>>81
クレヨン慎之介
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jp/kotahatachi/nagunagumomo-ai-icon
クレヨンが引用するBuzz Feed Japan（デマ媒体の最たるものだ）の、デマ記者「籏智広太」
https://note.com/nakamuraclinic/n/nc1a0d43ef0e8
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jp/kotahatachi/cdc-natural-immunity-covid19
「CDCがワクチンよりも自然免疫の方が効果があると認めた」は誤り。コロナ感染めぐり拡散、実際は「迷信」と指摘
CDCは公式サイト上で、今回拡散していたような「COVID-19に感染して得られる自然免疫は、COVID-19のワクチン接種で得られる免疫よりも優れています」とする言説を「myth（迷信、誤った通説）」とし、ワクチン接種を推奨している。
Kota Hatachi
by Kota Hatachi
籏智 広太 BuzzFeed News Reporter, Japan
↑
失笑
それを否定する論文がランセットから出ている
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02465-5/fulltext
全文の引用しても翻訳できんだろ？だから、重要部分のみ引用しておく。時間をかけて翻訳し、理解しなさい
（引用）
Added value of this study
This study provides a comprehensive review of studies that have estimated the protection from past COVID-19 infection by variant and time since infection. The result shows high levels of protection against re-infection for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants for all major outcomes. Our analysis found significantly reduced protection against re-infection from the omicron BA.1 variant but that levels of protection against severe disease remained high. Although protection from re-infection from all variants wanes over time, our analysis of the available data suggests that the level of protection afforded by previous infection is at least as high, if not higher than that provided by two-dose vaccination using high-quality mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech), as documented by Nassereldine and colleagues, in our companion study. To our knowledge, this is the first review to comprehensively assess natural immunity protection against COVID-19 re-infection by variant (primary infection and re-infection) and to evaluate waning immunity with time since primary infection.
Furthermore, although protection from past infection wanes over time, the level of protection against re-infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease appears to be at least as durable, if not more so, than that provided by two-dose vaccination with the mRNA vaccines for ancestral, alpha, delta, and omicron BA.1 variants (Nassereldine H et al, unpublished), which is also seen from studies directly comparing natural immunity to vaccine-induced protection.40 Protection against severe disease, although based on scarce data, appears to be durable up to more than 1 year for ancestral, alpha, delta, and omicron BA.1 variants. Protection from past infection in comparison with that conferred by vaccination, however, must be weighed against the risks of severe morbidity and mortality associated with the initial infection. This balance of risk varies by the type of variant, with omicron for instance having less severe outcomes than delta,41, 42 and other risk factors associated with the individual, such as age and other comorbidities.43
Our findings show that immunity from COVID-19 infection confers substantial protection against infection from pre-omicron variants. By comparison, protection against re-infection from the omicron BA.1 variant was substantially reduced and wanes rapidly over time. Protection against severe disease, although based on scarce data, was maintained at a relatively high level up to 1 year after the initial infection for all variants. Our analysis suggests that the level of protection from past infection by variant and over time is at least equivalent if not greater than that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines.
COVID-19 Forecasti
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-infection-natural-immunity-superior/
‘Finally’ The Lancet Acknowledges Natural Immunity Superior to mRNA COVID Vaccines
Immunity acquired from past COVID-19 infection provides strong, lasting protection against severe outcomes from the illness at a level “as high if not higher” than that provided by mRNA vaccines, according to a study published Thursday in The Lancet.
Immunity acquired from past COVID-19 infection provides strong, lasting protection against severe outcomes from the illness at a level “as high if not higher” than that provided by mRNA vaccines, according to a study published Thursday in The Lancet.
Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 65 studies worldwide, providing overwhelming evidence to support what many scientists, doctors and studies have said since early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The Lancet is finally acknowledging what doctors and scientists have been gaslit for saying for years — that natural immunity provides superior protection to experimental vaccines,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief litigation counsel for Children’s Health Defense.
“Only the tsunami of propaganda and censorship from the pharma/government biosecurity cartel and the controlled media persuaded the public that Pfizer and Moderna were better at protecting the human immune system than God and evolution,” he added.
