Covid shots could lead to a weak immune system - AIDS.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mar 18, 2022
52
11
8
#1
Of course these studies should have been done before they started injecting everyone.

Incredible.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.07.21253098v2



1. You take the shot.

2. You get both protective (good) and non-protective (neutral) or possibly enhancing (very bad), antibodies.

3. The protective antibodies are enough to prevent you from getting seriously sick or dying. We all cheer, and all appears to be well in the world. The results look good -- for a while.

4. Over time the antibody titer wanes. Now you don't have enough neutralizing antibodies but still have some of the bad ones.
 
Mar 18, 2022
52
11
8
#2
This guy explain more.


"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 is not good. Now we know why the stabs target very high antibody titers -- several times that of natural infection, and the doses were not adjusted down.

I had wondered about that: It makes exactly no sense to target wildly-higher titers than natural infection with a vaccine, yet all of the shots do exactly that. The question was why and now we have the answer: A large percentage of the antibodies produced are not neutralizing, so to get enough that are they cranked up the dose.

This is dangerous -- very dangerous -- because the non-neutralizing antibodies can enhance infection. What we don't know, because we didn't take the time, is whether the decay is linear in both sorts or whether one decays first. But again, this is data we did not have before we mass-stabbed people -- and unfortunately it explains why dosing was set where it was and that fact, and the potential bad side of all those non-neutralizing antibodies, which could lead to SEVERE ADE and kill you down the road was never discussed nor explained by any of the manufacturers."
 
Mar 18, 2022
52
11
8
#3
https://www.voiceforscienceandsolid...s-scientific-updates-during-pandemic-times-16

By expert Geert Vanden Bossche

1. AIDS-Like"Chronic Covid" is Taking Over Europe, Australia and NZ

“Chronic Covid is a situation where the vaccinated cannot develop natural immunity, cannot quickly clear infections, and remain ill and infectious for extended period of time. Such repeat infections progressively damage their immunity to the point of not being able to clear Covid at all. That would lead to people being chronically infected, infecting others, and overwhelmed with toxic Covid viral proteins,while remaining immuno-suppressed.”
 
Mar 18, 2022
52
11
8
#4
They stopped publishing this data.

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-will-hide-vaccinated-cases-and?s=r

"What they are trying to hide is that the pandemic among the unvaccinated is essentially over, whereas it is just getting started among the boosted.
Look at the numbers: Compared to week 6-9, cases in week 7-10 among the unvaccinated barely increased by 1%, from 59,904 cases to 60,372. For the boosted, cases increased by 14%, from 543,809 to 617,982!
For the vulnerable 60-69 year old category, the boosted 60-69 year olds get sick 4.25 TIMES as much as unvaccinated 60-69 year olds."
 

loveme1

Senior Member
Oct 30, 2011
8,138
216
63
#5
The decision to trial the new technology jabs must remain personal. Inform yourselves and then decide if the benefit outweighs the risk etc… Like many of you I could share stories of strokes, heart attacks.. death post jab.. many will dismiss which is fine.. but we all can share and draw our own conclusions.

There is a dark agenda at work.. but in GOD we trust.

When a pathogen can cause severe respiratory distress.. one can become very poorly and may believe these jabs will prevent that. It is terrible indeed. Nothing is fool proof just part of our experience here at this time.
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
13,614
9,127
113
#6
Everything I've seen and read leads me to continue to believe the horrifying projection that everyone who received the mRNA injection, or vector shots, and not some placebo, has 2 to 5 years.

Gotta be wrong on this. Unfortunately, it looks to be true.
 

JohnDB

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2021
6,278
2,556
113
#7
Or....
You can catch covid and have it completely destroy your immune system like my Father in law had...

43% of those who become infected with covid will get "long covid" with issues arriving around 4 months after recovering from initial symptoms.
 

loveme1

Senior Member
Oct 30, 2011
8,138
216
63
#8
Or....
You can catch covid and have it completely destroy your immune system like my Father in law had...

43% of those who become infected with covid will get "long covid" with issues arriving around 4 months after recovering from initial symptoms.
As it doesn’t prevent transmission one is at risk regardless of the new technology jabs.

I have personal accounts and lost loved one’s…. a mix of jabbed and non jabbed. So my belief is either way there is risk.
 

loveme1

Senior Member
Oct 30, 2011
8,138
216
63
#9
Everything I've seen and read leads me to continue to believe the horrifying projection that everyone who received the mRNA injection, or vector shots, and not some placebo, has 2 to 5 years.

