Masovna vakcinacija = Immune Escape = EMERGENCY OF INTERNATIONAL CONCERN

[dragisa]

On 14.3.2021. at 8:06, dragisa рече

 

 

30:00 do 40:15 objašnjava mehanizam sticanja "imuniteta krda" na primeru prirodne pandemije (bez uticaja mera ili vakcine):

1) PRVI TALAS kada se pojavi, virus se dominantno širi u populaciji koja ima slabiji urođeni imunitet (stari i bolesni) dok populacija sa jačim urođenim imunitetom efikasno neutrališe virus pomoću NK ćelija (prirodne ćelije ubice) i odma stvaraju specifična antitela. Ta specifična antitela (koja su pogodna samo za određeni varijitet virusa) na kratko supresuju urođeni imunitet (koji je pogodan za bilo koji varijitet virusa), dakle u kratkom periodu će dominirati antitela u odnosu na NK

2) pošto rezervoar populacije sa slabijim urođenim imunitetom nije beskonačan, virus je počinje da "napadna" populaciju koja ima jak urođeni imunitet. kada ih napadne ljudi sa dobrim urođenim imunitetom inficirani virusom stvoriće (kao i grupa iz tačke 1) specifična anti tela i takođe na kraći rok ona će postati dominantna (supresovaće urođeni imunitet).

3) na početku pandemije koja nije preterano uzela maha, veroatnoća da će osoba iz tačke 2 opet doći u kontakt sa virusom je mala

4) DRUGI TALAS protokom vremena širenje virusa se nastavlja ali se protokom vremena povećava i verovatnoća da će populacija iz tačke 2 koja dakle u tom trenutku i dalje poseduje kratkoročno dominantna specifična tela i supresovan urođeni imunitet se takođe povećava tako da dolazi do povećanja broja obolelih iz ove grupe (mladi, deca itd). 

5) pošto rezervoar ove populacije nije beskonačan, virus se sada vraća i opet  "napada" populaciju iz tačke 1  kod koje su zbog protoka vremena specifična antitela počela da nestaju 

DAKLE  u ovom scenariju prirodne pandemije virus nije pod pritiskom jer u svakom trenitku na raspolaganju mu je neki deo populacije. U ovom skakanju sa grupe na grupu virus slabi jer se sa reinfekcijama pored urođenog stiče i stečeni imuni odgovor i na ovaj način se postiže “imunitet krda”. Dinamički posmatrano kako se ostvaruje imunitet krda (veći deo populacije) tako se umanjuje šansa da i onaj mali deo populacije koji nije imao nikakav kontakt sa virusom i nema izgrađen imuni odgovor dođe u kontakt sa njim odnosno prirodan kraj pandemije.

Španska groznica pokazuje da ovakva pandemija traje oko dve godine a imala je 3 talasa.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44:00 do 49:30 objašnjava ne mogućnost sticanja “imuniteta krda” kada se kombinuje zatvaranje i davanje vakcina u sred pandemije (vakcine koje su po svojoj prirodi preventivno sredstvo traže drugačije uslove, sama reč kaže “prevencija” a ne “pandemija”)

dakle davanje vakcina izaziva suboptimalan imuni odgovor kod primaoca, u smislu da ovaj imunitet koji se stekne štiti primaoca od težih oblika simptoma ali ne i od same zaraze ili prenošenja virusa drugima, dakle antitela štite primaoca od dobijanja teških stepena oboljenja ali ne sprečavaju inficiranje primaoca niti širenje zaraze. ovakva grupa populacije po svemu liči na grupu populacije iz prošlog primera iz tačke 2 (mladi zdravi jaki), podsetimo se i oni su takođe asimptomatski prenosnici koji u kontaktu sa virusom stvaraju suboptimalan odgovor u vidu kratkoročnih specifičnih antitela. 

ako u ovaj scenario sada uključimo mere sprečavanja kontakta, podsetiću u prethodnom primeru virus je “skakao” sa grupe na grupu dakle uvek je imao na raspolaganju deo populacije (nije bio pod pritiskom), dakle ako sada uvedemo mere sprečavanja kontakta onda veštački stvaramo pritisak na virus da kroz borbu za opstanak selektuje (prežive) samo sojevi koji su još zarazniji odnosno da počne da iskorištava slabosti suboptimalnog imuniteta vakcinisanih (pošto su kontakti sa starijima sprečeni ili su i sami stariji takođe vakcinisani). tako dolazimo do situacije da se pojavljuju visoko zarazni sojevi kod kojih se sada, za razliku od prethodnog primera, drastično povećava verovatnoća da će osoba sa suboptimalnim imunitetom opet doći u dodir sa virusom (reinfekcija) odnosno da će u krajnjoj konsekvenci efekati vakcinacije biti potpuno poništeni kroz tzv “imuni beg”. 

