PARODY UNBOUND: UKHSA, IN SEEKING TO EXPLAIN AWAY WHY JABBED INFECTION RATE IS MORE THAN TWICE UNJABBED INADVERTENTLY REVEAL THE REASON: THE UNJABBED STILL HAVE NATURAL IMMUNITY!

By Jaime Jessop 29th October 2021. Find Article Here:-

You can’t make this up anymore; you just can’t. This is so bizarre, it’s like Alice in Wonderland meets the Twilight Zone.

The UKHSA are gnashing their teeth over what their own raw data reveals; that in all double-jabbed people over the age of 30, the infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 virus, according to PCR testing, significantly exceeds that of the unjabbed and in people over 40, the rate of infection in the jabbed is more than twice that of the unjabbed, except for the over 80s. This has proved deeply embarrassing for the UK government and now they are desperately attempting to explain away their inconvenient data as due to confounding factors rather than it being inherently due to the administration of the ‘vaccines’. Eugyppius has kindly provided a graph of the differences in infection rates, which the UKHSA has failed to provide itself in their latest report, presumably because their last graph went viral on social media for all the world to see that the ‘vaccines’ weren’t working.

So here’s what the UKHSA say in defence of their claim that the raw data on infection rates in the jabbed vs. unjabbed is not a good estimate of the actual effectiveness of the ‘vaccines’.

Let’s just reiterate those excuses and go through them one by one:

people who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19.

people who are fully vaccinated may engage in more social interactions because of their vaccination status, and therefore may have greater exposure to circulating COVID-19
infection

people who are unvaccinated may have had past COVID-19 infection prior to the 4-week reporting period in the tables above, thereby artificially reducing the COVID-19 case rate in this population group, and making comparisons between the 2 groups less valid

Why on earth would the jabbed be more ‘health conscious’? The unjabbed might be even more health conscious, in that they decided not to risk their health by subjecting themselves to an experimental and demonstrably dangerous ‘vaccine’. The unjabbed might indeed be less likely to get tested, but positive test rate is per 100k, so the sample is smaller, but that doesn’t explain why the positive test rate should also be smaller.

The jabbed are more gregarious! They put themselves about a bit more and so are more likely to get infected! But at the same time they’re supposedly more health conscious, therefore presumably they would be less likely in that case to expose themselves to a deadly virus which is doing the rounds in pubs, clubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants and shops – and they’re more likely to wear masks and we all know how effective these are in preventing infections. Also, it’s pretty obvious from comments on social media that the jabbed are still quite fearful, not at all convinced that they are immune from catching a deadly virus and it is in fact the unjabbed who are a lot more relaxed about their risk of getting a bad cold. Good grief. This is just hilarious from the UKHSA.

Neither of the two above excuses explain the difference in infection rates across the cohorts, nor do they explain why the difference between jabbed and unjabbed infection rates is growing weekly and working its way progressively into younger cohorts. But the last excuse is the real side-splitter.

The infection rate in the unjabbed may be artificially reduced by natural infection-acquired immunity in that cohort! What? I’m afraid I’m going to have to go full Cathy Newman here:

So what the UKHSA are saying is that natural, long lasting infection acquired immunity in the unjabbed has resulted in them being less susceptible to re-infection with Covid!

Er, yes, that is indeed what tends to happen when people become infected, recover and thereby acquire long-lasting, effective, broad spectrum, robust natural immunity. Humans and animals have been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years before the God-men of Pfizer appeared on the scene.

But somehow, this does not apply to the jabbed. However, there is no reason to suppose that the jabbed were not equally exposed to natural infection with Covid. That being the case, they would also be less likely to be re-infected with the virus . . . . . . unless . . . . . unless, getting jabbed meant that your natural immune defences were somehow depressed thereafter, thus explaining the alleged ‘confounding’ factor as to why the jabbed were more likely to test positive compared to the unjabbed. But then in that case, it’s not a confounding factor is it? Because what it means is that the ‘vaccines’ themselves are making it biologically more likely to get re-infected with the virus on account of the fact that they screw up your natural immune response! Most likely, this is because they have primed the immune system to produce antibodies against now extinct spike variants and also because they suppress the nucleocapsid antibody response.