Gotta be wrong on this. Unfortunately, it looks to be true.
Hopefully not.. GOD has a plan bigger and better for when man delves in darkness.
 

JohnDB

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2021
6,278
2,556
113
#10
As it doesn’t prevent transmission one is at risk regardless of the new technology jabs.

I have personal accounts and lost loved one’s…. a mix of jabbed and non jabbed. So my belief is either way there is risk.
Agreed. There's no 100% safety in anything.
Except for transmission risk.

Transmission risks are dependent upon the amount of antibodies you have at the time of exposure and the strain of covid you are exposed to and your physical condition. (Lots of variables)

Any medical treatment is a risk.
Catching the disease is a risk.

Everyone needs to choose for themselves and not pay attention so much to all those who sell fear and conspiracy theories. And BOTH SIDES ARE SELLING FEAR.

Currently IMHO there are fewer risks associated for taking the vaccine than not. There are those who are susceptible to vaccine injuries from vaccines. Gillian Bar syndrome was a known result from J&J's vaccine and the AstraZenneca vaccine. Why they promoted those is beyond my understanding.
The mRNA vaccines have known side effects as well and those side effects have not been discussed by anyone to date. All they mention is the heart issues which are NOT the side effect that is known. It can possibly be a result of another side effect but the truth is not being discussed by anyone at the current time as the KNOWN side effect has not been reported.

So basically the truth is being ignored by EVERYONE who is overly concerned and posting about the situation. Lies are being regurgitated at an exponential rate by politically driven robot hacks.

If only someone would stand up and tell the truth...it isn't sensational, it isn't what we want to hear...and it isn't pleasant. But it's the truth.
 
A

Avery

Guest
#11
Recently released Pfizer documents also show that, in the first week after the shot, people of all ages experienced a temporary weakening of the immune system. Oh goody.
 

loveme1

Senior Member
Oct 30, 2011
8,138
216
63
#12
Agreed. There's no 100% safety in anything.
Except for transmission risk.

Transmission risks are dependent upon the amount of antibodies you have at the time of exposure and the strain of covid you are exposed to and your physical condition. (Lots of variables)

Any medical treatment is a risk.
Catching the disease is a risk.

Everyone needs to choose for themselves and not pay attention so much to all those who sell fear and conspiracy theories. And BOTH SIDES ARE SELLING FEAR.

Currently IMHO there are fewer risks associated for taking the vaccine than not. There are those who are susceptible to vaccine injuries from vaccines. Gillian Bar syndrome was a known result from J&J's vaccine and the AstraZenneca vaccine. Why they promoted those is beyond my understanding.
The mRNA vaccines have known side effects as well and those side effects have not been discussed by anyone to date. All they mention is the heart issues which are NOT the side effect that is known. It can possibly be a result of another side effect but the truth is not being discussed by anyone at the current time as the KNOWN side effect has not been reported.

So basically the truth is being ignored by EVERYONE who is overly concerned and posting about the situation. Lies are being regurgitated at an exponential rate by politically driven robot hacks.

If only someone would stand up and tell the truth...it isn't sensational, it isn't what we want to hear...and it isn't pleasant. But it's the truth.
Hey John..

I’m purposely speaking from personal experience..

I believe we each should be at liberty to decide whether the benefit outweighs the risk to self.
I could present an example for and against but long ago realised there is a risk in having and in not.
Long term.. time will tell.
I spent hours reading pro jab information that is readily available.
One jab used an adenovirus from chimp faeces.. to develop that vaccine.
Then the mRNA technology of using your own body system to create the spike proteins within, after bypassing your body’s natural defence by hiding the mRNA inside nano lipids seemed unnecessary for most.
I don’t want to sell fear.. after all so many have trialled these jabs. It is what it is now.
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
37,436
6,914
113
#13
Of course these studies should have been done before they started injecting everyone.

Incredible.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.07.21253098v2



1. You take the shot.

2. You get both protective (good) and non-protective (neutral) or possibly enhancing (very bad), antibodies.

3. The protective antibodies are enough to prevent you from getting seriously sick or dying. We all cheer, and all appears to be well in the world. The results look good -- for a while.

