the actual abusers aren’t deterred by restraining orders anyway. what stops them? guns ie actual violence.
men are abused too but the system pretends is always men on women
situation specific violence versus coercive control
that woman who said she was going to kill that person whose peer reviewed research showed both men and women were violent and killed (the irony!)
that section from that ardey book about some benefits of violence
non violence
not obtainable
because we evolved to use violence as the final arbiter it may not be fair that the one who wins the fight physically wins overall in war, but at least it is not contestable the way any other system would be
human nature has that therefore the only way to a non violent society would be massively manipulating, coercing, or changing humans genetically to get rid of any and all violence. this would alter what we care about what makes us human – freedom and freedom of choice
especially to do at the same time as they are getting rid of the penal system and such – then it will turn to manipulating the brain through nano interventions, drugs, vaccines, to alter the brain. like that study in England showing this type of chemical? electrical? Intervention was being used to make people less upset by others on the road resulting in less road rage.
but isn’;t being an irritable person part of who that person was/is? is it fair to change them that way, just to make some utopian future? what if it turns out that the irritability also was linked to another good trait, and now both are extinguished.
?
and if not all countries do this, then won’t the onmes that become non violent just get taken over by the ones who are still violent?
think the russians versus europe when the muslim immigrants tried to rape the women
andthink of sweden’s no spanking policy which led to way more actual beatings
low violence is po9ssible, and sometnhing to work towards
In 1994, Don Kates wrote a law review article about the abusive use of a type of quasi science in the service of gun control. He termed this type of writing “sagecraft” indicating that it used the trappings of academically sound methods to give the appearance (to non scholars) of scientific rigor to their work. .those involved in anti-gun health literature cloak themselves in the robes of scholarship and science to shut down opponents, seeing their position as the only moral one means that the links between guns violence and gun laws cannot be explored scientifically, but as a moral issue already known detracting from which is heresy. Then their perspective is not just a hypothesis or policy proposal, but a moral necessity, with all the urgency that entails.
Kates describes : “The outward forms of scholarship must be observed, but the academic ideal of scholarly detachment is inapplicable. This is a struggle between modern enlightenment and, at best, morally obtuse and intellectually benighted atavism. There is no time for arid, academic discussion; the need for gun control [mrna “vaccination” as the only solution for all] is too urgent to require—or allow—equivocation, doubt, debate, or dissent.15
The [mrna “vaccination” as the only solution for all] current narrative could be placed into the same phrase above, and it would describe now perfectly. “There is no time for arid, academic discussion; the need for mrna “vaccination” as the only solution for all is too urgent to require—or allow—equivocation, doubt, debate, or dissent.”
At the same time, they purposely avoided portions of a scholarly paper which would cause them to acknowledge data and conclusions in conflict with their presupposed idea. This included such things as leaving important and well known studies in the field out of the summary of the state of the scholarship, citing only to scholars who agreed, smearing scientists who published results they did not agree with as extremist, not making their data available to others so they could verify the results, and not publishing any opposing articles or replies to the papers in which their were omissions or errors or both.
Kates’ footnote reveals the fact that “…the April 27, 1994 issue [of New England Journal of medicine” carried an article by 19 medical professionals, seven of them teachers at medical schools, including Columbia and Cornell, urging the banning and confiscation of all handguns, federal restrictive licensing for gun ownership, and a host of other gun control laws. Adler et al., supra note 5. In response, thirty-nine authors, twenty-three of them teachers at medical schools, including Harvard and Pennsylvania, and two of them law professors, submitted an article arguing the other side. Edgar A. Suter et al., Violence in America: Effective Solutions, 84 J. MED. ASS’N GA. (forthcoming June 1995). JAMA promptly rejected it. In 1977 JAMA did publish a critique from a pro-gun perspective. Richard B. Drooz, Handguns and Hokum: A Methodological Problem, 238 JAMA 43 (1977). So far as we have been able to find, it remains the only such article in any health advocacy periodical.”
Similarly, although there are now 143 papers demonstrating that prior infection with covid19 bequeaths the same or better immunity to future covid as does the covid 19 mrna inoculation, there is no mention of that. Doctors who post these things have their linkedin, their youtube, their twitter, their accounts shut down for being disinformation.
Study/report title, author, and year published and interactive url link
“Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52,238 employees in an American healthcare system. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study. Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination…”
“Studied T cell responses against the structural (nucleocapsid (N) protein) and non-structural (NSP7 and NSP13 of ORF1) regions of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals convalescing from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (n = 36). In all of these individuals, we found CD4 and CD8 T cells that recognized multiple regions of the N protein…showed that patients (n = 23) who recovered from SARS possess long-lasting memory T cells that are reactive to the N protein of SARS-CoV 17 years after the outbreak of SARS in 2003; these T cells displayed robust cross-reactivity to the N protein of SARS-CoV-2.”
“A retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1) SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2) previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3) previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals found para a 13 fold increased risk of breakthrough Delta infections in double vaccinated persons, and a 27 fold increased risk for symptomatic breakthrough infection in the double vaccinated relative to the natural immunity recovered persons…the risk of hospitalization was 8 times higher in the double vaccinated (para)…this analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”
“Studied SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells in a cohort of asymptomatic (n = 85) and symptomatic (n = 75) COVID-19 patients after seroconversion…thus, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals are not characterized by weak antiviral immunity; on the contrary, they mount a highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response.”
“A total of 2,653 individuals fully vaccinated by two doses of vaccine during the study period and 4,361 convalescent patients were included. Higher SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titers were observed in vaccinated individuals (median 1581 AU/mL IQR [533.8-5644.6]) after the second vaccination, than in convalescent individuals (median 355.3 AU/mL IQR [141.2-998.7]; p<0.001). In vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month…this study demonstrates individuals who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine have different kinetics of antibody levels compared to patients who had been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with higher initial levels but a much faster exponential decrease in the first group”.
Researchers recorded “40 tentative re-infections in 14, 840 COVID-19 survivors of the first wave (0.27%) and 253 581 infections in 8, 885, 640 individuals of the remaining general population (2.85%) translating into an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.09 (0.07 to 0.13)…relatively low re-infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria. Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies.” Additionally, hospitalization in only five out of 14,840 (0.03%) people and death in one out of 14,840 (0.01%) (tentative re-infection).
“Spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees differed strikingly from those of infection-naïve vaccinees, with phenotypic features suggesting superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx. These results provide reassurance that vaccine-elicited T cells respond robustly to the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants, confirm that convalescents may not need a second vaccine dose.”
“Months after recovering from mild cases of COVID-19, people still have immune cells in their body pumping out antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19, according to a study from researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Such cells could persist for a lifetime, churning out antibodies all the while. The findings, published May 24 in the journal Nature, suggest that mild cases of COVID-19 leave those infected with lasting antibody protection and that repeated bouts of illness are likely to be uncommon.”
“Neutralizing antibody titers against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein persisted for at least 5 months after infection. Although continued monitoring of this cohort will be needed to confirm the longevity and potency of this response, these preliminary results suggest that the chance of reinfection may be lower than is currently feared.”
“Concurrently, neutralizing activity in plasma decreases by five-fold in pseudo-type virus assays. In contrast, the number of RBD-specific memory B cells is unchanged. Memory B cells display clonal turnover after 6.2 months, and the antibodies they express have greater somatic hypermutation, increased potency and resistance to RBD mutations, indicative of continued evolution of the humoral response…we conclude that the memory B cell response to SARS-CoV-2 evolves between 1.3 and 6.2 months after infection in a manner that is consistent with antigen persistence.”
“Assessed the persistence of serum antibodies following WT SARS-CoV-2 infection at 8 and 13 months after diagnosis in 367 individuals…found that NAb against the WT virus persisted in 89% and S-IgG in 97% of subjects for at least 13 months after infection.”
“Eleven large cohort studies were identified that estimated the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 reinfection over time, including three that enrolled healthcare workers and two that enrolled residents and staff of elderly care homes. Across studies, the total number of PCR‐positive or antibody‐positive participants at baseline was 615,777, and the maximum duration of follow‐up was more than 10 months in three studies. Reinfection was an uncommon event (absolute rate 0%–1.1%), with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time.”
Makary writes “it’s okay to have an incorrect scientific hypothesis. But when new data proves it wrong, you have to adapt. Unfortunately, many elected leaders and public health officials have held on far too long to the hypothesis that natural immunity offers unreliable protection against covid-19 — a contention that is being rapidly debunked by science. More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infectionswere 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated. This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which nonewho had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected. The study authors concluded that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.” And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.” “The data on natural immunity are now overwhelming,” Makary told the Morning Wire. “It turns out the hypothesis that our public health leaders had that vaccinated immunity is better and stronger than natural immunity was wrong. They got it backwards. And now we’ve got data from Israel showing that natural immunity is 27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity.”
“203 recovered SARS-CoV-2 infected patients in Denmark between April 3rd and July 9th 2020, at least 14 days after COVID-19 symptom recovery… report broad serological profiles within the cohort, detecting antibody binding to other human coronaviruses… the viral surface spike protein was identified as the dominant target for both neutralizing antibodies and CD8+ T-cell responses. Overall, the majority of patients had robust adaptive immune responses, regardless of their disease severity.”
“Analyze an updated individual-level database of the entire population of Israel to assess the protection efficacy of both prior infection and vaccination in preventing subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization with COVID-19, severe disease, and death due to COVID-19… vaccination was highly effective with overall estimated efficacy for documented infection of 92·8% (CI:[92·6, 93·0]); hospitalization 94·2% (CI:[93·6, 94·7]); severe illness 94·4% (CI:[93·6, 95·0]); and death 93·7% (CI:[92·5, 94·7]). Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94·8% (CI: [94·4, 95·1]); hospitalization 94·1% (CI: [91·9, 95·7]); and severe illness 96·4% (CI: [92·5, 98·3])…results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.”
“Employees were divided into three groups: (1) SARS-CoV-2 naïve and unvaccinated, (2) previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and (3) vaccinated. Person-days were measured from the date of the employee first test and truncated at the end of the observation period. SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as two positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests in a 30-day period… 4313, 254 and 739 employee records for groups 1, 2, and 3…previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 were associated with decreased risk for infection or re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a routinely screened workforce. The was no difference in the infection incidence between vaccinated individuals and individuals with previous infection.”
“Israelis who had an infection were more protected against the Delta coronavirus variant than those who had an already highly effective COVID-19 vaccine…the newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.”
“A systematic antigen-specific immune evaluation in 101 COVID-19 convalescents; SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies, and also NAb can persist among over 95% COVID-19 convalescents from 6 months to 12 months after disease onset. At least 19/71 (26%) of COVID-19 convalescents (double positive in ELISA and MCLIA) had detectable circulating IgM antibody against SARS-CoV-2 at 12m post-disease onset. Notably, the percentages of convalescents with positive SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses (at least one of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen S1, S2, M and N protein) were 71/76 (93%) and 67/73 (92%) at 6m and 12m, respectively.”
“Recovered individuals developed SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulin (IgG) antibodies, neutralizing plasma, and memory B and memory T cells that persisted for at least 3 months. Our data further reveal that SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG memory B cells increased over time. Additionally, SARS-CoV-2-specific memory lymphocytes exhibited characteristics associated with potent antiviral function: memory T cells secreted cytokines and expanded upon antigen re-encounter, whereas memory B cells expressed receptors capable of neutralizing virus when expressed as monoclonal antibodies. Therefore, mild COVID-19 elicits memory lymphocytes that persist and display functional hallmarks of antiviral immunity.”
“Performed multimodal single-cell sequencing on peripheral blood of patients with acute COVID-19 and healthy volunteers before and after receiving the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine to compare the immune responses elicited by the virus and by this vaccine…both infection and vaccination induced robust innate and adaptive immune responses, our analysis revealed significant qualitative differences between the two types of immune challenges. In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients. Increased interferon signaling likely contributed to the observed dramatic upregulation of cytotoxic genes in the peripheral T cells and innate-like lymphocytes in patients but not in immunized subjects. Analysis of B and T cell receptor repertoires revealed that while the majority of clonal B and T cells in COVID-19 patients were effector cells, in vaccine recipients clonally expanded cells were primarily circulating memory cells…we observed the presence of cytotoxic CD4 T cells in COVID-19 patients that were largely absent in healthy volunteers following immunization. While hyper-activation of inflammatory responses and cytotoxic cells may contribute to immunopathology in severe illness, in mild and moderate disease, these features are indicative of protective immune responses and resolution of infection.”
“Bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) are a persistent and essential source of protective antibodies… durable serum antibody titres are maintained by long-lived plasma cells—non-replicating, antigen-specific plasma cells that are detected in the bone marrow long after the clearance of the antigen … S-binding BMPCs are quiescent, which suggests that they are part of a stable compartment. Consistently, circulating resting memory B cells directed against SARS-CoV-2 S were detected in the convalescent individuals. Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans…overall, our data provide strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans robustly establishes the two arms of humoral immune memory: long-lived bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) and memory B-cells.”
“The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study… 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study… a previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals.”
“Enrolled 200 patient-facing HCWs between March 26 and April 8, 2020…represents a 13% infection rate (i.e. 14 of 112 HCWs) within the 1 month of follow-up in those with no evidence of antibodies or viral shedding at enrolment. By contrast, of 33 HCWs who tested positive by serology but tested negative by RT-PCR at enrolment, 32 remained negative by RT-PCR through follow-up, and one tested positive by RT-PCR on days 8 and 13 after enrolment.”