So in seeking to provide an explantion as to why the data only apparently show the ‘vaccines’ dont work, but in actual fact they do work really (honest guv), the UKHSA have actually provided the explanation for why the ‘vaccines’ don’t work! PMSL, ROFL, LMAO etc. etc.

UK Covid lab returned four positive results from 2,400 Sheffield tests.

By Rowena Mason 27th October 2021 Find Article Here:-

Exclusive: positivity rate of 0.2% for tests processed by Immensa in Wolverhampton contrasts with national rate of about 5-8%.

Does this really show how the Guardian Newspaper and the MSM are complicit in distributing a very one sided narrative? It has been widely reported how PCR is not an accurate ‘Test’ and does not detect infection. Accuracy with ‘Lateral Flow Tests’ is also being questioned. The more tests that are done with ‘inaccurate’ methods the more confusion there will be over infection numbers. This article assumes that a mistake was made and there must be more positive cases. The PCR’s inventor, Kary Mullis says this, Here:-

Wolverhampton Science Park houses the offices and laboratories of Immensa. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images.

The laboratory at the centre of the Covid testing fiasco returned just four positive results out of more than 2,400 tests sent to it from one city, the Guardian has learned, raising questions about why it was not discovered sooner.

The positivity rate of just 0.2% from Sheffield tests sent to the Wolverhampton lab run by Immensa contrasts sharply with the national rate of about 5-8% at the time of the scandal.

Data released under freedom of information laws by Sheffield city council showed there were four positive results, 2,391 negative and 13 void results processed by the lab from 1 September until it was suspended in mid-October.

The disclosure also shows the scandal covers local authorities as far away from Wolverhampton as Yorkshire, with the UK Health Security Agency refusing to disclose which areas are affected beyond saying they are mostly in south-west England.

One expert suggested there should have been about 200 positive results based on prevalence figures from the time. Kit Yates, a senior lecturer in mathematics at Bath University, said the country needed to see a full list of all the walk-in/drive in centres that were affected.

“It’s all well and good notifying those people who were tested, but because of the nature of this communicable disease, this scandal now reaches well beyond those people,” he said. “The public deserve to know if their area was affected.”

“It is absolutely astonishing that someone didn’t spot this,” he said. “Even in the absence of all the usual quality control measures which should have been in place, the raw numbers should have been enough for someone to raise the alarm within a day of the problem occurring.

“The public deserve reassurances about the testing process. Beyond that it needs to be made clear that there are consequences for labs which don’t do their jobs properly and whose mistakes results in higher-levels of infection, pressure on hospitals and ultimately in deaths.”

There is growing anger in south-west England about Covid rates, which are rising particularly in children aged 10 to 14. As of mid-October, some authorities were recording rates of more than 6,000 cases per 100,000 for this age group, meaning one in 16 were infected.

The councils in the country with the highest rates of more than 1,000 per 100,000 are all in south Wales and south-west England: Blaenau Gwent, Cheltenham, Tewkesbury, Stroud, Swindon, Mendip, Torfaen, Bath and North East Somerset and Caerphilly.

Doina Cornell, the leader of Stroud district council, called for an urgent investigation and more help for her area experiencing “cases rising in our district like never before”.

In a joint statement with local Lib Dem and Green leaders, the Labour councillor said: “Why did it take so long for this failure to be detected and how many thousands of people has it affected? We can’t afford for mistakes like this to happen during a pandemic.

“We call on the government to bring in urgent extra measures to get cases down quickly, such as mask wearing and extra ventilation in enclosed spaces and extra support for people needing to isolate … People who have done all the right things are now ill with Covid and angry that the government has denied any link between the test failures and increasingly high numbers of local cases.”