DAKLE  u ovom scenariju pandemije uz primenu vakcina i izolacije kada virus pod pritiskom razvija visoko zarazne sojeve, drastično se povećava šansa da i onaj deo populacije koji inače ne bi došao u kontakt sa virusom bude zaražen, zbog visoke stope zaraze. može se očekivati u svim zemljama koje forsiraju vakcinaciju i mere da će u početku doći do smanjenja broja obolelih ali da nakon toga sledi eksplozija razboljevanja, (kao što se dešava kod nas ili u izraelu).

oko 51:00 zaključuje

ja sam veoma ozbiljan naučnik posvetio sam 20-30 godina vakcinam, bojim se da smo na početku ogromne katastrofe...

[w.a.mozart]

Lakše ćemo shvatiti bespočetnost Oca nego ovo oko vakcina

[dragisa]

Virus se spušta na mlađi uzrast

On se takođe osvrnuo na ubrzano širenje britanskog soja koronavirusa.

Ponovio je da je britanska varijanta koronavirusa do te mere izmenjena da ima veću sposobnost prenošenja i izazivanja ozbiljnijih oboljenja, čak i među mladima i decom.

On je ukazao da se virus "spušta na mlađi uzrast".

Kon je rekao da je iz tog razloga i doneta odluka o prebacivanju đaka od petog do osmog razreda osnovne škole na onlajn nastavu. Iskustva drugih zemalja u kojima je britanski soj koronavirusa počeo da se širi i na decu su uzeta u obzir prilikom donošenja strategije.

"Razmišljamo da nekim delatnostima ublažimo mere"; Ko bi ipak mogao da radi?

WWW.B92.NET

---

 

 

[GeniusAtWork]

Једна критика целе приче. Ово је један од коментара на његов клип који сам ставио у мом задњем посту овде на теми:

Цитат

As a biochemist with a strong research background in immunology, there are a lot of leaps and words chosen that change the context. I dislike being pedantic, but I am afraid I have to be based on some of what is said in this video.

When he mentions that neutralizing antibodies will suppress the innate immunity... They are not suppressing the innate immunity, they are reducing the need to activate the innate immunity for this particular virus. This is an important distinction, because suppressing the innate immunity means the body will be more likely to be infected by other pathogens. In actuality, after vaccination has properly had time to induce antibodies... these neutralizing antibodies will be present at the onset of viral infection, and as a result, the innate immune system is more likely to stay in a "calm" state. A "calm" state does not mean "suppressed", it does not mean "weakened". This innate immunity will be able to wake up and do what it is supposed to do when faced with other pathogens in the future. In fact, we are bombarded by pathogens constantly (bacteria, fungi, virus). Our innate immune system handles them on a daily basis and has plenty of "exercise" (keeping it simple). The innate system does NOT handle one pathogen at a time. It handles many. This is important to give context. Also, when we naturally produce antibodies after an infection, we produce a decent amount. This happens constantly and is ongoing (very dynamic process). These antibodies do not suppress our innate immunity or we would probably not be alive right now.

Transitioning the topic - The quicker a virus is neutralized, the lower chance of mutation. You simply do not give the virus an opportunity to infect cell after cell after cell where it can mutate. There is plenty of evidence and data showing viruses in the past that have mutated into non-infectious, or less infectious strains. It is simply not accurate that mutations must only occur in a more infectious direction, they can also mutate in a less infectious direction. I would like to see data or evidence that antibodies actually SUPPRESS the innate immunity, as that seems to be a main connecting point in this video for why vaccines are a bad idea in a "high pressure infectious scenario".

