4 burning questions about covid-19 and the jabs

c: | f: /

I’ve been reading world articles/journals and still waiting for answers to a few simple questions. If I’m missing something, please show me where I can fill my knowledge gaps. I can’t see any logic behind indiscriminate vaccination.

Covid-19 vaccine vial

Photo by Alena Shekhovtcova from Pexels

I’m making this post short because I often get bogged down in, ahem, wordiness :) If you wish to ignore any of the summary info in subsequent sections, be my guest. But please, someone, anyone, supply answers to the following four questions:

  1. If someone already had COVID-19, or already has some form of antibody/protection in their system, what additional benefit does the jab give them?
  2. Why are we not being given the opportunity to prove if the above-mentioned immunity is present? Why is the portrayed choice binary: get ‘the vaccine’ or be demonized?
  3. If someone cannot have the jab for any reason (medical, pregnant, etc) or already has such immunity, why may they not travel freely? What danger do they pose to themselves and others?
  4. Why should someone have to prove it anyway? This is related to Q3: when the vulnerable and the scared have had the jab, who exactly is at risk, whether a person is a “silent carrier” or not?

WHO is protecting who?

By the WHO/government’s admission, taking the jab does not not NOT prevent a person from contracting coronavirus in any of its forms – now or in future. It purportedly lessens the severity of this particular ’19 strain. That is all.

Potentially more contagious, yet less deadly variants like Delta/Indian/Kent/Insert-media-panic-name-here and future unknown mutations are not directly covered by this jab, although it might work to some degree to lessen symptoms.

Put it this way:

  • if such protection is afforded by the jab, nobody would need to be concerned about variants, right? It’d be a non-event; we could carry on as normal and live alongside them instead of maintaining further restrictions.
  • if variant protection is not afforded by the jab, why are we being pretty much forced to take it? What’s the point if it does very little?

Notice in that medical article it doesn’t mention deaths. Not once; just communicability. Contagion and spread is not the same as death. Yet the media and the government are tracking and reporting the spread of these mutations like there’s an escape from the lion enclosure at all world zoos and we’re all about to be eaten.

Why? Something doesn’t add up.

The “I’m alright Jack: I’ve had the jab” argument does not cut it. Just because you’ve joined the club doesn’t give you the right to judge anyone else. It’s like that “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” mantra in the wake of 9/11 when we were conditioned into thinking terrorists were lurking on every street corner or airport duty-free lounge. Just because you’re required to show someone your shoes, the contents of your suitcase and make your toiletries fit into 100ml containers doesn’t stop terrorism.

Supporting information from the mainstream mouthpiece on the madness that is coming unless we stop it:

The difference between ‘now’ and ‘never’

Every test that is offered for travel and quarantine restrictions is based on the lateral flow (not all that effective) or the PCR test. Both tests tell you if you have COVID right now or very very recently (within days). Neither test will tell you if you have had it in the past. For that, you need an antibody test:

If a person believes he or she has been infected with Covid-19 in the past, antibody testing provides valuable information. In contrast to PCR and antigen tests, which are great in detecting ongoing infections in patients experiencing symptoms, antibody testing can also detect asymptomatic patients.

(source). Another interesting quote from the same source:

a disturbing aspect with Covid-19 is that infection carriers don’t necessarily experience any symptoms. While antigen testing can’t determine if a person is currently infected unless the patient experiences symptoms, an antibody test can identify if an asymptomatic person has been infected in the past. The antibody test is therefore valuable in mapping out the spread of the disease even if it can’t eliminate the risk of asymptomatic persons infecting others as he or she is actively carrying the virus.

That last sentence is the kicker.

Firstly, the antibody test is useful in mapping the spread. I mentioned this hole in the data usage when I mused over why governments are not interested in the more valuable data of those who have come in contact with someone and not been infected themselves. That’s still the case.

The second half of that statement contains faulty, or at best misleading, logic. It implies that only asymptomatic people pose a risk of actively carrying the virus and spreading it. Recall that the jab does not prevent infection. Therefore, anyone can still carry the virus and communicate it regardless of jab status.

Asymptomatic people aren’t disease magnets. The virus won’t take a look at someone and say: Eeeek, they’ve had Pfizer: I’m going somewhere else and latch onto the nearest person that hasn’t been jabbed. It will still infect anyone.

As mentioned in silencing the debate, the study conducted in the Brazilian town perfectly demonstrates that not everybody needs the jab to beat the spread.

So why why why why why are we pushing that agenda here? Why are we leaning towards a society where anybody who has not been given the jab is “dirty” and should be locked down?

It makes no sense whatsoever from a logical standpoint unless there’s something else going on.

3 vagabonds gave a toss


    Given what the media and government tell us, your observations seem to have no logical answers. however the answers to all your questions are here, Stef:

    82 min video unfortunately but it gives a great overview of the agenda that’s more specific than I’ve seen before. Much is hidden in plain sight, and it encourages our own research to verify and learn more of what the bio industries are doing with the genome harvesting provided by PCR testing.

    Reading the article and following some of the links will get you started, but the video shows how vast the scale of it all is.


    A long-time friend of mine is a Doctor, a Director of Public Health, sits on a couple of British Medical Association Committees and an advisor the the World Health Organisation.

    They told me at the start of all this malarky that the vaccines should be targeted at the three most vulnerable groups of people, viz:

    - the old and frail
    - people with a compromised immune system, usually due to having taken antibiotics, statins, steroids etc. or undergone chemo or radio therapies
    - clinically obese people (they suggested anyone with a body mass index of 40 or more)

    Their logic was that all medical procedures come with a degree of risk and for those three groups the risk of contracting COVID outweigh the risks of undergoing a medical procedure that hasn’t yet gone through the normally mandated 3-4 year clinical trials for cross-reactivities. For everyone else, the converse would be the case.

    The hot potato, as far as the Director of Public Health was concerned, would be the potential of identifying people who are clinically obese as special cases. This could be perceived as ‘body shaming’ and so would be interpreted as politically incorrect in certain quarters.

    Stef Dawson

    @Peter: thank you. I have skimmed the article and will peruse the video when I get a moment.

    @Colin: Interesting! That’s precisely my thoughts on the target demographics (well, the first two, I hadn’t thought about the third group but it’s prudent).

    Never considered that political correctness would stand in the way of common sense, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

Tap tap tap


(required, never made visible)

(optional, linked with rel="nofollow")