Here in the jab crazy UK, everyone we know who has rec’d their spring booster are sicker than dogs. Not enough culled in the first six rounds. Have to keep going. The elderly and vulnerable on the hit list this spring. Doing my best to warn anyone thinking of taking their 7th jab, but they just shake their heads, like I am the crazy one.
What I see is that the death certificates often say pretty much any bland thing like 'cause unknown' and that's tyhe end of it, even if they do know full well the causal agent. In the face of no autopsy, or even a basic one, there is no evidence gained for even a probable cause. More importantly, without propeer analysis there is no scope for blame and come back for improper description on the cert.
Sure, these people aka certifying doctors are supposed to be squeaky clean and only tell the truth on pain of losing licences. It seems to me that the more honest a doc is the more likely they are to be eliminated. The more of these descriptions I read, in the context of all the other truths which have been exposed around corruption and censorship, the more I distrust any of it.
What we can glean is only as good as the information we are presented with. When that is corrupted for whatever reason we stay in the dark. When it is clearly seen that so much data for death and illness has been misassigned, wilfully or no, I struggle to accept these things at face value.
Thanks Coquin de Chien. It's always good to read your writing.
A result is only as accurate as the model and/or the simulator (set of processes or equations) used. Yes, you're right about some of the Death Certificates. I have gotten to know the writing habits of individual medical examiners and a doctor or two, but for the most part, there is good data that is not fraudulent. Covid and covid vaccines are very fraudulent by commission or omission, but when it says a specific type of leukemia or brain issue, then you can be reasonably sure that they are not lying. A pulmonary embolism is a pulmonary embolism. I look from the individual record to small groups of few variables all the way up to the full aggregate in multi-variate analyses. My presentations start at the high-level of aggregate data analyses and then dive deeply to the individual death certificates and the fraud that occurred on them. My next project flips the order for a very good reason. Thx for reading.
Over 50% of obituaries are under 70. I collect data from 6 different funeral homes in TN.
I’m no data analyst but it’s been horrifying as I have read obits for 30 years and of course there has never been anything like this before. It used to be a small percentage of individuals under 70 in obituaries. Rare because it was typically an accident, a suicide or a health calamity that medical industry couldn’t fix. All rare for under 75
All vaccines induced serum neutralizing antibody with increasing dosages and/or alum significantly increasing responses. Significant reductions of SARS-CoV two days after challenge was seen for all vaccines and prior live SARS-CoV. All mice exhibited histopathologic changes in lungs two days after challenge including all animals vaccinated (Balb/C and C57BL/6) or given live virus, influenza vaccine, or PBS suggesting infection occurred in all. Histopathology seen in animals given one of the SARS-CoV vaccines was uniformly a Th2-type immunopathology with prominent eosinophil infiltration, confirmed with special eosinophil stains. The pathologic changes seen in all control groups lacked the eosinophil prominence.
Conclusions
These SARS-CoV vaccines all induced antibody and protection against infection with SARS-CoV. However, challenge of mice given any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced. Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.” Plos One, Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary Immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus, 8.9.2012.
Hypersensitivity? I'd say. A 20yo college student died from eosinophilic myocarditis in Dec 2021. Given all the other instances of the body attacking itself with eosinophils, what's the point in taking a vaccine intravenously for a pathogen that likely won't make it past the mucosal defenses?
