SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

"What was discovered is that the fully vaccinated only have a smattering of immune protection for a very short amount of time – at most six months. After that, the artificial "immunity" provoked by the injections wanes rapidly, leaving a fully vaccinated person with no protection against infection of any kind, just like AIDS."

If this were true wouldn't the vaccinated be getting sick with everything under the sun?

Mystery chemicals?

"Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson warns that the indefinite and uncontrolled autoimmune response to the coronavirus spike protein that is provoked by these injections could produce "a wave of antibodies called anti-idiotype antibodies or Ab2s that continue to damage human bodies long after clearing either Sars-CoV-2 itself or those spike proteins that the shots cause the body’s cells to produce."

Alex Berenson's education is in history and economics. He is an author and former reporter. He has no training in science.

How are people supposed to just know that it's not?

That it's not what? A "real thing"? You can't even know that. People claim there is too much disinformation out there...that this is the core problem. But disinformation can only thrive in an environment with a lack of information. People claim that the "medical experts say"...but there are also medical experts that say very different things - including the doctor that helped to develop the mRNA technology.

That's why I sometimes get so frustrated with the "it's the unvaccinated' fault"...like we are some group that is just willfully obstinate or blatantly indifferent. It's especially painful to be stigmatized when I am sincerely looking for answers. My experience in my circles is that we tend to more cautious, analytical, bigger/whole picture kind of thinkers/processors. (I'm struggling how to explain what I'm saying because I don't want to suggest those getting the vaccine are NOT also those things.) I just know that I had questions I needed answered to make an informed decision - which is a prerequisite to getting a vaccine that is EUA. The answers I've received haven't resolve those questions.

If this were true wouldn't the vaccinated be getting sick with everything under the sun?

How would we know if they were? I read a recent article (I know, not fair to reference w/o citing, can find it if you are interested) that a major life insurance company is reporting a 40% increase in death claims - and these deaths are not being attributed predominantly to covid. Evidently, they would consider a 10% death rate during a pandemic to be an extreme. Can we connect these two dots? Idk that we can...but it does leave the question as to why this sudden jump.

Alex Berenson's education is in history and economics. He is an author and former reporter. He has no training in science.

Certainly fair enough...same as I called out in Dee's article...wouldn't attempt to debate you on that and have no desire because my main intention was to just share some info on the subject of VAIDS...not to make any kind of claim. But many of us get censored every day on platforms that have governmental protection (simply due to the fact that they have explicitly agreed NOT to act as editors) that can't even make the claim they have done any actual research. So my question is - do you look at the credentials of everyone that makes claims..or just the claims that don't fit the narrative you've adopted? (That sounds so bitchy but it is totally not my intention. ) I ask because I can find questions in anything I read. "What do you want to hear? I can tell you where to look."

Here's the thing, I can't "know" unless I had an advanced degree and actively worked on these vaccines and the trials and so on. I can't "know" unless I absolutely understand the science behind it. I have a basic understanding of the science behind it, but put me in a lab and you aren't going to get a vaccine. You'll get me at the same level I was in college with chemistry and biology. I'd have fun with the bunsen burners and stuff, but nothing productive would come from it. Good grades, but not a professional.

Given those limitations, to do anything from take a Tylenol for a headache or have needed surgery or get a vaccine in a pandemic, I am reduced to listening to the foremost experts in science. People who actually do know or continually seek knowledge in more useful ways than my internet sleuthing. That knowledge changes as professionals in the field learn more and have their findings replicated and that is a good thing. That gets us from trepanning to actual medicine. That means that treatments will evolve. Sometimes unexpected side-effects are found with treatments. So when you posted about VAIDS, I got onto Dr. Google to see what he had for me there. What I found was nothing substantive. I wasn't looking with an agenda. I was looking because hey, I have three vaccines and if this is a thing I want to know about it for myself.

What I came away with was a lot of nothing, and thank goodness for that. But yes, I looked. There are people with science degrees who believe things like the earth is flat, so you can find someone with letters beside their name that look convincing. What you don't find is those people highly regarded in the scientific world. You don't find them working on something hugely important like COVID vaccines. I have to not only research these things, but use some logic too. I do not for a second believe that the same people who developed a vaccine to save millions of lives and who also took those vaccines would bury the side-effect of it making us all AIDS patients in the end. There is evil in this world, but it's not so incredibly widespread as that. There's also the point that I'm triple-vaxxed and lots of people around me also are, but we're not seeing Karposi Sarcoma. I had a UTI that my body fought off without antibiotics just last month. If my total immune response were damaged, I would not be sitting here at my PC feeling okay. I knew people who died of AIDS and I've seen what happens and that is not something I'm starting to see all around me as I should right now if this were legitimate.

