Disappointed

At the end of a 60-minute Zoom webinar last night, the host recommended more boosters to protect against SARS CoV-2 infections. None of the risks of side effects were mentioned.

This was the headline on the email sent to me as a former participant in the study which included over 1000 participants in Ontario. The study, run by the UHN, was divided into two cohorts: Age 30-50 and 70+.

Online, I searched the UHN website for its annual financial report to find its sources of funding and possibly to learn who funded the STOPCoV study. The only annual report available reads like a marketing document devoid of any financial information.

I joined the study at the end of 2020 when it began. The stated goals included to determine the effectiveness of the Covid-19 “vaccines” among other objectives.

My participation in that part of the study ended after I suffered seriously-disconcerting side effects about 3 hours of receiving my one and only jab in July 2021. Fortunately, these symptoms passed by end of day but sealed my decision to avoid more jabs.

I did, however, participate later in another phase of the study to test new PCR test kits for home use. These became widely available commercially soon thereafter. I still have no idea how accurate these tests were.

The proportion of false positives and false negatives for the PCR test kits were not reported in the webinar.

During the webinar, various reports were presented from three different members of the STOPCoV study. The total number of staff members who participated in managing the study amounted to about 15 including laboratory personnel, data analysts, researchers, program administrators, and more.

The presentations were informative.

The presenters used Powerpoint slides to explained the nature of the various studies performed going back to when the STOPCoV study began four years ago. The study findings and conclusions followed, then recommendations. The researchers tracked three generations of the “vaccine” which were modified in attempts to address the evolving virus variants from the original Wuhan viron through Omicron to the post-Omicron variants circulating today.

The results and my takeaway.

1. The “vaccines” did not protect against infection in a statistically significant way.

2. One scientist, a specialist in IgA antibody research, offered data to show how an IgA antibody response may be the mechanism by which a temporary barrier (~ 24 hours) is formed to prevent a virus entering the body through the mucous layers in the nose, mouth and pharynx. She suggested that more research in this area is needed to determine if a nasal spray could be created to provide a first line of defence against getting infected. Of course, if infection were to occur, then a “vaccine” injections would produce IgG antibodies which circulate in the blood to protect cells through the body.

3. The “vaccine” injections produce transient antibody responses which typically peaked within ~ 30 days and declined thereafter and became negligible after four months. There was no mention of “natural immunity” as it appeared not to be in scope of the STOPCoV study. It made me wonder if the study was funded partially or wholly by the “vaccine” manufacturers who stood to gain from more profit than if some citizens might refuse to accept jabs and “take their chances” with natural immunity.

4. The 70+ study cohort were shown to be more compliant with study participation than the ages 30 to 50 cohort. Speculating, I suspect this is because generally healthy middle-age men and women suffer fewer health issues (“comorbidities”) and perceive lower personal risk of severe outcomes from a SARS CoV-2 infection than seniors.

5. New versions of the “vaccine” were allegedly needed to defend against new circulating variants and to boost the decking antibody responses from prior jabs. These ‘boosters’ were always available too late because the circulating viruses changed too fast for researchers, manufacturers and distribution networks to keep up with a new virus forms.

6. A hybrid antibody response was found to be more effective than a vaccine-only antibody response. ‘Hybrid’ referred to anyone who became ill with SARS CoV-2 AFTER at least one jab. No suggestion was offered that “natural immunity” may have been responsible for this advantage.

7. The pandemic is not over according to the study findings. New SARS Cov-2 variants are still being tracked by public health officials. One chart suggested that ~80% of the population has been infected at some point since the first case was reported in Toronto in January 2020. Admittedly, the mortality rate had dropped to negligible levels since the peak around January 2021 when everyone who entered a hospital was PCR-tested and became a Covid “case” even if admitted for reasons unrelated to a viral infection. By 2023, after rampant testing decreased, the numbers of “cases” and Covid deaths dropped dramatically. The lesson?: You can always find something if you look for it.

8. The STOPCoV webinar never once provided any information or discussion about “vaccine side effects”. The webinar host concluded with advice that everyone get their Covid boosters as soon as they become available.

Subliminal propaganda.

With that concluding advice, I felt that I had just spent an hour in a marketing webinar designed to promote more jabs on behalf of Big Pharma.

Questionable medical ethics.

Even in contemporary television commercials, Big Pharma companies are legally required to state the possible side effects of their products and to insist that consumers consult their personal medical doctor to determine if the treatment is “right for you”.

That final statement in point #8 consisted of medical advice with no risk warnings. It is my understanding that this violates medical ethics.