Excerpts from something I wrote titled the Scientific Exemption in summer 2021
Many great points are discussed regarding the safety and vaccine-associated diseases enhancement for previous vaccine campaign developments for the respiratory syncytial virus, dengue virus, SARS-COV, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in Nature Reviews Microbiology, “Learning from the past: development of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines”, originally published October 16, 2020. The careful balance of titre and Nab response (neutralizing antibodies), non-neutralizing antibodies, caution with creating antibody FC receptors (FcR’s), type 2 T Helper cell (Th2 cell)-based immunopathologic responses, and T cell responses that create exaggerated proliferation of the CD4+ T cells and eosinophils, and poor stimulation of Natural Killer cells and CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes are all examined in relation to VADE, ERD, and ADE response in such virus-based vaccines. “Thus, throughout the 50-year history of exploring RSV vaccines, we have learnt the absolute necessity of tracking the comprehensive safety of vaccines before large-scale application, no matter the urgency of the moment. From the RSV experience, we still do not know what features of an antigen will create disease exacerbation, although we do know that antigen conformation and prefusion versus fusion states are important. We have also learnt that a TH2 cell-biased immune response is harmful. For example, an antigen-induced TH2 cell-like cytokine profile, such as IL-5 and IL-13, could activate CD4+ T cells but poorly stimulate natural killer cells and CD8+ T cells in an animal model or human. Such a TH2 cell-biased immune response might result in VADE under viral challenge. Furthermore, we have learnt that the induction of NAbs over binding antibodies is crucial.”
We’ve all heard that phrase, “the science is settled.” But can science ever really be settled? Science deals with hypotheses, experimentation, data collection, and interpretation of the results. Then repeat, repeat, repeat to validate or disprove. We never stop learning, we know the scientific consensus is frequently wrong, and scientists are just as capable of bias as anyone else.
But that’s what’s great about science, it is always evolving through asking questions and collecting data.
Before the EUA Sars-Cov2 Vaccines were even approved, I looked into the past research and clinical studies. What I took away from hours, days, weeks, and years now of research:
1. There has never been studied a safe and effective SARs-Cov vaccine. All the vaccinated animals developed ADE when challenged and died.
2. The mRNA technology is flawed, highly unstable, fragile, and really gene therapy.
3. The spike protein is toxic.
How was efficacy measured for these vaccines? Elevated serum antibody levels in the short-term. So, what have we seen with the midterm data now over the past 2 years? Break-through infections and waning of these antibodies requiring one booster after another with diminishing marginal returns. Why isn’t this working?
Could we, be suppressing and activating the wrong kind of immune response? Mainly the wrong kind of antibodies?
A paper was published in Science Immunology on December 22, 2022 entitled: “Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination”¹.
The German researchers measured anti-spike-protein antibodies that people produce after Covid vaccination. Both mRNA and DNA jabs cause the body’s cells to produce spike proteins like those on the surface of the coronavirus. Those proteins then cause the immune system to make antibodies. The German researchers found that levels of a crucial antibody called Immunoglobulin G, or IgG, rose dramatically after the second and third mRNA doses. They then dig further and looked at the specific subtype of IgG antibodies people had produced over time.
IgG antibodies come in four subcategories, called IgG1 through IgG4. IgG1 is the most common, while IgG4 is the least, accounting for fewer than 5 percent of all IgG antibodies under normal circumstances.
When vaccinating or recovering from an infection you are looking for a neutralizing antibody effect against the antigen. The two antibody types doing most of the neutralizing work: IgM (37.5%) and IgG3 (42.%).
IgG4 has no neutralizing role. It responds to repeated or long-term exposure to antigens as a tolerizing effect through T regulation cells (Tregs). It’s antibody usually handles proteins from allergens like shellfish, bee venom, pollen, and peanuts.
In terms of neutralizing capability, IgG3 is up to FIFTY TIMES more effective at neutralizing virus proteins than is IgG4. Therefore, the TYPE of antibody is way more important than how much antibody there is in the serum.
Here are the study findings:
“High levels of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2-antibodies are an important component of vaccine-induced immunity. Shortly after the initial two mRNA vaccine doses, the IgG response mainly consists of the pro-inflammatory subclasses IgG1 and IgG3. Here, we report that several months after the second vaccination, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were increasingly composed of non-inflammatory IgG4, which were further boosted by a third mRNA vaccination and/or SARS-CoV-2 variant breakthrough infections. IgG4 antibodies among all spike-specific IgG antibodies rose on average from 0.04% shortly after the second vaccination to 19.27% late after the third vaccination… Importantly, this class switch was associated with a reduced capacity of the spike-specific antibodies [IgG1 and IgG3] to mediate antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis and complement deposition.