Asked for a breakdown on the areas affected by wrong results from the Immensa lab, Dr Will Welfare, the incident director for Covid-19 at the UKHSA, said: “We suspended testing at the Immensa Wolverhampton laboratory following an ongoing investigation into positive LFD results subsequently testing negative on PCR. Those affected were contacted as soon as possible.

“A full investigation remains ongoing and we will provide an update in due course. There is no evidence of any faults with LFD or PCR test kits themselves and the public should remain confident in using them and in other laboratory services currently provided.”

Responses to FOIs Say UK MPs Don’t Have to Take Covid Tests or Disclose Their “Vaccination” Status.

By  RHODA WILSON 29th October 2021. Find Article Here:-

A UK resident submitted a Freedom of Information (“FOI”) request asking whether her representative Member of Parliament (“MP”) had been “vaccinated” and, if so, to disclose which type of Covid injection the MP had been given.

The office of the MP responded: “I was informed that under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 section 30 Craig Tracey MP [for North Warwickshire and Bedworth] does not have to respond to the request,” and provided the link to section 30: Information Commissioner’s Office: Personal information (section 40 and regulation 13).

A month earlier, on 7 September 2021, a FOI was submitted requesting that the UK House of Commons Commission provide information regarding the numbers of staff and elected members that had received one and two doses of a Covid injection, whether they were required to inform the House authorities of Covid tests and the details of the policy of requiring staff and elected members to take PCR tests.

The Commission responded: “This information is not held by the House of Commons. As stated above, we do not manage MPs’ healthcare arrangements and therefore hold no information for this, and we also do not hold records on the vaccination status of House staff.”

And regarding Covid tests the Commission said: “Neither House staff nor MPs are required to inform the House of Commons if they have had a test for Covid-19, nor is there any policy which requires them to do so.”

The same FOI request was made to the Northern Ireland Assembly who “does not hold [vaccination status] information” and neither does the Scottish Parliament.  And, the Scottish Parliament “does not require any passholder or visitor to take LFD or PCR tests, although taking LFD tests before coming to Holyrood is strongly encouraged.”

The FOI request was also made to the Welsh Parliament who also holds “no recorded information” relating to “vaccination status” and regarding PCR tests their response was as below:

FOI Response from the Welsh Parliament

Further resources:

• FOI: Vaccine status of staff and elected members, What Do They Know
• Vaccination and public/private coercion

We are not attempting to provide legal interpretation or advice, merely highlighting rules at MP’s places of work and laws MPs are using to protect their own privacy.  MPs have a right to privacy just as we all do.  Conversely, what applies to MPs applies to every man, woman and child – equality under law.

“Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of the rule of law as we know it. Everyone is subject to the same laws, no matter who they are, and is treated equally by the courts. This is embodied in article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’; and in article 7: ‘All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law’; also in article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: ‘All people are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law’.” – Equality and Human Rights, Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court, 29 October 2018

As we are all equal before the law and you may wish to remind others that your “vaccination” status is private, not public, medical information below is an image of Craig Tracey’s response.

SHORT SPEECH BY CHRISTINE ANDERSON, EU PARLIAMENT MEMBER.

Posted 31st October 2021. Find 2min Video Here:-

Christine Margarete Anderson is a German politician who is serving as an Alternative for Germany Member of the European Parliament. Born in Eschwege, Anderson has three children and lives in Limburg an der Lahn. Wikipedia

In this short speech she gives her opinion and views on the vaccine passport and other restrictions to be imposed on the German people.

DEL BIGTREE: WHY EVERYTHING YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT COVID-19 AND THE VACCINES COULD BE WRONG.

