts of the media (it's how they get a headline out of something banal).

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: chr0naut

No, that is total BS. Numerous clinical studies showed a reduction in infection risk.

After all this time you still 'trust the science'? You don't believe any of the evidence on how the figures were manipulated to give the results they wanted? Good on you. It's better to have hope in your soul than soap in your.....well, nevermind.

I sincerely hope everything still continues to come up roses in your Covid world going forward.

Of course I trust the science.

Please present any evidence that the figures were manipulated. Real evidence, from credentialled and credible sources, not social media misinformation.

It's going to take a lot more than credible evidence to convince the pro-vaxx crowd so let's not waste each others time sidetracking my thread, K?

This thread is not about proving anybody right or wrong; it's about allegations of new evidence suggesting there may be a link between prion disease and the vaccine; something to keep in mind in the coming years as new data emerges.

If you want to have an argument over how safe and effective the vaccine is please create your own thread; I promise not to write post after post meant to change the narrative and derail your thread.

While it has been theorized that damaged mRNA could cause prions, it is also billions of times more possible that damaged RNA and DNA in nature could (and historically have) caused prions.

And then, there is the fact that to date, the rate of prion disease after 2019 has been lower than the rate in previous years. And that we have surveillance in place that would identify it immediately, years before we saw any symptoms from it.

That is the ultimate evidence that the 13.57 billion doses of COVID-19 shots administered to date are not causing any real world increase in prion disease.

a reply to: chr0naut

That is the ultimate evidence that the 13.57 billion doses of COVID-19 shots administered to date are not causing any real world increase in prion disease.

You keep arguing that the vaccine couldn't be causing prion disease. I've been saying all along, prion disease isn't an overnight thing and this information is just something to keep in the back of our minds. It seems like you'd prefer to form biased beliefs before the investigation even gets rolling with extremely limited information. I don't think your argumants are convincing anybody but yourself.

Let's revisit this in ten years and see what the data shows.

a reply to: chr0naut

Although I usually consider your posts as a contrarian stance, I do admit that you have appealed to me as a voice in the wilderness, and I've agreed with your reasoning on occasion. I've been finding myself even giving you a star here and there just for being the devil's advocate.

originally posted by: tarantulabite1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: chr0naut

The jab works to kick-start our immune system against a pathogen which we either have never encountered previously, or to boost a naturally waning immunity.

It also made them three times more likely to get Covid-and pass it on to Grandma and all who couldn't be vaccinated for health reasons.

Instead of 'If you don't get vaccinated you'll kill Grandma' the cry should have been 'If you get vaccinated you'll kill Grandma and the weakest among us'.

No, that is total BS. Numerous clinical studies showed a reduction in infection risk.

Cleveland Clinic Study Did Not Show Vaccines Increase COVID-19 Risk

What did happen in the time frame was that more infectious strains came about and most restrictions were lifted due to political pressure and consequently more people got infected and spread it to way more people, even the immunized and those that had already been infected and gotten over it previously.

After the FDA clamp downs on Mercola's stuff, he never quite lies. He always 'suggests' and 'questions'.

In case you haven't been paying attention, the same applies to Fauchi-in spades.

And yet what Fauchi did was for a public service that paid him the same regardless of if he did it or not. Mercola, on the other hand has been making a mint on his fear mongering and increased sales of supplements.

You sure about that??

Very large Cleveland Clinic study shows more vaccines make you more likely to get COVID - LINK

People Who Get More COVID Vaccines More Likely to Get the Virus, New Study Shows - LINK

The more doses of COVID-19 vaccines a person receives the higher the risk of getting the virus, according to a peer-reviewed study by the Cleveland Clinic.

New Cleveland Clinic Study Confirms Negative Efficacy of Covid Vaccine: Boosted 33% MORE Likely to Get Covid - L INK

I suggest that you read those specific studies (and not the commentary sites).

Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among Those Up-to-Date and Not Up-to-Date on COVID-19 Vaccination

The majority of the people in this study were frontline health workers who had maximal exposure to the epidemic, and therefore were more likely to require tight adherence to immunization schedules, and by contrast, the ones who were not immunized to the same extent were back-office workers with limited exposure risk (as mentioned in the "Discussion" section of the paper). This explains the why the ones who were immunized were also more likely to catch COVID-19, it was due to exposure. There is no suggestion that the immunizations weakened immunity.

Bivalent Vaccine Effectiveness Among Those With Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection or Vaccination

Again, this study just does not conclude that the immunizations reduced immunity.