Edited because I actually wrote "anti-biotics" instead of antibiotics and shamed myself.

[This message edited by DevastatedDee at 7:13 PM, Saturday, January 8th]

One more thing I feel I need to say for context...

I know many of you have had experiences of dealing with people that have attitudes like, "Covid is not real...it's not even the flu, government's not going to tell me what to do, blah, blah, blah."

I can imagine that is especially infuriating coming from someone that's not lost anybody to covid.

I am neither of those things...and I find those people insulting as well. I lost my very close friend less than 3 months ago. I don't take any of this lightly.

I know some of you have experienced being stigmatized for your differing perspective. I'm sorry for that. I find that as egregious as what I experience.

I actually am more in line with your described way of thinking and approach to health (if I am understanding you correctly) than you would think.

I prefer not to take medicine. Just ask my Dr. I recently had to have 2 MRI's within two weeks of each other and had myself twisted in knots about having that much contrast in such a short period of time.

I also know what it is like to be very very sick. I had a severe case of pneumonia in my twenties. I was coughing up blood, could not go to the bathroom unassisted or hold my own drink or eat anything. I have never smoked anything, exercise and eat healthy. I do not ever want to experience anything like that again.

I do not make any medical decisions without looking at the pros and cons and I really do consider the source of the information. I also consider how my decision will impact others.

I was in no way trying to be rude towards your post. I was interested and did some reading.

Certainly fair enough...same as I called out in Dee's article...wouldn't attempt to debate you on that and have no desire because my main intention was to just share some info on the subject of VAIDS...not to make any kind of claim. But many of us get censored every day on platforms that have governmental protection (simply due to the fact that they have explicitly agreed NOT to act as editors) that can't even make the claim they have done any actual research. So my question is - do you look at the credentials of everyone that makes claims..or just the claims that don't fit the narrative you've adopted? (That sounds so bitchy but it is totally not my intention. duh ) I ask because I can find questions in anything I read. "What do you want to hear? I can tell you where to look."

I understand the concern about things being censored on social media platforms and I have my own feelings of discomfort about that, but I've also seen the power of these platforms to spread conspiracy theories and misinformation lead to family members dying of COVID because they didn't believe it was even a thing and they kept spreading that stuff right on through being in the actual hospital, one only stopped due to the intubation before her death. After she died, her daughter shared all over FaceBook how the hospital had killed her. So what you have in one segment of my family is people getting most of their views on COVID from FaceBook posts and a person actually dying of it becomes a conspiracy instead of a tragedy. Bolsonaro of Brazil was censored on social media after he deliberately spread COVID misinformation that probably helped influence some of the less skeptical in my family. Otherwise intelligent people have been lied to and died because of lies on the internet and I do have some feelings about that. I can't argue with them anymore because they're not here to argue with.

I think I've demonstrated that I do look at the credentials of those who make claims, particularly the ones that seem to go contrary to what the majority of the top scientists in the world have shared. I trust the science on so many things because I simply have no choice. Do I know for 10000% sure that my daughter's doctor is right about a medication she prescribes? No, I don't. But I damned sure don't know and I have to trust experts on certain things. My kids' dad is a master mechanic and I can tell him all day long what's wrong with my car, but I look like an idiot doing so if he looks at it at tells me something different. Arguing with him about my transmission would be insane. Telling him I read something online that says different from what he says would probably have him telling me to fix it myself and I wouldn't blame him. If I came at him with "this accountant at my workplace says to put this additive in the gas tank" and he comes back with "that will destroy your engine", I'm going to listen to the mechanic and not the accountant. We can't exist in this world without looking to the most reliable sources for information because not one of us can know everything.

I don't go looking for things to fit a narrative because hey, I don't know enough to have a narrative about vaccines. I'm not interested in getting medical treatment for a political point. I like myself a bit too much for that. I do consider the source when reading up on things. When the source for getting the vaccine is all the top legit scientific community and the sources for not are anti-vaccine in general and political ones, I go with the actual top scientists.

One more thing I feel I need to say for context...

I know many of you have had experiences of dealing with people that have attitudes like, "Covid is not real...it's not even the flu, government's not going to tell me what to do, blah, blah, blah."

I can imagine that is especially infuriating coming from someone that's not lost anybody to covid.

I am neither of those things...and I find those people insulting as well. I lost my very close friend less than 3 months ago. I don't take any of this lightly.