By PHIL STONE 27th October 2021 Find Video Here:-

This special 90 minute interview with Del Bigtree, covers:

• Why some of the most commonly held beliefs about vaccine safety are wrong
• Revelations of the lies, fraud and corruption within the Pharmaceutical industry
• The consequences of failing to effectively report or monitor vaccine adverse reactions
• How much of the Covid-19 narrative is wrong and how it serves the interests of Big Pharma
• How censorship and cancel culture is eroding trust in science
• What legal action is being taken against Pharmaceutical manufacturers
• Why the future of public health is under threat from big pharma

https://odysee.com/@pandemicpodcast:c/delbigtree:4

Archbishop Viganò warns US bishops about COVID jab: The Great Reset wants ‘billions of chronically ill people’

Published 26th October 2021. Find Article Here:-

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has decided to make public an October 23 letter sent to to Cardinal Luis F. Ladaria S.J., Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop José Gomez, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, as well as to all the bishops of the United States of America.

Your Eminences,

Your Excellencies,

I address you, Archbishop Gómez, as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and to you, Cardinals Ladaria and Müller, for your competence, some serious considerations related to the so-called vaccines against Covid-19.

I believe there are some aspects of the question that now allow for a more complete evaluation of what these drugs are and what effects they cause; this evaluation ought to lead to a collegial stance, in conformity with the Magisterium of the Church and not influenced by biased information or by erroneous news spread by the producers of these drugs or by the media.

1. Subject of the Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

The Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines was issued last year in the absence of complete data on both the nature of the gene serum and its components. I point out to you that the subject of the Note is limited to “the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted,”^[1] and it states that “[w]e do not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary, as this evaluation is the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies.”^[2] Safety and effectiveness are thus not the subject of the Note, which in expressing its opinion about the “morality of use” therefore does not even express its opinion about the “morality of production” of these drugs.

2. Safety and effectiveness of the vaccines

The safety and effectiveness of individual vaccines is determined after a period of experimentation that normally lasts for several years. In this case, the health authorities have decided to carry out experimentation on the entire world population, as an exception to the usual practice of the scientific community, international standards, and the laws of individual nations. This means that the entire population finds itself in the condition of being susceptible to suffering the adverse effects of the vaccine, at their own risk, when normally experimentation is done on a voluntary basis and carried out on a limited number of subjects, who are paid to undergo it.

I think it is clear that this is an experimental drug that has not been approved,^[3] but only authorized for administration by the bodies in charge; just as I think it is evident that there are medical treatments without adverse side-effects, even though they have been systematically boycotted by the Health Institutions – WHO, CDC, EMA – and by mainstream media. Even if the Church should express a moral evaluation of the different treatments available – some of which are carried out with drugs produced with cell lines that originated in an aborted fetus, like the vaccines – it must be reiterated that there are effective treatments which cure patients and allow them to develop permanent natural immune defenses, something that the vaccines do not do. Furthermore, these treatments do not cause serious side effects, since the drugs that are used have been licensed for decades.

Other recently developed treatments are absolutely effective, inexpensive, and carry no danger for those who receive them: this is the case with the plasma treatment studied and employed with great success by the Italian doctor Giuseppe De Donno.^[4]

Treatment with hyper-immune plasma was strongly discouraged and boycotted by pharmaceutical companies and doctors financed by them, because it does not cost anything and renders the analogous therapy useless, which is made in laboratories with monoclonal cells at exorbitant costs.

International standards specify that an experimental drug cannot be authorized for distribution except in the absence of an effective alternative treatment: this is why drug agencies in the USA and Europe have prevented the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, hyper-immune plasma, and other therapies with proven effectiveness. There is no need to remind you that all of these agencies, along with the WHO, are financed almost entirely by the pharmaceutical companies and by foundations tied to them, and that there is a very grave conflict of interest at the highest levels,^[5] about which the media are culpably silent.^[6] In expressing a moral evaluation of the vaccines, the Church cannot fail to take these elements into consideration, since they cause a manipulation of scientific information, on the basis of which the judgments about their moral liceity by ecclesiastical Authority have been formulated.

3. The experimental drugs are not vaccines in the proper sense

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, while not expressing its opinion on the effectiveness and safety of the so-called vaccines, nevertheless defines them as “vaccines,” taking for granted that they actually give immunity and protect people from active and passive contagion. This element is disavowed by the declarations coming from all of the world’s health authorities and from the WHO, according to which vaccinated people can become infected and infect others more seriously than those who are not vaccinated^[7] and find that their immune defenses are drastically reduced if not even completely destroyed.