The third link you provided points to exactly the same study (in different format) as in your first link.

d3 & zinc saw me through the "Coofvid" nary a cough nor flu... PURE BLOOD and Faith still sees me through most Flu's if'n they get thru smart vitamins... not sick in....well....I last flu made me take ta'bed for a day when I was a kid....

Nuff said...

a reply to: stonerwilliam

" Gabbapentine " great!
i been on that the last 20 years.
then pain pills, now medical mj
sure that dont help it, but the brain stopping
doesnt feel like its from any of those,
or it would be everyday
and no sleep for 4-5 days straight until you
finally pass out for 3 hours ... i forgot HOW to
go to sleep about 15 years ago

how about stopping for a minute and retracing your steps
because you forgot what you were getting up to do?
my mom used to carry the remote around while i
helped her look for it

Negative, only in things can be JABBED…

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tarantulabite1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: chr0naut

The jab works to kick-start our immune system against a pathogen which we either have never encountered previously, or to boost a naturally waning immunity.

It also made them three times more likely to get Covid-and pass it on to Grandma and all who couldn't be vaccinated for health reasons.

Instead of 'If you don't get vaccinated you'll kill Grandma' the cry should have been 'If you get vaccinated you'll kill Grandma and the weakest among us'.

No, that is total BS. Numerous clinical studies showed a reduction in infection risk.

Cleveland Clinic Study Did Not Show Vaccines Increase COVID-19 Risk

What did happen in the time frame was that more infectious strains came about and most restrictions were lifted due to political pressure and consequently more people got infected and spread it to way more people, even the immunized and those that had already been infected and gotten over it previously.

After the FDA clamp downs on Mercola's stuff, he never quite lies. He always 'suggests' and 'questions'.

In case you haven't been paying attention, the same applies to Fauchi-in spades.

And yet what Fauchi did was for a public service that paid him the same regardless of if he did it or not. Mercola, on the other hand has been making a mint on his fear mongering and increased sales of supplements.

You sure about that??

Very large Cleveland Clinic study shows more vaccines make you more likely to get COVID - LINK

People Who Get More COVID Vaccines More Likely to Get the Virus, New Study Shows - LINK

The more doses of COVID-19 vaccines a person receives the higher the risk of getting the virus, according to a peer-reviewed study by the Cleveland Clinic.

New Cleveland Clinic Study Confirms Negative Efficacy of Covid Vaccine: Boosted 33% MORE Likely to Get Covid - L INK

I suggest that you read those specific studies (and not the commentary sites).

Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among Those Up-to-Date and Not Up-to-Date on COVID-19 Vaccination

The majority of the people in this study were frontline health workers who had maximal exposure to the epidemic, and therefore were more likely to require tight adherence to immunization schedules, and by contrast, the ones who were not immunized to the same extent were back-office workers with limited exposure risk (as mentioned in the "Discussion" section of the paper). This explains the why the ones who were immunized were also more likely to catch COVID-19, it was due to exposure. There is no suggestion that the immunizations weakened immunity.

Bivalent Vaccine Effectiveness Among Those With Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection or Vaccination

Again, this study just does not conclude that the immunizations reduced immunity.

The third link you provided points to exactly the same study (in different format) as in your first link.

From your link

originally posted by: tarantulabite1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tarantulabite1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: chr0naut

The jab works to kick-start our immune system against a pathogen which we either have never encountered previously, or to boost a naturally waning immunity.

It also made them three times more likely to get Covid-and pass it on to Grandma and all who couldn't be vaccinated for health reasons.

Instead of 'If you don't get vaccinated you'll kill Grandma' the cry should have been 'If you get vaccinated you'll kill Grandma and the weakest among us'.

No, that is total BS. Numerous clinical studies showed a reduction in infection risk.

Cleveland Clinic Study Did Not Show Vaccines Increase COVID-19 Risk

What did happen in the time frame was that more infectious strains came about and most restrictions were lifted due to political pressure and consequently more people got infected and spread it to way more people, even the immunized and those that had already been infected and gotten over it previously.

After the FDA clamp downs on Mercola's stuff, he never quite lies. He always 'suggests' and 'questions'.

In case you haven't been paying attention, the same applies to Fauchi-in spades.

And yet what Fauchi did was for a public service that paid him the same regardless of if he did it or not. Mercola, on the other hand has been making a mint on his fear mongering and increased sales of supplements.

You sure about that??