The new studies appear to show that repeated jabs are somehow SUPPRESSING IgG3 antibodies, forcing the body to try to compensate with types not designed for respiratory viruses such as IgG4, which is designed for allergies and doesn’t remove the foreign proteins so much as teach the body to “tolerate” or “ignore” them. Allergens don’t replicate like viruses. Allergens are a totally different kind of threat. With allergens, the body doesn’t need to go crazy fighting it because pollen doesn’t replicate.
Conversely with IgG1 and IgG3 antibody types that are “pro-inflammatory,” which means they trigger the body’s immune system into high alert, whereas the IgG4 type is “anti-inflammatory,” which means it tells the immune system to stand down. This is the opposite of what you really want, when you’re fighting an infection.
(Analogy)
This creates Immune Tolerance. Immune tolerance prevents rapid clearance of the infection, making boosted people the slowest to clear Covid-19. It also prevents the formation of lasting neutralizing immunity, thus making affected people suffer from repeat reinfections. Quite the opposite of Herd Immunity.
And a mRNA vaccinated population-wide shift towards IgG4 for certain antibodies, can end up impacting our relationship to other respiratory viruses too. The vaccinated people may become better asymptomatic spreaders of other respiratory viruses such as RSV, which we are seeing an outbreak of since early fall.
Let me correct myself, a lot of the information I gained was through the substackers I follow like Dr Rose, Peter Halligan, Eugyppias, Igor Chudov, etc..
I just put it together in a consecutive order to understand the data. My profession is highly skilled at taking technical information and telling a story to help the buyer understand the science.
Here in the jab crazy UK, everyone we know who has rec’d their spring booster are sicker than dogs. Not enough culled in the first six rounds. Have to keep going. The elderly and vulnerable on the hit list this spring. Doing my best to warn anyone thinking of taking their 7th jab, but they just shake their heads, like I am the crazy one.
It's very interesting.
What I see is that the death certificates often say pretty much any bland thing like 'cause unknown' and that's tyhe end of it, even if they do know full well the causal agent. In the face of no autopsy, or even a basic one, there is no evidence gained for even a probable cause. More importantly, without propeer analysis there is no scope for blame and come back for improper description on the cert.
Sure, these people aka certifying doctors are supposed to be squeaky clean and only tell the truth on pain of losing licences. It seems to me that the more honest a doc is the more likely they are to be eliminated. The more of these descriptions I read, in the context of all the other truths which have been exposed around corruption and censorship, the more I distrust any of it.
What we can glean is only as good as the information we are presented with. When that is corrupted for whatever reason we stay in the dark. When it is clearly seen that so much data for death and illness has been misassigned, wilfully or no, I struggle to accept these things at face value.
Thanks Coquin de Chien. It's always good to read your writing.
A result is only as accurate as the model and/or the simulator (set of processes or equations) used. Yes, you're right about some of the Death Certificates. I have gotten to know the writing habits of individual medical examiners and a doctor or two, but for the most part, there is good data that is not fraudulent. Covid and covid vaccines are very fraudulent by commission or omission, but when it says a specific type of leukemia or brain issue, then you can be reasonably sure that they are not lying. A pulmonary embolism is a pulmonary embolism. I look from the individual record to small groups of few variables all the way up to the full aggregate in multi-variate analyses. My presentations start at the high-level of aggregate data analyses and then dive deeply to the individual death certificates and the fraud that occurred on them. My next project flips the order for a very good reason. Thx for reading.
You can easily search current VAERS at https://matchyourbatch.org
Newly launched free and powerful. Deep dive into symptoms and view detailed symptom descriptions.
matchyourbatch.substack.com for more info
John- you are relentless! More power to you.
Bonnie from Ipswich, MA
We met in Concord
Over 50% of obituaries are under 70. I collect data from 6 different funeral homes in TN.