“Critical to understand whether infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) protects from subsequent reinfection… 12219 HCWs participated…prior SARS-CoV-2 infection that generated antibody responses offered protection from reinfection for most people in the six months following infection.”
“Evaluate 254 COVID-19 patients longitudinally up to 8 months and find durable broad-based immune responses. SARS-CoV-2 spike binding and neutralizing antibodies exhibit a bi-phasic decay with an extended half-life of >200 days suggesting the generation of longer-lived plasma cells… most recovered COVID-19 patients mount broad, durable immunity after infection, spike IgG+ memory B cells increase and persist post-infection, durable polyfunctional CD4 and CD8 T cells recognize distinct viral epitope regions.”
“Used single-cell RNA sequencing and functional assays to compare humoral and cellular responses to two doses of mRNA vaccine with responses observed in convalescent individuals with asymptomatic disease… natural infection induced expansion of larger CD8 T cell clones occupied distinct clusters, likely due to the recognition of a broader set of viral epitopes presented by the virus not seen in the mRNA vaccine.”
“SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive persons from April 16 to December 31, 2020 with a PCR-positive swab ≥14 days after the first-positive antibody test were investigated for evidence of reinfection, 43,044 antibody-positive persons who were followed for a median of 16.3 weeks…reinfection is rare in the young and international population of Qatar. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months.”
“Conducted a serological study to define correlates of immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Compared to those with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, individuals with severe disease exhibited elevated virus-neutralizing titers and antibodies against the nucleocapsid (N) and the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein…neutralizing and spike-specific antibody production persists for at least 5–7 months… nucleocapsid antibodies frequently become undetectable by 5–7 months.”
“In the general population using representative data from 7,256 United Kingdom COVID-19 infection survey participants who had positive swab SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from 26-April-2020 to 14-June-2021…we estimated antibody levels associated with protection against reinfection likely last 1.5-2 years on average, with levels associated with protection from severe infection present for several years. These estimates could inform planning for vaccination booster strategies.”
“A study of the blood of older people who survived the 1918 influenza pandemic reveals that antibodies to the strain have lasted a lifetime and can perhaps be engineered to protect future generations against similar strains…the group collected blood samples from 32 pandemic survivors aged 91 to 101..the people recruited for the study were 2 to 12 years old in 1918 and many recalled sick family members in their households, which suggests they were directly exposed to the virus, the authors report. The group found that 100% of the subjects had serum-neutralizing activity against the 1918 virus and 94% showed serologic reactivity to the 1918 hemagglutinin. The investigators generated B lymphoblastic cell lines from the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of eight subjects. Transformed cells from the blood of 7 of the 8 donors yielded secreting antibodies that bound the 1918 hemagglutinin.” Yu: “here we show that of the 32 individuals tested that were born in or before 1915, each showed sero-reactivity with the 1918 virus, nearly 90 years after the pandemic. Seven of the eight donor samples tested had circulating B cells that secreted antibodies that bound the 1918 HA. We isolated B cells from subjects and generated five monoclonal antibodies that showed potent neutralizing activity against 1918 virus from three separate donors. These antibodies also cross-reacted with the genetically similar HA of a 1930 swine H1N1 influenza strain.”
“No significant difference was observed between the 20B and 19A isolates for HCWs with mild COVID-19 and critical patients. However, a significant decrease in neutralisation ability was found for 20I/501Y.V1 in comparison with 19A isolate for critical patients and HCWs 6-months post infection. Concerning 20H/501Y.V2, all populations had a significant reduction in neutralising antibody titres in comparison with the 19A isolate. Interestingly, a significant difference in neutralisation capacity was observed for vaccinated HCWs between the two variants whereas it was not significant for the convalescent groups…the reduced neutralising response observed towards the 20H/501Y.V2 in comparison with the 19A and 20I/501Y.V1 isolates in fully immunized subjects with the BNT162b2 vaccine is a striking finding of the study.”
“Characterized SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific humoral and cellular immunity in naïve and previously infected individuals during full BNT162b2 vaccination…results demonstrate that the second dose increases both the humoral and cellular immunity in naïve individuals. On the contrary, the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose results in a reduction of cellular immunity in COVID-19 recovered individuals.”
“Epidemiologists estimate over 160 million people worldwide have recovered from COVID-19. Those who have recovered have an astonishingly low frequency of repeat infection, disease, or death.”
“To evaluate evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on diagnostic nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) among patients with positive vs negative test results for antibodies in an observational descriptive cohort study of clinical laboratory and linked claims data…the cohort included 3 257 478 unique patients with an index antibody test…patients with positive antibody test results were initially more likely to have positive NAAT results, consistent with prolonged RNA shedding, but became markedly less likely to have positive NAAT results over time, suggesting that seropositivity is associated with protection from infection.”
“Investigated the risk of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection among young adults (CHARM marine study) seropositive for a previous infection…enrolled 3249 participants, of whom 3168 (98%) continued into the 2-week quarantine period. 3076 (95%) participants…Among 189 seropositive participants, 19 (10%) had at least one positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 during the 6-week follow-up (1·1 cases per person-year). In contrast, 1079 (48%) of 2247 seronegative participants tested positive (6·2 cases per person-year). The incidence rate ratio was 0·18 (95% CI 0·11–0·28; p<0·001)…infected seropositive participants had viral loads that were about 10-times lower than those of infected seronegative participants (ORF1ab gene cycle threshold difference 3·95 [95% CI 1·23–6·67]; p=0·004).”
“Of 9,180 individuals with no record of vaccination but with a record of prior infection at least 90 days before the PCR test (group 3), 7694 could be matched to individuals with no record of vaccination or prior infection (group 2), among whom PCR positivity was 1.01% (95% CI, 0.80%-1.26%) and 3.81% (95% CI, 3.39%-4.26%), respectively. The relative risk for PCR positivity was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.28) for vaccinated individuals and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.21-0.34) for individuals with prior infection compared with no record of vaccination or prior infection.”
“Followed up with a subsample of our previous sero-survey participants to assess whether natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 was associated with a reduced risk of re-infection (India)… out of the 2238 participants, 1170 were sero-positive and 1068 were sero-negative for antibody against COVID-19. Our survey found that only 3 individuals in the sero-positive group got infected with COVID-19 whereas 127 individuals reported contracting the infection the sero-negative group…from the 3 sero-positives re-infected with COVID-19, one had hospitalization, but did not require oxygen support or critical care…development of antibody following natural infection not only protects against re-infection by the virus to a great extent, but also safeguards against progression to severe COVID-19 disease.”
“The researchers found durable immune responses in the majority of people studied. Antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which the virus uses to get inside cells, were found in 98% of participants one month after symptom onset. As seen in previous studies, the number of antibodies ranged widely between individuals. But, promisingly, their levels remained fairly stable over time, declining only modestly at 6 to 8 months after infection… virus-specific B cells increased over time. People had more memory B cells six months after symptom onset than at one month afterwards… levels of T cells for the virus also remained high after infection. Six months after symptom onset, 92% of participants had CD4+ T cells that recognized the virus… 95% of the people had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection.”
“The seropositive rate in the convalescent individuals was above 95% at all sampling time points for both assays and remained stable over time; that is, almost all convalescent individuals developed antibodies… results show that SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persisted at least 12 months after symptom onset and maybe even longer, indicating that COVID-19-convalescent individuals may be protected from reinfection.”
“ex vivo assays to evaluate SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses in COVID-19 convalescent patients up to 317 days post-symptom onset (DPSO), and find that memory T cell responses are maintained during the study period regardless of the severity of COVID-19. In particular, we observe sustained polyfunctionality and proliferation capacity of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells. Among SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells detected by activation-induced markers, the proportion of stem cell-like memory T (TSCM) cells is increased, peaking at approximately 120 DPSO.”
“Analyzed 42 unexposed healthy donors and 28 mild COVID-19 subjects up to 5 months from the recovery for SARS-CoV-2 specific immunological memory. Using HLA class II predicted peptide megapools, we identified SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive CD4+ T cells in around 66% of the unexposed individuals. Moreover, we found detectable immune memory in mild COVID-19 patients several months after recovery in the crucial arms of protective adaptive immunity; CD4+ T cells and B cells, with a minimal contribution from CD8+ T cells. Interestingly, the persistent immune memory in COVID-19 patients is predominantly targeted towards the Spike glycoprotein of the SARS-CoV-2. This study provides the evidence of both high magnitude pre-existing and persistent immune memory in Indian population.”
“Current evidence points to most individuals developing strong protective immune responses following natural infection with SARSCoV-2. Within 4 weeks following infection, 90-99% of individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop detectable neutralizing antibodies. The strength and duration of the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are not completely understood and currently available data suggests that it varies by age and the severity of symptoms. Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months).”
“We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination…boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.”
“Measured antibodies in serum samples from 30,576 persons in Iceland…of the 1797 persons who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1107 of the 1215 who were tested (91.1%) were seropositive…results indicate risk of death from infection was 0.3% and that antiviral antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 did not decline within 4 months after diagnosis (para).”
“Analyzed multiple compartments of circulating immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 in 254 samples from 188 COVID-19 cases, including 43 samples at ≥ 6 months post-infection…IgG to the Spike protein was relatively stable over 6+ months. Spike-specific memory B cells were more abundant at 6 months than at 1 month post symptom onset.”
“Fifty-four studies, from 18 countries, with a total of 12 011 447 individuals, followed up to 8 months after recovery, were included. At 6-8 months after recovery, the prevalence of detectable SARS-CoV-2 specific immunological memory remained high; IgG – 90.4%… pooled prevalence of reinfection was 0.2% (95%CI 0.0 – 0.7, I2 = 98.8, 9 studies). Individuals who recovered from COVID-19 had an 81% reduction in odds of a reinfection (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.1 – 0.3, I2 = 90.5%, 5 studies).”
“Retrospective cohort study of one multi-hospital health system included 150,325 patients tested for COVID-19 infection…prior infection in patients with COVID-19 was highly protective against reinfection and symptomatic disease. This protection increased over time, suggesting that viral shedding or ongoing immune response may persist beyond 90 days and may not represent true reinfection.”
“The study results suggest that reinfections are rare events and patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have a lower risk of reinfection. Natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 appears to confer a protective effect for at least a year, which is similar to the protection reported in recent vaccine studies.”
“We observed no symptomatic reinfections in a cohort of healthcare workers…this apparent immunity to re-infection was maintained for at least 6 months…test positivity rates were 0% (0/128 [95% CI: 0–2.9]) in those with previous infection compared to 13.7% (290/2115 [95% CI: 12.3–15.2]) in those without (P<0.0001 χ2 test).”
“Using HLA class I and II predicted peptide “megapools,” circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were identified in ∼70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively. CD4+ T cell responses to spike, the main target of most vaccine efforts, were robust and correlated with the magnitude of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA titers. The M, spike, and N proteins each accounted for 11%–27% of the total CD4+ response, with additional responses commonly targeting nsp3, nsp4, ORF3a, and ORF8, among others. For CD8+ T cells, spike and M were recognized, with at least eight SARS-CoV-2 ORFs targeted.”
“Much of the study on the immune response to SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, has focused on the production of antibodies. But, in fact, immune cells known as memory T cells also play an important role in the ability of our immune systems to protect us against many viral infections, including—it now appears—COVID-19.An intriguing new study of these memory T cells suggests they might protect some people newly infected with SARS-CoV-2 by remembering past encounters with other human coronaviruses. This might potentially explain why some people seem to fend off the virus and may be less susceptible to becoming severely ill with COVID-19.”
“Our study demonstrates that convalescent subjects previously infected with ancestral variant SARS-CoV-2 produce antibodies that cross-neutralize emerging VOCs with high potency…potent against 23 variants, including variants of concern.”
“Requiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support. While vaccinating those people may be beneficial – and it’s a reasonable hypothesis that vaccination may bolster the longevity of their immunity – to argue dogmatically that they must get vaccinated has zero clinical outcome data to back it. As a matter of fact, we have data to the contrary: A Cleveland Clinic study found that vaccinating people with natural immunity did not add to their level of protection.”
“Screened 21 well-characterized, longitudinally-sampled convalescent donors that recovered from mild COVID-19…following a typical case of mild COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells not only persist but continuously differentiate in a coordinated fashion well into convalescence, into a state characteristic of long-lived, self-renewing memory.”
“Characterized the profiles of measles vaccine (MV) vaccine-induced antigen-specific T cells over time since vaccination. In a cross-sectional study of healthy subjects with a history of MV vaccination, we found that MV-specific CD4 and CD8 T cells could be detected up to 34 years after vaccination. The levels of MV-specific CD8 T cells and MV-specific IgG remained stable, whereas the level of MV-specific CD4 T cells decreased significantly in subjects who had been vaccinated >21 years earlier.”
“The success of vaccines is dependent on the generation and maintenance of immunological memory. The immune system can remember previously encountered pathogens, and memory B and T cells are critical in secondary responses to infection. Studies in mice have helped to understand how different memory B cell populations are generated following antigen exposure and how affinity for the antigen is determinant to B cell fate… upon re-exposure to an antigen the memory recall response will be faster, stronger, and more specific than a naïve response. Protective memory depends first on circulating antibodies secreted by LLPCs. When these are not sufficient for immediate pathogen neutralization and elimination, memory B cells are recalled.”
