CNN: The COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,548
Location
USA / Europe
A few weeks ago I posted an op-ed in the prestigious BMJ discussing how the COVID-19 vaccines trials are almost pointless as they are not designed to test if the vaccines would prevent development of COVID-19, exacerbations of COVID-19, hospitalizations, or deaths. The trials were apparently designed to test only whether the vaccine would lower risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2.

In that post above, I mentioned that the public health authorities are, of course, ignoring the trial design and gaslighting the public every chance they get that the vaccines are the key to safety. Now, a CNN article states directly that the vaccines do not really prevent infection but again claims that they prevent developing COVID-19. Again, the latter claim is NOT based on any evidence and none of the vaccine trials provide evidence for such claims. I guess the more interesting part here is this - if CNN is now admitting that the vaccines do not really prevent infection (which was the primary goal of the vaccine trials conducted so far) then what "benefit" are these vaccines supposed to provide???
"...Covid-19 vaccines prevent illness, but do not necessarily prevent infection. If someone tests positive and doesn't get sick, the vaccine has worked as intended. If someone tests positive within a few weeks of receiving the second dose, it may be because the vaccine hasn't yet fully kicked in."

Ironically, the CNN article is about a politician who got infected with SARS-CoV-2 after getting both vaccine shots. I guess the house of cards is starting to shake/collapse, so CNN and MSM are quick to change the narrative even if the new narrative is a blatant lie...

@Drareg @tankasnowgod @boris @Giraffe @Regina
 
Last edited:

HumanLife

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
128
Age
24
Sometimes I wonder if the vaccine studies showing an improvement of the declining symptoms and decreased presence of Covid-19 happened naturally through the body’s own immune system doing its job rather than the vaccine itself.

I really don’t think this is going to end, not least before they can milk as much money as they can. Fauci even wants to vaccinate kids despite children dying or facing “long covid” are practically nonexistent!:

 

schultz

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
2,561
I posted a study (here) suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 could be transcribed into our genome theoretically allowing RNA strands to be released into the blood stream (under stress?) I wonder if some of these positive tests (before or after infection) are a result of this very idea? Building on this, if the vaccine RNA can also be incorporated into our DNA, could that too result in a future positive test?

The mainstream doesn't seem to be addressing these questions (I think we know why).
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,153
"...Covid-19 vaccines prevent illness, but do not necessarily prevent infection. If someone tests positive and doesn't get sick, the vaccine has worked as intended. If someone tests positive within a few weeks of receiving the second dose, it may be because the vaccine hasn't yet fully kicked in."

not genetically modified + positive PCR-test + no symptoms = house arrest (aka quarantine) to ensure that healthy people do not infect others
genetically modified + postive PCR-test + no symptoms = 'vaccine' worked as intended, but you may infect others
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
115
Is this really a vaccine if you can still be infected? Or should it be labeled a therapeutic medicine? And if that is the case shouldn't the individual be allowed to choose between therapeutics? I just wonder about the terminology of the "vaccine".
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
3,170
Hasn’t "kicked in" , empirical science has been kicked out more like, It sounds like they are talking about quaaludes or ecstasy.

The European vaccine drama is a sight to behold, I still suspect they have realized the vaccine is useless and may be delaying to see how other countries react to it, this is giving them a lot of credit though, it’s likely their stupidity.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
5,335
Hasn’t "kicked in" , empirical science has been kicked out more like, It sounds like they are talking about quaaludes or ecstasy.
Except that quaaludes and ecstasy can actually have a positive effect on people, even if only in the short term.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
5,335
I guess the more interesting part here is this - if CNN is now admitting that the vaccines do not really prevent infection (which was the primary goal of the vaccine trials conducted so far) then what "benefit" are these vaccines supposed to provide???

Other than control for a select few over the general population, and massive profits for drug companies with zero liability...... none that I can see.
 

Kvothe

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
303
Location
Newarre
if CNN is now admitting that the vaccines do not really prevent infection (which was the primary goal of the vaccine trials conducted so far) then what "benefit" are these vaccines supposed to provide???

Correct me, if I am wrong, but as I see it these studies were not designed to see whether the vaccine prevents an infection, but rather whether they reduce the risk of severe symptoms/outcomes. The CNN story you posted is just anecdotal evidence, not any reliable data. Studies from Israel show that there was a 30-60% reduction of infection after the 1st shot, and further preliminary results indicate that the number after the 2nd dose is significantly higher. Don't get me wrong, these vaccines serve not real purpose, and are likely harmful, but they seem to do (to some extent, at least) what they are advertised to do.