I know some of you have experienced being stigmatized for your differing perspective. I'm sorry for that. I find that as egregious as what I experience.

Lord yes, and my sympathies to you too. It is the WORST way to be right when someone dies because they were wrong.

Dee, you're much better at expressing my thoughts than I am.

Dee has expressed all of the points I would have made so well and so completely that I think I'm best off just echoing her 100%. I'll post if I think I have something different to add, but so far, she's hitting it out of the park.

I was in no way trying to be rude towards your post.

I did't take it that way, zebra. You made a fair point and I appreciate that. Sincerely.

Dee - my girl crush - and this is exactly where I get stuck. The narrative on the covid vaccine and how it would work has been continually changing. I'm to accept that because the science is not completely known, is continually evolving. But when something like VAID is brought up it is completely ignored or dismissed because we're not seeing overwhelming evidence of it - possibly, yet. Can you see the conflict there?

This doesn't even take into account the question of whether the powers that be (google included) will actually allow us to see it. The mass censorship only furthers the doubt by creating its own set of questions. This is not to make the argue of "oh yeah..it's there...they just won't let you know." I know many will argue that the censorship is a "greater good" thing, preventing the spread of disinformation. But how the hell am I to make an informed decision if not allowed to see all sides? If all this "disinformation" can not really be discredited - must instead be controlled by censorship - then it begs the question of if it's really disinformation.

And again, none of this is to argue for or against the vaccine. I'm just trying to lend some understanding to why some of us have not made the decision to get the vaccine.

It is the WORST way to be right when someone dies because they were wrong.

Maybe. But I could tell you about the hospital experience that would leave you even more afraid - but it's doubtful that you would believe it and the rebuttals that most people give just make the experience that much more painful.

It made this statistic quoted earlier stand out to me for different reasons:

As in 81% of our COVID cases are fully vaxxed. 60% of hospitalizations are fully vaxxed. 60% of ICU are fully vaxxed. 22% of deaths are fully vaxxed.

Truthsetmefree -- I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with comments like this.

I could tell you about the hospital experience that would leave you even more afraid - but it's doubtful that you would believe it and the rebuttals that most people give just make the experience that much more painful.

If you're going to tell us, tell us, and let us evaluate it as a data point in our overall experience. If you're not going to tell us, that's your right, but don't try to scare us with it and accuse us of biased and suspect judgment.

Edited to add: I should have done what I said I'd do and let Dee speak for me. I'm willing to listen to any firsthand experience that's authentically offered. I realize that you're speaking from a place of being dismissed and attacked. I'm speaking from a place of being told I'm a sheep who refuses to look at the truth. It's triggering on both sides, I'm sure.

[This message edited by BraveSirRobin at 7:20 PM, Saturday, January 8th]

Dee - my girl crush smooch - and this is exactly where I get stuck. The narrative on the covid vaccine and how it would work has been continually changing. I'm to accept that because the science is not completely known, is continually evolving. But when something like VAID is brought up it is completely ignored or dismissed because we're not seeing overwhelming evidence of it - possibly, yet. Can you see the conflict there?

This doesn't even take into account the question of whether the powers that be (google included) will actually allow us to see it. The mass censorship only furthers the doubt by creating its own set of questions. This is not to make the argue of "oh yeah..it's there...they just won't let you know." I know many will argue that the censorship is a "greater good" thing, preventing the spread of disinformation. But how the hell am I to make an informed decision if not allowed to see all sides? If all this "disinformation" can not really be discredited - must instead be controlled by censorship - then it begs the question of if it's really disinformation.

And again, none of this is to argue for or against the vaccine. I'm just trying to lend some understanding to why some of us have not made the decision to get the vaccine.

Girl crushing right back, woman.

I do get what you're saying. And listen, I get on a personal level that science can get it wrong. My mom lost a pregnancy in the 8th month because a drug she was given for nausea caused birth defects that killed the baby. The drug was banned not long after. Things can and do happen and scientists can be wrong or not foresee a side-effect and the effects can be disastrous.

If this disinformation spread was primarily a scientific disagreement between really smart educated people without agendas, maybe I'd side more with you. There aren't "all sides" to a lot of arguments. Some people think that birds aren't real, and I don't think they have a side. Most of the actual disagreements based on fact are probably boring as hell and very technical. I don't think it's a case of me not seeing the other sides as I've been all but bombarded by them by family members over the past couple of years. To the point where I joked that they needed to stay out of my kitchen because I store my dogs' heartworm pills in there and they can't have my Ivermectin, lol. But it hasn't all been crazy sounding stuff. Some things have been written to sound more intellectual than they wind up being and that's so dangerous.