In other interviews, Bossche says that a vaccine given during a high pressure infectious scenario where we are being bombarded by the virus constantly will cause problems because the vaccine causes a sub-optimal production of antibodies initially. This sub-optimal production has no relationship with the innate immune response. Never mind the benefits 5 weeks later when antibody production is optimal. Are we lead to believe that we are being bombarded constantly by COVID where there is no chance of getting through the 4 to 5 week wait period? I would like to have seen discussion about memory cells/T cells as well.

I want to say much more about the holes in this video, but this is a giant wall of text now, and I'm afraid no one is going to want to read it. Apologies for that.

 

[Марек]

On 15.3.2021. at 15:41, dragisa рече

30:00 do 40:15 objašnjava mehanizam sticanja "imuniteta krda" na primeru prirodne pandemije (bez uticaja mera ili vakcine):

1) PRVI TALAS kada se pojavi, virus se dominantno širi u populaciji koja ima slabiji urođeni imunitet (stari i bolesni) dok populacija sa jačim urođenim imunitetom efikasno neutrališe virus pomoću NK ćelija (prirodne ćelije ubice) i odma stvaraju specifična antitela. Ta specifična antitela (koja su pogodna samo za određeni varijitet virusa) na kratko supresuju urođeni imunitet (koji je pogodan za bilo koji varijitet virusa), dakle u kratkom periodu će dominirati antitela u odnosu na NK

2) pošto rezervoar populacije sa slabijim urođenim imunitetom nije beskonačan, virus je počinje da "napadna" populaciju koja ima jak urođeni imunitet. kada ih napadne ljudi sa dobrim urođenim imunitetom inficirani virusom stvoriće (kao i grupa iz tačke 1) specifična anti tela i takođe na kraći rok ona će postati dominantna (supresovaće urođeni imunitet).

3) na početku pandemije koja nije preterano uzela maha, veroatnoća da će osoba iz tačke 2 opet doći u kontakt sa virusom je mala

4) DRUGI TALAS protokom vremena širenje virusa se nastavlja ali se protokom vremena povećava i verovatnoća da će populacija iz tačke 2 koja dakle u tom trenutku i dalje poseduje kratkoročno dominantna specifična tela i supresovan urođeni imunitet se takođe povećava tako da dolazi do povećanja broja obolelih iz ove grupe (mladi, deca itd). 

5) pošto rezervoar ove populacije nije beskonačan, virus se sada vraća i opet  "napada" populaciju iz tačke 1  kod koje su zbog protoka vremena specifična antitela počela da nestaju 

DAKLE  u ovom scenariju prirodne pandemije virus nije pod pritiskom jer u svakom trenitku na raspolaganju mu je neki deo populacije. U ovom skakanju sa grupe na grupu virus slabi jer se sa reinfekcijama pored urođenog stiče i stečeni imuni odgovor i na ovaj način se postiže “imunitet krda”. Dinamički posmatrano kako se ostvaruje imunitet krda (veći deo populacije) tako se umanjuje šansa da i onaj mali deo populacije koji nije imao nikakav kontakt sa virusom i nema izgrađen imuni odgovor dođe u kontakt sa njim odnosno prirodan kraj pandemije.

Španska groznica pokazuje da ovakva pandemija traje oko dve godine a imala je 3 talasa.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44:00 do 49:30 objašnjava ne mogućnost sticanja “imuniteta krda” kada se kombinuje zatvaranje i davanje vakcina u sred pandemije (vakcine koje su po svojoj prirodi preventivno sredstvo traže drugačije uslove, sama reč kaže “prevencija” a ne “pandemija”)

dakle davanje vakcina izaziva suboptimalan imuni odgovor kod primaoca, u smislu da ovaj imunitet koji se stekne štiti primaoca od težih oblika simptoma ali ne i od same zaraze ili prenošenja virusa drugima, dakle antitela štite primaoca od dobijanja teških stepena oboljenja ali ne sprečavaju inficiranje primaoca niti širenje zaraze. ovakva grupa populacije po svemu liči na grupu populacije iz prošlog primera iz tačke 2 (mladi zdravi jaki), podsetimo se i oni su takođe asimptomatski prenosnici koji u kontaktu sa virusom stvaraju suboptimalan odgovor u vidu kratkoročnih specifičnih antitela. 