The study found that immunity acquired from infection was often far more robust and consistently waned more slowly than the immunity from two doses of an mRNA vaccine.
The researchers found that natural immunity was at least 88.9% effective against severe disease, hospitalization and death for all COVID-19 variants 10 months after infection.
It also provided 78.6% protection against reinfection for all variants except omicron BA.1, for which protection was 45.3%.
At an October 2022 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting, the CDC presented data showing that vaccine-acquired immunity after two or three injections dropped to zero six months after injection, and then became negative.
The Lancet study stated that “although protection from reinfection from all variants wanes over time, our analysis of the available data suggests that the level of protection afforded by previous infection is at least as high, if not higher than that provided by two-dose vaccination using high-quality mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech).”
The study was funded in part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Authors included Dr. Christopher Murray, director of The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, the Gates-funded institute that was “largely responsible for the notoriously exaggerated mortality calculations that overestimated COVID deaths by 20-fold at the COVID pandemic’s outset,” according to Kennedy.
The authors argued, based on their findings, that natural immunity should be recognized along with vaccines when authorities are considering restricting travel, access to venues and work based on immunization status.
Commenting on these conclusions, Dr. Meryl Nass, internist and epidemiologist, said:
“While framing this as an acknowledgment that natural immunity confers protection, what it is also doing is providing tacit agreement that government-imposed policies restricting travel are acceptable. It furthermore provides tacit approval of vaccine passports.”
The ‘cartel’s’ war on natural immunity
In October 2020, The Lancet published an article — “Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now” — by authors including CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, which was widely covered in the mainstream press. They stated that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection” and that “the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.”
But in November 2021, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request forced the CDC to admit that it didn’t even collect data on natural immunity.
Then, in January 2022, the CDC was compelled to revise its position on natural immunity, acknowledging in a report that natural immunity against COVID-19 was at least three times as effective as vaccination at preventing people from becoming infected with the Delta variant.
The pharmaceutical companies were also aware of the benefits of naturally acquired immunity, although they suppressed that information, documents revealed.
In October 2021, Project Veritas exposed three Pfizer officials saying that antibodies lead to equal if not better protection against the virus compared to the vaccine, The Defender reported.
Later, in April 2022, Pfizer documents held by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and released under court order confirmed Pfizer knew natural immunity was as effective as the company’s COVID-19 vaccine at preventing severe illness, journalist Kim Iversen reported.
Most recently, the Twitter files revealed that a Pfizer board member who used to head the FDA lobbied Twitter to take action against a post accurately pointing out that natural immunity is superior to COVID-19 vaccination, The Epoch Times reported.
FOIA requests also revealed that Dr. Anthony Fauci and his boss, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, colluded to suppress the Great Barrington Declaration, which argues that natural immunity plays an important role in mitigating public harm from COVID-19, The Defender reported.
The vaccines are failing, which means we need more vaccines
Media that reported on the study, including NBC, ABC and U.S. News & World Report, continue to advocate for vaccination as the more important way to protect against severe disease and death from COVID-19.
This is despite the fact that even vaccine advocates Bill Gates and Fauci admitted that COVID-19 vaccines perform poorly.
In a paper published last month in Cell Host and Microbe, Fauci and his co-authors confirmed that the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses, including influenza, coronaviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, and common colds “have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines.”
They concluded, “Durably protective vaccines against non-systemic mucosal respiratory viruses with high mortality rates have thus far eluded vaccine development efforts.”
Nass said that while it is quite significant for The Lancet to publish these findings about natural immunity, the authors’ framing, like the admissions by Gates and Fauci, “is intended to quietly, without apology, veer away from current COVID vaccines, while implying that more money is needed to develop new types of vaccines. No one made any mistakes. No one accepts any blame. Chris Murray never erred with his outlandish estimates. No, just send money and let us do the science.”