Now where I land on this is whether I trust a vaccine developed by the top scientists in the world more than I trust COVID. COVID scares me a lot more. It's a new virus that does some pretty upsetting things to the body. We don't yet know the long-term effects of it. I am a lot more afraid of COVID than I am of vaccines. I want protection from it. Nature is pretty chaotic and we could also discuss the "did it come from a lab or from nature" and that's a whole other thing that I can't know. But even if it came from a lab and got out accidentally, that wasn't a thing created to help people. So thing either from nature that doesn't care about whether we live or die or thing created in a lab without good intentions vs vaccine created to save lives, vaccine wins to me.

It made this statistic quoted earlier stand out to me for different reasons:

As in 81% of our COVID cases are fully vaxxed. 60% of hospitalizations are fully vaxxed. 60% of ICU are fully vaxxed. 22% of deaths are fully vaxxed.

The thing is those numbers arent cited. I searched through provincial and national documents citing specific data and no where did i find the above.

The data i copied i can give reference to.

Understandably Loukas wants to keep his anonymity so providing which province or territory hes in isnt possible. The thing is its hard to believe those percentages when i cannot find reference to it anywhere.

Maybe. But I could tell you about the hospital experience that would leave you even more afraid - but it's doubtful that you would believe it and the rebuttals that most people give just make the experience that much more painful.

In this particular case, I can pretty much guarantee that my ex-SIL, though a sweet and kind person generally, died of COVID because her long-time drug addicted alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver body was no match for a virus like this. She was frail and I lived in fear from March 2020 on that her disbelief of COVID would end her. She possibly had a few more years because she had gotten sober and stayed that way for quite a while and was getting healthier and healthier. This, however, was too much to ask of her body.

That, and her daughter had no real argument for the hospital killing her beyond the usual COVID is a conspiracy theory stuff.

It made this statistic quoted earlier stand out to me for different reasons:

That statistic would be an anomaly compared to all others and I'd love to see where it came from.

[This message edited by DevastatedDee at 7:08 PM, Saturday, January 8th]

I realize that you're speaking from a place of being dismissed and attacked. I'm speaking from a place of being told I'm a sheep who refuses to look at the truth. It's triggering on both sides, I'm sure.

BSR - Thank you for this addition. I was really struggling with the comment prior so was trying to figure out how best to respond. I desperately want to further discussions and I desperately DON'T want to make someone that's willing to engage with me in honest discussion to feel attacked. I NEVER engage with someone that I might could think to be "a sheep who refuses to look at the truth". First off I don't KNOW the truth. Hell, sometimes I just fucking want to scream into the void, what IS the truth??? I sometimes just think the universe to be incredibly machiavellian to have brought me out of a place of such cognitive dissonance to only now throw me in even deeper waters. Other times I just wonder if I've gone crazy and just don't even know that I'm in an alter reality that isn't true at all. I fucking hate all this shit...every single god-damnable aspect of it.

I've done a lot of research...the layer beneath the layer beneath the layer. And yes, most people call that conspiracy. Perhaps it is...and I'm just too deep into it to realize it. But the very thing that provoked the deeper research - the just not being able to make sense of certain components - began to make more and more sense the deeper I went and the more dots I began to connect. It's a terrifying bigger picture...but it does resolve the cognitive dissonance. (Irony is not lost on me that this is all, too, very much similar to the other significant life experience not to be discussed in this forum...that strange place where the dissonance resolves and leaves a hell of thing to accept in its resolution.) So aside from the question of "maybe I'm just crazy"...the alternative piece I have to resolve is - "if I'm not crazy, do I bring you (relatively speaking) to this same conclusion? I know nothing to actually DO about it...so is it even kind to do that? It's just, damn it...sometimes I'm caught between desperately wanting someone to explain away this thing that now makes so much sense (and is subsequently terrifying) vs. if you can't, will you please just come sit with me in it? Because I'm fucking more than just merely concerned.

And on the surface this can seem incredibly off-topic and runs the risk of only further isolating me as I wade into the waters of the only aspect of it all that is even remotely socially acceptable to discuss.

All that being said, let me see if I can get caught up on the thread itself and get my thoughts re-centered to the topic at hand.

The mass censorship only furthers the doubt by creating its own set of questions.

