A sad story
You take the vaccine for someone else. That's how it was sold to us. After a while we found out that it didn't make sense. Vaccinated people become infected just as easily and are just as contagious as unvaccinated people. The vaccine does not protect against infection at all. It was a sales ploy to avoid a broad discussion.
Because of the hype that arose, nobody got around to the real question: will the vaccine help or will it eventually cause more victims? And if it does, shouldn’t healthy people reject it, for the greater good? For the health and future of our children?
The problem that arises is therefore also a problem of human nature. People aren't social at all, that's just an excuse. We want to make ourselves useful, not to be useful, but to feel useful or important. If we feel useful in what we do, the question of whether it is really useful no longer occurs to us.
There is also the financial aspect. We are paid to make ourselves useful in some way by people who don't want to make themselves useful, but just want to make as much money as possible. Both aspects lead us to blindly commit to a presumably useful goal, despite the harm it might inflict to others. We close our eyes to the suffering that we do not want to see or that will cost us money, still pretending that we are fighting for the right cause.
For example, it has been known for many years that vaccines lead to mutations or variants so that other groups in society, which until then were not susceptible to a particular bacterium or virus, subsequently become it.
The pharmaceutical industry could not care less. After all, the new variant can lead to new profits. And the people trained in global individualistic capitalist society to care only for themselves will not let a vaccine pass by for that reason. Here the motto applies: as long as I'm safe, I don't care if I endanger others. I don't even want to know, just like I don't want to know who makes my clothes or which animals go extinct to keep the consumer society alive. Certainly it can’t be irresponsible if the government calls it good social behavior to take the jab? Or should the government have known better?.
in 2018 an article was published in the scientific journal Quantamagazine: Vaccines Are Pushing Pathogens to Evolve. The article described the possible dangers of the evolutionary side effect of a vaccine:
“Virulence, as a trait, is directly related to replication: the more pathogens that a person’s body houses, the sicker that person generally becomes. A high replication rate has evolutionary advantages — more microbes in the body lead to more microbes in snot or blood or stool, which gives the microbes more chances to infect others —but it also has costs, as it can kill hosts before they have the chance to pass on their infection. The problem with leaky vaccines, Read says, is that they enable pathogens to replicate unchecked while also protecting hosts from illness and death, thereby removing the costs associated with increased virulence. Over time, then, in a world of leaky vaccinations, a pathogen might evolve to become deadlier to unvaccinated hosts because it can reap the benefits of virulence without the costs.”
A short-term consequence is that the more virulent a virus becomes the more dangerous it gets to unvaccinated people. The increase virulence can also cause the protection of the vaccine to wane. These dangerous side effects have been studied and confirmed several times over the past few decades.
So now I'm faced with a problem: I might get sick or even die from the more virulent variants or mutations that can become dominant or may already be, due to the vaccine.
But on the other hand, if I do take the vaccine, I become like an animal in the bio-industry dependent on the six-monthly jab from the pharmaceuticals, while that jab - in addition to the direct damage to health - saddles me with a very limited antibody response and thanks to the inevitable mutations, an ever worsening protection.
The only real solution for a healthy person seems to be a natural infection that will not only provide a more sterile immunity, but also a better broad defense than the vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, Delta and hopefully also against future variants. And it can’t happen soon enough, because the vaccines will only make the virus more and more virulent. Unfortunately - partly due to all the opposition from the government - I have not been able to get sick so far, but it may be inevitable in the future.
If healthy or young people get seriously ill or die while they weren't at risk before, it's not because they were too stupid to take the vaccine, but because the rest of the healthy people were stupid enough to take it. After all, every virologist could have told you that if you leave a virus alone, it will eventually become less dangerous.
Should I then, as an unvaccinated person, hope that mutations or variants will ensure that the vaccine no longer protects, so that people who now serve as incubators for more virulent variants and are never able to achieve sterile immunity again, die as quickly as possible, so that they can no longer pass on the dangerous variants or mutations?
I can only hope that they will stop vaccinating the youth as soon as possible. As a result of the government's mass-vaccination policy it will lead to illness and possibly death, but the causes and causers will naturally disappear in the coming decades. In this way we can limit the damage to some extent.
Of course, the government will try to blame the unvaccinated, but be aware that there will be only two culprits: the first is the government itself, which makes this 'gain of function' possible with their massive vaccination policy. They refused a broad discussion and disregarded all the recommendations of critical science. And those recommendations were available. A number of these were already listed in the 2018 article.
-Vaccines must prevent pathogens from multiplying in vaccinated hosts, so that they do not become fires of infection.
-Vaccines should be given before and not during an outbreak when many people are infected and the vaccine can act as a selection method.
-Vaccines should provide broad antibody protection against multiple parts of the virus. This makes it much more difficult for a pathogen to mutate into a viable form.
-Vaccine should target not only one dangerous variant of the pathogens, but many others as well.
Massively administering a leaking specific vaccine to the population while a virus is prevalent, therefore, seems more like malicious intent than ignorance. The article in Quota-magazine expressed hopes that a vaccine could be made that would make the pathogen less dangerous as time went on. It seems as if they have succeeded in the opposite. It gives the impression that some people wanted more virulent variants to arise.
Yes, I understand that the information I am sharing here does not deter people from taking the vaccine. Rather, it will make them do it. That's okay, that is just the way we are. People want a quick solution, even though it might be harmful to others or to ourselves in the end. Our whole consumption society is based on this characteristic. That's human nature, but that does make us the second culprit.
For the link to the article in Quantamagazine or the researchpublication click below
A SARS-COV2 vaccine does not lead to sterile immunity. It does not lead to herd-immunity. It will facilitate more virulent mutations and variants to become dominant and stretch the Covid-crisis into the distant future. It only protects yourself for a while, but creates an extra risk for the vulnerable and momentarily not vulnerable.. So if you really want to be social, then don’t take the jab.