Vaccine SHedding
vaccine shedding breaks their narrative. If you vaccinate someone, and then THEY infect the UNVACCINATED, well there goes your "herd immunity" hypothesis. RIGHT OUT THE DOOR
It would turn out that the MORE people are vaccinated, the greater chance for unvaccinated to become infected because of vaccine shedding, which means that herd immunity is false....since it can only be ONE or the OTHER
They dun GOOFD
Herd Immunity vs Vaccine Shedding--which is more true?
If what I'm saying is true (a scenario outlined below), it would turn out this herd immunity hypothesis is just MASS GASLIGHTING
Because if you have a
- Population A that is unvaccinated
- And Population B that is HALF vaccinated
Then the presumption under HERD IMMUNITY (* a Hypothesis btw) is that Population A would have a higher rate of disease than Population B, because population B has a number of people that are essentially immune to being 'vectors'.
However, because of vaccine shedding, it could be the case (we don't know) that a number of folks between 0 and 50% could become infected, and of the other 50% that were vaccinated, a small number WILL DEVELOP THE INFECTION, as we've seen with the polio vaccine
This number, whatever it is could be higher than in population A, the unvaccinated. Because you are introducing the virus into the population, and we don't know the rate of vaccine shedding
We just have to rely on wikipedia saying "RARE EVENT". We need to know the rates. We MUST know otherwise we ought not implement any MANDATORY vaccine programs. And I'll tell you why
Vaccination as propaganda
Because of vaccine shedding, if the rate is sufficiently higher so that population B has a higher rate of infection than population A, then the vaccination "Herd Immunity" hypothesis is FAKE NEWS SCARE PROPAGANDA, to SCARE populations into vaccinating their kids. And as we know, these vaccines could be anything.
But even if the vaccines were "pure and true" and didn't have other agents that cause problems (in other words, they were simply 'vanilla' vaccines without dangerous adjuvants, cancer agents or tracking nanotech devices), it would STILL be an anticompetitive "protection racket" run by the pharma corporations with promotional, administrative, and enforcement pressures sponsored by the government.
Truly nasty stuff.
We demand answers on "Vaccine Shedding". We have real questions about this issue, and aren't just shilling for the "Big Homeschooling Industrial Complex" that doesn't exist
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 4841400209 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Haven't heard about the tracking nanotech devices in years. From what I can recall, there was speculation the nanotubes in vaccines could be used for communication via microwaves (HAARP). Do you have more info on this?
[–] ghost_of_aswartz [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
We know they are thinking about nanotech in vaccines, but no I dont' think there is solid proof of say 'nanobots' or other such things in vaccines. They are talking about targetting delivery, nanoemulsions (liposomal delivery), and this kind of thing. But there ARE the plans to do this kind of thing., You can see in some of the links below to very real projects in the DEFENSE / Research (DARPA) domain, where they are up to some very weird things in the domain of human-nano deliver interfaces
[–] CowWithBeef ago
If you don't fully trust everyone involved in the process of getting vaccines into your kids, you sure as shit shouldn't do it. Who knows what any of these companies and agencies are up to? We can only be sure that what they are doing is good for them.