Reviewing the consequences of the reckless steps used to make the vaccines and the immunological damage which followed
Last year, I learned of a Yale study which had discovered the COVID vaccine persisted in the body and caused long term immunological impairments—something I believe relates to the egregious production process that characterized the COVID-19 vaccines.
Since I did not want to interfere with the publication process, I held off from disclosing anything within the study which had not already been leaked by someone else. Today the study was pre-published, so I can now discuss what they found (in a heavily revised version of the previous article). The first half of this article provides the context for that study, while the second half discusses it (e.g., that the vaccine spike protein can persist in the body for at least 709 days and cause at least two years of chronic immunological suppression and autoimmunity that directly correlate to the presence of chronic illnesses).
Note: as this study was conducted by a team of immunologists, they primarily focused on immunologic changes (and as a result many of the other chronic consequences of vaccination were not discussed). Additionally, it should be noted that they originally strongly endorsed the vaccination (both to prevent COVID and to treat long COVID—which is often disastrous) and came from a very pro-vaccine institution. As such, the fact they were willing to change their stance on this should be acknowledged (and indicates a lot of work went into verifying the accuracy of their data).
Upsides and Downsides
A lot of things in life are trade-offs, and as I’ve gotten older, more and more I’ve come to appreciate how many things in our society boil down to the fact that the options for addressing them (at least within the existing paradigm) all have significant downsides, so in many cases no solution exists which is satisfactory to all parties involved.
As such, this dilemma is typically managed by some combination of the following:
•Having a biased focus which emphasizes the benefits of an approach a side supports and downplays its downsides (or conversely disproportionately focuses on the downsides of an opposing position). To this point, I’ve had countless issues I’ve debated both sides of and been able to effectively persuade audiences of each one—which highlights how subjective many of the entrenched beliefs we hold actually are (and, in turn, is why I put so much work here into fairly presenting both sides of each controversial topic I cover).
•Sweeping the downsides under the rug and gaslighting the populace into believing they don’t exist.
•Blitzing the public into supporting a questionable policy before they have time to recognize its downsides, and if that fails, overtly forcing them to go along with it.
Note: I believe one of the reasons why governments frequently do horrible things to their people is because they are put in the position of having to “solve” a problem (but with no truly satisfactory way to do it), so they become habituated to using the three previous strategies to push their chosen policies along and simultaneously develop a collective mentality that those questionable approaches are necessary for the “greater good.”