I’m no data analyst but it’s been horrifying as I have read obits for 30 years and of course there has never been anything like this before. It used to be a small percentage of individuals under 70 in obituaries. Rare because it was typically an accident, a suicide or a health calamity that medical industry couldn’t fix. All rare for under 75
Not anymore. It’s absolutely alarming.
All vaccines induced serum neutralizing antibody with increasing dosages and/or alum significantly increasing responses. Significant reductions of SARS-CoV two days after challenge was seen for all vaccines and prior live SARS-CoV. All mice exhibited histopathologic changes in lungs two days after challenge including all animals vaccinated (Balb/C and C57BL/6) or given live virus, influenza vaccine, or PBS suggesting infection occurred in all. Histopathology seen in animals given one of the SARS-CoV vaccines was uniformly a Th2-type immunopathology with prominent eosinophil infiltration, confirmed with special eosinophil stains. The pathologic changes seen in all control groups lacked the eosinophil prominence.
Conclusions
These SARS-CoV vaccines all induced antibody and protection against infection with SARS-CoV. However, challenge of mice given any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced. Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.” Plos One, Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary Immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus, 8.9.2012.
Hypersensitivity? I'd say. A 20yo college student died from eosinophilic myocarditis in Dec 2021. Given all the other instances of the body attacking itself with eosinophils, what's the point in taking a vaccine intravenously for a pathogen that likely won't make it past the mucosal defenses?
Excerpts from something I wrote titled the Scientific Exemption in summer 2021
Many great points are discussed regarding the safety and vaccine-associated diseases enhancement for previous vaccine campaign developments for the respiratory syncytial virus, dengue virus, SARS-COV, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in Nature Reviews Microbiology, “Learning from the past: development of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines”, originally published October 16, 2020. The careful balance of titre and Nab response (neutralizing antibodies), non-neutralizing antibodies, caution with creating antibody FC receptors (FcR’s), type 2 T Helper cell (Th2 cell)-based immunopathologic responses, and T cell responses that create exaggerated proliferation of the CD4+ T cells and eosinophils, and poor stimulation of Natural Killer cells and CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes are all examined in relation to VADE, ERD, and ADE response in such virus-based vaccines. “Thus, throughout the 50-year history of exploring RSV vaccines, we have learnt the absolute necessity of tracking the comprehensive safety of vaccines before large-scale application, no matter the urgency of the moment. From the RSV experience, we still do not know what features of an antigen will create disease exacerbation, although we do know that antigen conformation and prefusion versus fusion states are important. We have also learnt that a TH2 cell-biased immune response is harmful. For example, an antigen-induced TH2 cell-like cytokine profile, such as IL-5 and IL-13, could activate CD4+ T cells but poorly stimulate natural killer cells and CD8+ T cells in an animal model or human. Such a TH2 cell-biased immune response might result in VADE under viral challenge. Furthermore, we have learnt that the induction of NAbs over binding antibodies is crucial.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-00462-y
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22536382/
And now bring in the German study w IgG4 switch and the Eosinophils will link it.
Something else I wrote to educate my BOH:
We’ve all heard that phrase, “the science is settled.” But can science ever really be settled? Science deals with hypotheses, experimentation, data collection, and interpretation of the results. Then repeat, repeat, repeat to validate or disprove. We never stop learning, we know the scientific consensus is frequently wrong, and scientists are just as capable of bias as anyone else.
But that’s what’s great about science, it is always evolving through asking questions and collecting data.
Before the EUA Sars-Cov2 Vaccines were even approved, I looked into the past research and clinical studies. What I took away from hours, days, weeks, and years now of research:
1. There has never been studied a safe and effective SARs-Cov vaccine. All the vaccinated animals developed ADE when challenged and died.
2. The mRNA technology is flawed, highly unstable, fragile, and really gene therapy.
3. The spike protein is toxic.
How was efficacy measured for these vaccines? Elevated serum antibody levels in the short-term. So, what have we seen with the midterm data now over the past 2 years? Break-through infections and waning of these antibodies requiring one booster after another with diminishing marginal returns. Why isn’t this working?
