"Vaccinated" As Rabid Dogs - Counterview

A reality check of the fairy-tale CMAJ "study" leads to some stunning conclusions.

As has been described in my previous post “New CMAJ "Study" "Proves" Unvaccinated Are As Good As Rabid Dogs“, and also aptly labeled a junk science study in this German language article, that you can still enjoy with Google translate if German isn’t your forte, the widely trumped up hit piece on the unvaccinated from Apr. 25, 2022 comes to a conclusion that “Risk among unvaccinated people cannot be considered self-regarding. Considerations around equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be considered in the formulation of vaccination policy.“ I.e., a not too subtle call to forced jabbing of the pesky holdouts.

For a rigorous rebuttal of the “study” results by none other than the eminent Dr. Byram Bridle himself, read his post “Fiction Disguised as Science to Promote Hatred“, where he changes just one key parameter, the immunity level of the unvaccinated, in order to reflect the reality on the ground, to arrive at the conclusion coinciding with the title of this post of mine.

Also, this post by Brownstone Institute offers another excellent rebuttal: “Fear and Loathing of the Unvaccinated Gets Another Boost“ (2022.04.28).

Without repeating much of the “study” analysis, let us go one step further in this scientific endeavor, preserving most of the original setup, adding just one dash of real-world tar to this toothsome barrel of $cientific honey.

The initial “study” setup:

• The population of 10 million

• 8 million of which are jabbed, 40-80% thus immune (depending on the initial setup, these variations somehow not perspiring to the “study” graphic results), leaving 20-60% sussceptible, or 1.6-4.8 million vulnerable-jabbed

• 2 million unvaccinated, 20% of which previously recovered and also immune, leaving 80% of them, or 1.6 million vulnerable-not-jabbed

• that results in the grand total of 3.2-6.4 million vulnerable (jabbed or otherwise) in the initial “study” setup before the “pandemic”.

The glorious authors conclude that the 1.6 million of the vulnerable-not-jabbed are the only trouble on the horizon for the 1.6-.4.8 million vulnerable-jabbed, and without them their vulnerable “community” would have been rid of its original Covid-19 sin in no time, the “pandemic” dying out never to return. Or so it is strongly implied by the moralizing musings that constitute a fair chunk of the “study”.

So be it, let us forcefully jab the remaining 20% of the holdouts and infants, consequences to their human rights and health be damned. We then get:

• The population of 10 million

• 40-80% jabbed translate into 2-6 million vulnerable-jabbed

How this change from 6.4 million to 6 million of vulnerable could ever conceivably make all the difference, on the less protective end of the “vaccine” efficacy scale of the “study”, is beyond the point here. Let us then contribute our real-world insight and introduce the wear-off of the protective effect of the jab with time, say 10% each month after 3 months after the jabbing, being very generous toward the actual jab durability, especially with the Omicron variant:

• after 4 months of most-comprehensive and simultaneous-instantaneous jabbing and no virus in sight, we get 0.4-0.8 million additional vulnerable, bringing the total number of vulnerable to 2.8-6.4 million

• after 5 months, we thus get 3.52-6.76 million vulnerable

And the 5-months time is all it takes to exceed the original “study” vulnerability threshold. Very conservatively.

When the next variant strikes, the jabbed can now happily mingle between themselves and only themselves, feeling safe and communal. But will they be any safer?

The tragedy of science, as we know, lies in an ugly fact slaying a beautiful theory. Every single time. Let us now bring in more ugly facts the modest “study” authors rather conveniently omitted in their fit of righteous hatred toward the egoistic unvaccinated:

• the subsequent jabs tend to wear off much faster than after 3 months, on an accelerated schedule:

  

• natural immunity, on the contrary, has still to be proven to fade, break-through cases in naturally recovered and not jabbed, before or after, yet to be confirmed with positive viral replication tests on two occasions, not with the faulty PCR or rapid tests:

  

• to add insult to injury, the immunity of the jabbed is inadequate and will be such for the rest of their miserable lives, unlike the natural immunity of the unvaccinated:

  

• bottling up in one’s boundaries with Zero-Covid policies won’t work, as the examples of New Zealand, Australia, and, most prominently, China prove beyond reasonable doubt:

  

• and even if the whole world would be 100% jabbed (which is not going to happen any time soon, or, like, never), there would still remain those 20-60% vulnerable-jabbed, ready to breed the new variants and spread them among themselves;

• not to mention animal reservoirs that have been proven to exist starting from rodents, through house pets, to deer and beyond. Jab that!

  

• not to mention the incidents of adverse events from latent virus activation, immunological conditions, heart inflammations, cancers, blood clots and worse, from the spike proteins and modified mRNA suppressing the innate immune responses and DNA repair mechanisms, and damaging tissues:

  

• not to mention that there is an upper limit to the amount of LNPs alone that one can take until the upper cumulative tolerance dose has been reached and the Grim Reaper comes to collect his harvest:

  

Any way you cut it, you get a wrong incentive to get jabbed indiscriminately, to paraphrase Roald Dahl and his “Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator“:

Ignoring reality does not make it go away: the “jabbing community” is doomed if it continues on its chosen path. All we can do is keep bringing up this ugly fact to their clouded attention in a hope that they just might clue in before it’s too late. Well, at least some of them.