>>7794227 LB
Thanks for this
KEK
That Fluoride stare
I like your style anon
My flavor of (you)r idea
Blank if any of you wordSmithFags
Come up with something better
Re:
Anon recomments Notable
Additional Sauce to supplement OP's post:
>https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/new-science-proves-vaccines-spread-infectious-disease-causing-up-to-15x-more-infections-among-fully-vaccinated-children_01122020
Study published in the journal Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines
Study is stale as fuck (2016) but being reported on (link above) in 2020.
Study title: The Pertussis resurgence: putting together the pieces of the puzzle
https://tdtmvjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40794-016-0043-8
Abstract (full study at link above):
Pertussis incidence is rising in almost every country where acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines have been introduced, and is occurring across all age groups from infancy to adulthood. The key question is why? While several known factors such as waning of immunity, detection bias due to more sensitive tests and higher awareness of the disease among practitioners, and evolutionary shifts among B. pertussis all likely contribute, collectively, these do not adequately explain the existing epidemiologic data, suggesting that additional factors also contribute. Key amongst these is recent data indicating that the immune responses induced by aP vaccines differ fundamentally from those induced by the whole cell pertussis (wP) vaccines, and do not lead to mucosal immunity. If so, it appears likely that differences in how the two categories of vaccines work, may be pivotal to our overall understanding of the pertussis resurgence.
Archive link if this conveniently disappears:
https://web.archive.org/save/https://tdtmvjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40794-016-0043-8
Nowhere am I finding anything to support this is new science
https://tdtmvjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40794-016-0043-8
^2016
2020 Article linked by OP says authorities recently admitted… but links to a 2015 article on the same site…
https://www.naturalnews.com/050905_whooping_cough_outbreak_pertussis_vaccines.html
BMC article cited is from 2015 (screenshot):
Abstract
Background
The recent increase in whooping cough incidence (primarily caused by Bordetella pertussis) presents a challenge to both public health practitioners and scientists trying to understand the mechanisms behind its resurgence. Three main hypotheses have been proposed to explain the resurgence: 1) waning of protective immunity from vaccination or natural infection over time, 2) evolution of B. pertussis to escape protective immunity, and 3) low vaccine coverage. Recent studies have suggested a fourth mechanism: asymptomatic transmission from individuals vaccinated with the currently used acellular B. pertussis vaccines.
Anon that reported this
and anon that recommended notable…
You should apply to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, or any other MSM outlet
For LAZY fucking digging
There is nothing new about this science
And the website you cited as a source is using stale as fuck info
from 2016 and 2015 as recycled garbage to drive page traffic
Recommend removing notable
o at least post a disclaimer
←
Proceed with caution
Anon means business
CAPS to the fucking LOCK
lookout
For when the content of what (you) say
Isn't enough to interest others or
get the point across
Have to MAKE IT LOOK DIFFERENT
Reeeee!
>https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz531
Thanks.
Okay so the 2020 study is a systematic review
The sites that OP linked cited the 2016 ad 2015 studies, not what (you) linked
So (you)r linked study is the new material that taks a macro view across studies
From the abstract - this caught my eye:
>Our review reveals a gap in our understanding of pertussis transmission.
Could be notable?
It doesn't look like the authors touch vaccines
But it begs the question, given the body of research here…. are vaccines for pertussis effective and, if not, why are they being administered?
Is the implication
That discussing a body of research
And taking no position one way or another
But discussing the body of research that is being reported
Anti-vaxxer?
Not sure what to make of your post
Keep in mind, I am not OP - I was validating the reporting
>so hey newfags, it is essential that we dig on flu shots, right?
Fuck Off
Someone drops a load of bullshit
It is worth validating
Sorry hall monitor
I wasn't aware (you) were the one
driving the tasks around here
Make a claim?
I validate it
So: fuck. off.
Reddit spacing
18 posts
See you next bread
(You) are easily identifiable
Commentary on everything
Contribute little