Could we, be suppressing and activating the wrong kind of immune response? Mainly the wrong kind of antibodies?
A paper was published in Science Immunology on December 22, 2022 entitled: “Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination”¹.
The German researchers measured anti-spike-protein antibodies that people produce after Covid vaccination. Both mRNA and DNA jabs cause the body’s cells to produce spike proteins like those on the surface of the coronavirus. Those proteins then cause the immune system to make antibodies. The German researchers found that levels of a crucial antibody called Immunoglobulin G, or IgG, rose dramatically after the second and third mRNA doses. They then dig further and looked at the specific subtype of IgG antibodies people had produced over time.
IgG antibodies come in four subcategories, called IgG1 through IgG4. IgG1 is the most common, while IgG4 is the least, accounting for fewer than 5 percent of all IgG antibodies under normal circumstances.
When vaccinating or recovering from an infection you are looking for a neutralizing antibody effect against the antigen. The two antibody types doing most of the neutralizing work: IgM (37.5%) and IgG3 (42.%).
IgG4 has no neutralizing role. It responds to repeated or long-term exposure to antigens as a tolerizing effect through T regulation cells (Tregs). It’s antibody usually handles proteins from allergens like shellfish, bee venom, pollen, and peanuts.
In terms of neutralizing capability, IgG3 is up to FIFTY TIMES more effective at neutralizing virus proteins than is IgG4. Therefore, the TYPE of antibody is way more important than how much antibody there is in the serum.
Here are the study findings:
“High levels of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2-antibodies are an important component of vaccine-induced immunity. Shortly after the initial two mRNA vaccine doses, the IgG response mainly consists of the pro-inflammatory subclasses IgG1 and IgG3. Here, we report that several months after the second vaccination, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were increasingly composed of non-inflammatory IgG4, which were further boosted by a third mRNA vaccination and/or SARS-CoV-2 variant breakthrough infections. IgG4 antibodies among all spike-specific IgG antibodies rose on average from 0.04% shortly after the second vaccination to 19.27% late after the third vaccination… Importantly, this class switch was associated with a reduced capacity of the spike-specific antibodies [IgG1 and IgG3] to mediate antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis and complement deposition.
The new studies appear to show that repeated jabs are somehow SUPPRESSING IgG3 antibodies, forcing the body to try to compensate with types not designed for respiratory viruses such as IgG4, which is designed for allergies and doesn’t remove the foreign proteins so much as teach the body to “tolerate” or “ignore” them. Allergens don’t replicate like viruses. Allergens are a totally different kind of threat. With allergens, the body doesn’t need to go crazy fighting it because pollen doesn’t replicate.
Conversely with IgG1 and IgG3 antibody types that are “pro-inflammatory,” which means they trigger the body’s immune system into high alert, whereas the IgG4 type is “anti-inflammatory,” which means it tells the immune system to stand down. This is the opposite of what you really want, when you’re fighting an infection.
(Analogy)
This creates Immune Tolerance. Immune tolerance prevents rapid clearance of the infection, making boosted people the slowest to clear Covid-19. It also prevents the formation of lasting neutralizing immunity, thus making affected people suffer from repeat reinfections. Quite the opposite of Herd Immunity.
And a mRNA vaccinated population-wide shift towards IgG4 for certain antibodies, can end up impacting our relationship to other respiratory viruses too. The vaccinated people may become better asymptomatic spreaders of other respiratory viruses such as RSV, which we are seeing an outbreak of since early fall.
Let me correct myself, a lot of the information I gained was through the substackers I follow like Dr Rose, Peter Halligan, Eugyppias, Igor Chudov, etc..
I just put it together in a consecutive order to understand the data. My profession is highly skilled at taking technical information and telling a story to help the buyer understand the science.
The Rosetta stone is in MIIS! They will never willingly reveal it.
Connection
Good Info
That’s great but the evildoers don’t want anyone to get better. It’s a bio weapon , not a medicine.