"Other, somewhat contrary data was released by Israeli health maintenance organizations Tuesday evening. Channel 13 News said that according to figures released by Clalit, Israel’s largest health provider, the chance of a person being infected with the coronavirus dropped by 33% 14 days after they were vaccinated. Separate figures recorded by the Maccabi health provider and aired by Channel 12 showed the vaccine caused a 60% drop in the chances for infection 14 days after taking the first shot."
 
Last edited:

LA

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
117
Except that quaaludes and ecstasy can actually have a positive effect on people, even if only in the short term.

A few weeks ago I posted an op-ed in the prestigious BMJ discussing how the COVID-19 vaccines trials are almost pointless as they are not designed to test if the vaccines would prevent development of COVID-19, exacerbations of COVID-19, hospitalizations, or deaths. The trials were apparently designed to test only whether the vaccine would lower risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2.

In that post above, I mentioned that the public health authorities are, of course, ignoring the trial design and gaslighting the public every chance they get that the vaccines are the key to safety. Now, a CNN article states directly that the vaccines do not really prevent infection but again claims that they prevent developing COVID-19. Again, the latter claim is NOT based on any evidence and none of the vaccine trials provide evidence for such claims. I guess the more interesting part here is this - if CNN is now admitting that the vaccines do not really prevent infection (which was the primary goal of the vaccine trials conducted so far) then what "benefit" are these vaccines supposed to provide???
"...Covid-19 vaccines prevent illness, but do not necessarily prevent infection. If someone tests positive and doesn't get sick, the vaccine has worked as intended. If someone tests positive within a few weeks of receiving the second dose, it may be because the vaccine hasn't yet fully kicked in."

Ironically, the CNN article is about a politician who got infected with SARS-CoV-2 after getting both vaccine shots. I guess the house of cards is starting to shake/collapse, so CNN and MSM are quick to change the narrative even if the new narrative is a blatant lie...
another thing to notice is how very few seem to be dying from heart attacks, car wrecks, the flu, sepsis unrelated to C-19, slipping on snow, falling off a ladder and the list goes on. The Covid-19 mantra “get your vaccine as soon as possible” lie is ugly and all done to benefit Big Pharma and billionaires who have invested, also kickbacks to cooperating politicos
 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,548
Location
USA / Europe
Correct me, if I am wrong, but as I see it these studies were not designed to see whether the vaccine prevents an infection, but rather whether they reduce the risk of severe symptoms/outcomes.

Please read my original post and also check the link I posted toward the beginning of that post that says the vaccine trials are basically pointless. In that link is an op-ed from BMJ (of all places) describing that the vaccine trials were not designed to test for prevention of developing the actual COVID-19 disease, exacerbations, deaths, hospitalizations, etc. They were apparently only designed to test whether vaccines prevent infections. And now, CNN is saying the vaccines are not designed to prevent infection either. If that is the case, then the vaccines are either truly pointless or one of CNN/BMJ is lying/wrong.
The story about the politician is indeed anecdotal but my post is not about him and CNN's statement about the vaccines is generic (not specific to that politician). So, it seems to me that the thread title is supported by the evidence I included in the original post.
 
Last edited:

Kvothe

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
303
Location
Newarre
Please read my original post and also check the link I posted toward the beginning of that post that says the vaccine trials are basically pointless. In that link is an op-ed from BMJ (of all places) describing that the vaccine trials were not designed to test for prevention of developing the actual COVID-19 disease, exacerbations, deaths, hospitalizations, etc. They were apparently only designed to test whether vaccines prevent infections. And now, CNN is saying the vaccines are not designed to prevent infection either. If that is the case, then the vaccines are either truly pointless or one of CNN/BMJ is lying/wrong.
The story about the politician is indeed anecdotal but my post is not about him and CNN's statement about the vaccines is generic (not specific to that politician). So, it seems to me that the thread title is supported by the evidence I included in the original post.

I already read that article, and it doesn't really match with what you are saying. The studies were specifically not designed to prove prevention of infection, and the Moderna guy they quoted even says so outright:

"Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,” Zaks said, “because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”
He repeatedly emphasised these “operational realities” of running a vaccine trial. “Every trial design, especially phase III, is always a balancing act between different needs,” he said. “If you wanted to have an answer on an endpoint that happens at a frequency of one 10th or one fifth the frequency of the primary endpoint, you would need a trial that is either 5 or 10 times larger or you’d need a trial that is 5 or 10 times longer to collect those events. Neither of these, I think, are acceptable in the current public need for knowing expeditiously that a vaccine works."

