Excellent walk through of this paper and linkages to your previous posts. And bravo to Europe for much bolder scholarship than the US is currently tolerating about the evidence of vax injury. I've always been curious about Pfizer's "Golden Child" status. Even the MSM has gone after J&J (called it ineffective and dangerous), Oxford/AZ, and Moderna, but no one is allowed to say that Pfizer is causing the same problems and injuries. Which was always clear from VAERS. Why?
Can HCW's use the CD4+T Cell values and CD8 ratios for predictive screening? One thing I would really like to see is data on differential outcomes (if any) from docs that utilized early intervention strategies vs. ones that follow the mainstream COVID standard of (non) care. There is a need not just to point out the injuries, and mechanisms of injury, but also, as you said "avoidability." Lots of prima facie evidence that early intervention matters, but need detailed clinical evidence. Increasingly relevant as these variant waves continue
Docs (doctors) generally speaking are useless for seeing differential outcomes. They don't read papers or even pathology reports for that matter (I make pathology reports for a living). They get updates from their specialty societies summarizing papers in prominent journals and presenting the favored interpretation. If they read the papers with cognizance, we wouldn't be here in the first place. Early intervention was the MO at the beginning, meaning patient on the ventilator before it was necessary. And no, they can't use CD4/CD8 ratios for anything. We had to stop reporting relative white blood cell differential values in CBC results, because patients with neutropenia kept getting worked up for lymphoproliferative disorders.
"Early intervention was the MO at the beginning." Absolutely. There were lots of docs that did early treatment, and a few have published books. I hope they also publish papers. For example, the published data on vaccines reducing long covid was only 10 or 14% (can't remember) benefit. That's a pretty low bar if they can show early treatment is more effective at preventing long covid. Also clinical evidence of reduced symptoms, duration, severity, death, vs. match controls, etc. We also need clinical evidence of T-cell levels before infection, before vaccination, and if/how long those respective groups take to recover levels. Also the effect of boosters.
There is extensive literature, sometimes tangential to these mechanism for a myriad of non-pharmacological interventions, alas modern medicine love using drugs and nothing else. This is entire avoidable and fixable (to a point), after a certain point, it becomes incredibly harder and complex to fix, because the body is completely out of whack.
Answering your question, CD4/CD8 ratio can be used as a predictive screening, with the usual other lymphocytes counts, the ratio is a tell that something went very wrong, then it is rabbit hole inside the human body time. Best thing would be prophylaxis to patients with certain comorbidities that made them prone to this dysfunctional immune response.
Which in the first world is a ton of people...
If I waited for detailed clinical evidence or RCTs, I would never not only be ahead, but reverse engineer the mRNA vaccines to this extent. There is too much bad will in a lot of papers, I found a very "important scientist" literally saying in his tweets that he designed a paper to bad mouth NAC LOL.
Completely avoidable, and fixable to a point, so from my perspective it is actually good, since the stuff I wrote not only works, but is tailored precise to this !
Thanks for the Link to the paper!
GREAT WORK!
Excellent walk through of this paper and linkages to your previous posts. And bravo to Europe for much bolder scholarship than the US is currently tolerating about the evidence of vax injury. I've always been curious about Pfizer's "Golden Child" status. Even the MSM has gone after J&J (called it ineffective and dangerous), Oxford/AZ, and Moderna, but no one is allowed to say that Pfizer is causing the same problems and injuries. Which was always clear from VAERS. Why?
Can HCW's use the CD4+T Cell values and CD8 ratios for predictive screening? One thing I would really like to see is data on differential outcomes (if any) from docs that utilized early intervention strategies vs. ones that follow the mainstream COVID standard of (non) care. There is a need not just to point out the injuries, and mechanisms of injury, but also, as you said "avoidability." Lots of prima facie evidence that early intervention matters, but need detailed clinical evidence. Increasingly relevant as these variant waves continue
Docs (doctors) generally speaking are useless for seeing differential outcomes. They don't read papers or even pathology reports for that matter (I make pathology reports for a living). They get updates from their specialty societies summarizing papers in prominent journals and presenting the favored interpretation. If they read the papers with cognizance, we wouldn't be here in the first place. Early intervention was the MO at the beginning, meaning patient on the ventilator before it was necessary. And no, they can't use CD4/CD8 ratios for anything. We had to stop reporting relative white blood cell differential values in CBC results, because patients with neutropenia kept getting worked up for lymphoproliferative disorders.
"Early intervention was the MO at the beginning." Absolutely. There were lots of docs that did early treatment, and a few have published books. I hope they also publish papers. For example, the published data on vaccines reducing long covid was only 10 or 14% (can't remember) benefit. That's a pretty low bar if they can show early treatment is more effective at preventing long covid. Also clinical evidence of reduced symptoms, duration, severity, death, vs. match controls, etc. We also need clinical evidence of T-cell levels before infection, before vaccination, and if/how long those respective groups take to recover levels. Also the effect of boosters.
There is extensive literature, sometimes tangential to these mechanism for a myriad of non-pharmacological interventions, alas modern medicine love using drugs and nothing else. This is entire avoidable and fixable (to a point), after a certain point, it becomes incredibly harder and complex to fix, because the body is completely out of whack.
Answering your question, CD4/CD8 ratio can be used as a predictive screening, with the usual other lymphocytes counts, the ratio is a tell that something went very wrong, then it is rabbit hole inside the human body time. Best thing would be prophylaxis to patients with certain comorbidities that made them prone to this dysfunctional immune response.
Which in the first world is a ton of people...
If I waited for detailed clinical evidence or RCTs, I would never not only be ahead, but reverse engineer the mRNA vaccines to this extent. There is too much bad will in a lot of papers, I found a very "important scientist" literally saying in his tweets that he designed a paper to bad mouth NAC LOL.
Thank you John.
Quite timely, I've just published a literature review on autoimmunity.
You can tell that some of the authors would like to shout their findings from the rooftops but have largely been kept silent:
Autoimmune disorders: COVID-19, spike protein & homologous epitopes
https://doorlesscarp953.substack.com/p/autoimmune-disorders-covid-19-spike
I will read it on its entirety tonight, I glanced over and was pleased to find other people mentioning protein mimicry !!!
you make total sense.
I have the original message, I am aware lol, but when you want to send those, better send by e-mail. You never know who is watching/reading.
Thank you for reviewing this important paper, wow.
You have a great Sunday as well. 🙏💕
"5900 serious adverse reactions and 13000 deaths in Switzerland"
Brainwashed covidian:
"could you imagine the number of deaths without vaccination!?"
I actually saw comments like that LOL
This was a good one, thank you!
Love the "finally some evidence" that almost everyone i know is fucked :)
Completely avoidable, and fixable to a point, so from my perspective it is actually good, since the stuff I wrote not only works, but is tailored precise to this !