Concerning "Long Covid"...
If not for this site and the Munchausen's By Internet thread specifically, I likely would have bought in to the whole "Long Covid" thing hook, line and sinker. I'm already convinced it's going to be the newest munchy grifting 'disease' that is oh so debilitating but conveniently can't be proven by available testing.
edit: spelling
I'm not ready to completely throw out the concept of Long covid, but I am skeptical as well. Like
@Ruin said, I think it's primarily damage from the spike protein to various tissues, and when your cells are producing tons of spike protein that's a sure way to kick it off. Bruce Patterson's theory is that since the spike protein appears to be a super antigen it might be throwing some people's immune systems into overdrive and is ending up with monocytes/macrophages that are primed into a pro-inflammatory state and they won't repolarize/recycle themselves to go back to normal. He's been trying to treat it mostly with anti-inflammatories and immune suppressants. Some parts sound reasonable but some parts I'm not sure make sense. I don't want to say "We don't understand it so it's not real" like so many doctors and scientists want to do, but I think right now most of what we've seen is either tissue damage, or autoimmune disorders, primarily from the vax.
Having a nebulous condition is great fear porn for the masses however.
A friends elderly family member has come down with covid. Is this still the best current treatment protocols?
I think the
FLCCC's I-CARE protocol is also worth looking at. There's a lot of overlap, but the FLCCC includes more OTC treatments if necessary.
The White House wants to launch a Warp Speed Pt 2 to create new vaccines. Now why would they need to do that when these current wants are so safe and effective?
I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but
Fauci is backtracking and claiming he didn't recommend shutting down the country. I'm still amazed politicians and beureaucrats can't wrap their minds around video evidence.
He is also
acknowledging the impact of the jab on menstruation while trying to downplay it.
Surprising no one,
it looks like the CDC coordinated with big tech to shutdown any one going against the narrative on the jab (
2) (
3).
This explains why they've been going so hard on The Epoch Times, considering they keep publishing articles
like this one describing how FDA officials are being forced to greenlight the jabs, including two prominent officials resigning last year.
Another good article, the
CDC is claiming they weren't aware of myocarditis from the jab for most of 2021. This is despite all of the early reports and even the military coming forward about it in April.
Remember how
the CDC said the spike proteins don't last long in the body? Well they seem to
have mysteriously removed that part.
There's a
paper from the Netherlands that shows a correlation between increases in vaccination and all-cause mortality.
The
BCCDC is removing their information regarding jab status and covid outcomes.
It looks like
Canada had no scientific basis for their travel ban, but since when have governments let silly little things like science stop them?
Lots of young doctors in Canada seem to be
having sudden and unexpected deaths.
Paxlovid rebound is looking increasingly common, everyone probably already knows that quadruple jabbed Biden and Fauci both experienced it.
Germany's Fauci,
Lauterbach has caught covid. I don't see any info on whether or not he will try paxlovid.
Apparently in
Germany potentially as many as 1 in 25 received treatments for jab side effects? At first I would be skeptical that it's this extreme, but this is coming from a report from a major health insurer.
New Zealand seems to be having a tough time with covid.
On the legal side,
healthcare workers in Illinois won a religious lawsuit over being denied religious exemptions. Sadly it sounds like they each only get about 25k and their jobs back.
It also looks like many in the military will get their religious exemptions
For some personal anecdotes/slight power leveling, my work recently had an internal meeting/talk with someone higher up. A question was asked about covid rates in the jabbed and unjabbed. I was surprised this question was brought up and I was surprised they answered it. Most here can probably guess the results, but I found it interesting to hear it from people who advocate for the jab.
They refused to comment on rates of testing positive, claiming that between at home tests and different behaviors regarding covid that they didn't feel it was accurate. I suspect it was because their data reflects the data we've seen from the UK, or even Walgreens. Instead they focused on hospitalization rates in the local hospitals. They did not mention intensive care or deaths at all.
The first thing they wanted to stress was that less than 5% of those hospitalized in the area were hospitalized from covid. It's an important distinction that I've been saying should have been made from the start, but for some reason people only want to bring that up when the jabs are failing. However these next numbers are from that ~5%, and I went and compared it to readily available community data.
30% of those hospitalized were described as unvaccinated, and about 30% of the community (over 18 ) is unvaccinated. They make no mention of people with 1 shot (about 10% of the community), so I think they may be lumped in with this group, or their hospitalizations are too small to include. 30% of the hospitalized had two shots, whereas 35% of the community has had two shots. The remaining 40% of hospitalizations had been boosted, with a little under 10% (So 4% of the total covid hospitalizations) being boosted twice. By comparison only about 25% of the community has gotten any number of boosters (I don't know between 1 and 2 boosters unfortunately).
So it looks like the boosted are much more likely to be hospitalized. However they went on about how those who are hospitalized may have received their shots long ago and so the protection had waned. That answer doesn't really explain anything, but I'm guessing they just tried to stick to the booster narrative. The most generous excuse I can give is that these were surface level numbers, and if you separated by age then it might look like the jab did something. However the UK data did do that and it didn't really support it, and honestly if the jab was effective then you probably wouldn't need to hunt for that excuse.
I can't help but wonder if these people's cognitive dissonance has a breaking point, and if so what it'll take to reach it.