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
デマ記者「籏智広太」は米国CDCが「言っている」ことを、鵜呑みしてデマ記事をBuzz Feed Japan経由で「垂れ流している」に過ぎない。
本件ランセット論文が登場した以上、デマ記者「籏智広太」は、このランセット論文を「全否定」しなければいけない立場に立ったのだが、一向に、このランセット論文に言及することができない
爆笑、腹の皮が捩れてしにそうだ
因みにデマ記者「籏智広太」が依拠する、米国CDCは「スパイク蛋白毒は、体内から直ぐに消える」と公式説明してきたが、その説明自体を削除してしまった。
慎之介、そのスパイク蛋白毒はすぐ、体内から消えるというCDCの嘘説明も俺様に論破してもらいたいか？
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
慎之介「いわく」
↓
「反ワク盛大に梯子外されててウケるわw」 とか、５ｃｈでの いよいよボロクソの叩かれぶりも
どうぞ見てやって下さいな
赤かぶさんも、このツイート 扱うのは辞めにしたら？ 馬鹿にされる方が圧倒的に多くなってきてますよ。
↑
いや〜ぁ？
5chにて「盛大」に袋叩きされるのは、慎之介の方だと思うぞ
（失笑）
ほれ慎之介。ランセット論文を「全否定」してみ
|
あのね 「ワクチンより自然免疫が優れる」 と認めた たったそれだけの事で、なに鬼の首取ったような
ドヤ顔してるんですかい 恥ずかしいねえ自然免疫が優れる と言ってるだけで、デマ拡散された数々の嘘とフェイクを 正しいと肯定してる内容は
一つも見当たりませんがね おまけに、中村氏のブログだって 南雲氏の言う事が正しいなどとは 一言も書いていませんよね ＞「籏智さん。僕はあなたのことを個人的には知らないけれども、以前あなたに事実無根のことを書かれた。とても不愉快だった。悔しかったけれども、我慢した。」 ってぇ 恨み事言ってるだけじゃないですか 南雲氏の言う事を正しいという論説は一つもない
ただ ＞「ところで、僕は南雲さんのツイートって、毒があって大好きなんだけど、」
なんて言っているだけだし ＞「接種済みの人には刺激が強すぎて、不向きだと思います(笑)」 と来た 【毒があって大好きなんだけど】 たったこれだけぇ 毒があって・・・毒があって・・・ デマッターの これまでの数々のワクチンデマを「デマじゃない」と肯定している論拠は 何ひとつないだろう
バズフィードジャパンをこき下ろすのなら どうぞ勝手にやって下さい ワクチンデマを糾弾しているのは
バズフィードだけじゃないのだよ 他にも山ほどあるのだよ お望みとあらば他の媒体をいくらでも
持ってきますがね まずは>>81のリンクを 全部読んでからにしましょうね 「ワクチンデマ 拡散」 これで検索したら 洪水のように溢れ出てきますぜ
倉持院長「コロナは風邪、PCR，ワクチン意味ない」は「全てデマ」「速やかに検査し治療する一択」
https://www.chunichi.co.jp/article/617837
【アジアＳＮＳ・リスクウオッチ】不安が接種はばむ ワクチンデマ問題
https://www.nna.jp/news/2259070 コロナワクチンのデマに注意！ 足立医院
https://www.adachi-c.jp/column/2022-12-08.html 惑わされないで、新型コロナ(COVID-19)ワクチンのデマ
https://zeromachi.clinic/false-rumor/
キリがないので この辺にしておくが 他にも山ほどあるのだよ バズフィードだけ貶しても無意味だな
おまけに 最後にこれなんかどう？
↓↓↓ 米CDC｢ワクチンより自然免疫が効果｣デマの裏側
フェイクニュースが広がりやすい仕組みを解説
https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/617629 CDCはアメリカ国内のさまざまな健康問題に対応する組織で、新型コロナ対策の司令塔でもある。そのため、ここまで話が大きくなった。 しかし、これはデマであり、誤りだ。引用された記事は“反科学的な医療情報や反ワクチンに関する陰謀論などを多く発信している”として、Facebookがコンテンツのシェアを禁止しているサイトである。何よりCDCは、「予防接種を受けることは、COVID-19に感染するよりも、より安全に防御力を高めることができる方法」であると、公式ウェブサイト上に記載している。
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ ↑↑↑ 認めていないじゃないか
|
スパムメールの中から見つけ出すためにメールのタイトルには必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。