ako u ovaj scenario sada uključimo mere sprečavanja kontakta, podsetiću u prethodnom primeru virus je “skakao” sa grupe na grupu dakle uvek je imao na raspolaganju deo populacije (nije bio pod pritiskom), dakle ako sada uvedemo mere sprečavanja kontakta onda veštački stvaramo pritisak na virus da kroz borbu za opstanak selektuje (prežive) samo sojevi koji su još zarazniji odnosno da počne da iskorištava slabosti suboptimalnog imuniteta vakcinisanih (pošto su kontakti sa starijima sprečeni ili su i sami stariji takođe vakcinisani). tako dolazimo do situacije da se pojavljuju visoko zarazni sojevi kod kojih se sada, za razliku od prethodnog primera, drastično povećava verovatnoća da će osoba sa suboptimalnim imunitetom opet doći u dodir sa virusom (reinfekcija) odnosno da će u krajnjoj konsekvenci efekati vakcinacije biti potpuno poništeni kroz tzv “imuni beg”. 

DAKLE  u ovom scenariju pandemije uz primenu vakcina i izolacije kada virus pod pritiskom razvija visoko zarazne sojeve, drastično se povećava šansa da i onaj deo populacije koji inače ne bi došao u kontakt sa virusom bude zaražen, zbog visoke stope zaraze. može se očekivati u svim zemljama koje forsiraju vakcinaciju i mere da će u početku doći do smanjenja broja obolelih ali da nakon toga sledi eksplozija razboljevanja, (kao što se dešava kod nas ili u izraelu).

oko 51:00 zaključuje

ja sam veoma ozbiljan naučnik posvetio sam 20-30 godina vakcinam, bojim se da smo na početku ogromne katastrofe...

Ako uzimaš španski grip kao referencu za nešto, trebalo bi da znaš da je njime bila zaražena trećina čovečansta, a umrlo je između 17-100 miliona ljudi, što je otprilike i do preko 5% svetske populacije. A zbog nedostatka bilo kakve imunizacije virus se nesmetano širio i prenosio ovako kako ti pišeš. Tako da, prepustiti sve imunitetu krda baš i nije pametno, imamo najskorije primere Švedske recimo.

[Bernard]

Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed

 

Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson are leading candidates for the completion of a Covid-19 vaccine likely to be released in the coming months. These companies have published their vaccine trial protocols. This unusually transparent action during a major drug trial deserves praise, close inspection of the protocols raises surprising concerns. These trials seem designed to prove their vaccines work, even if the measured effects are minimal. 

What would a normal vaccine trial look like? 

Prevention of infection must be a critical endpoint. Any vaccine trial should include regular antigen testing every three days to test contagiousness to pick up early signs of infection and PCR testing once a week to confirm infection by SARS-CoV-2 test the ability of the vaccines to stave off infection. Prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for any of these vaccines. In fact, their endpoints all require confirmed infections and all those they will include in the analysis for success,  the only difference being the severity of symptoms between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Measuring differences amongst only those infected by SARS-CoV-2 underscores the implicit conclusion that the vaccines are not expected to prevent infection, only modify symptoms of those infected.

We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.

The greatest fear people have is dying from this disease. A vaccine must significantly or entirely reduce deaths from Covid-19. Over two hundred thousand people have died in the United States and nearly a million worldwide. None list mortality as a critical endpoint.

We recognize that the influenza vaccine does not prevent infection with that virus, but does have a measurable impact on hospitalization and death. The moderate protections from the influenza virus can potentially be replicated and improved on with Covid-19, but only with extensive trials that ensure the efficacy of a future vaccine.

MORE FOR YOU

Researchers Warn Some Covid-19 Vaccines Could Increase Risk Of HIV Infection

Large Numbers Of Health Care And Frontline Workers Are Refusing Covid-19 Vaccine

America’s Biggest Owner Of Farmland Is Now Bill Gates

Vaccine efficacy is typically proved by large clinical trials over several years. The pharmaceutical companies intend to do trials ranging from thirty thousand to sixty thousand participants. This scale of study would be sufficient for testing vaccine efficacy. The first surprise found upon a closer reading of the protocols reveals that each study intends to complete interim and primary analyses that at most include 164 participants. 

These companies likely intend to apply for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with just their limited preliminary results. 