A recent study confirms that the gene serum can cause forms of acquired immuno-deficiency in those who receive it.^[8] Therefore, the drugs that are called “vaccines” do not fall within the official definition of a vaccine to which the CDF’s Note presumably refers. In fact a “vaccine” is defined as a medicinal preparation aimed at inducing the production of protective antibodies by the organism, conferring specific resistance against a specific infectious disease (viral, bacterial, protozoal). This definition was recently changed by the WHO, because otherwise it would not have been able to include anti-Covid drugs, which do not induce the production of protective antibodies and do not confer a specific resistance against the SarsCoV-2 infectious disease.

Furthermore, while mRNA serums are dangerous because of the implications they have at the genetic level, the AstraZeneca serum may be even more harmful, as recent studies show.^[9]

4. Proportionality between the costs and benefits of the vaccines

Limiting itself to an evaluation only of the morality of the use of the vaccines, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not take into account the proportionality between the presumed benefits of the gene serum and the short-term and long-term adverse side effects.

Worldwide, the number of deaths and grave pathologies following vaccination is increasing exponentially:^[10] in only nine months these vaccines have caused more deaths than all vaccines in the last thirty years.^[11] Not only this: in many nations – such as Israel for example^[12] – the number of deaths after vaccination is now greater than the number of deaths from Covid.^[13]

Having established that the drugs sold as vaccines do not give any significant benefit and on the contrary may cause a very high percentage of deaths or grave pathologies^[14] even in subjects for whom Covid does not represent a threat,^[15] I do not think that we can conclude that there is any proportionality between the potential damages and the potential benefits.

This means therefore that there is a grave moral obligation to refuse inoculation as a possible and proximate cause of permanent damages^[16] or death. In the absence of benefits, there is therefore no need to expose oneself to the risks of its administration, but on the contrary there is a duty to refuse it categorically.

5. New data on the presence of aborted fetal cell lines

Revelations from Pfizer executives have recently been released showing that the mRNA gene serums contain aborted fetal material not only for the production of the original vaccine, but also for its replication and production on a vast scale,^[17] and nothing suggests that other pharmaceutical companies are an exception. Bishop Joseph Strickland^[18] has also expressed himself in this regard, inviting the faithful to “say no. I’m not going to do it just because you mandate it, in that, who knows what next crazy thing will come up.” This makes the use of these drugs absolutely immoral, just as it is immoral and unacceptable to use drugs that use orphaned children for experimentation.^[19]

6. Side Effects on pregnant mothers and nursing children

Another aspect to consider is the concrete danger of grave side effects on pregnant mothers and even more serious ones on newborn children: in the United States there have been 675 miscarriages in vaccinated mothers and in the United Kingdom 521 nursing infants have died.^[20] We should remember that for the so-called vaccines against Covid active vigilance was not put into effect, but only passive vigilance, which requires patients to report adverse cases themselves; this means that the data on adverse effects should be multiplied at least ten times.

7. Components of the vaccines

I would like to point out to you that the components of the gene serums are still concealed as trade secrets, even if there are already multiple studies that have analyzed the content of the vaccines;^[21] it is therefore not yet possible to completely evaluate the other critical elements and their long-term impacts, because the experimentation on the world population will end only in 2023/2025, and it is not known what the effects of the newly adopted technology are at the genetic level.^[22] The presence of graphene in the doses that have been administered, reported by numerous laboratories that have analyzed its content,^[23] suggests that the forced use of so-called vaccines – together with the systematic boycott of existing treatments of proven effectiveness^[24] – serves the purpose of contact-tracing all vaccinated human beings throughout the world, who will be or already are connected to the Internet of Things^[25] by means of a quantum link of pulsed microwave frequencies of 2.4 GHz or higher from cell towers and satellites.^[26] As proof that this information is not the fruit of the fantasies of some conspiracy theorist, you should know that the European Union has chosen two projects dedicated to technological innovation as the winners of a competition: “The Human Brain” and “Graphene.” These two projects will receive one billion euro each in funding over the next ten years.^[27]

