At least no increased risk… yet…..

The schizophrenic view of the vaccines

 Eng

Vaccine

Vaccin against Alfa the same day 0 protection after 21 days 80% protection ie only 1 in 5 develops disease after infection.On the other hand, 20% still fall ill.OBS this is after dose 2. ….. OK we leave “protects against serious illness and death “until further notice …. We move on to booster´s according to who at the bottom of the post Ie there are not even statistics for how well booster´s protects or does not protect sas.
Logic … if you who are fully vaccinated have good protection, this affects those who sell vaccines on the other hand, which should be the case according to empirical data, the protection is volatile … why else would the concept of fully vaccinated go from 12 months after dose 2 ( x) to 5-6 months etc?
BUT one can not claim both effective and safe and the necessity of boosters …..

“Yes, the definition of fully vaccinated has not changed and does not include the booster shot. Everyone is still considered fully vaccinated two weeks after their second dose in a two-shot series, such as the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines, or two weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as the J&J/Janssen vaccine. Fully vaccinated, however is not the same as optimally protected.  To be optimally protected, a person needs to get a booster shot when and if eligible.”

SWE

Vaccin

Vaccin mot Alfa samma dag 0 skydd efter 21 dagar 80% skydd dvs endast 1 av 5 utvecklar sjukdom efter smitta.

Å andra sidan insjuknar 20% likafullt.

OBS detta är efter dos 2. ….. 

OK vi lämnar ” skyddar mot allvarlig sjukdom och död ” tills vidare…. 

Vi går vidare till booster´s enligt who längst ner i posten 

Dvs det finns inte ens statistik för hur bra booster´s skyddar eller inte skyddar sas. 

Logik… om man som fullt vacinerad har ett bra skydd 

drabbar detta de som säljer vaccin 

å andra sidan, vilket torde vara fallet enligt empiri, 

är skyddet flyktigt…

varför skulle annars begreppet fullt vaccinerad gå från 12 månader efter dos 2 (x) till 5-6 månader osv?

MEN man kan inte både hävda effektiva och säkra och nödvändigheten av boosters…..

 “Yes, the definition of fully vaccinated has not changed and does not include the booster shot. Everyone is still considered fully vaccinated two weeks after their second dose in a two-shot series, such as the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines, or two weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as the J&J/Janssen vaccine. Fully vaccinated, however is not the same as optimally protected.  To be optimally protected, a person needs to get a booster shot when and if eligible.”

The harm with Ivermectin… or…..

BUT what happened is terrible… .. BUT PVS? The world there dies just over 8 million annually due to smoking…. 8 * 26/12 or 17 during the pandemic… .. with the virus, 6 million have now died…. ds 1/3 as many…. ja men…. isses…. why not fight the virus with small patches on the milk packets instead just like for cigs…. and they compare different countries and most of the measures applied have had little or no or a negative impact compared to the strategy “If we are lucky, we do not need to do anything at all” In Sweden, almost 18,000 have died with the virus…. ie around the number who die prematurely due to smoking. Unfortunately, just over 13,000 out of 18,000 have died without care at IVA (intensive care) enough, most people must understand in retrospect that what has been shown is terrible just to strengthen the pursuit of an agenda…. and many countries have low numbers…. in addition, we in the west have been hit much harder Sweden 1,713 DPM India 367 Japan 199 Pakistan 133 Bangladesh 174 South Africa 1,645 Israel 1,106 Norway 309 Finland 463 Denmark 842 USA 2,950 Germany 1,481 Taiwan 36 Difficult or impossible to see a pattern… .. Many countries with high population density and vice versa… no correlation there either. Maybe this link can guide https://wentworthreport.com/2021/12/26/global-ivermectin-adoption-for-covid-19-now-39/ Extract: “Ivermectin is currently used for about 28% of the world’s population . Countries where COVID-19 mortality is close to zero may not have incentive to adopt treatments. When excluding these countries, ivermectin adoption is about 39%. We excluded countries where the cumulative mortality over the previous month was less than 1 in 1 million. ” so if Ivermectin does damage, this detected data in the link should not indicate this… .. ON THE OPPOSITE

Countries that did not close their borders and went to vaccines as soon as possible:

  • USA – 2,509  [250k]
  • UK – 2,161  [120k]
  • Germany – 1,319  [40k]
  • France – 1,871  [100k]
  • Canada – 788  [20k]
  • Italy – 2,265 [50k]
  • Russia – 2,077 [25k]

Countries that did not close their borders and, after alarming infection, mostly adopted ivermectin:

  • India – 342  [8k]
  • Indonesia – 519  [< 1k]
  • Japan – 146  [< 1k]
  • Egypt – 205 [< 1k]
  • Peru – 6,016 (the country hit hardest, until they used ivermectin) [6k]
  • Columbia – 2,510 [ 3k]
  • Venezuela – 188 [< 1k]
  • Nigeria – 14 [4k]
  • South Africa – 1,502  [20k]

Countries that closed their borders but have recently opened up:

  • Australia – 84  [10k]
  • Western Australia – 0.5 [2 cases yesterday, 7 in last few months]
  • New Zealand – 10 [70]
  • Vietnam – 314  [16k]
  • Taiwan – 36 [14]  (borders still closed)