As I understand it, the endpoint was Covid-19 disease which was defined as the occurence of symptoms and subsequent confirmation by a positive PCR test. In order to demomstrate effects on transmission you would have to test all participants continously, regardless of symptoms, and of course they did not do that. You are right,that the studies do not show whether vaccines prevent serious outcomes like hospitalization or deaths, but I think they show whether it prevents you from getting mild symptoms characteristic of Covid-19.
 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,548
Location
USA / Europe
I already read that article, and it doesn't really match with what you are saying. The studies were specifically not designed to prove prevention of infection, and the Moderna guy they quoted even says so outright:

"Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,” Zaks said, “because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”
He repeatedly emphasised these “operational realities” of running a vaccine trial. “Every trial design, especially phase III, is always a balancing act between different needs,” he said. “If you wanted to have an answer on an endpoint that happens at a frequency of one 10th or one fifth the frequency of the primary endpoint, you would need a trial that is either 5 or 10 times larger or you’d need a trial that is 5 or 10 times longer to collect those events. Neither of these, I think, are acceptable in the current public need for knowing expeditiously that a vaccine works."

As I understand it, the endpoint was Covid-19 disease which was defined as the occurence of symptoms and subsequent confirmation by a positive PCR test. In order to demomstrate effects on transmission you would have to test all participants continously, regardless of symptoms, and of course they did not do that. You are right,that the studies do not show whether vaccines prevent serious outcomes like hospitalization or deaths, but I think they show whether it prevents you from getting mild symptoms characteristic of Covid-19.

Here are the relevant quotes from that thread I included in the original post. Are we reading the same thing? Can you please explain how the portions I colored in red below do not corroborate exactly what I said? Namely, the vaccine trials are not designed to test if the vaccines will prevent deaths, hospitalizations, exacerbations (ICU admission), or even transmission of virus from infected person to a non-infected one. They are only designed to test for prevention of early infection, and now CNN's article above says the vaccines won't really prevent those early infections either. So, what are those vaccines good for, then?

"..."...The most advanced trials for coronavirus vaccines cannot tell researchers if the shots will save lives, or even if they'll prevent serious disease, a drug development expert pointed out Wednesday. The ongoing trials are only designed to show if the vaccines prevent infection -- and most infections are mild infections, Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the BMJ medical journal and a drug development specialist at the University of Maryland's school of pharmacy, said. "I think there are some pretty widely held assumptions about what we are getting out of Phase 3 studies," Doshi told CNN." "None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus," Doshi wrote in the BMJ.""

"..."..."People expect that the most severe part of the Covid iceberg -- the ICU admissions and hospitalizations and deaths -- that's what a vaccine would put an end to," he said. But the current trials will just look for early infections. It's possible to keep these current trials going and add onto them so that they will, eventually, answer the question of whether Covid vaccines save lives and prevent severe disease."
 

Kvothe

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
303
Location
Newarre
Here are the relevant quotes from that thread I included in the original post. Are we reading the same thing? Can you please explain how the portions I colored in red below do not corroborate exactly what I said? Namely, the vaccine trials are not designed to test if the vaccines will prevent deaths, hospitalizations, exacerbations (ICU admission), or even transmission of virus from infected person to a non-infected one. They are only designed to test for prevention of early infection, and now CNN's article above says the vaccines won't really prevent those early infections either.

"..."...The most advanced trials for coronavirus vaccines cannot tell researchers if the shots will save lives, or even if they'll prevent serious disease, a drug development expert pointed out Wednesday. The ongoing trials are only designed to show if the vaccines prevent infection -- and most infections are mild infections, Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the BMJ medical journal and a drug development specialist at the University of Maryland's school of pharmacy, said. "I think there are some pretty widely held assumptions about what we are getting out of Phase 3 studies," Doshi told CNN." "None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus," Doshi wrote in the BMJ.""

"..."..."People expect that the most severe part of the Covid iceberg -- the ICU admissions and hospitalizations and deaths -- that's what a vaccine would put an end to," he said. But the current trials will just look for early infections. It's possible to keep these current trials going and add onto them so that they will, eventually, answer the question of whether Covid vaccines save lives and prevent severe disease."