Do you understand that the kind of censorship needed on this level would involved the complicity of scientists everywhere? The vast majority (I'd guess upwards of 95%) of scientists involved in the discovery and production of these vaccines are fully vaccinated, because they are directly involved with the research, or know how to discern between credible science and disreputable science.

The scientific method used to be taught in schools, at least it was when my daughters were in grade school and high school. To be considered credible science, it has to go through the scientific method. Scientists who present data that goes against mainstream scientific discovery are not following the scientific method. Scientific journals are also known by which ones publish stuff based on the scientific method and which ones don't. Doesn't mean there may not be useful stuff in the less-reputable journals, but any information would need to be taken with a grain of salt, and be further studied in a more rigorous environment to see if there's any validity to it. Also, scientific publications do allow for 'opinion' pieces from contributors, but those shouldn't be confused with rigorous studies. You have to look at how a study was carried out. And those outcomes need to be replicated by other people.

Are there anecdotal stories out there about bad reactions/breakthrough cases/false positive tests, etc? Sure. This stuff happens. Several years ago I was diagnosed with cancer, which required surgery. Seven weeks later I developed an abscess that led to a case of sepsis. Now, I know any sort of surgical procedure carries its own set of risks, although sepsis never came to mind. It was truly awful. But despite what I went through, five nights in the hospital, discharged home with a PICC line so that I could infuse my own antibiotics every day, I would NEVER tell anyone not to do this surgery if it were called for because I know it saved my life. But there are people out there who choose to fight diseases every day, such as cancer, with unproven methods. Hey, that's their call and their life, but when you have a highly virulent disease, is it really fair to make a choice that has such a profound effect on our society in general?

This is from the abstract of the non-peer-reviewed Lancet article:

Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals. The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose.

No mention of 'VAIDS' or general immunity problems to things other than Covid.

I skimmed the article. That's all I could do, since I'm not a specialist in the field. The article is about immunity to Covid, not about immunity in general. America's Frontline Doctors must be basing their claims on something in the article, but I don't know what, and they don't make it easy to check their claims. That bothers me - honest people are transparent, and I'm not so sure about these people.

BTW, the article also says that their results show a steeper decline in immunity than other studies do, and the unvaxed cohort experienced 3 times as many hospitalizations or deaths than the vaxed cohort did. (Both cohorts were the same size and over a million people each.)

*****

Does anyone care to discuss where they get their Covid news from and how they choose what to believe, what to doubt, and what to reject?

It’s interesting, had I supplied stats like 78% of COVID cases in Canada are unvaccinated, 79.5% of COVID hospitalization in Canada are unvaccinated, 75.6% of COVID deaths in Canada are unvaccinated, would anyone ask for my numbers to be cited?

Those are the numbers on the Canadian Government COVID-19 Daily Epidemiology Update.

They also match the narrative, so I’m sure they’d be accepted without question.

Here’s the interesting part. First, those numbers come from what the government estimates to be 78% of the COVID cases since they started their vaccination campaign. Secondly, when they started their vaccination campaign is absolutely crucial here, since they dated it Dec 14 2020. So they began documenting these numbers, when no one was vaxxed. It would also be another six months before roughly half the population had a chance to be vaccinated. However, during those six months, most regions were starting or in the middle of their second wave and then the third wave. So if have to spell it out, the government front loaded the numbers, and not just slightly. It’s very very dishonest stat. But it exists and for many, would be unquestioned.

A quick look for Ontario’s hospitalizations and vax status yielded me these numbers from their government site. In hospital but not ICU: 457 unvaxxed, 115 partially, 1353 fully vaxxed. In ICU: 123 unvaxxed, 18 partially, 137 fully vaxxed. I couldn’t tell you if these cases are because of COVID or with COVID, they don’t say, but there you are. As of January 8 2022.

As to the numbers I supplied earlier, I’d like to keep some anonymity so there’s that. But I assure you they exist on government site, for great white north. Also an interesting tidbit. The numbers I shared, were originally provided in our weekly reports back towards the end of august. I believe they began including them as a propaganda piece against the unvaxxed, and for three months, they went unquestioned, since they backed the narrative. Now that may be a cynical view, but it also coincided with province wide QR code that restricted the unvaxxed movements. So…. Who knows, maybe it’s just transparency, either way, for me I appreciate the numbers, regardless of who’s side of the narrative they come down on, because I’m on neither side of the narrative. And if the numbers continue to increase, as they have for us, that will be very troubling for every single one of us, regardless of vax status.

So, believe them if you want, or don’t if you don’t. I have no reason to lie, nor an agenda to push. More than anything else in life, we are all in this together.