Boriquagato

I was once like you. When I first learned about negative effectiveness I thought that was crazy. That's not possible surely? Hah. I was such a child. It can happen, has happened in the past with other vaccines and has now happened in a big way with COVID vaccines. The biological mechanisms are well known by immunologists for many years, look for "OAS" and imprinting. Or heck read the fine article we're discussing on this thread, which is about the body making the wrong sort of antibodies due to over-exposure (which makes it easier to become infected).

You don't have to believe me. Maybe you'll believe Dr Fauci:

https://youtu.be/uagsb4wii3E?t=3401

so when you have that many people in a trial

56:41 not only are you looking to see if it works but you're constantly keeping your eye

56:47 on safety to make sure that a vaccine actually doesn't enhance disease

He says they have to watch to make sure vaccines don't enhance disease, because negative effectiveness is a problem that's occurred in the past especially with HIV vaccines.

So now we established that my comment doesn't reek of BS, here's data on covid vaxx negative efficacy:

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/theres-something-antigenic-in-denmark

https://dailysceptic.org/tag/negative-efficacy/

Follow the white rabbit but don't use search engines. Searching the obvious queries on both google and duckduckgo gives back CDC propaganda and none of the results actually discuss negative efficacy. The extent of…

Fine, here are sources.

The devil is in the details. That's a graph of deaths that are COVID positive at or shortly before death. I said "fatality rates" without that qualification. Hopefully we both agree that vaccines are useless if they just change cause of death without reducing actual mortality rates.

It's usually better to use UK data than US. US/CDC data is rather useless and corrupted (e.g. they like to classify someone as unvaccinated if the hospital couldn't quickly find proof they are vaccinated, which isn't at all the same thing). No country has quality data and the UK's has its own problems, but in general the UK statistical releases provide more data and more accurate data. Same biology everywhere so that shouldn't be an issue.

https://bartram.substack.com/p/update-on-the-failure-of-the-vaccines

"It appears that things have got somewhat worse since last week’s report, with the hospitalisation and death rates in the double vaccinated (not boosted) exceeding that seen in the unvaccinated for all aged over 70, and with a higher death rate in those aged over 60 as well. What’s more, there now appears to be practically no benefit of vaccination with two doses of vaccine for those aged under 60, in terms of the remaining protection against hospitalisation and death."

Another analysis on the UK data (lots of graphs etc)

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/all-cause-deaths-and-vaccination

Analyzing US data is harder. But you can see an attempt to control for…

"There are ton of garbage science around. That makes me even less confident about things that are not even science."

Your argument, or world view, is that you can determine what's true by looking at who scientists trust and the peer reviews of these scientists. I've just named a man who is by universal academic consensus a scientist, but who - as you're aware - produces garbage science without any pushback. In fact, as far as epidemiology is concerned, ICL are the bees knees. One of their worst most obviously garbage papers has over 1300 citations!

And so your answer is that scientists don't spend time rebutting it (and never have) because it's so obviously bad they don't need to? Why do they keep citing it then? Where are the initial takedowns that established so strongly this guy was a fraud that scientists don't feel a need to write any more, and why do no governments seem to be aware of this?

Put another way, how can you determine which scientists are doing good work vs bad if all the available evidence, like citation counts, suggests they don't care and confuse bad work for good all the time? Remember that scientists are always "selling", which is why they complain about the grant application process so much. They are selling interesting claims to governments, not exactly known for being discerning buyers.

"It took even more years of solid journalistic investigation to show how much of a fraud he was."

Yes, it was hard work. Do you think current mainstream…

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bangladesh-mask-study-do-not-believe

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

"At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44); the certainty of the evidence was low for ILI, moderate for LCI."

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337199/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.5-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546829/

This parallels an article that someone I follow wrote a couple of weeks ago. His way of describing this is the "second world effect". The article is better than I could write (link below). But basically, the "third world" is a low-trust society and everyone understands that and behaves in a defensive way. The "first world" is a high-trust society where things work. There is a discontinuous jump from third to first world once the culture has enough high-trust built in. But if the first world devolves back to low-trust, it doesn't go back to third world, it transitions to "second world" where things look like the first world, but nothing works any more because it's low-trust, but the society hasn't really recognized that.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-second-world

Yeah I wonder for how many seconds it was there, since you can't even count it in hours, but "UFO" is still there as the biggest news in world as you can see in my screenshot and also by visiting the page.

For instance if I would not be BANNED from posting links on HN I'd post also this which I find more interesting news affecting everyone than some dumb made up baloons which are on par with Iraqi WMD

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/more-natality-data-from-other-countries

But aparently I'm ALWAYS posting too fast only when it comes to posts, but have no such problems with comments, it's sad how low can go HN in shadowbanning users without transparently communicating why is one banned from something.