I trust that Your Excellency, Archbishop Gomez, will take into serious consideration these observations of mine – which I have taken care to thoroughly verify with highly qualified Catholic doctors^[28] – together with your brothers of the US Bishops’ Conference gathered in plenary Assembly from November 15 to 18, 2021 in Baltimore, so that the official position of the Catholic Church in the United States on the so-called vaccines will be revised and updated. Likewise, I ask Your Eminence, Cardinal Ladaria, to proceed as soon as possible to the revision of the Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the morality of certain anti-Covid-19 vaccines.

I realize that it may be extremely unpopular to take a position against the so-called vaccines, but as Shepherds of the flock of the Lord we have the duty to denounce the horrible crime that is being carried out, whose goal is to create billions of chronically ill people and to exterminate millions and millions of people, based on the infernal ideology of the “Great Reset” formulated by the President of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, and endorsed by institutions and organizations around the world.^[29]

The silence of so many cardinals and bishops, along with the inconceivable promotion of the vaccination campaign by the Holy See, represents a form of unprecedented complicity that cannot continue any longer. It is necessary to denounce this scandal, this crime against humanity, this satanic action against God.

With every passing day, thousands of people are dying or are being affected in their health by the illusion that the so-called vaccines guarantee a solution to the pandemic emergency. The Catholic Church has the duty before God and all of humanity to denounce this tremendous and horrible crime with the utmost firmness, giving clear directions and taking a stand against those who, in the name of a pseudo-science subservient to the interests of the pharmaceutical companies and the globalist elite, have only intentions of death. How Joe Biden, who also defines himself as “Catholic,” could impose vaccination on 28 million children aged 5 to 11,^[30] is absolutely inconceivable, if only for the fact that there is practically zero risk of them developing the SARS-CoV-2 disease. The Holy See and the Bishops’ Conferences have the duty to express a firm condemnation in this regard, and also in relation to the very serious side effects that can result for children who are inoculated with the experimental gene serum.^[31]

It is equally imperative that there be an intervention by the US Bishops’ Conference aimed at promoting the religious exemption and immediately revoking the bans imposed in this regard by many Ordinaries on their priests. Similarly, all vaccination requirements for seminarians and candidates of religious communities must be revoked. Instead, clear directives should be given about the dangers connected to the administration of the vaccine and its grave moral implications.

I am certain that you will want to consider the particular gravity of this subject, the urgency of an intervention that is enlightened by and faithful to the teaching of the Gospel, as well as the salus animarum that the Pastors of the Church must promote and defend.

In Christo Rege,

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America

Gareth Icke Talks To The People’s Lawyer, David Adelman & UK Freedom from Fluoride Founder, Joy Warren

Posted on October 22nd, 2021 Here http://garethicke.com/

Covid: vaccinated as likely as unjabbed to infect cohabiters, study suggests.

By Nicola Davis 28th October 2021. Find Article Here:-

Research reveals fully vaccinated people are just as likely to pass virus on to others in their household.

The results suggest even those who are fully vaccinated have a sizeable risk of becoming infected. Photograph: Martin Rickett/PA.

People who are fully vaccinated against Covid yet catch the virus are just as infectious to others in their household as infected unvaccinated people, research suggests.

Households are a key setting for the transmission of Covid infections, with frequent prolonged daily contact with an infected person linked to an increased risk of catching the virus.

However, questions have remained including the true proportion of household contacts who become infected from an initial case, the duration of their infection, and the impact of vaccination on the risk of transmitting the virus and the chance of catching it.

Now a study has revealed that while vaccination against Covid is crucial to preventing severe disease and death, even fully jabbed individuals catch the virus – and pass it on.

