What exactly does ‘unvaccinated’ mean now?
On 15 November Boris Johnson gave a press conference urging everyone to get their booster shots. This has caused much confusion in the minds of the thus far ‘fully vaccinated’. Are they indeed about to find themselves thrown back to the lowly ranks of ‘partially vaccinated’ or even, shock horror, ‘unvaccinated’ and therefore lose all their associated ‘freedoms’?
During the press conference, Johnson states the following:
‘Let me explain why that booster is absolutely crucial. Because over time the protection from two jabs starts to wane, but that third jab boosts protection back up to over 90% against systematic infection.’
Does it? How on earth can we know that? And how long does this 3rd shot protection last? Will people need a fourth shot even sooner due to some attrition effect? What are the cumulative risks of toxicity from the shots? What are the immune risks from consecutive 6 monthly assaults that have not been tested longitudinally in this sequence?
This bizarre game of vaccine whack-a-mole has a lot of previously ‘good citizens’ tentatively starting to question the mainstream narrative of covid management. It is very easy to see how this ‘strategy’ benefits the drug companies. It is less obvious to understand how well it will benefit those lining up for additional injections. The people in question have already had two shots of a novel ‘vaccine’ that has not proved entirely effective. The solution: a third shot of exactly the same vaccine — or in many cases, a ‘mix n match’ approach. Should you have received the AstraZeneca, which does not come with ‘booster recommendation’, you may be diverted onto a Pfizer booster. This of course prompts further questions: would such a first shot of Pfizer (following two AZ), which was designed as a two shot course (which is now seemingly inadequate in those that have received it) require a second booster? Confused? Well, that’s just the powers that be: heaven help the patient.
None of these ad hoc regimens have been properly tested and it seems that little thought has been given to possible interaction problems. The growing concerns of subsequent doses barely even seem to register with the regulatory bodies devising these bizarre, changeable timetables.
This gung ho approach is incredibly reckless. The adverse event Yellow Card and VAERS reporting systems are signalling, by orders of magnitude, problems worse than any vaccine in recent history. A vaccine that offers six months’ protection is not a product worthy of pursuing, given the unknown cumulative harms of repeated doses. We urge the government to halt this programme immediately and concentrate on advancing early treatments and acute management of the disease. We must always remember — First, Do No Harm.