“Examined the magnitude, breadth, and durability of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies in two distinct B-cell compartments: long-lived plasma cell-derived antibodies in the plasma, and peripheral memory B-cells along with their associated antibody profiles elicited after in vitro stimulation. We found that magnitude varied amongst individuals, but was the highest in hospitalized subjects. Variants of concern (VoC) -RBD-reactive antibodies were found in the plasma of 72% of samples in this investigation, and VoC-RBD-reactive memory B-cells were found in all but 1 subject at a single time-point. This finding, that VoC-RBD-reactive MBCs are present in the peripheral blood of all subjects including those that experienced asymptomatic or mild disease, provides a reason for optimism regarding the capacity of vaccination, prior infection, and/or both, to limit disease severity and transmission of variants of concern as they continue to arise and circulate.”
“T-cell immunity is important for recovery from COVID-19 and provides heightened immunity for re-infection. However, little is known about the SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell immunity in virus-exposed individuals…report virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell memory in recovered COVID-19 patients and close contacts…close contacts are able to gain T-cell immunity against SARS-CoV-2 despite lacking a detectable infection.”
“The CD4 and CD8 responses generated after natural infection are equally robust, showing activity against multiple “epitopes” (little segments) of the spike protein of the virus. For instance, CD8 cells responds to 52 epitopes and CD4 cells respond to 57 epitopes across the spike protein, so that a few mutations in the variants cannot knock out such a robust and in-breadth T cell response…only 1 mutation found in Beta variant-spike overlapped with a previously identified epitope (1/52), suggesting that virtually all anti-SARS-CoV-2 CD8+ T-cell responses should recognize these newly described variants.”
“Found that the pre-existing reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 comes from memory T cells and that cross-reactive T cells can specifically recognize a SARS-CoV-2 epitope as well as the homologous epitope from a common cold coronavirus. These findings underline the importance of determining the impacts of pre-existing immune memory in COVID-19 disease severity.”
“Better understanding of antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection might provide valuable insights into the future implementation of vaccination policies. Longitudinal analysis of IgGantibody titers was carried out in 32 recovered COVID-19 patients based in the Umbria region of Italy for 14 months after Mild and Moderately-Severe infection…study findings are consistent with recent studies reporting antibody persistency suggesting that induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity through natural infection, might be very efficacious against re-infection (>90%) and could persist for more than six months. Our study followed up patients up to 14 months demonstrating the presence of anti-S-RBD IgG in 96.8% of recovered COVID-19 subjects.”
“Characterized humoral and circulating follicular helper T cell (cTFH) immunity against spike in recovered patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We found that S-specific antibodies, memory B cells and cTFH are consistently elicited after SARS-CoV-2 infection, demarking robust humoral immunity and positively associated with plasma neutralizing activity.”
“149 COVID-19-convalescent individuals…antibody sequencing revealed the expansion of clones of RBD-specific memory B cells that expressed closely related antibodies in different individuals. Despite low plasma titres, antibodies to three distinct epitopes on the RBD neutralized the virus with half-maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50 values) as low as 2 ng ml−1.”
“COVID-19 patients rapidly generate B cell memory to both the spike and nucleocapsid antigens following SARS-CoV-2 infection…RBD- and NCP-specific IgG and Bmem cells were detected in all 25 patients with a history of COVID-19.”
“People who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades…the study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting.”
In greater Vancouver Canada, “using a highly sensitive multiplex assay and positive/negative thresholds established in infants in whom maternal antibodies have waned, we determined that more than 90% of uninfected adults showed antibody reactivity against the spike protein, receptor-binding domain (RBD), N-terminal domain (NTD), or the nucleocapsid (N) protein from SARS-CoV-2.”
“The results indicate that spike-protein cross-reactive T cells are present, which were probably generated during previous encounters with endemic coronaviruses.”
“The presence of pre-existing SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells in a subset of SARS-CoV-2 naïve HD is of high interest.”
“A cohort of 63 individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 assessed at 1.3, 6.2 and 12 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection…the data suggest that immunity in convalescent individuals will be very long lasting.”
“Long-lasting immunological memory against SARS-CoV-2 after mild COVID-19… activation-induced marker assays identified specific T-helper cells and central memory T-cells in 80% of participants at a 12-month follow-up.”
“Immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection can persist for at least 11 months… natural infection (as determined by a prior positive antibody or PCR-test result) can confer protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Denmark, “during the first surge (ie, before June, 2020), 533 381 people were tested, of whom 11 727 (2·20%) were PCR positive, and 525 339 were eligible for follow-up in the second surge, of whom 11 068 (2·11%) had tested positive during the first surge. Among eligible PCR-positive individuals from the first surge of the epidemic, 72 (0·65% [95% CI 0·51–0·82]) tested positive again during the second surge compared with 16 819 (3·27% [3·22–3·32]) of 514 271 who tested negative during the first surge (adjusted RR 0·195 [95% CI 0·155–0·246]).”
“Adaptive immune responses limit COVID-19 disease severity…multiple coordinated arms of adaptive immunity control better than partial responses…completed a combined examination of all three branches of adaptive immunity at the level of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell and neutralizing antibody responses in acute and convalescent subjects. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were each associated with milder disease. Coordinated SARS-CoV-2-specific adaptive immune responses were associated with milder disease, suggesting roles for both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in protective immunity in COVID-19.”
“Collected blood from COVID-19 patients who have recently become virus-free, and therefore were discharged, and detected SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cellular immunity in eight newly discharged patients. Follow-up analysis on another cohort of six patients 2 weeks post discharge also revealed high titers of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. In all 14 patients tested, 13 displayed serum-neutralizing activities in a pseudotype entry assay. Notably, there was a strong correlation between neutralization antibody titers and the numbers of virus-specific T cells.”
“Analysed the magnitude and phenotype of the SARS-CoV-2 cellular immune response in 100 donors at six months following primary infection and related this to the profile of antibody level against spike, nucleoprotein and RBD over the previous six months. T-cell immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 were present by ELISPOT and/or ICS analysis in all donors and are characterised by predominant CD4+ T cell responses with strong IL-2 cytokine expression… functional SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses are retained at six months following infection.”
“Performed a comprehensive analysis of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses from COVID-19 convalescent subjects recognizing the ancestral strain, compared to variant lineages B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, and CAL.20C as well as recipients of the Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccines… the sequences of the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes are not affected by the mutations found in the variants analyzed. Overall, the results demonstrate that CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses in convalescent COVID-19 subjects or COVID-19 mRNA vaccinees are not substantially affected by mutations.”
Israel, “out of 149,735 individuals with a documented positive PCR test between March 2020 and January 2021, 154 had two positive PCR tests at least 100 days apart, reflecting a reinfection proportion of 1 per 1000.”
“Measured plasma and/or serum antibody responses to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 in 343 North American patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 (of which 93% required hospitalization) up to 122 days after symptom onset and compared them to responses in 1548 individuals whose blood samples were obtained prior to the pandemic…IgG antibodies persisted at detectable levels in patients beyond 90 days after symptom onset, and seroreversion was only observed in a small percentage of individuals. The concentration of these anti-RBD IgG antibodies was also highly correlated with pseudovirus NAb titers, which also demonstrated minimal decay. The observation that IgG and neutralizing antibody responses persist is encouraging, and suggests the development of robust systemic immune memory in individuals with severe infection.”
“To track population-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity duration across the United States using observational data from a national clinical laboratory registry of patients tested by nucleic acid amplification (NAAT) and serologic assays… specimens from 39,086 individuals with confirmed positive COVID-19…both S and N SARS-CoV-2 antibody results offer an encouraging view of how long humans may have protective antibodies against COVID-19, with curve smoothing showing population seropositivity reaching 90% within three weeks, regardless of whether the assay detects N or S-antibodies. Most importantly, this level of seropositivity was sustained with little decay through ten months after initial positive PCR.”
“Progress in laboratory markers for SARS-CoV2 has been made with identification of epitopes on CD4 and CD8 T-cells in convalescent blood. These are much less dominated by spike protein than in previous coronavirus infections. Although most vaccine candidates are focusing on spike protein as antigen, natural infection by SARS-CoV-2 induces broad epitope coverage, cross-reactive with other betacoronviruses.”
“Study of 42 patients following recovery from COVID-19, including 28 mild and 14 severe cases, comparing their T cell responses to those of 16 control donors…found the breadth, magnitude and frequency of memory T cell responses from COVID-19 were significantly higher in severe compared to mild COVID-19 cases, and this effect was most marked in response to spike, membrane, and ORF3a proteins…total and spike-specific T cell responses correlated with the anti-Spike, anti-Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) as well as anti-Nucleoprotein (NP) endpoint antibody titre…furthermore showed a higher ratio of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ to CD4+ T cell responses…immunodominant epitope clusters and peptides containing T cell epitopes identified in this study will provide critical tools to study the role of virus-specific T cells in control and resolution of SARS-CoV-2 infections.”
“SARS-CoV-2-specific memory T cells will likely prove critical for long-term immune protection against COVID-19…mapped the functional and phenotypic landscape of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses in unexposed individuals, exposed family members, and individuals with acute or convalescent COVID-19…collective dataset shows that SARS-CoV-2 elicits broadly directed and functionally replete memory T cell responses, suggesting that natural exposure or infection may prevent recurrent episodes of severe COVID-19.”
“Provide a full picture of cellular and humoral immune responses of COVID-19 patients and prove that robust polyfunctional CD8+ T cell responses concomitant with low anaphylatoxin levels correlate with mild infections.”
“The first work identifying and characterizing SARS-CoV-2-specific and cross-reactive HLA class I and HLA-DR T-cell epitopes in SARS-CoV-2 convalescents (n = 180) as well as unexposed individuals (n = 185) and confirming their relevance for immunity and COVID-19 disease course…cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell epitopes revealed pre-existing T-cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals, and validation of similarity to common cold human coronaviruses provided a functional basis for postulated heterologous immunity in SARS-CoV-2 infection…intensity of T-cell responses and recognition rate of T-cell epitopes was significantly higher in the convalescent donors compared to unexposed individuals, suggesting that not only expansion, but also diversity spread of SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses occur upon active infection.”
“Results have just been published of a study suggesting that 40%-60% of people who have not been exposed to coronavirus have resistance at the T-cell level from other similar coronaviruses like the common cold…the true portion of people who are not even susceptible to Covid-19 may be as high as 80%.”
“Screening of SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools revealed that the nucleocapsid (N) protein induced an immunodominant response in HLA-B7+ COVID-19-recovered individuals that was also detectable in unexposed donors…the basis of selective T cell cross-reactivity for an immunodominant SARS-CoV-2 epitope and its homologs from seasonal coronaviruses, suggesting long-lasting protective immunity.”
“COVID-19 patients showed strong T cell responses, with up to 25% of all CD8+ lymphocytes specific to SARS-CoV-2-derived immunodominant epitopes, derived from ORF1 (open reading frame 1), ORF3, and Nucleocapsid (N) protein. A strong signature of T cell activation was observed in COVID-19 patients, while no T cell activation was seen in the ‘non-exposed’ and ‘high exposure risk’ healthy donors.”
“Systematic review and pooled analysis of clinical studies to date, that (1) specifically compare the protection of natural immunity in the COVID-recovered versus the efficacy of full vaccination in the COVID-naive, and (2) the added benefit of vaccination in the COVID-recovered, for prevention of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection…review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by full vaccination of COVID-naïve populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis.”
“The third key finding is that previous infections with SARS-CoV-2 were significantly protective against all studied outcomes, with an effectiveness of 93% (87 to 96%) seen against symptomatic infections, 89% (57 to 97%) against moderate to severe disease and 85% (-9 to 98%) against supplemental oxygen therapy. All deaths occurred in previously uninfected individuals. This was higher protection than that offered by single or double dose vaccine.”
“Explore the impact of T cells and to quantify the protective levels of the immune responses…5,340 Moscow residents were evaluated for the antibody and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 and monitored for COVID-19 up to 300 days. The antibody and cellular responses were tightly interconnected, their magnitude inversely correlated with infection probability. Similar maximal level of protection was reached by individuals positive for both types of responses and by individuals with antibodies alone…T cells in the absence of antibodies provided an intermediate level of protection.”
“SARS-CoV-2 infection produces B-cell responses that continue to evolve for at least one year. During that time, memory B cells express increasingly broad and potent antibodies that are resistant to mutations found in variants of concern.”
“Impact of pre-existing antibodies to human coronaviruses causing common cold (HCoVs), is essential to understand protective immunity to COVID-19 and devise effective surveillance strategies…after the peak response, anti-spike antibody levels increase from ~150 days post-symptom onset in all individuals (73% for IgG), in the absence of any evidence of re-exposure. IgG and IgA to HCoV are significantly higher in asymptomatic than symptomatic seropositive individuals. Thus, pre-existing cross-reactive HCoVs antibodies could have a protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease.”
“117 blood samples were collected from 70 COVID-19 inpatients and convalescent patients…the neutralizing antibodies were detected even at the early stage of disease, and a significant response was shown in convalescent patients.”
“Reports that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are not maintained in the serum following recovery from the virus have caused alarm…the absence of specific antibodies in the serum does not necessarily mean an absence of immune memory.”
“Although T cell durability to SARS-CoV-2 remains to be determined, current data and past experience from human infection with other CoVs demonstrate the potential for persistence and the capacity to control viral replication and host disease, and importance in vaccine-induced protection.”