Very large Cleveland Clinic study shows more vaccines make you more likely to get COVID - LINK

People Who Get More COVID Vaccines More Likely to Get the Virus, New Study Shows - LINK

The more doses of COVID-19 vaccines a person receives the higher the risk of getting the virus, according to a peer-reviewed study by the Cleveland Clinic.

New Cleveland Clinic Study Confirms Negative Efficacy of Covid Vaccine: Boosted 33% MORE Likely to Get Covid - L INK

I suggest that you read those specific studies (and not the commentary sites).

Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among Those Up-to-Date and Not Up-to-Date on COVID-19 Vaccination

The majority of the people in this study were frontline health workers who had maximal exposure to the epidemic, and therefore were more likely to require tight adherence to immunization schedules, and by contrast, the ones who were not immunized to the same extent were back-office workers with limited exposure risk (as mentioned in the "Discussion" section of the paper). This explains the why the ones who were immunized were also more likely to catch COVID-19, it was due to exposure. There is no suggestion that the immunizations weakened immunity.

Bivalent Vaccine Effectiveness Among Those With Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection or Vaccination

Again, this study just does not conclude that the immunizations reduced immunity.

The third link you provided points to exactly the same study (in different format) as in your first link.

From your link

The graph, on its own, does not explain why up-to-date employees had more cases of COVID-19, however the "Discussion" section of the paper does explain the two reasons for this.

There was no suggestion at all in the paper that the immunizations weakened immunity.

Instead, the paper said that those most infected most had both a higher exposure risk, and that the changes in newer strains meant that the immunizations were less effective for those new and dominant strains.

Oops!

:

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AwakeNotWoke

originally posted by: chr0naut
Of course, you are so clever!

Apparently I was. I refused the poison jab from the beginning and I tried to warn others. I was called names. I was ostracised. Like many others.

We were all quite "clever," weren't we? We saw what the vast majority chose not to see.

Thank you for the complement.

The jab works to kick-start our immune system against a pathogen which we either have never encountered previously, or to boost a naturally waning immunity.

Some people have adverse reactions to the jab, but it is their own immune system that causes the damage, not the jab.

Imagine if you had to deal with that immune overreaction to the spike protein and to the disease that carries it at the same time! You'd probably be fairly snookered.

Did you know that the cytokine storm that kills most of those who die of COVID-19, is an immune overreaction? In the US, that is currently 1,219,487 people, dead from the disease.

Of course, you'd know that. You are clever.

Right.

And nobody dies from a gunshot wound. They die from their body's reaction to the bullet.

It's the body's doing, not the bullet's.

originally posted by: AwakeNotWoke

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AwakeNotWoke

originally posted by: chr0naut
Of course, you are so clever!

Apparently I was. I refused the poison jab from the beginning and I tried to warn others. I was called names. I was ostracised. Like many others.

We were all quite "clever," weren't we? We saw what the vast majority chose not to see.

Thank you for the complement.

The jab works to kick-start our immune system against a pathogen which we either have never encountered previously, or to boost a naturally waning immunity.

Some people have adverse reactions to the jab, but it is their own immune system that causes the damage, not the jab.

Imagine if you had to deal with that immune overreaction to the spike protein and to the disease that carries it at the same time! You'd probably be fairly snookered.

Did you know that the cytokine storm that kills most of those who die of COVID-19, is an immune overreaction? In the US, that is currently 1,219,487 people, dead from the disease.

Of course, you'd know that. You are clever.

Right.

And nobody dies from a gunshot wound. They die from their body's reaction to the bullet.

It's the body's doing, not the bullet's.

Nonsense, the shock wave from the bullet liquefies soft organs and shatters bones and harder organs, as well as causing blood loss from damaging internal and external structures.

In watching this Prion issue play out, it is not as bad yet as some where predicting. It is not a nothing burger either as the diverse ranges of conditions from a new novel therapy emerge.

With how the Barry Young and other data is going, a lack of candor from the government restricts a clearer picture of the full mRNA implications at this time. With what has come out, excess mortality and disability is a problem.

My basic definition of a prion is a substance that can cause a protein to misfold and not perform its intended function. The protein still has the same chemical sequence, but no longer in the right shape to properly fit into its job. This is achieved by a more dense molecule hitting into a less dense molecule. The only real solution is genetic evolution to account or adapt to the varying pressures and densities of the cellular environment.

The only real way to prove someone died from CJD is to autopsy the brain for signs of such damage. With autopsy rates down since covid started, it is expected that reported numbers will also be down. As for the actual numbers? Brain fog is a more common condition these days.