- Mar 6, 2016
- 2,229
- 8,055
- 2,225
Before any shot was rolled out, the data clearly showed that those over 65 and those with preexisting conditions were at greatest risk. A reduction in hospitalizations and death among 65 and older is legit data per efficacy.
You are absolutely right. They are at risk. I should have clarified my statement and added “how many over 65 would die,” because not all of them die from covid.
Part of the problem with the vax is that it advances disease one might already have. It’s more of an attack. For instance, my sister’s lupus was under control before the vax and advanced greatly since. The other sister had controlled arthritis and that got worse instantly. She doesn’t have much immunity left and is in a never ending cycle of respiratory issues. Her daughter also received the vaccines and her disease has disabled her more than her mom. Both of them seem to get covid once or twice a year. So i will reiterate that the elderly are at risk from elements within the shot. One such chemical was a form of antifreeze to facilitate the mrna. You also have dna from insects and whatnot, along with impurities like fungus in some. Add in the metals and you have a soup to create chaos in a young body but major impairment in the elderly.
Our bodies only produce one vitamin -d. Every cell in our bodies has a d receptor. To make a long story short, corona viruses have trouble activating within a cell if the body has an optimal vit d range of 86. This is why so many in china succumbed to covid, limited sun. What makes it worse is that those over 60 no longer absorb the d from the sun and must be supplemented which most aren’t. I heard one dr say that 80% ( might be more) of the population is vitamin d deficient. Anyway, my point is that we can mitigate……
i have to go to sleep, will continue tomorrow.