“Multiple studies have shown loss of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-specific (SARS-CoV-2-specific) antibodies over time after infection, raising concern that humoral immunity against the virus is not durable. If immunity wanes quickly, millions of people may be at risk for reinfection after recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, memory B cells (MBCs) could provide durable humoral immunity even if serum neutralizing antibody titers decline… data indicate that most SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals develop S-RBD-specific, class-switched rMBCs that resemble germinal center-derived B cells induced by effective vaccination against other pathogens, providing evidence for durable B cell-mediated immunity against SARS-CoV-2 after mild or severe disease.”
“All memory T cell responses detected target the SARS-Co-V structural proteins… these responses were found to persist up to 11 years post-infection… knowledge of the persistence of SARS-specific cellular immunity targeting the viral structural proteins in SARS-recovered individuals is important.”
“The adaptive immune system is important for control of most viral infections. The three fundamental components of the adaptive immune system are B cells (the source of antibodies), CD4+ T cells, and CD8+ T cells…a picture has begun to emerge that reveals that CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and neutralizing antibodies all contribute to control of SARS-CoV-2 in both non-hospitalized and hospitalized cases of COVID-19.”
“These findings provide support for the prognostic value of early functional SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells with important implications in vaccine design and immune monitoring.”
“A multiplexed peptide-MHC tetramer approach was used to screen 408 SARS-CoV-2 candidate epitopes for CD8+ T cell recognition in a cross-sectional sample of 30 coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent individuals…Modelling demonstrated a coordinated and dynamic immune response characterized by a decrease in inflammation, increase in neutralizing antibody titer, and differentiation of a specific CD8+ T cell response. Overall, T cells exhibited distinct differentiation into stem cell and transitional memory states (subsets), which may be key to developing durable protection.”
“Most importantly, we demonstrate that infection generates both IgG and IgG MBCs against the novel receptor binding domain and the conserved S2 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Thus, even if antibody levels wane, long-lived MBCs remain to mediate rapid antibody production. Our study results also suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection strengthens pre-existing broad coronavirus protection through S2-reactive antibody and MBC formation.”
“A cross-sectional study to assess the virus-specific antibody and memory T and B cell responses in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients up to 343 days after infection…found that approximately 90% of patients still have detectable immunoglobulin (Ig)G antibodies against spike and nucleocapsid proteins and neutralizing antibodies against pseudovirus, whereas ~60% of patients had detectable IgG antibodies against receptor-binding domain and surrogate virus-neutralizing antibodies…SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG+ memory B cell and interferon-γ-secreting T cell responses were detectable in more than 70% of patients…coronavirus 2-specific immune memory response persists in most patients approximately 1 year after infection, which provides a promising sign for prevention from reinfection and vaccination strategy.”
“A prospective, longitudinal analysis of COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors at multiple time points over an 11-month period to determine how circulating antibody levels change over time following natural infection… data suggest that immunological memory is acquired in most individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 and is sustained in a majority of patients.”
“A long-term high rate of seropositivity persists after natural measles infection. By contrast, it decreases over time after vaccination. Similarly, the concentrations of antibodies in persons with measles history persist for a longer time at a higher level than in vaccinated persons.”
“The expansion of these rare types of memory B cells may explain why most people did not become severely ill, even in the absence of pre-existing protective antibody titers”…found “extraordinarily” powerful antibodies in the blood of nine people who caught the swine flu naturally and recovered from it.”…unlike antibodies elicited by annual influenza vaccinations, most neutralizing antibodies induced by pandemic H1N1 infection were broadly cross-reactive against epitopes in the hemagglutinin (HA) stalk and head domain of multiple influenza strains. The antibodies were from cells that had undergone extensive affinity maturation.”
“Interrogated antibody and antigen-specific memory B cells over time in 33 SARS-CoV-2 naïve and 11 SARS-CoV-2 recovered subjects… In SARS-CoV-2 recovered individuals, antibody and memory B cell responses were significantly boosted after the first vaccine dose; however, there was no increase in circulating antibodies, neutralizing titers, or antigen-specific memory B cells after the second dose. This robust boosting after the first vaccine dose strongly correlated with levels of pre-existing memory B cells in recovered individuals, identifying a key role for memory B cells in mounting recall responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigens.”
“Six studies have reported T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 in 20% to 50% of people with no known exposure to the virus… in a study of donor blood specimens obtained in the US between 2015 and 2018, 50% displayed various forms of T cell reactivity to SARS-CoV-2… Researchers are also confident that they have made solid inroads into ascertaining the origins of the immune responses. “Our hypothesis, of course, was that it’s so called ‘common cold’ coronaviruses, because they’re closely related…we have really shown that this is a true immune memory and it is derived in part from common cold viruses.”
“We demonstrate the presence of pre-existing humoral immunity in uninfected and unexposed humans to the new coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2 S-reactive antibodies were readily detectable by a sensitive flow cytometry-based method in SARS-CoV-2-uninfected individuals and were particularly prevalent in children and adolescents.”
“We detected SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in 100% and 80% of COVID-19 patients, respectively. We also detected low levels of SARS-CoV-2-reactive T-cells in 20% of the healthy controls, not previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and indicative of cross-reactivity due to infection with ‘common cold’ coronaviruses.”
“T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 was observed in unexposed people…it is speculated that this reflects T cell memory to circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses.”
“Memory T-cell immunity against S-OIV is present in the adult population and that such memory is of similar magnitude as the pre-existing memory against seasonal H1N1 influenza…the conservation of a large fraction of T-cell epitopes suggests that the severity of an S-OIV infection, as far as it is determined by susceptibility of the virus to immune attack, would not differ much from that of seasonal flu.”
“The 2009 H1N1 pandemic (pH1N1) provided a unique natural experiment to determine whether cross-reactive cellular immunity limits symptomatic illness in antibody-naive individuals… Higher frequencies of pre-existing T cells to conserved CD8 epitopes were found in individuals who developed less severe illness, with total symptom score having the strongest inverse correlation with the frequency of interferon-γ (IFN-γ)(+) interleukin-2 (IL-2)(-) CD8(+) T cells (r = -0.6, P = 0.004)… CD8(+) T cells specific to conserved viral epitopes correlated with cross-protection against symptomatic influenza.”
“Precise role of T cells in human influenza immunity is uncertain. We conducted influenza infection studies in healthy volunteers with no detectable antibodies to the challenge viruses H3N2 or H1N1…mapped T cell responses to influenza before and during infection…found a large increase in influenza-specific T cell responses by day 7, when virus was completely cleared from nasal samples and serum antibodies were still undetectable. Pre-existing CD4+, but not CD8+, T cells responding to influenza internal proteins were associated with lower virus shedding and less severe illness. These CD4+ cells also responded to pandemic H1N1 (A/CA/07/2009) peptides and showed evidence of cytotoxic activity.”
“No increase in cross-reactive antibody response to the novel influenza A (H1N1) virus was observed among adults aged >60 years. These data suggest that receipt of recent (2005–2009) seasonal influenza vaccines is unlikely to elicit a protective antibody response to the novel influenza A (H1N1) virus.”
“Memory T cells that are specific for one virus can become activated during infection with an unrelated heterologous virus, and might have roles in protective immunity and immunopathology. The course of each infection is influenced by the T-cell memory pool that has been laid down by a host’s history of previous infections, and with each successive infection, T-cell memory to previously encountered agents is modified.”
“Individuals belonging to households with an index COVID-19 patient, reported symptoms of COVID-19 but discrepant serology results… All index patients recovered from a mild COVID-19. They all developed anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and a significant T cell response detectable up to 69 days after symptom onset. Six of the eight contacts reported COVID-19 symptoms within 1 to 7 days after the index patients but all were SARS-CoV-2 seronegative… exposure to SARS-CoV-2 can induce virus-specific T cell responses without seroconversion. T cell responses may be more sensitive indicators of SARS-Co-V-2 exposure than antibodies…results indicate that epidemiological data relying only on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may lead to a substantial underestimation of prior exposure to the virus.”
“It important to note that antibodies are incomplete predictors of protection. After vaccination or infection, many mechanisms of immunity exist within an individual not only at the antibody level, but also at the level of cellular immunity. It is known that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces specific and durable T-cell immunity, which has multiple SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targets (or epitopes) as well as other SARS-CoV-2 protein targets. The broad diversity of T-cell viral recognition serves to enhance protection to SARS-CoV-2 variants, with recognition of at least the alpha (B.1.1.7), beta (B.1.351), and gamma (P.1) variants of SARS-CoV-2. Researchers have also found that people who recovered from SARS-CoV infection in 2002–03 continue to have memory T cells that are reactive to SARS-CoV proteins 17 years after that outbreak. Additionally, a memory B-cell response to SARS-CoV-2 evolves between 1·3 and 6·2 months after infection, which is consistent with longer-term protection.”
“This ‘super antibody’ for COVID fights off multiple coronaviruses…12 antibodies…that was involved in the study, isolated from people who had been infected with either SARS-CoV-2 or its close relative SARS-CoV.”
“Taken together, our data indicate sustained humoral immunity in recovered patients who suffer from symptomatic COVID-19, suggesting prolonged immunity.”
“Whereas anti-CoV-2 IgA antibodies rapidly decayed, IgG antibodies remained relatively stable up to 115 days PSO in both biofluids. Importantly, IgG responses in saliva and serum were correlated, suggesting that antibodies in the saliva may serve as a surrogate measure of systemic immunity.”
“Early appearance, multi-specificity and functionality of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells are associated with accelerated viral clearance and with protection from severe COVID-19.”
“Found a significantly faster decay in naïve vaccinees compared to recovered patients suggesting that the serological memory following natural infection is more robust compared to vaccination. Our data highlights the differences between serological memory induced by natural infection vs. vaccination.”
“Followed a population of urban Massachusetts HCWs…we found no re-infection among those with prior COVID-19, contributing to 74,557 re-infection-free person-days, adding to the evidence base for the robustness of naturally acquired immunity.”
“Compared the vaccination induced immune response profile with that of natural infection, evaluating thereby if individuals infected during the first wave retained virus specific immunity…the overall immune response resulting from natural infection in and around Kolkata is not only to a certain degree better than that generated by vaccination, especially in the case of the Delta variant, but cell mediated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 also lasts for at least ten months after the viral infection.”
“Evaluated humoral immune responses in 69 children and adolescents with asymptomatic or mild symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. We detected robust IgM, IgG, and IgA antibody responses to a broad array of SARS-CoV-2 antigens at the time of acute infection and 2 and 4 months after acute infection in all participants. Notably, these antibody responses were associated with virus-neutralizing activity that was still detectable 4 months after acute infection in 94% of children. Moreover, antibody responses and neutralizing activity in sera from children and adolescents were comparable or superior to those observed in sera from 24 adults with mild symptomatic infection. Taken together, these findings indicate that children and adolescents with mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection generate robust and durable humoral immune responses that can likely contribute to protection from reinfection.”
“Symptomatic adult COVID-19 cases consistently show peripheral T cell lymphopenia, which positively correlates with increased disease severity, duration of RNA positivity, and non-survival; while asymptomatic and paediatric cases display preserved counts. People with severe or critical disease generally develop more robust, virus-specific T cell responses. T cell memory and effector function has been demonstrated against multiple viral epitopes, and, cross-reactive T cell responses have been demonstrated in unexposed and uninfected adults, but the significance for protection and susceptibility, respectively, remains unclear.”
“Reinfections had 90% lower odds of resulting in hospitalization or death than primary infections. Four reinfections were severe enough to lead to acute care hospitalization. None led to hospitalization in an ICU, and none ended in death. Reinfections were rare and were generally mild, perhaps because of the primed immune system after primary infection.”
“SARS-CoV-2 reinfection can occur but is a rare phenomenon suggestive of protective immunity against reinfection that lasts for at least a few months post primary infection.”
“Analyzed 28,578 sequenced SARS-CoV-2 samples from individuals with known immune status obtained through national community testing in the Netherlands from March to August 2021. They found evidence for an “increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination. No clear differences were found between vaccines. However, the effect was larger in the first 14-59 days after complete vaccination compared to 60 days and longer. In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity.”
“Studies did not address whether prior infection is protective in the absence of a detectable humoral immune response. Patients with primary or secondary antibody deficiency syndrome and reduced or absent B cells can recover from COVID-19…Although there have been few mechanistic studies, preliminary data show that such individuals generate striking T-cell immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools…SARS-CoV-2 specific T cell immune responses but not neutralising antibodies are associated with reduced disease severity suggesting the immune system may have considerable redundancy or compensation following COVID-19…our results add to the emerging evidence that detectable serum antibody may be an incomplete marker of protection against reinfection. This could have implications for public health and policy-making, for example if using seroprevalence data to assess population immunity, or if serum antibody levels were to be taken as official evidence of immunity – a minority of truly immune patients have no detectable antibody and could be disadvantaged as a result. Our findings highlight the need for further studies of immune correlates of protection from infection with SARS-CoV-2, which may in turn enhance development of effective vaccines and treatments.”
“With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID…By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.”
“Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts.”
“The neutralizing activity of vaccine-elicited antibodies was more targeted to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared to antibodies elicited by natural infection. However, within the RBD, binding of vaccine-elicited antibodies was more broadly distributed across epitopes compared to infection-elicited antibodies. This greater binding breadth means that single RBD mutations have less impact on neutralization by vaccine sera compared to convalescent sera. Therefore, antibody immunity acquired by natural infection or different modes of vaccination may have a differing susceptibility to erosion by SARS-CoV-2 evolution.”