Interim analysis success requires a seventy percent efficacy. The vaccine or placebo will be given to thousands of people in each trial. For Moderna, the initial interim analysis will be based on the results of infection of only 53 people. The judgment reached in interim analysis is dependent upon the difference in the number of people with symptoms, which may be mild, in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated group.

Moderna’s success margin is for 13 or less of those 53 to develop symptoms compared to 40 or more in their control group.  For Johnson & Johnson, their interim analysis includes 77 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 18 or less developing symptoms compared to 59 in the control group. For AstraZeneca, their interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 12 or less developing symptoms compared to 19 in the 25 person control group.  Pfizer is even smaller in its success requirements. Their initial group includes 32 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 7 or less developing symptoms compared to 25 in the control group. 

The primary analyses are a bit more expanded, but need to be less efficacious for success: about sixty percent. AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer have primary analyses that distribute the vaccine to only 100, 151, 154, and 164 participants respectively. These companies state that they do not “intend” to stop trials after the primary analyses, but there is every chance that they intend to pursue an EUA and focus on manufacturing the vaccine rather than further thorough testing.

The second surprise from these protocols is how mild the requirements for contracted Covid-19 symptoms are. A careful reading reveals that the minimum qualification for a case of Covid-19 is a positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms. These include headache, fever, cough, or mild nausea. This is far from adequate. These vaccine trials are testing to prevent common cold symptoms. 

These trials certainly do not give assurance that the vaccine will protect from the serious consequences of Covid-19. Johnson & Johnson is the only trial that requires the inclusion of severe Covid-19 cases, at least 5 for the 75 participant interim analysis.

One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance. 

It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation.

A greater concern for the millions of older people and those with preexisting conditions is whether these trials test the vaccine's ability to prevent severe illness and death. Again we find that severe illness and death are only secondary objectives in these trials. None list the prevention of death and hospitalization as a critically important barrier.

If total infections, hospitalizations, and death are going to be ignored in the preliminary trials of the vaccines, then there must be phase four testing to monitor their safety and efficacy. This would be long term massive scale monitoring of the vaccine. There must be an indication that the authorized vaccines are reducing infection, hospitalization, and death, or else they will not be able to stop this pandemic.

These protocols do not emphasize the most important ramifications of Covid-19 that people are most interested in preventing: overall infection, hospitalization, and death. It boggles the mind and defies common sense that the National Institute of Health, the Center for Disease Control, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and the rest would consider the approval of a vaccine that would be distributed to hundreds of millions on such slender threads of success.

It appears that these trials are intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success. As this is being written, the FDA is poised to announce tougher standards for a Covid-19 vaccine in the near future. It is my hope that these new standards for an EUA will at a minimum include requirements for protections from infection itself, protections from severe virus-related disease leading to hospitalization, and a significant improvement in Covid-19 related mortality.

It is clear from these studies that the vaccines currently under trial will not be the silver bullet needed to end the pandemic. We must do all we can public health measures to control Covid-19 as China and other Asian countries have successfully done.

Correction (10/7/20): A former version of the article stated that 53 people received a vaccination for interim analysis in the Moderna trial. The vaccine was in fact given to thousands of people, with 53 being the number of people who must be infected with Covid-19 to run the analysis.

 

 

Full coverage and live updates on the Coronavirus

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. 

William A. Haseltine

 

Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed

WWW.FORBES.COM

---

Several pharmaceutical companies have published their vaccine trial protocols. This unusually transparent action during a major drug trial deserves praise, close inspection...

[dragisa]

Q&A - Mass Vaccination in a Pandemic

 

 

[GeniusAtWork]

Addressing Geert Vanden Bossche's claims

[Марек]

🤔

[Justin Waters]

пре 15 часа, GeniusAtWork рече

Addressing Geert Vanden Bossche's claims

Врло добро образложено. 

Бош још и није из неке заверолошке групе, има репутацију стручњака, а опет може да се оклизне. Његов примјер свим скептицима поводом питања вакцине и генерално короне, да ако неко нешто прича што годи нечијем уху, оправдање да тај неко прича нешто паметно само зато што је номинални стручњак не значи и да стварно говори нешто смислено. 

У нашој регији, најчуенији је примјер Несторовић који, додуше није вирусолог ни биохемичар, али јесте колико толико поткован неким знањем као пулмолог па се налупао ко максим по дивизији, па онај Француз што је изоловао ХИВ и тврдио да је корона модификован ХИВ вирус итд..