Writing in the journal the Lancet, researchers from a number of institutions including Imperial College London and the UK Health Security Agency (HSA) report how they analysed data from 204 household contacts of 138 people infected with the Delta variant.

Of these contacts, who were recruited within five days of their household member showing symptoms and were tested daily for 14 days, 53 went on to become infected, 31 of whom were fully vaccinated and 15 were unvaccinated.

The results suggest even those who are fully vaccinated have a sizeable risk of becoming infected, with an analysis revealing a fully vaccinated contact has about a 25% chance of catching the virus from an infected household member while an unvaccinated contact has around a 38% chance of becoming infected. However, the figures do not shed light on the severity of illness while the team cautions these figures fall within a range of possible values, meaning the exact size of the difference is unclear.

The analysis further suggests that whether an infected individual is themselves fully vaccinated or unvaccinated makes little or no difference to how infectious they are to their household contacts.

The team add that the peak level of virus in infected individuals was the same regardless of whether they were jabbed or not, although these levels dropped off more quickly in the vaccinated people, suggesting they cleared the infection sooner.

“This likely explains why [fully vaccinated] breakthrough cases are as infectious to their contacts as [unvaccinated] cases” said Prof Ajit Lalvani, chair of infectious diseases at Imperial College London and an author of the study.

The team also looked more closely at those who were fully vaccinated.

“What we found, surprisingly, was that already by three months after receipt of the second vaccine dose, the risk of acquiring infection was higher compared to being more recently vaccinated,” said Lalvani. “This suggests that vaccine-induced protection is already waning by about three months post secondary,” he added.

Lalvani stressed that vaccination, including boosters, was important, noting that unvaccinated people cannot rely on the immunity of those who are fully jabbed for protection. Should fully vaccinated individuals become infected, he added, they remain protected against severe disease and death, and tend to have only a mild infection.

However, when asked whether the data suggested booster doses should be offered sooner than six months after a second jab, Lalvani said the emphasis should be on encouraging those already eligible to take the extra dose.

Prof Rowland Kao, an epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved in the work, said the estimates of high rates of transmission among household contacts underscored the need to vaccinate teenagers and give boosters to vulnerable people.

“The vaccinations of younger persons to slow down transmission in the community, and the boosters to directly protect against severe infection and hospitalisation,” he said.

Kao suggested the findings also added weight to calls for the introduction of further measures in the UK to tackle the spread of Covid, adding the move could also mitigate the risks posed by other respiratory infections including flu.

“The result that vaccinated individuals who become infected appear to pose a similar infection risk to others also emphasises the need for continued or improved non-pharmaceutical interventions to further slow down transmission rates and ease hospital burdens over the winter,” he said.

What does ‘recovered from coronavirus’ mean? 4 questions answered about how some survive and what happens next.

By Tom Duszynski 7th April 2020. Find Article Here:-

This is an old article but still relevant to the continuing events with the virus.

The coronavirus is certainly scary, but despite the constant reporting on total cases and a climbing death toll, the reality is that the vast majority of people who come down with COVID-19 survive it. Just as the number of cases grows, so does another number: those who have recovered.

In mid-March, the number of patients in the U.S. who had officially recovered from the virus was close to zero. That number is now in the tens of thousands and is climbing every day. But recovering from COVID-19 is more complicated than simply feeling better. Recovery involves biology, epidemiology and a little bit of bureaucracy too.

How does your body fight off COVID-19?

Once a person is exposed the coronavirus, the body starts producing proteins called antibodies to fight the infection. As these antibodies start to successfully contain the virus and keep it from replicating in the body, symptoms usually begin to lessen and you start to feel better. Eventually, if all goes well, your immune system will completely destroy all of the virus in your system. A person who was infected with and survived a virus with no long-term health effects or disabilities has “recovered.”

