More commentary on mRNA injections and “unhelpful” IgG4 antibodies – nothing on higher rate of negatives on EUDRA for AZN
From here:
“Tess than a month after the CDC marked the two-year anniversary of the first administered COVID-19 vaccine by telling Americans to get a bivalent booster, two peer-reviewed German studies have found that mRNA vaccines — the vast majority of the U.S. market — induce worse antibodies compared to traditional adenovirus vaccines.”
On the face of it, this represents progress In the study of the deleterious impacts of C19 mRNA injections from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech in general, but the seeming bias towards Astra Zeneca viral vector needs to address this point made here:
With a more detailed discussion on estimates of URF’s and global injuries and deaths from injections here:
Maybe the far higher incidence of adverse events and deaths reported to the European adverse event reporting system – EUDRA – can easily be explained. Maybe there are other deleterious effects in the Astra Zeneca viral vector injection that have not been researched.
Here is the table that represents deaths and harms from the different injections reported to EUDRA that combines the adverse event reports with the doses administered (sourced from OurWorldinData):
The Astra Zeneca viral vector C19 injection comes out horribly in comparison to the already toxic C19 mRNA injections of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna.
So, whilst the work done to highlight the dominance of IgG4 post C19 mRNA injection is laudable, care must be taken not to leap “out of the frying pan and into the fire”.
From an unqualified layman’s perspective (or should I say “layperson’s” perspective) it would seem that some sort of cocktail of IVM/HCQ treatment protocols and IgG3 and IgG1 supplements might be the “way to go”.
We don’t know whether the instructions in the C19 mRNA and viral vector injections to produce spike proteins continue indefinitely – so will always combine in some “matter/anti-matter” neutralizing reaction. Maybe this means that permanent (hourly, daily or weekly) additions of igG1 and IgG3 antibodies need to be administered because the mRNA instructions to produce spike protein increase as those two are replaced. I certainly have no clue!
It is my view that all C19 injections are toxic, but that the future research will indicate not only these types of antibody differentials, but that there is no “one size fits all” type of injection. Certain injections affect different age cohorts, genders and races differently.
It would be fantastic if there was research available from Argentina, whose injection roll-out is a huge “melting pot” of different injections and vaccines.
Onwards!
I drink a lot of coffee – if you like my “stuff” but don’t want to pay for a subscription you can buy me a cup to show (any!) appreciation here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan
As layman I have questions too about this process. From the studies (and charts) that I have seen IgG3 start a rapid decline "after" the second injection. I have no knowledge about whether or not IgG1 or IgG3 anti-bodies can be added or if they would make much of difference here? It appears that the immune system (as an integrated unit) has been changed permanently. Perhaps that is not the case? We must hope so. The prospect of having billions of humans on the planet with damaged immune system is frightening.
We do NOT need ANY more toxic RNA gene therapy...stop all of it NOW ...and only approve such if in the future transparent studies of its long term safety is provide...otherwise this is a bio-weapon and outlawed!