4. Over time the antibody titer wanes. Now you don't have enough neutralizing antibodies but still have some of the bad ones.
If this were true then we would expect to see bigger and badder outbreaks in the most vaccinated countries in the world. For example take China with their exemplary 0% Covid policy. They don't play around. Oh, that may not be the best example right now with these massive outbreaks in Shanghai and Beijing.
 

JohnDB

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2021
6,278
2,556
113
#14
Hey John..

I’m purposely speaking from personal experience..

I believe we each should be at liberty to decide whether the benefit outweighs the risk to self.
I could present an example for and against but long ago realised there is a risk in having and in not.
Long term.. time will tell.
I spent hours reading pro jab information that is readily available.
One jab used an adenovirus from chimp faeces.. to develop that vaccine.
Then the mRNA technology of using your own body system to create the spike proteins within, after bypassing your body’s natural defence by hiding the mRNA inside nano lipids seemed unnecessary for most.
I don’t want to sell fear.. after all so many have trialled these jabs. It is what it is now.
I've not been reading any of the MSM articles...they will quote just about anybody regardless of whether it's true or not...claim a trial study is now fact when it's just a precursor before the real study is done with tight controls. There's millions of them and 99% go unfunded or without significant results.

I have been reading the real studies done with tight controls. There's enough data now for the epidemiologist to begin creating tables. And they have been.

There's no clear winner at this point.

Going unvaccinated means that you likely will get infected and have a 50% chance of coming out unscathed.

Vaccines aren't force fields...but your chances of getting infected are much lower. However, there's a chance of gaining a vaccine injury of some sort. And if you do become infected your chances of developing long covid drop drastically.

It's a gamble either way.

I did spit out my gum when I heard that some people were trying to mandate vaccinations. We used to call that a human rights violation.
 

Blade

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2019
1,799
630
113
#15
Well praise GOD for the BLOOD OF JESUS! Somethings being shared here are not facts. We walk by faith not sight. We don't go by what the world says but what GOD has already said. Now faith works both ways. You believe some of the stuff said here..thats what you will get. So see what GOD says and speak that since His words are out side of time and HE can not lie. Trust in FAITH what GOD says not man. Yeah put faith in that thing your taking pray over it so it does ONLY what it was meant todo no more no less.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
#16
Of course these studies should have been done before they started injecting everyone.

Incredible.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.07.21253098v2



1. You take the shot.

2. You get both protective (good) and non-protective (neutral) or possibly enhancing (very bad), antibodies.

3. The protective antibodies are enough to prevent you from getting seriously sick or dying. We all cheer, and all appears to be well in the world. The results look good -- for a while.

4. Over time the antibody titer wanes. Now you don't have enough neutralizing antibodies but still have some of the bad ones.
Doesn't this say that the antibodies produced by your immune system triggered by mRNA vaccines had advantages over antibodies produced by your immune system triggered by infections of COVID alone? Isn't that what it proved?

Summary
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. 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 seasonal human coronaviruses OC43 and HKU1. Neutralizing activity of NTD mAbs but not RBD mAbs against a clinical viral isolate carrying E484K as well as extensive changes in the NTD was abolished, suggesting that a proportion of vaccine induced RBD binding antibodies may provide substantial protection against viral variants carrying single E484K RBD mutations.

Are you misunderstanding the sentence that begins with "However, the ration of binding neturalizing..."? This sentence is a positive reflection on the vaccine triggered antibodies. "Greater than that after natural infection" resulted in the last sentence ... "protection against viral variants carrying single E484K RBD mutation.

This means that vaccinated people had a greater immune response to variants carrying single E484K RBD mutation.

Now isn't that what it says? How are we coming up with two completely opposite ideas from the same Summary?

Just read it three times very slowly and tell me if I misunderstood it. I trust you to be honest, as you probably know more than me about antibodies and this subject and can explain what it means if I did not understand it.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
#17
Doesn't this say that the antibodies produced by your immune system triggered by mRNA vaccines had advantages over antibodies produced by your immune system triggered by infections of COVID alone? Isn't that what it proved?

Summary
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. 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 seasonal human coronaviruses OC43 and HKU1. Neutralizing activity of NTD mAbs but not RBD mAbs against a clinical viral isolate carrying E484K as well as extensive changes in the NTD was abolished, suggesting that a proportion of vaccine induced RBD binding antibodies may provide substantial protection against viral variants carrying single E484K RBD mutations.

Are you misunderstanding the sentence that begins with "However, the ration of binding neturalizing..."? This sentence is a positive reflection on the vaccine triggered antibodies. "Greater than that after natural infection" resulted in the last sentence ... "protection against viral variants carrying single E484K RBD mutation.

