Vaccine mandates are not driven by science. They are driven by politics, false narratives, and the desires of the architects of The Great Reset to get as many humans vaccinated as possible. This conclusion can be drawn from a recent study by a team at UC Davis which showed spread of the disease has nothing to do with vaccine status.
The study concluded that there should be no difference in policies to mitigate spread of Covid-19 that are based on whether someone is vaccinated or not. Decisions about masking, testing, social distancing, and lockdowns should apply to all within an affected jurisdiction because vaccinated and unvaccinated people pose nearly identical risks of spreading Covid-19.
According to Chris Pandolfo from The Blaze:
A new study finds that there is no significant difference in COVID-19 viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals who test positive for infection, regardless of whether they have symptoms or not.
The pre-print study from UC Davis, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, suggests that when it comes to policy making on how to mitigate spread of COVID-19, vaccine status might not matter much for mask mandates or social distancing requirements. The reason is higher viral loads make the virus more transmissible, and it appears both vaccinated and unvaccinated people who catch the Delta variant of COVID-19 have high viral loads.
“Given the substantial proportion of asymptomatic vaccine breakthrough cases with high viral levels, interventions, including masking and testing, should be considered for all in settings with elevated COVID-19 transmission,” the study abstract states.
Though studies have shown the various COVID-19 vaccines appear to be successful at reducing infection, severe disease, hospitalization, and death from the virus, the study suggests that a fully vaccinated person with a breakthrough case of COVID-19 who has no symptoms is just as capable of spreading the virus to other people as an unvaccinated person who is sick but has no symptoms.
This comes down to personal choice… at least it should. Despite what vaxx-nannies believe, those who are skeptical about the injections are not “flat earthers,” generally speaking. In fact, the education levels of the unvaccinated are higher than those of the vaccinated. And contrary to what anti-vaxxers say, there are demonstrable benefits to the injections in mitigating symptoms.
Before anyone jumps on me for acknowledging that there appears to be some benefits inherent in the injections when it comes to mitigating symptoms, by no means am I recommending that anyone get them for the sake of treatment. There are far better alternatives that are cheap and more effective than the vaccines at preventing symptoms and hospitalization, as well as treatments once someone becomes symptomatic. We recommend MATH+ with Ivermectin as a treatment that appears to be most effective. I personally take Zinc, Vitamin D, Vitamin C, and NAC daily, but I’m not a doctor.
The benefits of getting vaxxed do NOT include slowing the spread. Someone who is vaccinated is just as likely to spread the disease as someone who is unvaccinated because their viral load is just as high. The same is true for getting infected; the “vaccines” do not protect their recipients at all from any of the variants other than the now-uncommon Alpha variant. Dr. Ted Noel explained why this is the case earlier today.
Those who believe the vaccines offer protection that is more important to them than the risks associated with getting jabbed should have the right to accept them. Those who believe for whatever reason that getting jabbed is not an option should also have the right to reject them.
The ongoing segregation of people in the United States and beyond based on vaccine status goes squarely against the science, and the UC Davis study is far from being the only one to demonstrate this.
“The data gathered in this study during the surge of the Delta variant strongly support the notion that neither vaccine status nor the presence or absence of symptoms should influence the recommendation and implementation of good public health practices,” the study states.
In other words, the researchers are saying masking and testing requirements should apply to both unvaccinated and vaccinated people, since both groups transmit the Delta variant at about equal rates.
As study author David Coil explained to the Davis Enterprise: “We really wanted to focus on this public health message, which is that our data show there are a lot of asymptomatic people that have high viral loads, there are a lot of vaccinated people that have high viral loads and there are kids that have high viral loads.”
The study begins by stating:
We found no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated, asymptomatic and symptomatic groups infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta. Given the substantial proportion of asymptomatic vaccine breakthrough cases with high viral levels, interventions, including masking and testing, should be considered for all in settings with elevated COVID-19 transmission.
I’m no fan of their conclusion that other measures should be put in place in areas where Covid is prevalent. Lockdowns should be a choice as well; those who are afraid of contracting a disease that has a 99.93% recovery rate for people under 40 will not be forced to walk through crowded places without face masks. But the point the study is trying to make is that handling people differently based on their vaccine status is ludicrous and goes squarely against the science.
Anyone who thinks we should “follow the science” cannot endorse vaccine mandates without a heavy dose of cognitive dissonance and a little tyrant inside them telling them to believe the lies.
The Biden regime is destroying our economy, putting your property and financial security at risk. What's worse is that they are discouraging the purchase of precious metals as they try to salvage their midterm election fortunes. Buy precious metals from an America-First patriot. Contact Our Gold Guy and protect yourself through the coming (and current) economic turmoil.