How can a study not determine the incidence of transmission, yet determine the risk of an early infection? Infection and transmission are the same thing according to their own definition they use nowadays. Since most infections are asymptomatic, those studies couldn't determine the risk of early infections with the methods they used.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
5,335
Correct me, if I am wrong, but as I see it these studies were not designed to see whether the vaccine prevents an infection, but rather whether they reduce the risk of severe symptoms/outcomes. The CNN story you posted is just anecdotal evidence, not any reliable data. Studies from Israel show that there was a 30-60% reduction of infection after the 1st shot, and further preliminary results indicate that the number after the 2nd dose is significantly higher. Don't get me wrong, these vaccines serve not real purpose, and are likely harmful, but they seem to do (to some extent, at least) what they are advertised to do.



"Other, somewhat contrary data was released by Israeli health maintenance organizations Tuesday evening. Channel 13 News said that according to figures released by Clalit, Israel’s largest health provider, the chance of a person being infected with the coronavirus dropped by 33% 14 days after they were vaccinated. Separate figures recorded by the Maccabi health provider and aired by Channel 12 showed the vaccine caused a 60% drop in the chances for infection 14 days after taking the first shot."

To quote all the lockdown and virus proponents, "wait two weeks."


More than 12,400 people in Israel have tested positive for coronavirus after being vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech jab, including 69 who had received their second dose, the country's Health Ministry said.
Some 189,000 people were tested for Covid-19 after being vaccinated, with 6.6 percent getting a positive result, according to ministry data reported by Israeli outlets. The majority were apparently infected shortly after receiving the first jab of the two-part vaccine – a period when the inoculation isn't expected to have kicked in yet.

So, in the 9 days between your Times of Israel article to the date of the RT article, the positive test rate went from being 2.5-5% among those vaccinated, to 6.6%, taking that 30-60% reduction and leaving just a 13% reduction. Both articles are talking about the same country and same drug company vaccine. Seems like that early positive press might just be a small sample size? Doesn't seem like they are even doing what they were advertised to do.
 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,548
Location
USA / Europe
How can a study not determine the incidence of transmission, yet determine the risk of an early infection? Infection and transmission are the same thing according to their own definition they use nowadays. Since most infections are asymptomatic, those studies couldn't determine the risk of early infections with the methods they used.

Well, I am simply quoting what the BMJ and CNN are saying. I am not making any arguments myself. So, as I mentioned before - if both of them are right then the vaccines are useless (while also carrying risk of side effects). If one of them is right, which one is it and why should one trust one over the other? Which one (if any) is more trustworthy?
Btw, preventing infection and transmission are not the same thing. The former is preventing a vaccinated person from becoming infected, while the latter is preventing a vaccinated person from infecting others (if that person is carrying the virus but not getting sick from it). Both are important for curbing the pandemic spread, but prevention of transmission is usually what leads to herd immunity. However, as per the quote I provided above, the vaccine trials are not designed to test for that and here is another link that corroborates that point. They say in the link below the vaccines "likely" reduce transmission but, again, it's just speculation currently as the trials are not designed to test for that endpoint. So, based purely on what BMJ and CNN are saying, and supported by the link below, as of now we have no evidence whether vaccines prevent infection, transmission, exacerbation, hospitalization, or death. Maybe they do, but there is no evidence currently to claim any of those benefits for any of the vaccines. Yet, every politicians on every MSM outlet I have seen in the last 2 months has been promoting exactly those claims, completely evidence-free.
"...In general, most vaccines do not completely prevent infection but do prevent the infection from spreading within the body and from causing disease. Many vaccines can also prevent transmission, potentially leading to herd protection whereby unvaccinated people are protected from infection by the vaccinated people around them because they have less chance of exposure to the virus. We are still learning whether or not the current Covid-19 vaccines prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. It is likely they reduce the risk of virus transmission but probably not completely in everyone."
 

Kvothe

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
303
Location
Newarre
To quote all the lockdown and virus proponents, "wait two weeks."




So, in the 9 days between your Times of Israel article to the date of the RT article, the positive test rate went from being 2.5-5% among those vaccinated, to 6.6%, taking that 30-60% reduction and leaving just a 13% reduction. Both articles are talking about the same country and same drug company vaccine. Seems like that early positive press might just be a small sample size? Doesn't seem like they are even doing what they were advertised to do.
Apparently not. I hadn't followed up on those news. Looking at the haaretz article cited by RT, it seems even worse. According to them, the infection rate is not different, at all, after 3-4 weeks in many groups.

