"Lancet Study Finds Covid-19 Viral Proteins in Blood of 25% of People Post-Covid" Or Rather Post-Jab?

A new lying Lancet study, peer reviewed, no doubt...

The most recent headline says “Covid-19 Found in People’s Blood Months After Infection” (Psychology Today, 2024.04.26):

In order to prove that their findings were not a false positive signal, the team ran the same test on 250 samples collected from a mix of people in 2012-2019. The team was able to show that people who had had Covid showed specific proteins in the blood that the pre-pandemic samples did not have.

Less than 2 percent of the pre-pandemic blood samples came up positive, as compared to 25 percent of the blood samples from 171 people who'd had Covid [OR WAS IT A JAB - SEE BELOW]. The team also accounted for vaccination [SURE THEY DID - IN WAYS THAT WILL SURPRISE YOU] and possible reinfections in their post-pandemic samples, and still found evidence of persistent viral proteins [WHICH THEY WERE ON A MISSION TO FIND]. This means the false positive signal was very low [AND THE AMOUNT OF DECEPTIONS AND LIES IS VERY HIGH].

The Lancet study itself, “Plasma-based antigen persistence in the post-acute phase of COVID-19” (2024.04.08), wants us to be left with the same conclusion:

Persistent symptoms among some individuals who develop COVID-19 have led to the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 might, in some form or location, persist for long periods following acute infection.1, 2 Studies on SARS-CoV-2 persistence to date, however, have been limited by small and non-representative study populations, short durations since acute infection, unclear documentation of vaccination and reinfection histories, and the absence of a true negative comparator group to assess assay specificity (appendix p 2). To address these limitations, we evaluated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antigens in once-thawed plasma from a well characterised group of 171 adults (appendix pp 3, 9) at several timepoints in the 14 months following RNA-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, most of whom were studied before vaccination or reinfection (so-called pandemic-era participants)

“The team also accounted for vaccination”? How “most” was the most studied before vaccination?

Let’s see how the sausage was made!

And we’ll see that in the “Supplementary Appendix” to the study with this final full disclosure:

Study participants

We studied 171 pandemic-era participants, who contributed 660 plasma specimens obtained between 0.9 and 14.1 months following initial SARS-CoV-2 symptom onset, and 250 pre-pandemic-era participants who each contributed one plasma specimen between 2003 and 2019 (Table S1). The groups were similar in age, but the pandemic-era group had more women, more Latino and White participants, and higher measures of socioeconomic status. Both groups originated from underlying research studies that were deliberatively enriched for people with HIV (PWH), and, as a result, the prevalence of HIV infection was similar in the two groups but much higher than the general population. All but four participants in pandemic-era group developed COVID-19 prior to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and prior to the Omicron era. Of the 660 pandemic-era plasma specimens included, 93% were collected prior to July 1, 2021.

So, they collected 46 samples after July 1, 2021, and 614 shortly before? And please remind me when did the Covid “vaccinations” start in the US?

ourworldindata.org is telling us that "Covid “vaccination” started in the US on Dec. 15, 2020, and by July 1, 2021 there were 102.26 “vaccine” doses administered in the US per 100 Americans. More than one per nose! In all fairness, the study authors couldn’t have known about this disappointing reality on the ground while they have been sitting all this time in their ivory tower of “honest scientific research”.

Who’s the misinformation spreader here?