This means that vaccinated people had a greater immune response to variants carrying single E484K RBD mutation.

Now isn't that what it says? How are we coming up with two completely opposite ideas from the same Summary?

Just read it three times very slowly and tell me if I misunderstood it. I trust you to be honest, as you probably know more than me about antibodies and this subject and can explain what it means if I did not understand it.
As a follow up:

I mean I know it might require looking up some things to grasp it fully, but if this Summary in the science study was used as an example of a more advanced reading comprehension test paragraph on a college assessment test where you were asked to give your best answer as to what it was saying; I am guessing that my understanding would be closer to the correct one and that your comment on what it meant would be marked as failed.

Am I wrong here?
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
#18
As a follow up:

I mean I know it might require looking up some things to grasp it fully, but if this Summary in the science study was used as an example of a more advanced reading comprehension test paragraph on a college assessment test where you were asked to give your best answer as to what it was saying; I am guessing that my understanding would be closer to the correct one and that your comment on what it meant would be marked as failed.

Am I wrong here?
Looks like I was correct. The study you posted proves that mRNA vaccine-induced antibodies more effective than natural immunity in neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 and its high affinity variants.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-06629-2

This is a good thing.

There is not a hint of anything that could be turned into your statement "Over time the antibody titer wanes. Now you don't have enough neutralizing antibodies but still have some of the bad ones." Which makes no sense at all. Did you just make that up? LOL.

Antibody titer is a laboratory test that measures the level of antibodies in a blood sample.

I don't know why I am commenting. The fact than no one here has challenged you about your understanding of the Science study you referenced tells me that no one really cares about the facts and that I am wasting my time. But at least I learned something new about the benefits of mRNA vaccines and for that I thank you.

:)
 

JohnDB

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2021
6,278
2,556
113
#19
Looks like I was correct. The study you posted proves that mRNA vaccine-induced antibodies more effective than natural immunity in neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 and its high affinity variants.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-06629-2

This is a good thing.

There is not a hint of anything that could be turned into your statement "Over time the antibody titer wanes. Now you don't have enough neutralizing antibodies but still have some of the bad ones." Which makes no sense at all. Did you just make that up? LOL.

Antibody titer is a laboratory test that measures the level of antibodies in a blood sample.

I don't know why I am commenting. The fact than no one here has challenged you about your understanding of the Science study you referenced tells me that no one really cares about the facts and that I am wasting my time. But at least I learned something new about the benefits of mRNA vaccines and for that I thank you.

:)
People believe politicians over research scientists...and they are adamant and hostile over it. Meaning they prefer the words of a liar over facts.

It's nuts stuff.

Most people involved in research are there for positive, good, altruistic reasons. They want to help people...not hurt them. And during a global pandemic that's their cue to step up and do the very best they can.

Others...for whatever reason, do their very best with misinformation and lying.

The vaccines made from adenovirus have not done well (Astra Zenneca and J&J) they have caused problems for the recipients on a small scale. And as a result they have been pulled. It was predicted that this type of adenovirus vaccines for this virus were going to have more severe side effects. And it was true.
But then they swapped those side effects to the mRNA vaccines....and everyone gets confused.

The mRNA vaccines have two side effects...only one if they work. It will either kill you inside of two weeks or it will work and work well.

I've heard personally of only one person that got vaccinated that got the one known side effect from the mRNA vaccine that was known. (Out of millions) Otherwise....nope...nada...divide by zero.

The antivaxxers are desperate at this point. They are angry because of the attempted mandates. And where that is a separate issue. They are confusing the issues with misinformation.
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
37,436
6,914
113
#20
https://rumble.com/v12zp2m-these-ar...wolf-breaks-down-the-upsetting-statistic.html

"These Are Massive Crimes" - Dr. Naomi Wolf Breaks Down the Upsetting Statistics on Pregnant Women

https://rumble.com/v12z11w-naomi-wo...vax-for-pregnant-women-and-military-4.29.html

Naomi Wolf: Untold Dangers Of Covid Vax For Pregnant Women & Military (4.29.22) 8000 babies harmed

https://rumble.com/v12ykfk-covid-va...to-pregnant-and-lactating-dr.-naomi-wolf.html

Covid Vaccine is proven Hazardous to Pregnant & Lactating women! Dr. Naomi Wolf 29 April 2022