"At this stage it is still difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of the vaccine, for better or worse. In some groups of inoculated people during the different post-vaccine periods, the ratio of positive tests corresponds to the ratio of positive tests in the general population, the overwhelming majority of whom were not yet vaccinated."

The article states that the positive rate after 22-28 days was only 2,2%, so they will just say that the immunization process takes a little longer than expected, and that the important aspect are the results after the 2nd shot, anyways.

"Of the 3,199 people who took coronavirus tests between day 22 and day 28 after the first vaccine, 84 were found to be positive (2.6 percent), including 69 people who had already been vaccinated twice."


Well, I am simply quoting what the BMJ and CNN are saying. I am not making any arguments myself. So, as I mentioned before - if both of them are right then the vaccines are useless (while also carrying risk of side effects). If one of them is right, which one is it and why should one trust one over the other? Which one (if any) is more trustworthy?
Btw, preventing infection and transmission are not the same thing. The former is preventing a vaccinated person from becoming infected, while the latter is preventing a vaccinated person from infecting others (if that person is carrying the virus but not getting sick from it). Both are important for curbing the pandemic spread, but prevention of transmission is usually what leads to herd immunity. However, as per the quote I provided above, the vaccine trials are not designed to test for that and here is another link that corroborates that point. They say in the link below the vaccines "likely" reduce transmission but, again, it's just speculation currently as the trials are not designed to test for that endpoint. So, based purely on what BMJ and CNN are saying, and supported by the link below, as of now we have no evidence whether vaccines prevent infection, transmission, exacerbation, hospitalization, or death. Maybe they do, but there is no evidence currently to claim any of those benefits for any of the vaccines. Yet, every politicians on every MSM outlet I have seen in the last 2 months has been promoting exactly those claims, completely evidence-free.
"...In general, most vaccines do not completely prevent infection but do prevent the infection from spreading within the body and from causing disease. Many vaccines can also prevent transmission, potentially leading to herd protection whereby unvaccinated people are protected from infection by the vaccinated people around them because they have less chance of exposure to the virus. We are still learning whether or not the current Covid-19 vaccines prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. It is likely they reduce the risk of virus transmission but probably not completely in everyone."

Thanks for the clarification. As I see it the points are still valid, then. Without continous PCR testing you won't be able to determine either infenction, nor transmission. After reading the Pfizer trial description for the first time, I thought that this must probably the most useless trial ever, as the only thing it really looks at is whether you get a mild cough and fever, or not.
 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,548
Location
USA / Europe
the only thing it really looks at is whether you get a mild cough and fever, or not.

Exactly, and to Big Pharma's credit they never claimed otherwise. It was all MSM spinning this into the greatest thing since sliced bread. Encouraged by MSM (or in collusion with it), all sorts of politicians started jumping up and down and saying the vaccines will save us all, and this is probably what prompted that op-ed in the BMJ. Doctors may be getting scared that they will become the scapegoats when the promised results do not meet reality and people keep dying. So, BMJ is basically saying "stop promising paradise with those vaccines, they may turn out to be great but that's up to future trials to determine, and the current ones have only one clear goal (given the emergency rush and such) and that is to test for early infection prevention".
 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,548
Location
USA / Europe
of course then this happens wright on cue

It is the never ending story not matter what, on and on it goes

This quote below says it all. I did a little FTFY to say it bluntly, as apparently the Health Minister is more willing to sell fairy-tales than simply point out what the evidence available so far shows.
"...“We see a wave of infection that refuses to decline, apparently because of the mutation ineffectiveness of the vaccines,” Health Minister Yuli Edelstein said at a press conference on Thursday."

...and if we have to take all the available evidence into account, the true statement becomes this:

