"COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been

"data generated in the development & testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies)"
"be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)."
"This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials."
"Covid-19: vaccination roll-out correlates with worse mortality trends" @InProportion2
https://t.co/MbAoJDXI2A

More from Robin Monotti MA FRSA⭐

The problem with meta-analysis like this is that it obfuscates the most important issue of treatment, which is timing.


This meta-analysis of controlled trials only looks at hospitalized patients. How long were the patients ill for before being hospitalized? One week? Two? Three? Too late for zinc ionophores (HCQ) (+ZINC? No zinc no point..) to work. Severe illness becomes bacterial in nature.

Was azythromycin administered when the bacterial infections were also too advanced? I have seen Azythromycin work with my very own eyes but that's not to say that if administered too late it may not save the patient. How many patients were given AZT & ventilated? It's all timing.

All the meta-analysis is telling us is if you leave it too late you may have missed the early window for antiviral zinc treatment (Zn+HCQ) & that if you are given AZT when you are ventilated or very severe it may too late for it to save you & corticosteroids may be last resort.

And of course antibiotics need also probiotics, or they may harm the bacterial flora which is part of the immune response. Difficult to tell from a meta-analysis how this problem was managed.
The evidence based science shows that medical face masks for the healthy do not alter rates of community transmission of SARSCoV2 while they contribute to the plastic pollution of planet. Cloth & masks of other materials increase rates of infection through nebulization spread.

"Speaking through some masks dispersed largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets..smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), a mask might be counterproductive."
https://t.co/jBQlWRxcEL


Influenza like illness rates 3 times higher with cloth masks when compared to control group:
https://t.co/djT0mfutv9
Prof. Carl Heneghan, Oxford University: "The high quality trial evidence for cloth masks suggest they increase your rate of reinfection."


Please note, droplets smaller than 120 microns can't be measured. SARSCoV2 is 0.14 microns. This means that the nebulization effect of medical masks could not be measured, not that it does not happen. ⬇️


The really small aerosols <1 μm [the ones that pass through ALL surgical masks] can penetrate all the way to the alveoli - the basic units for gas exchange

More from Category c19

Let's talk about MASKS!


Thread 1:


Masks increase mortality because breathing through them nebulizes aerosols into smaller ones which bypass mucosal immunity & reach all the way into the alveoli, leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).


"Aerosols..within the most breathable size range between 0.5 & 5 μm, can carry SARS-CoV-2 deep to the terminal alveoli..if this transmission pathway does exist, it would bypass the mucociliary clearance & incubation period of the virus in the upper

The filtration material itself of N95's average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm does not block finer aerosol laden with virions penetration, not to mention surgical masks.

You May Also Like