“Limited knowledge is available on the relationship between antigen-specific immune responses and COVID-19 disease severity. We completed a combined examination of all three branches of adaptive immunity at the level of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell and neutralizing antibody responses in acute and convalescent subjects. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were each associated with milder disease. Coordinated SARS-CoV-2-specific adaptive immune responses were associated with milder disease, suggesting roles for both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in protective immunity in COVID-19. Notably, coordination of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-specific responses was disrupted in individuals ≥ 65 years old. Scarcity of naive T cells was also associated with aging and poor disease outcomes. A parsimonious explanation is that coordinated CD4+ T cell, CD8+ T cell, and antibody responses are protective, but uncoordinated responses frequently fail to control disease, with a connection between aging and impaired adaptive immune responses to SARS-CoV-2.”
“Protection from reinfection decreases with time since previous infection, but is, nevertheless, higher than that conferred by vaccination with two doses at a similar time since the last immunity-conferring event.”
“Compare SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain (S1-RBD)-specific primary MBCs that form in response to infection or a single mRNA vaccination. Both primary MBC populations have similar frequencies in the blood and respond to a second S1-RBD exposure by rapidly producing plasmablasts with an abundant immunoglobulin (Ig)A+ subset and secondary MBCs that are mostly IgG+ and cross-react with the B.1.351 variant. However, infection-induced primary MBCs have better antigen-binding capacity and generate more plasmablasts and secondary MBCs of the classical and atypical subsets than do vaccine-induced primary MBCs. Our results suggest that infection-induced primary MBCs have undergone more affinity maturation than vaccine-induced primary MBCs and produce more robust secondary responses.”
“Optimal immune responses furnish long-lasting (durable) antibodies protective across dynamically mutating viral variants (broad). To assess robustness of mRNA vaccine-induced immunity…compared antibody durability and breadth after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination…While vaccination delivered robust initial virus-specific antibodies with some cross-variant coverage, pre-variant SARS-CoV-2 infection-induced antibodies, while modest in magnitude, showed highly stable long-term antibody dynamics…Differential antibody durability trajectories favored COVID-19-recovered subjects with dual memory B cell features of greater early antibody somatic mutation and cross-coronavirus reactivity…illuminating an infection-mediated antibody breadth advantage and an anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody durability-enhancing function conferred by recalled immunity.”
“Compare antibody and cellular immunity in children (aged 3-11 years) and adults. Antibody responses against spike protein were high in children and seroconversion boosted responses against seasonal Beta-coronaviruses through cross-recognition of the S2 domain. Neutralization of viral variants was comparable between children and adults. Spike-specific T cell responses were more than twice as high in children and were also detected in many seronegative children, indicating pre-existing cross-reactive responses to seasonal coronaviruses. Importantly, children retained antibody and cellular responses 6 months after infection, whereas relative waning occurred in adults. Spike-specific responses were also broadly stable beyond 12 months. Therefore, children generate robust, cross-reactive and sustained immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 with focused specificity for the spike protein. These findings provide insight into the relative clinical protection that occurs in most children and might help to guide the design of pediatric vaccination regimens.”
Abu-Raddad et al. has recently published on the severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections as compared with primary infections. They reported that in earlier studies, they assessed the efficacy of previous natural infection “as protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2as being 85% or greater. Accordingly, for a person who has already had a primary infection, the risk of having a severe reinfection is only approximately 1% of the risk of a previously uninfected person having a severe primary infection…Reinfections had 90% lower odds of resulting in hospitalization or death than primary infections. Four reinfections were severe enough to lead to acute care hospitalization. None led to hospitalization in an ICU, and none ended in death. Reinfections were rare and were generally mild, perhaps because of the primed immune system after primary infection.”
“Assessed the ability of T cells to react with Omicron spike in participants who were vaccinated with Ad26.CoV2.S or BNT162b2, and in unvaccinated convalescent COVID-19 patients (n = 70). We found that 70-80% of the CD4 and CD8 T cell response to spike was maintained across study groups. Moreover, the magnitude of Omicron cross-reactive T cells was similar to that of the Beta and Delta variants, despite Omicron harbouring considerably more mutations. Additionally, in Omicron-infected hospitalized patients (n = 19), there were comparable T cell responses to ancestral spike, nucleocapsid and membrane proteins to those found in patients hospitalized in previous waves dominated by the ancestral, Beta or Delta variants (n = 49). These results demonstrate that despite Omicron’s extensive mutations and reduced susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies, the majority of T cell response, induced by vaccination or natural infection, cross-recognises the variant. Well-preserved T cell immunity to Omicron is likely to contribute to protection from severe COVID-19, supporting early clinical observations from South Africa.”
“69% (54/78) of the epitopes recognized by CD8+ T cells are completely invariant. We further demonstrate experimentally that some memory T-cell immunity against S-OIV is present in the adult population and that such memory is of similar magnitude as the pre-existing memory against seasonal H1N1 influenza. Because protection from infection is antibody mediated, a new vaccine based on the specific S-OIV HA and NA proteins is likely to be required to prevent infection. However, T cells are known to blunt disease severity. Therefore, the conservation of a large fraction of T-cell epitopes suggests that the severity of an S-OIV infection, as far as it is determined by susceptibility of the virus to immune attack, would not differ much from that of seasonal flu. These results are consistent with reports about disease incidence, severity, and mortality rates associated with human S-OIV…overall, 49% of the epitopes reported in the literature and present in recently circulating seasonal H1N1 are also found totally conserved in S-OIV. Interestingly, the number of conserved epitopes varied greatly as a function of the class of epitopes considered. Although only 31% of the B-cell epitopes were conserved, 41% of the CD4+ and 69% of the CD8+ T-cell epitopes were conserved. It is known that cross-reactive T-cell immune responses can exist even between serologically distinct influenza A strains (14, 15). Based on this observation and the data presented above, we hypothesized that it is possible that immune memory responses against S-OIV exist in the adult population, at the level of both B and T cells.”
“PES against symptomatic reinfection was estimated at 90.2% (95% CI: 60.2-97.6) for Alpha, 84.8% (95% CI: 74.5-91.0) for Beta, 92.0% (95% CI: 87.9-94.7) for Delta, and 56.0% (95% CI: 50.6-60.9) for Omicron. Only 1 Alpha, 2 Beta, 0 Delta, and 2 Omicron reinfections progressed to severe COVID-19. None progressed to critical or fatal COVID-19. PES against hospitalization or death due to reinfection was estimated at 69.4% (95% CI: −143.6-96.2) for Alpha, 88.0% (95% CI: 50.7-97.1) for Beta, 100% (95% CI: 43.3-99.8) for Delta, and 87.8% (95% CI: 47.5-97.1) for Omicron.”
“Observe higher frequencies of cross-reactive (p = 0.0139), and nucleocapsid-specific (p = 0.0355) IL-2-secreting memory T cells in contacts who remained PCR-negative despite exposure (n = 26), when compared with those who convert to PCR-positive (n = 26); no significant difference in the frequency of responses to spike is observed, hinting at a limited protective function of spike-cross-reactive T cells. Our results are thus consistent with pre-existing non-spike cross-reactive memory T cells protecting SARS-CoV-2-naïve contacts from infection, thereby supporting the inclusion of non-spike antigens in second-generation vaccines.”
Now with covid19 we are seeing the same approach; it differs from the anti-gun health literature only in the breadth of people involved in the mendacity and lockstep. I don’t recall a time before when the AMA told doctors, say what we tell you about this disease or we will take away your license. So that is one difference. We have the internet now, but it is locked down in terms of search results showing any other than the party line.
While you can find information at children’s health defense network Steve kirsch, and theexpose.uk if yo know those websites exist, you cant if you just search. The results are heavily censored, leading only to government-run websites such as for the states, cdc, nih, and so on. Or worse, they link to mainstream news stories which set out to “debunk” or explain away any actual things which filter in past the censors.
Stories such as “No, VAERS does not show blah blah”. “Here’s what you need to know about “breakthrough”: covid cases” and then also stories which cast aspersions on the unvaccinated as causing all the mutations. It always comes back to if only every single person on earth had the vaccine, covid would stop mutating into new strains.
Again, the literature in peer reviewed journals pre covid19 shows that coronaviruses are around, have been around, and mutate quickly and we fight them off. A common cold is caused by a corona virus. A flu is caused by influenza virus. When I was gorwing up they said they could not make vaccines to them because they mutate too much. Now they started trying to make a vaccine to the flu, by sampling the flu viruses around the globe each year and makking the vaccine have the ones they think will go big. Only works sometimes. And that was using the normal vaccine thing of the actual dead flu virus injected to stimulate you into an immune response so you will be prepared if you meet the live virus.
Now, with this inoculation, they are going to try and vaccinate all the world against all coronaviruses? Never going to happen. And meanwhile, people are believing that it is a vaccin3e because the fact of coronaviruses mutation speed is hidden from them, or painted as being caused by the unvaccinated.
Because the mainstream news is considered the only reliable source besides government, their stories show up in search results on YouTube, but they aren’t doing any in-depth examinations of things. No news is reporting on adverse events, miscarriages, etc. (Except Conejo Guardian, mentioned below) Only the push to vaccinate everyone and act as if a mutating virus and a complex human immune system can be boiled down to one-size-fits-all solution for everybody.
But that is what they are saying, everyone should get vaccinated, it’s the only way out. That’s their only answer, no matter what questiom people might have. Steve Kirsch tries to get answers from them and they assiduoulsy avoid him and rfuse to go on tv and debate with him.
They choose to simply rely on their control of the information to ensure their view is the only one. But as I told cdc in a survey they gave me after I used their tables on covid “This is an atrocity. Its not too late to stop it, Admit you made a mistake and pull back from this train wreck.” They have over 200 million people who have been “vaccinated” with this mrna therapeutic never tested on animals, shortly tested on a limited swath of people (very few old onus, no pregnant ones etc) and they go full steam ahead saying “it’s safe and effective” “It’s safe and effective:” Breakthrough infections occurring? “It’s caused by the unvaccinated, more people need to get vaccinated.” A ship at sea with 100% vaccination got covid19 “”it’s safe and effective”It’s caused by the unvaccinated, more people need to get vaccinated.”
And here I shall end with a collection of absolutely retarded statements being made by medical and political officials while wearing the white coat, so the people believe. It is terrifying to see people fall in line unwilling or unable to question while a massive experiment on more than half of america is going on.
Who will have to deal with the repercussions of any longer term effects of these mrna therapeutics since the manufacturers were granted full immunity? Not even the vaccine injury fund, no all these 200 million are lower down than that as far as the government is concerned. They tell them to get vaccinated, even mandate it, but won’t take away the manufacturer immunity. Which they are supposed to do once it is FDA approved, but they approved cominarty which is the same formulation as one currently in use here in america – just legally distinct. But granting approval to the one not available in america means that Pfizer is still not liable even though it’s approved, because people aren’t being given actual cominarty. They are just pushing aned pushing to get it added to the list of required childhood immunizations, then they’ll be granted immunity from lawsuits for life, and the american government will have to pay. So how to pay if even only every single one of the adverse events currently listed in vaers sue? That would already be one million times whatever dollar amount they give. 500? 500 million.
Those vaccine manufacturers and Fauci must be stopped so please help, God!
Can you imagine if in two years all these people who got vaccinated get some wasting disease like aids because their immune system was compromised? Or simply can’t fight off other coronaviruses since the mrna therapeutic preventing the innate immune system from responsive or else they have AED or anything could happen. Then all these white coats won’t be there to help you. Who will be? All the people you vaccinated spent the two years prior hating because the white coast blamed them and you always believe the white coats.
It reminds me of my most horrifying dream ever which I am praying is not prescient because it matched what I fear the most for humanity in the hands of the demons behind this scam and manipulation. It was a normal day, in somewhere very well off like Newport beach but not exactly, and people were dressed nice, some were protesting something at city hall.
I was there with some pretty girl and we were unvaccinated. no one was talking about that, but I knew she and I and some others who were not there at the protests were not vaccinated. I was looking at this cute little white baby in its mother’s arms, and all of the sudden there was this loud tone or electric something and the baby’s first one eye, then the other right after, rolled back in his head, and the eyes started to bleed. The girl I was running to him saying :”Oh no are you okay?” and then the baby’s whole face deformed and dropped down so it was just a grey green sort of mush with skin, no eyes, And i turned in horror to see the same thing happening all around me, the people’s eyes rolling back in their head then their heads deforming into grey green mush,
And I was thinking oh no how are we going to take care of all these people now?
it seems like just the sort of thing that could happen with these graphene oxide parasite microchip 666 vaccines. Never have i been so glad to wake up and it sure changed my feeling about human faces even though I am mad about white replacement. A human face is a beautiful thing, if you picture a future where 2/3 of the people had deformed no eyes faces, you can understand why I am so scared of this scam because the evil ones would do something like that no problem
you have these news sources and officials lying outright and twisting what studies actually mean.
you have places refusing to publish papers even if correct if they go against the party line (see dr. jessica rose) and the AMA saying they will take the licenses of doctors who speak outside the party line about the vaccines
lies about if prior infection (naturally acquired immunity) is effective against covid or vaccines are
lies about how many of the vaccinated versus unvaccinated are sick or dying due to this twisting.
lies about if it is safe for pregnant women due to this twisting
and so on… here is the example of the study that lead to the claim misquoting science “10 times more effective”
We obtained data for all members of Clalit Health Services who were 50 years of age or older at the start of the study and had received two doses of BNT162b2 at least 5 months earlier. The mortality due to Covid-19 among participants who received the booster during the study period (booster group) was compared with that among participants who did not receive the booster (nonbooster group). A Cox proportional-hazards regression model with time-dependent covariates was used to estimate the association of booster status with death due to Covid-19, with adjustment for sociodemographic factors and coexisting conditions.
