its actually worse in percentage terms. 
Yeah, that's bad, and we'll get to that.
But first, another study. Because, well, why tell you that you likely screwed yourself once when we can get a two-fer at once?
So on the first I have a nasty prediction to make, and you're not going to like it -- but it is, once again, nothing more than reading the data and making a reasonable projection forward based on what it shows.
If you remember one of the nightmare scenarios was an "ADE" sort of response to the jabs, which many so-called "experts" poo-pooed. They had no evidence to poo-poo it, by the way, and in fact the evidence all ran the other way from history. We had never successfully vaccinated against a coronavirus producing durable immunity and this is why; the previous trials all aborted out due to VEI (vaccine-enhanced infection) which covers ADE, OAS and a whole other litany of stupidity caused by using non-sterilizing "vaccines."
Then this paper published, which confirmed it was in play with specific focus on these jabs.
In this study we profiled vaccine-induced polyclonal antibodies as well as plasmablast-derived mAbs from individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 spike mRNA vaccine. Polyclonal antibody responses in vaccinees were robust and comparable to or exceeded those seen after natural infection. However, the ratio of binding to neutralizing antibodies after vaccination was greater than that after natural infection and, at the monoclonal level, we found that the majority of vaccine-induced antibodies did not have neutralizing activity.
This was published in July of this year. It should have been the end of mass-vaccination attempts against Covid because it made clear that binding (infection-enhancing) antibodies were produced by the jabs in abundance and what's worse the majority of the antibodies produced were worthless or harmful. In short the only reason you got protection was due to a wildly elevated titer in the first place, and once it waned, which it inevitably would, you were going to get ****ed.
We also found a co-dominance of mAbs targeting the NTD and RBD of SARS-CoV-2 spike and an original antigenic-sin like backboost to spikes of seasonal human coronaviruses OC43 and HKU1
That's even worse in that OC43 in particular is believed to have caused a Covid-19 like pandemic in the 1890s. Backboosting that virus, which circulates all the time in humans, is flat-out nuts because like Covid-19 the pandemic of the 1890s featured all manner of nasty death. Since OC43 circulates in the population on a roughly four-year cycle anything that enhances that virus is begging to whack people in size -- but not from Covid-19, rather from another virus that usually is nothing other than a nuisance!
Well, now we're seeing the consequences.
UM (Ann Arbor) is reporting a wildly-virulent outbreak of "the worst flu ever" but the testing for Covid is coming back negative. They're claiming its a strain of flu but that's even worse because that strongly implies that the immune damage isn't Covid-19 specific.
Congratulations *******s, when that gets into a nursing home, and it will, it is going to kill people in size. I told you so and now you've gone and done it by mandating this crap for healthy young people in colleges and various workplaces. I hope you enjoy being the agent of killing your grandmother you stupid *******s. Again, look at the date on that article I cited above, which I've written on before. We had plenty of warning and should have stopped the jabs immediately in healthy people when that data became apparent because the very last thing you ever want to do is potentiate some other disease with your so-called "strategy." What's even worse is that this was the only reasonable and plausible explanation for why the drug companies set dosing where they did (the presence of binding antibodies) which means everyone in both the FDA and drug companies knew ******ned well before the first EUA issued that these jabs were likely to do this.
But it doesn't end there.
It is reported that the hospitalization rate for "breakthrough" infections is in the neighborhood of 9%. That is roughly double the rate the CDC "estimates" for all Covid-19 infections. In addition the recent outbreak in a CT nursing home with more than a 10% fatality rate has made clear that in terms of actually protecting people from severe outcomes who need it most the vaccines are essentially worthless.
In other words when your protection wanes you are at higher risk of getting severely ill. That too is logical given the binding antibody titers. In addition there are now a myriad number of reports of people who got Covid again after being vaccinated yet non-vaccinated second infection reports remain nearly non-existent. So if you had the disease and then take the jab the evidence is that it ruined your existing protection, at least in part. How bad that will get is unknown -- but we're going to find out.
The lack of "N" protection after vaccination if you get infected appears to be continuing as well, which is extremely bad because it is "N" protection that is almost-impossible for the virus to evade. Without that "N" antibody titer from infection you will get reinfected if you were vaccinated and the binding titer will enhance it. The possibility of a Dengue-fever vaccine sort of disaster is real. I cannot handicap that in terms of odds but if it occurs mortality among those who got the shot, got infected and did not build an "N" titer the second or third time around is going to be wildly enhanced.
Boosting will make this worse, possibly catastrophically worse, because the boosters will still produce binding antibodies. The higher the titer goes the more-dangerous that is as protection wanes. It is very likely that repeated boosting will not only lead to a "coffin corner" problem where protection becomes non-existent or even negative immediately but worse, we already know that strains that fully evade the protective antibodies are in the wild. Those are very likely to wind up dominant sub-groups of Delta and when that occurs the binding antibodies still attach and thus if you've been vaxxed and that happens you're screwed and there's nothing you can do about it. We've seen occasional cases where this appears to have happened already; this winter and into 2022 that is likely to become dominant simply because that's how selection pressure works!
The only good news is that if you're in good health even with a materially-enhanced infection profile from the vaccines you're probably not going to die. On the other hand those who are in the marginal health category, and that specifically includes those with metabolic dysfunction such as diabetes are in extremely serious trouble.
It would be bad enough if that was the end of the bad news. But it isn't. In fact, this is worse than enhancing your infection risk.
A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.
I'm generally not much of a fan of these sorts of "scoring systems" for risk factors, but this particular one has a fairly decent record across a hell of a lot of people and a lot of time. The key factor here is that it looks at actual endothelial damage specific to cardiac risk and not the (long believed but also wildly disputed and, in my opinion, entirely-discredited) look at cholesterol.
The really nasty side of this is that the "normal" level of risk is under 3.5% or less across five years. These elevations will put someone who was in that low-risk bucket into the 11% range if they started from near-zero on all of these metrics. Cardiologists, of course, do not typically follow or see people without some reason to believe they have an issue with heart disease and are at risk of cardiac trouble which means that the problem is not that the person at 11% risk is now at 25%, 2.27x (227%) what they were before.
No, it's that the person who was at essentially zero 5 year risk may now be at 11% risk, more or less, which is a wild elevation that may be as much as 10x or more than they were previously. In other words our mass-jabbing campaign may have created ten million or more additional heart attacks over the next five years and many of those will be fatal, no-warning events.
I remind you that some 400,000 fatal heart attacks happen a year and this data implies that rate could easily more than double.
Worse, there may nothing you can do about it if you took the jab as the damage may be permanent.
Note that there is no body of science that shows that someone who has gotten Covid-19 and recovered has a similar elevated long-term risk profile for cardiac issues. The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence but until and unless that evidence is developed it looks pretty clear that by getting the jab you have wildly elevated your heart attack and stroke risk independent of all other factors.
This is not good news at all folks and there is literally no possible positive way to spin it either.
Incidentally this is already showing up in all-cause mortality both here and in the UK. Theoretical scores are one thing, but when backed up by a stack of corpses.....
It is increasingly clear that those who held out and stuck up the finger, especially if previously infected, made the right choice.
My flag isn't big enough.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=244300