Your immune system finds and destroys viruses in the body, and will remember invaders it has seen before. 
Keith Chambers/Science Photo Library via Getty Images

On average, a person who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 will feel ill for about seven days from the onset of symptoms. Even after symptoms disappear, there still may be small amounts of the virus in a patient’s system, and they should stay isolated for an additional three days to ensure they have truly recovered and are no longer infectious.

Expertise is crucial. It’s why our articles are written by academics.

What about immunity?

In general, once you have recovered from a viral infection, your body will keep cells called lymphocytes in your system. These cells “remember” viruses they’ve previously seen and can react quickly to fight them off again. If you are exposed to a virus you have already had, your antibodies will likely stop the virus before it starts causing symptoms. You become immune. This is the principle behind many vaccines.

Unfortunately, immunity isn’t perfect. For many viruses, like mumps, immunity can wane over time, leaving you susceptible to the virus in the future. This is why you need to get revaccinated – those “booster shots” – occasionally: to prompt your immune system to make more antibodies and memory cells.

Since this coronavirus is so new, scientists still don’t know whether people who recover from COVID-19 are immune to future infections of the virus. Doctors are finding antibodies in ill and recovered patients, and that indicates the development of immunity. But the question remains how long that immunity will last. Other coronaviruses like SARS and MERS produce an immune response that will protect a person at least for a short time. I would suspect the same is true of SARS-CoV-2, but the research simply hasn’t been done yet to say so definitively.

A coronavirus test kit. Necessary before a person can be declared officially recovered. AP Photo/David J. Phillip

Why have so few people officially recovered in the US?

This is a dangerous virus, so the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is being extremely careful when deciding what it means to recover from COVID-19. Both medical and testing criteria must be met before a person is officially declared recovered.

Medically, a person must be fever-free without fever-reducing medications for three consecutive days. They must show an improvement in their other symptoms, including reduced coughing and shortness of breath. And it must be at least seven full days since the symptoms began.

In addition to those requirements, the CDC guidelines say that a person must test negative for the coronavirus twice, with the tests taken at least 24 hours apart.

Only then, if both the symptom and testing conditions are met, is a person officially considered recovered by the CDC.

This second testing requirement is likely why there were so few official recovered cases in the U.S. until late March. Initially, there was a massive shortage of testing in the U.S. So while many people were certainly recovering over the last few weeks, this could not be officially confirmed. As the country enters the height of the pandemic in the coming weeks, focus is still on testing those who are infected, not those who have likely recovered.

Many more people are being tested now that states and private companies have begun producing and distributing tests. As the number of available tests increases and the pandemic eventually slows in the country, more testing will be available for those who have appeared to recover. As people who have already recovered are tested, the appearance of any new infections will help researchers learn how long immunity can be expected to last.

Drive-by testing stations are opening across the U.S. as tests become more available. AP Photo/David J. Phillip

Once a person has recovered, what can they do?

Knowing whether or not people are immune to COVID-19 after they recover is going to determine what individuals, communities and society at large can do going forward. If scientists can show that recovered patients are immune to the coronavirus, then a person who has recovered could in theory help support the health care system by caring for those who are infected.

Once communities pass the peak of the epidemic, the number of new infections will decline, while the number of recovered people will increase. As these trends continue, the risk of transmission will fall. Once the risk of transmission has fallen enough, community-level isolation and social distancing orders will begin to relax and businesses will start to reopen. Based on what other countries have gone through, it will be months until the risk of transmission is low in the U.S.

But before any of this can happen, the U.S. and the world need to make it through the peak of this pandemic. Social distancing works to slow the spread of infectious diseases and is working for COVID-19. Many people will need medical help to recover, and social distancing will slow this virus down and give people the best chance to do so.

Katharine Gun talks about the David Amess murder, Canada, UK mind manipulation + UK Covid vaccine death numbers and Julian Assange.

First Published on 26th October 2021 Find 48min Video Here:-

This is a very interesting interview with Katharine Gun, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Gun) the ‘Whistle-Blower’ from 2003, who exposed the illegal ‘bugging’ of offices from Countries opposed to the next invasion of Iraq.