"...“We see a wave of infection that refuses to decline, apparently because of the mutation ineffectiveness of the vaccines, fraudulently raised PCR test sensitivity, and shifting of mortality cases from other infectious diseases to the COVID-19 category,” Health Minister Yuli Edelstein said at a press conference on Thursday."
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
haidut CNN admits constant deliberate lies on COVID-19, climate, economy, Trump, etc. Society 27
J CNN: ‘Don’t Be Alarmed’ if People Start Dying After Taking the COVID Vaccine Miscellaneous Health Discussions 3
haidut CNN: Covid-19 Death Rate Is Under 1% For Everyone But People Over 70 Miscellaneous Health Discussions 28
haidut CNN: What's the point of ever leaving home again? Society 42
yerrag Fox Is Now CNN Litr Political Talk, Alternative World Theories 7
E CNN Admits Ovestimation Of Deaths Due To Coronavirus Breaking News 0
F CNN: The Mystery Of Why The Coronavirus Kills Some Young People Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 5
haidut CNN News - Running Lowers Testosterone In Males Scientific Studies 63
haidut CNN: Saturated Fat Does NOT Clog Your Arteries; Stress And Inflammation Do Scientific Studies 29
ellingerfarmer As Seen On CNN - Sugar Not Only Makes You Fat, It May Make You Sick Sugar, Honey 13
bzmazu The Official COVID-19 Death Toll is a Big Fat Fraud Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 0
Pina Covid Project Crimes of Malfeasance Supplements, Pharmaceutical Drugs 0
haidut Denmark bans/stops AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine due to side effects Society 0
Cameron Estogen protective of covid androgens not?? Blood Work, Labs 1
GreekDemiGod Preventive anti-Covid measures for my mother | Help me convince her to skip the vaxx Ask For Help or Advice 76
bzmazu COVID-19 not the sole cause of excess U.S. deaths in 2020 Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 0
Mito Meningitis due to cerebrospinal fluid leak after nasal swab testing for COVID‐19 Miscellaneous Health Discussions 0
haidut Pentagon creates MICROCHIP that will detect Covid-19 under skin Society 19
U Guy talks on legit Turkish TV about Covid plandemic, Bill Gates, Evergreen and the Deep State Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 7
haidut Aspirin may prevent and treat COVID-19 Scientific Studies 1
haidut Nine out of ten COVID-19 deaths may be due to vitamin D deficiency Scientific Studies 13
Hugh Johnson COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease Scientific Studies 9
Mito A third of COVID survivors suffer neurological or mental disorders: study Miscellaneous Health Discussions 20
charlie Covid "Vaccine" Adverse Reaction Reports (Post Here) Vaccines 75
Pina Topical Lung T3 Treatment COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Thyroid and Hormones 0
BearWithMe Force people to wear toxic face masks, blame Covid for lung issues Ask For Help or Advice 11
Drareg Belgium must lift ‘all Covid-19 measures’ within 30 days, Brussels court rules Articles & Scientific Studies 7
Drareg Tanzania’s John Magufuli was not just about COVID compliance Articles & Scientific Studies 8
ecstatichamster Argentine president gets Sputnik jab, gets Covid Vaccines 6
Mito Pfizer says COVID vaccine protection lasts at least 6 months; Company can now seek full FDA approval Miscellaneous Health Discussions 3
Mito Most people in the USA are choosing to get the COVID vaccine? The Ray Peat Forum Lounge 77
Jam The potential of adamantanes to reduce the neurotoxic effects of COVID‐19, including ARDS and to reduce viral replication through lysosomal effects Scientific Studies 0
Mito 15 MILLION doses of J&J’s one dose Covid vaccine halted after ingredient mix-up The Ray Peat Forum Lounge 8
Mito CDC Director Fears Fourth Surge as COVID Cases Rise Miscellaneous Health Discussions 0
B SARS-CoV-2 found in many countries before the first officially confirmed covid-19 case Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines 7
haidut CDC - Iatrogenic deaths "disappeared" in 2020, COVID-19 took their place Society 17
K T cells offer immunity to COVID variants; isn't it a wonderful news? Articles & Scientific Studies 10
Mito 2 patients inadvertently get wrong second doses of COVID-19 vaccine The Ray Peat Forum Lounge 5
D What substances can be used to counteract a Covid vaccine? Ask For Help or Advice 54
Pina NHS UK making doctors take covid vaccination Supplements, Pharmaceutical Drugs 61
Drareg COVID death data audit UK Miscellaneous Health Discussions 0
Drareg Progesterone could reduce the severity of their COVID-19 Articles & Scientific Studies 11
TheBeard Covid will reinforce the Globalization narrative Society 12
Drareg AstraZeneca released outdated information on its latest COVID-19 vaccine trial Articles & Scientific Studies 4
haidut Cortisol may drive COVID-19 mortality Scientific Studies 9
Drareg Covid-19 data leak, mRNA instability Articles & Scientific Studies 5
Drareg UK covid bailouts for foreign states and tax exiles Society 1
B Progesterone injections for covid 19 Progesterone 0
LucyL Excellent letter from European Doctors to the EMA questioning COVID vax Vaccines 3
charlie Moderna begins COVID-19 vaccine trial on babies 6 months old, children up to 12 Vaccines 9

Similar threads

Top