RESULTS
A total of 843,208 participants met the eligibility criteria, of whom 758,118 (90%) received the booster during the 54-day study period. Death due to Covid-19 occurred in 65 participants in the booster group (0.16 per 100,000 persons per day) and in 137 participants in the nonbooster group (2.98 per 100,000 persons per day). The adjusted hazard ratio for death due to Covid-19 in the booster group, as compared with the nonbooster group, was 0.10 (95% confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.14; P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Participants who received a booster at least 5 months after a second dose of BNT162b2 had 90% lower mortality due to Covid-19 than participants who did not receive a booster.
Similarly retarded “Pfizer COVID vaccine makes 10 times more antibodies than Sinovac – study”
Army Lt. Col. Theresa Long, an aviation safety officer and Army flight surgeon stationed at Fort Rucker, spoke this week at a Capitol Hill roundtable hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin. Testifying under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, Long said “ultimately, it is the commander who has the something to accept or reject the flight surgeon’s recommendations. Fellow Americans, you are the ones taking on the risk. My recommendations are: Dr. Fauci and the members of the FDA and NIH are unfit to fly this plane.They should be grounded. Before covid, I told you that medical errors killed the equivalent of 3 boeing 747s packed full of patients a day. Medicine is not perfect. Doctors are not perfect. This vaccine is not perfect. Yet we are mandating every single American get on board a single aircraft piloted by bureaucrats and administrators who are unfit to fly the aircraft. They need to be grounded. These are not leaders. These are administrators faithfully implementing policies. There is one narrative, that the vaccines are safe and effective, but neither are true. Senator Johnson I want to thank you for being a loyal dissenter, for doing your job and being a leader. I hope the american people do not let fear division and threats guide their decisions. Seek wisdom, pursue truth, and put your faith in the Lord. Hold the line.”
When you consider that Heller and MacDonald were decided by a 5-4 decision and that they have heard exactly one case about the 2a since then, you can see that the most important right is the one that is being pushed aside.
For the past maybe ten years, since Obama’s end of first term I’d say, each year contains an ever escalating event or change or two or three that eviscerates rights, destroys the past, or irrevocably reduces choices and freedom in the future. Each year brings a more jaw dropping openly done action against all that is good and right – globally, and, more to my concern, here against America, against her citizens and their way of life and their rights.
Consider, how innocent even the very robotic and evil Hillary Clinton campaign looks now, when an entire election was stolen through international and domestic coordinated vote machine fraud and open actions of (mostly black) foot soldiers who were convinced they were saving the country by cheating for Joe Biden. Which of course led to Biden being seated and then immediately taking each and every action on each and every situation that was the opposite of what was good and right and Constitutional and openly displaying that he is a empty shell and no one knows who is really running things, except well, the same as who is running the country generally. The CFR/Bohemian/Davos/Big Tech/Big Media/Soros-Democrat Globalists.
They all follow the same plan, and it is apparent that the same network is part of why the 2a is treated as it is. We are now up to over 200 pages in lexis when you search under just Second amendment of the US Constitution – 200 pages of holdings from cases. One is Miller, one is Cruikshank, those are old, then Heller, and MacDonald, and Caetano (although it was not heard it was summarily reversed) and ALL THE REST are cases where either the district or the circuit court found a twisted way to interpret Heller and MacDonald to rule against the people claiming they had rights under the 2a.
200 pages!
I will paste in some selections, but they will enrage you if you are anything like me. What manipulation!@ And at this point, we are only one supreme court decision away from a ruling which decides if it is okay that the lower courts have said people can’t carry in public (then what does “bear arms” mean?) or if it is true that anything a state says is an “assault weapon” made up term is outside the protection of the 2a because they are “like the m-16, and Heller said that the m-16 was not protected as it was most useful in war”
(as an aside, how could a militia be armed if they were forbidden something “most useful in war”)
But that is the actual ruling in the decision which was on its way to the supreme court and which all CA cases were ordered “held in abeyance” pending the ruling. Then suddenly, a new York pistol and rifle case got there ahead of the CA case, even though it was only two years ago that new York pistol and rifle vs. city and state of new York also got all CA 2a cases held in abeyance pending the supreme court decision. And you know what happened with THAT case? After all that waiting, and even though the case asked them to clarify to lower courts if they really meant what they said in Heller and MacDonald – well, at the last minute, new York city and state overturned their own law that was the one challenged in the case, and the Supreme court then dismissed the case as MOOT! Meaning the petitioners who had spent millions to fight the law the legal way with the case were left without a ruling that they were entitled to their costs on appeal. And meaning that any state or city now can make any unconstitutional law they want – petitioners will have to pony up the millions to fight it and wait all those years as it works its way up to the supreme court. Other cases challenging similar laws in other circuits or states will be held in abeyance pending the resolution of the case challenging the unconstitutional law, and then, only IF the supreme court agrees to hear the case, then the city or state can get rid of the law. They will have been able to keep it all the way until then, all through the pending, and then get it dismissed as moot. And as soon as its dismissed, just pass another law, exactly the same or worse, and start the same process over again.
insert justice thomas’s dissent in that dismissal
insert the Scalia dissent on cases after Heller
insert the pet for cert in Jackson
insert that recent pet for cert which discussed how the 9th sua sponte en banc always overrules panel decisions on the 2a which are in keeping with heller.
insert the terrible parts of rupp
insert some great parts from miller and duncan
and insert some sad pictures of what happens when 100 million are killed by their own government after being disarmed (and usually placed under communist or tyrannical rule)
Anyway, here are some links about this, and I will add some great quotes I”ve been getting from 2a cases to this article later.
As an update to my “vaccine against globalist lies”, I was reminded by the data out of Illinois that there may not be a vaccine against globalist lies, but there is an antidote to any tyranny those lies lead to.
NICS checks in California and Illinois by Month from 1998-2021
As we can see from the above table created from the data on the fbi.gov website’s NICS data tables, California and Illinois have different strengths against tyranny. This potentially could be due to California’s changing demographiscs, and changing leadership in Sacramento.
People may have forgotten that California was a republican state as late as 1980 when it elected Reagan for President overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, the one thing that President Reagan did which he said he regretted was approving amnesty, which was said to be the last amnesty for illegals that would be given, and then the border would be strengthened and there would be no more amnesties. As we know, that did not happen, and the majority of the illegals amnestied became citizens and stayed or came to California.
This led to drastic demographic displacement of multi generational whites, who left the state as it shifted to the left, and led to near exponential growth in the Latino population of CA, both illegal (as more came thinking, correctly, that there would be ever more granting of amnesties in the future) and legal, as those legalized under the 1980s amnesty sponsored chain migration from Mexico. Each person amnestied chain migration sponsored an average of 6 family members from their home country, each of whom then became eligible once a green card holder, to bring their own spouse and children, and once a citizen to bring a larger swath such as parents and even siblings.
Thus by 2018, CA became majority latino.
The lack of interest in asserting their 2a rights through purchasing firearms – ar at least the lack of interest in doing so by many in a state whose population was 30 million or more at all times of the data collection, is shocking. It admittedly is not just the demographics, but the fact that by 1989, California was the first state to pass their own assault weapons act making many weapons illegal after the Stockton schoolyard shooting.
The rest of the country did not ban these weapons until 5 years later, in 1994, and even then, that ban sunset after 2004 when it was found ineffective (the assault weapons ban which banned guns based on their looking like AK-47 even though functionally the same as any semi automatic rifle)
California on the other hand, has never repealed the 1989 law, but instead has expanded it to include ever more weapons by simply reclassifying more and more weapons as assault weapons, to the point where in 2016, California expanded it to include all semi automatic weapons capable of receiving a detachable magazine, except if made featurless or registering it as an assault weapon by 2018, (for rifles).
For shotguns, they were not included in the statute during the registration period, but after 2018 the regulations made by the DOJ in implementing the law expanded the law wrongfully by making the regulations applicable to shotguns though they were not in the statute. Despite actions by the NRA and Michel lawyers during the acceptance by the agency of the regulations which resulted in them pulling them from submission, they resubmitted them unchanged months later, and were accepted and published and are thus now law under California code of regulations.
So we can see that California is an example of not really having a 2a, or having it removed bit by bit. California in the table above at least numerically outnumbers Illinois for NICS checks (which can stand in for gun purchasing at least in the first 10 years of the table quite easily) even though that actually is sad because California’s population greatly exceeds Illinois for all the years of the table, and exceeds 30 million for all the years of the table.
But at least there are multiple years where California numerically exceeds Illinois in NICS checks.
The Ca numbers per year are around 800000 and up to 900000 for the first years, which means about 2-3% of the population was buying guns. This does exclude all the hundreds of thousands of guns already owned by the multi generational whites who remained in the state, and based on my experience with representative members of those multi generational whites, I would say those numbers of firearms already owned are nothing to sneeze at. Many whites from the baby boomer generation owned more than just a basic set of 7-9 guns, but instead were actual collectors, coming from that wealthier group who went to school on the GI bill and got in when real estate was affordable.
Anyway, so we see that evwery year between 2 and 3 percent of the CA population was buying NEW guns.
Overall since the beginning of nics, Californians have bought got nics checks 23 million. For a population which during that time rose to nearly 40 million, that is not so scary for tyrants. That is the results the tyrants here wanted, and they got.
Illinois is a different situation. A shining example of how you scare tyrants, outdoing as of late even Kentucky. These two statres make me feel so much better.
We see Illinois for the first ten years (from 1998 to 2008) does about 6 million nics checks. For a state of 12 million, that is not too shabby. (Californian with 30+ million, during the same time frame got 8 million)
But when Illinois really starts to shine is after McDonald vs. City of Chicago, which was in Illinois and was the second amendment case in which the supreme court incorporated the second amendment to the states (of course, the 7th circuit later ignored this and refused to incorporate it and this has not been corrected, but at least the baseline for liberty was established with McDonald and with a couple of 7th circuit decisions which upheld Heller and MacDonald against the state.) That appears to have made a big difference in how far the legislature of the two states were wiling to keep going after Heller and McDonald. Whereas the 9th has not shut down one case since Heller and MacDonald, the 7th has at least a couple of times. Getting slapped down by the courts even once appears to make a difference in how willing legislatures are to violate their citizens rights.
And with the 2a, when those rights are upheld by the courts, citizens buy guns and that has an impact on feisty legislatures that no court decision ever can. Guns deter tyrants absolutely and I say Illinois citizens keep doing what you are doing to keep the tyrants in line. Read ’em and weep, tyrants, Illinois citizens have got this many nics checks in the last years since McDonald and the 7th decisions upholding the 2a a couple times
3,332,055
7,455,065
4,949,570
2,831,447
1,601,087
1,924,070
1,247,398
1,344,096
1,280,613
1,036,061
illinois nics checks since macdonald
So we see over 2 per person in only the last ten years. And nearly 48 million over all time, in a state with 12 million people. Thanks Illinois for your shining example of liberty!
Totals
Year
Illinois Population
California Population
1476073
8474505
1,601,054
7,455,065
12/1/2020
12587530
39368078
1,240,632
4,949,570
12/1/2019
12667017
39437610
1,297,132
2,831,447
12/1/2018
12724685
39437463
1,570,110
1,601,087
12/1/2017
12779893
39337785
2,377,167
1,924,070
12/1/2016
12821709
39149186
1,761,079
1,247,398
12/1/2015
12859585
38904296
1,474,616
1,344,096
12/1/2014
12885092
38586706
1,368,295
1,280,613
12/1/2013
12895778
38253768
1,132,603
1,036,061
12/1/2012
12883029
37944551
905,701
828,962
12/1/2011
12867783
37636311
816,399
695,300
12/1/2010
12840545
37319550
788,164
752,071
12/1/2009
12796778
36961229
780,398
615,941
12/1/2008
12747038
36604337
855,943
536,975
12/1/2007
12695866
36250311
617,820
527,698
12/1/2006
12643955
36021202
611,022
527,134
12/1/2005
12609903
35827943
548,843
590,417
12/1/2004
12589773
35574576
524,431
515,917
12/1/2003
12556006
35253159
684,390
446,138
12/1/2002
12525556
34871843
854,569
462,702
12/1/2001
12488445
34479458
794,506
449,771
12/1/2000
12434161
33987977
883,144
484,848
12/1/1999
12128370
33145121
67,445
41,477
12/1/1998
12069774
32682794
in the left column, the number not in line with the text in the other columns is CA, the one in line with the others is IL numbers
John Dillon, the attorney for Miller in Miller v. Bonta, masterfully saw through and thus side stepped the State of California’s tricks throughout the journey of the case to the District Court. While some said the decision from Judge Benitez proved he was Saint Benitez, I dislike portraying cases as in “our side won” or “this person blessed us by going on our side”. Because after all, the courts are supposed to make decisions involving Constitutional rights by following the Constitution. Well written motions and pleadings guide fair judges to the legally correct outcome. So I would portray the district court outcome – Judge Benitez’s strong opinion finding California’s awb laws unconstitutional – as a skilled and astute lawyer’s pleadings being carefully considered by a fair judge.