[Bernard]

Junge Frau mit Lungenembolie nach Impfung in Halle

Halle (dpa/sa) - In Halle gibt es den Verdacht auf eine Komplikation nach einer Corona-Impfung. «Im zeitlichen Zusammenhang, zwölf Tage nach einer Impfung mit dem Wirkstoff von Astrazeneca, ist bei einer jungen Frau Jahrgang 1985 eine Lungenembolie aufgetreten», teilte die Stadt Halle am Donnerstag mit. «Die Frau wird stationär behandelt, der Fall wurde als Verdachtsfall einer Impf-Komplikation an das Paul-Ehrlich-Institut als zuständige Bundesbehörde gemeldet.»

https://www.welt.de/regionales/sachsen-anhalt/article228650695/Junge-Frau-mit-Lungenembolie-nach-Impfung-in-Halle.html?wtrid=kooperation.reco.taboola.free.welt.desktop

[Bernard]

IMMUNOLOGIST: PFIZER, MODERNA VACCINES COULD CAUSE LONG-TERM CHRONIC ILLNESS

Immunologist: Pfizer, Moderna Vaccines Could Cause Long-Term Chronic Illness

WWW.WAKINGTIMES.COM

---

Children’s Health Defense Team - For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not...

 

[Bernard]

AstraZeneca: Greifswalder Forscher finden Thrombose-Ursache

 

Stand: 19.03.2021 13:05 Uhr

Wie NDR 1 Radio MV berichtet, haben Forscher der Unimedizin Greifswald die Ursache für Hirnthrombosen nach AstraZeneca-Impfung gefunden. Demnach löst das Vakzin bei einigen Menschen einen Abwehrmechanismus aus.

Die Forscher hatten sich eigenen Angaben zufolge direkt nach dem Impfstopp an das Paul-Ehrlich-Institut gewandt, das für die Zulassung und Überwachung von Impfstoffen in Deutschland verantwortlich ist. Den Ärzten wurden daraufhin Blutproben von sechs Thrombosepatienten zur Verfügung gestellt.

 

Blutplättchen gerinnen im Gehirn

Bei der Untersuchung der Proben stellten die Forscher fest, dass der Impfstoff die Blutplättchen, also die Thrombozyten, aktiviert. Das passiert normalerweise im Körper nur bei einer Wundheilung, wenn das Blut gerinnt und die Wunde verschließt. Durch die Impfung werde bei einigen Patienten ein Mechanismus aktiviert, der zur Bildung von Blutgerinnseln im Gehirn führe. Da der Mechanismus so klar identifiziert worden sei, habe auch eine gezielte Behandlungsmöglichkeit entwickelt werden können. Betroffenen könne nun ein Wirkstoff verabreicht werden, der gegen die Thrombose hilft.

 

AstraZeneca: Greifswalder Forscher finden Thrombose-Ursache

WWW.NDR.DE

---

Wie NDR 1 Radio MV berichtet, haben Forscher der Unimedizin Greifswald die Ursache für Hirnthrombosen nach AstraZeneca-Impfung gefunden. Demnach löst das Vakzin bei einigen...

Aha, bili ste zdravi, vakcinisali ste se zbog korone.......U najslabijem slučaju ćete umreti ako dobijete trombocite, u najboljem slučaju ćete piti lekove do kraja života (to je biznis) i strepeti da li ćete sutra ili za sat vremena biti živ.

[Avocado]

пре 1 сат, Bernard рече

 

Aha, bili ste zdravi, vakcinisali ste se zbog korone.......U najslabijem slučaju ćete umreti ako dobijete trombocite, u najboljem slučaju ćete piti lekove do kraja života (to je biznis) i strepeti da li ćete sutra ili za sat vremena biti živ.

Jok... u najboljem i ne samo najboljem već i u potpuno uobičajnom slučaju neće biti nikakvih neželjenih posledica, a samo u izuzetno retkim slučajevima (daleko ređim nego što je smrt od korone) može da se desi nešto loše...

[dragisa]

We Must Start Planning For a Permanent Pandemic

....we will probably get vaccinated a couple of times a year, against the latest variant in circulation, but never fast or comprehensively enough to achieve herd immunity....

 

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

WWW.BLOOMBERG.COM