On the other side, the behavior of the state of California, and that of the 9th Circuit, are an example of why I shy away from Saint Benitez as title for the judge. Because what they did 2 days ago was reward the state of california for its scheming technique of viewing cases to do with the right to bear arms as mere games – where laws that end run around the constitution overtake the right in CA in a thicket of interlocking branches are constantly added – and where any case challenging the laws is delayed and delayed as it works its way through the courts. Because their position is indefensible with any careful reading of the case and particularly the strong and exhaustive evidence squarely demonstrating that they entire and ever expanding weapons smeared as assault weapons under the CA awb are in common use for lawful purposes – and thus squarely protected under Heller – how to keep from having to make sensical arguments on appeal? Ahhh, delay…through a STAY…..
These types of moves are par for the course with CA and the 9th – which is why I expected some twist by them. But my prediction was way off because it guessed an order of magnitude less egregious and disingenuous motions would be made and ruled upon. Yet again, this is an outcome showing that they do not follow the procedural rules, the standing rules, anything – when the state of California is challenged in 2a cases.
Our community is heartbroken again – it did feel as if there might have been a chance with this one – which had already made it all the way to a final ruling by the district court in just 2 years. That’s lightning fast for second amendment cases in California (and many places) It truly is the disfavored right, and the one that most circuit courts apparently, are quite comfortable allowing states to argue in favor of states who submit motions whose essence is that the right is “not REALLY worth insisting upon”.
All while cases involving illegal aliens and trans rights seem to reach the supreme court in a year. If you compare the length of time before a binding final decision in 2a cases in CA is much longer than for cases involving gay rights or immigration, as a commenter on calgunlaws wrote this morning in discussing the recent ruling. If leftists were forced to accept this kind of tactic on something like desegregation or voter id then maybe they would see what we mean. But that happening to them is unimaginable.
So, what was the evil ruling? Well, a tactic California tried before but John Dillon foresaw and parried and blocked from happening. California had originally tried to make a motion for a stay on the Miller v Bonta decision, saying that it was related to Rupp and another case and that those cases were still being decided and that decisions in the Miller case should wait til those outcomes are known.
Luckily, John Dillon for Miller made a convincing case to Judge Benitez that while California acted like it was just a short wait, in fact it was not. Plus, he pointed out that to get a stay they have to show not just a bit of prejudice, but irreparable harm, and not just that it would make things tricky as the impact of the decisions rolled down to other decisions and so on. The arguments the State made, in other words, were borderline frivolous, and disingenuous, and also, very rudely dismissive of the plaintiff’s rights. The state of CA even said that the plaintiff’s shouldn’t mind waiting a bit longer for a decision on if they could have their rights back, since they had waited 20 years to bother to say that the awb was interfering in their rights.
His answer to that was that it was in 2016 when the state expanded the awb ion such a way that it now included an entire CLASS if weapons in common use for lawful purposes – and that’s why they filed then, now that it was completely in line with Heller which said you couldn’t ban an entire class. So luckily, Judge Benitez agreed and held the hearing on the motion for injunction rather than buying into the state’s “request for stay” trick. That allowed the evidence to be heard and put into the record and a decision to be made incorporating that evidence, which would then be available for the courts as the other two cases worked their way through to final decision (likely Supreme Court)
The decision then was a final district court decision which would stand even while it was appealed. So what did California and the 9th do? California r3efiled likely the same points motion for a stay to the 9th circuit – instead of an appeal.
That means that the decision of the judge Benitez in favor of the plaintiffs and saying the awb violates the 2nd is now put into a terrible holding pattern, where it is not precedent because a higher court has stayed it. This is so unusual that I can’t event think of a similar case where this happened.
So the result is that California got completely what they wanted – years and years more with that decision counting for nothing with all of its great evidence and careful reasoning. It will be muzzled for years – because California’s stay was based not on the case itself, but based on the other two cases still being in appeal process, and saying it would be duplicative and confusing if those two cases were ruled on in one way by a higher court while this case ruled a different way then the law would be all confusing and no one would know which to follow.
They say that Rupp, which is appealing Judge Benitez ruling that the “large capacity magazine” law violated the 2a – because that is being appealed, it might get overturned and found constitutional, so the Miller decision which says the entire AWB is unconstitutional and therefore is struck down as of July 4 2021, if that decision is not stayed, then people would start exercising their rights before the appeals courts got the chance to say they were unconstitutional
It is toying with rights, and it is being done with treacherous intent, and out of a sense of hurt pride. They were so enraged by the decision on Miller v Bonta – WHAT a decision that strikes down what WE the ELITES have decided for the PEASANTS? Now, we the elites will have to see that go into effect while we appeal it like mere mortals?
Yes, that is what happens usually, like we all had to watch Joe Biden get sworn in while the court waited to rule on the few election challenge cases they didn’t immediately throw out. Yet, unless irreparable harm could be proven – a difficult thing when the subject is election integrity or the second amendment only – when you are california here, apparently all you have to do is say that you would rather keep the status quo as it will be messy if they overturn the laws you have which ban the right completely.
It is disgusting that the ninth would do that, but what do you expect? They always astound me – the left in general – by how they can sleep at night and look in a mirror, when they have to know how underhanded they are being to attain their goals. To our side, attaining goals with integrity is as important as attaining them, which is why President Trump’s victory in 2016 – and presidency were so special. And why the theft of the election in which he truly won in 2020 was so awful. And why this is sadder than expected. Expected, but still sad.
A decision from Judge Benitez, after 14000 pages and hours of testimony – that the case filed in 2019 called Miller v Beccerra (now Miller v. Bonta) covers the various arguments made by the state to upholding their since-1989 ever expanded “assault weapon” ban, and decides that it fails to meet even the very low (and rejected by Heller) interest balancing standard of scrutiny, as well as intermediate scrutiny and of course, strict scrutiny.
It is a big deal, covering all the wide sweep of usefulness for militia as a valid reason (interoperable with mil spec guns if Californians were ever called up as a militia) and hammers home “in common use for lawful purposes” deciding factor given by Heller with industry literature and experts. And offers sympathetic declarants for the self defense reasoning too. It particularly focuses on pulling second amendment jurisprudence back to what was held in Heller, away from the “building on flawed precedent to ignore Heller‘s mandate” direction cases have currently gone.
That is especially important, given the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to take a second amendment case and show that they meant what they said in Heller and MacDonald. There was one 2a case the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion on, named Caetano, which I heard nothing about -and that case is deftly woven into the arguments in MIller v. Bonta, too. It is like Heller v. District of Columbia or U.S. v. Texas (the dapa injunction case filed by Texas after Obama sought to expand daca and add dapa, where the filings and declarations are by people who are very polished and very good at narrowing issues and clearly stating things – and more importantly,. at predicting what the state of ca will attempt to argue. It seems amazing to me the state’s lawyers can argue what they do when they have to know it is wrong, and amazing to me too that there are so many court decisions involving Heller where the most tortured reasoning is used. That is soooo offensive, and awful, in a land of precedent decisions being binding. Heller was supposed to be binding too, but it wasn’t as clear as many lower courts needed it to be for them to actually follow it. Added to that, by refusing to grant certiorari on any of the 2a cases that came to it, the Supreme court let stand those wrongly decided lower court decisions against Heller. Miller really reads like an attempt by Judge Benitez to pull it back to Heller’s correct interpretation and put an end to the treachery below. It’s good because the arguments are very strong, and also, the issues thus displayed force the state of ca, and any courts which overturn his carefully and historically and Heller bound opinion to actually come out and state so on the record. t is pretty obvious that the last 40 years they have been pushing the gun laws in one direction, away from the US Constitution.It would be so nice to start pushing things back in a direction where the US Constitution and the rights of the people triumph over the government attempt to take power. It would be great for CA and for all the 9th circuit and I would hope would do something to restore the 2a as a valid constitutional right.
I. I thought that after Heller, the constitutionality of the assault weapons ban in CA would be challenged because t the assault weapons ban (roberti roos) in CA was found Constitutional in the earlier case that challenged it found it Constitutional because the second amendment only protected the rights of the militia and not an individual right to bear arms. That was BEFORE the Supreme Court decided in Heller and MacDonald that the second amendment protected an individual’s right to bear arms. I guess it is good they waited until now to do the case, after Judge Benitez in an earlier case found that the ban on “large capacity” magazines (over ten rounds, commonly sold with many firearms around the country) was unconstitutional, Then they were able to frame the case as just asking the same reasoning be applied to the entire class of weapons banned by the assault weapons ban. But they are communists, and want people disarmed. So reading the parts of it, and also law review articles and other scholarly journal articles by some of the declarants has been quite cool.
However, there is a 7 dem to 4 republican on the 9th, and while I am impressed with the recently filed papers opposing the emergency stay well, I think we know what the 9th likes to do to get its way and that is – “decide – SUA SPONTE, of course, to DO WHATEVER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CA wants” Just like Peruta and Jackson.
So rather than deal with any deferential standard like you do in a normal appeal, nor in issuing an emergency stay due to irreparable harm, they will decide to rehear it sua sponte en banc, and then in connection with that, say the 9th en banc panel are sua sponte ordering a stay until the decision is reheard or if that reheard en banc decision is appealed, then stayed until the supreme court decides on the appeal. What will the excuse be about why a stay is needed to prevent irreparable harm? Same reason as in peruta, because if the ban is lifted, the entire second amendment jurisprudence in CA will be upended with resulting increase in gun violence. That was what Kampala Harris argued when she asked them after it was all over, to let her horn in on the case and to rehear it en banc. She said the case has such large public policy impact, which is what they said for peruta. In fact, why in peruta when the sheriff did not appeal it and thus it would have stood, allowed Kampala Harris the AG to file a notice of intervenor request for emergency stay and rehearing en banc. But the court en banc panel decided there too, SUA SPONTE to rehear. And rehearing avoids the fairness of the deferential standards normally required by appeals judges, who are not “re trying” the case, but applying certain appellate rules such as mistakes of law or procedural/constitutional issues that meant procedural, the parties were not fairly heard, if the judge abused his discretion. If it was all procedurally proper (especially as here) the appeals court can’t substitute their judgment for that of the lower court judge. But I bet these 9th en banc judges will do just that.
I saw the filings done by Miller in opposition to the a.g. request for emergency stay in this case, and when I saw the words
In deciding whether a party has demonstrated such a strong likelihood of success, this Court must review the District Court’s findings of fact for clear error, conduct a de novo review of the District Court’s legal findings, and consider the scope of the injunction under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Index Newspapers, 977 F.3d at 824 (citing cases)
If deciding sua sponte lets them essentially retry the case, and issue a stay for as long as athey can, that is what they will do. Mark my words.
Americans properly responded to the “unprecedented times” and “difficult times” as well as to the “most secure election in history” in which there was “no evidence of any, I mean, any widespread, I mean any widespread coordinated, I mean any widespread coordinated international interference based voter fraud – I mean, IT’S BEEN THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED AND THE DOJ SAID THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AS DID THE DHS ELECTION TEAM, SO STOP WRECKING DEMOCRACY WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. The American people picked Pickle!
Ignoring the American people and lying to them leads to this….
Looking at the background checks for January 2021 over January 2020 , we see that in every single state, the numbers are higher in 2021. The percentage increase varies – in some states the numbers nearly double, but all the states are getting in on the increase action. This largely increased January 2021 comes on the heals of the highest NICS checks year ever, 2020. But Americans aren’t about to stop, not after what they saw pulled in November. Never has it seemed to imperative to be able to prevent a tyrannical government than when you just finished seeing one falsely installed through interlinked coordination to plan, do, and then prevent the undoing of the steal, a staggering betrayal. The last line has not yet been crossed, but this is how Americans feel safe while the traitorous vipers coil.
Giving the 2021 NICS numbers as a percentage of the state’s 2020 numbers (so that 5000 2021 NICS checks would be 200% of a state’s 2020 numbers if the state had 2500 2020 background checks) the smallest increase was Virginia, with 5% more in 2021, 4031 more. Kentucky was next smallest, in terms of increase, but that isn’t saying much. Kentucky is my favorite state to read the nics checks data on, because pretty much every single month of the last lots of years, Kentucky gets approximately three hundred and quite a few thousand nics checks done. Even taking off 30000 of those to account for nics checks not for gun purchases, still leaves over 300000 Each month. Keeping in mind that Kentucky’s population is 3 million, this means that each year, Kentucky purchases at least one new gun for every man woman and child in Kentucky. Every month, one in ten people gets a new gun. The coolness of being a state that purchased the population amount of guns EACH YEAR hard for me to picture, but it makes me smile. So Kentucky in jan 2021 had 421790 nics checks done, 54000 more than Jan 2020. So slightly here means “Kentucky slightly” increased, as in “We already have so many goddam guns we can say goddam guns and no one even bothers us, just as they don’t bother us about much.”
Utah Hawaii and Alabama incrased their numbers by about 25-32 percent over 2020, followed by California, with 2021 nics checks of 134432 over 96567 in 2020 (139%) Washington, West Virginia, and Nebraska had one and a half times as many in 2021 as in 2020 (73369 in 2021 to 49714 in 2020 for WA; 26626 to 17974 in 2020 for WV and 10509 to 7021 for NE)
State/ Jan-20/ Totals all 2020/ JAN 2021/ difference jan 2020 to jan 2021/jan 2021 what % of jan 2020
Heuristics is the scientific term for the way the human brain makes many decisions by relying on certain shortcuts. Without these shortcuts, the human brain would rapidly become overloaded, because all voluntary activity requires the brain to make a decision. So it is good.
However, this knowledge of the brain’s shortcut taking in decisions has impacts beyond a single persons life when the decisions are used as the basis for public policy. If the resulting decisions are made law, and there were more sound choices than the “shortcut decision” that weren’t considered due to the shortcut taking, we can end up with laws and public policy which are not only less effective than they could be, but we can end up with laws that are deadly. Not only that, but the emotional power of certain issues can be used to persuade people to violate the Constitution and give up rights which becomes precedent for future violations which gradually destroys the strength of the Constitution and ensconces the elites in power.
Unintended consequences is a term to describe un thought of outcomes and impacts of the decision and law before it was demanded and passed. The short cut decision making did not consider all the aspects of the situation being addressed, and left out an important part. Unintended consequences should stand as a reminder to all calling for policy and law about important public issues to make sure they are not taking shortcuts in their decision making.
It can be difficult to do so, because apart from becoming aware of what heuristics are known and aware of one’s use of these decision making short cuts, we also have to be aware that there are manipulative people and groups of people in our society which have agendas they want to push through. Part of the way they can accomplish this in our Constitutional republic – representational democracy – is to convince non policy makers to demand that lawmakers make certain laws.
A recent excellent example of this sort of outside influence used to get the public to think a certain way and then to take demands to lawmakers as a result was seen after the tragic Parkland shooting. Groups who support certain agendas quickly made all sorts of resources available to the students from Parkland who wanted to pursue “gun control” as a result of the tragedy. By harnessing their network of like minded organizations accross the country, and most importantly of all, their direct “in”s with the media, they were able to offer the students for gun control all they needed to bring their demands to the public. However, there were students at Parkland who did not want to demand gun control, but those same organizations did not offer resources to them. Instead, they explicitly ensured that they were excluded from town halls and media appearances, even going so far as to portray one of the pro gun students in a defamatory way. Thus, this nonprofit organization made of undisclosed donors used its funding to reach it goals by getting the students to make the demands.
How did they get the students to make the demands? After all, the students were not coerced – they said, and believed that they had come to this demand on their own, and then thousands across the country said the same thing. They, thinking, independent, young adults, had independently thought the situation through (guns used by a bad person killed people, therefore guns kill people, therefore if guns are gone, people will not be killed, and the only reason politicians have not made these laws to make the guns go is because all the money they get from the nra, so we will demand they not take money from the nra or we will vote them out, and we will then demand they get rid of guns through laws)
But if you understand heuristics, you will see that the gun grabbers played on, took advantage of the student’s brains use of heuristics, and then provided them the resources as quickly as possible so that their decisions’ resultant position was known publicly, which would then take advantage of the brains wish to be seen as not changing mind/integrity/dependable/not flip flops to ensure the students continued in that way by continued publicizing of their actions and words as heroic and worthy so they wold be praised and also, known for and therefore stuck.
A heuristic the gun grabbers took advantage of was the availability bias, which is the way the brain relies on information that comes the most quickly to mind. If you are deciding about guns, what came quickly to those students mind was, of course, the Parkland shooting they had just been tragically involved in and hurt by. Because the news focuses on school shootings, that is what comes most quickly to mind for most people. Because people being killed at school shootings is what springs most quickly to mind when considering “guns”, people overestimate the likelihood of that event and therefore want to base the laws on preventing that event. They are forgetting that just because it came most quickly to mind does not actually mean it is more likely, in fact, actuary tables made by insurance companies calculate and value different possible events when giving quotes for life insurance, so an actuary table is more accurate. The actuary table would show that school shootings are not considered a likely event, thus it would be very cheap to get life insurance which covered you against getting killed in one.
The whole story is not even told when the overestimated risk is put into its proper likelihood alongside other risks, because in the case of guns, the 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year in america would not make it on. The defensive gun use statistic is lately confirmed by data gathered by the HHS in 1990s in a number of states which matches what Kleck’s 1990s study had also found. These studies importantly, to find out about defensive gun use – number one, did not ony county defensive gun use in which the person using the gun in self defense actually killed the assailant, which oddly and wrongly is the only way many anti gun studies will even count a gun use as defensive. I think most of us consider a defensive gun use a success any time it lessens the negative impact of the criminal’s actions against us. The studies reviewed by the CDC under an obama commissioned study showed people who use guns in self defense were the least injured of any of the people who used various techniques to fight back against criminals. Not only that, but there were few of those. Most of the 2.5 million stopped the crime without themselves or others being injured, and often, without a shot even being fired. Sometimes they did shoot the criminal, but even then, it was fatal in less than 1.5% of the dgus and yet the crime was stopped in 95% of the cases.
This is what is left out by the availability heuristic and why it is wrong that groups with agendas manipulate people to only see the side of the issue that their shortcut taking brain will process, and then rush them to take public action to get public policy and law changed based on the ill informed short cut decision they made. It means the decision is made to call for taking away guns, based on 17 people in a school dying, because that comes easiest to mind, without considering that such a law will remove guns from 2.5 million people who then cannot stop the criminal from hurting or killing them. The unintended consequences are deadly for thousands of those 2.5 million now disarmed and helpless after the law passed because of the 17 students is passed.
Those who would trick people to make short sighted decisions which result in laws which make hundreds of thousands helpless and cause the death of thousands should not be allowed to anonymously manipulate the public to get their undisclosed but nefarious un american ends. At least if you know about heuristics, you can slow down and think before your short cut decision making part of your brain makes you a pawn, and a cause of the death of thousands through unintended consequences.
Remember that hopeful moment just over one month ago, where the slippery lawless were about to be caught in a corner and exposed and put on trial? The memos and the emails revealing the true extent of the collusion between all agencies of the deep state and the Soros democrats. Lynch, Comey, Mueller, Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, Shumer, Feinstein, and the multiple rogue actors at various agencies. The forces which had been ducking justice, hiding injustice, and churning the waters for their New World Order goals truly seemed to be in a corner. Not only had Trump kept his promises to the American people once in office, it seemed we might be about to witness the swamp truly drained, with these anti-America globalists writhing in the mud with their own haughty emails and memos out in the open, used in courts of law to bring them to justice…
Yet, as is their way, at the last minute, the slippery eels (sorry eels) managed a last minute deflection with a sudden and sharp change of focus to the Parkland shooting and gun control. Ur, uh, I mean, to the “completely grass roots authentically started by the students themselves” focus on the Parkland shooting and gun control.
Like nearly all deep state/globalist events they manipulate or create, this event was laser guided to accomplish multiple goals. It also like nearly all their manipulations of events, involved sympathetic puppets manipulated as part of the event to make it bend to NWO goals. It also energized the deflated democrat party with its (Marxist educated social justice identity politics voted for a socialist) youth base just in time for the midterm elections. More alarmingly, the way that the event moved from a shooting to a number of national walkouts and marches involving thousands, showed it was also a test of the mob mobilization the new world order is so interested in. With the tech companies all on board with the globalists, we’ve heard about the study of tweets and other social media trends to follow information as it fans out from certain nodes. And this was a test of how information could stimulate youth across the nation to unquestioningly focus on a certain angle of an event, forget the Constitution, forget the other side of the story and any critical thinking, could be drawn to go march on the nation’s capital to demand that a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT BE TAKEN AWAY!! It was a test to see what phrases the students would parrot, how many could be driven to do this, at a moments notice, and then, how long could they be driven to keep it up for – (six weeks and counting) without becoming burned out or actually questioning beyond the narrative provided?
To test the parrot puppet students again, the narrative changed again, to a revolution, and also, about race, it seems, just to see what sort of cognitive dissonance they could draw the puppet parrots to have and yet keep parroting the agenda. It also is to test if the puppet parrots are on board enough with the globalists hide the globalists involvement and not reveal the extent that it was pushed by adult run organizations? And that the media wanted to talk only to those who matched a certain agenda? No, so far they are keeping up the lies. So far so good for the globalists I guess. armies of indoctrinated youth who would, on a dime, march chanting anything – up to and including a right protected by the US Constitution. Because 17 people died in a school shooting, everyone should have to give up their guns and politicians should make laws requiring that or get voted out. And its very frightening when you realize 150 democrats in Congress already put forward a bill banning ALL semi automatic weapons.
It’s like qui buono? And that’s why it’s manipulated event – because it gave the globalists exactly what they need for their next step, an energetic uninformed youth based registering to vote and all fire up to vote “for the politician who supports gun control” and against “any politician the NRA rates highly” As the only deciding factor! With the blll to ban all semiautomatics already with 150 democrats backing the bill – you can see the tragedy we can be walking into at the midterm election. How handy for the globalists that this event happened and the students just happened to be high school age, old enough it would seem positive if they took an activist position on something, and what better thing than disarmament which is the only thing keeping america from globalist control. Used by globalists in Canada too, evil Justin Trudeau is coming down on gun owners in Canada – over what happened in Florida? What was it that the democrats grasped onto and haven’t let go of 6 weeks later? the Parkland shooting, which then segued into a general call for gun control; an absolutely brilliant way to separate left from right and again demonize the right as uncaring and the left as the ones who care.
A Heartbreaking Provocation if you love the Constitution and hate indoctrination
The indoctrinated minions were mobilized and proved to the Soros democrats that they were indeed a regular little army of puppets who could be gathered for optics or soundbites at the drop of a hat. These kids, who had been encouraged in the divisive anti-Trump demonstrating, and black lives matter demonstrating, now were fired up and just looking for a “cause”, especially the white kids who have been made to feel excluded from activism and now get the chance to “take the lead”. After all, in their colleges and universities where they are educated to become “global citizen activists” a la Saul Alinsky, the highest action one can take is direct action agitating for a cause. These teachers and schools jumped to attention and jumped on this supposedly student led movement without asking any questions about the assumptions underlying it. The slidey trickery of the multiple adult gun control/social control groups “offering organizational and logistical assistance” and money while insisting that the whole thing is student led gives a clear view of the future if the progressives should gain total control. And this for them is a way of letting all of us they hate see how they have indoctrinated the youth. What seemed pathetically unbalanced when the issue was Trump versus Hillary is now not even them picking the wrong side, but them not even seeing that there is another possible side. Not the criminological side, not any anecdotes from gun owners or survivors f rapes who used guns in self defense,and not the Constitutional side either.
And I’m sure that’s why the progressives picked this issue also – because they have been attempting to disarm Americans by chipping away at the protection offered by the second amendment, one common sense gun bill at a time. It has been relentless. It is an exterior directed goal, with all progressive run states working for the same thing. And as California has proven, any little chip into the protection, such as by vilifying and banning a certain gun, will just be the wedge to an ever expanding network of laws which choke out lawful ownership after only a few years. Because the left won’t control crime, and they want to disarm us so badly, we can only assume they want us dead. That they managed to get our own remaining white children (who were just months ago being told how racist they are) to be permitted inclusion in asocial movement, in fact, be permitted leadership positions and media exposure and political power in a movement, so long as they will parrot the lines (no, update after the Saturday March to take away our rights, I mean, March for our lives, the white student spokespeople have switched to larger social justice orthodoxy framing of the movement – the Parkland shooting was only focused on because it was in an affluent community, and people in poorer neighborhoods, no matter how well they spoke, the news just wouldn’t focus on them.
No, the reason they have given you front and center coverage for 6 weeks is because the globalists were backed into a corner and were worried that someone might actually use the US Justice system against them. Which they could and should. At this point, the passivity of the Justice Department under Trump is absurd. I understand that the special investigator is leaning on the President that was why lawless acts were done to form the basis for getting the wiretap and the special investigator. But the special investigation is the fruit of the poisonous tree if there ever was one, so I can’t understand why we are coming up on the midterm elections and Mr. Sessions has not gotten fierce. Take a page out of Obama’s book and really go after at least some states for violating civil rights – not voting rights like Obama – but the second amendment. The AG can sue states whose laws infringe on ANY civil rights. So he could do that. He could do something against states openly keeping illegal aliens criminals hidden. They are like naughty children, and until someone is indicted and goes to prison, they will keep up their game. They don’t mind being disapproved of, “admonished” by judges. For them, it’s the pleasure of remaining above the law, no matter what, that brings such joy.
For them, being above the law is just the first taste of the type of power each and every one of these rogue agents has been promised and believes they will have once the American system of Constitutional government in a republic for the people by the people is destroyed and the progressive vision for the world is unveiled. In that world, they picture, all will be theirs – as the glorious bringers of the revolution, they will ensconce themselves, burn the Constitution, and “be in power longer than anyone can imagine” (actual quote from Hillary Clinton) And that ties right into their open and obvious deflection to none other than a school shooting with advocate age students, the perfect foil for their next move.
But for those of us who grew up when the right to free speech was commonly referred to by students. The media part of the same Soros nwo system has perfectly played its part by keeping these youth automatons actions and “demands” in the center of the news cycle for over 6 weeks – absolutely unheard of prior to this. And done without a hint of balanced actual exploration of the issue – save for the pundits who work around the need to state facts by having people one who tell their opinions about guns without any backup data, but its permitted because it counts as opinion and it’s live, and the media can’t help what people say “live”. It just happens to be exactly the message the progressive’s want – the same as it just happened to be the message they wanted when they held the town hall after Parkland. These opinion presented as facts without any sourcing necessary, repeated ad nauseum, allows the message to completely permeate every part of media.
Thus, the untrue (more guns equal more crime), (assault weapons are automatic military weapons way more powerful than anything else) (guns only kill innocent people and never save lives) (the politicians only don’t pass gun control because they get money from the NRA)(the NRA and the gun manufacturers just want to make money) and (gun violence will stop with more laws) go unchallenged.
Site Title 