Another Conspiracy Sees Clinical Corroboration

New pre-print study shows suggestive evidence of "jab shedding"

Here we are again. The fact-checkers told us it was barmy. So did the media. And the pro-mask NPC Twitterati crowd called anyone talking about it a conspiracy theorist - tin-foiled hat, Alex Jones-bellowing imagery included. But now a new pre-print study has shown evidence to the contrary.

Published by the University of Colorado earlier this month, researchers concluded covid jab antibodies can be transmitted through aerosols and bodily fluids. They discovered when comparing unjabbed children living with either jabbed or unjabbed parents, the children living with jabbed parents had a higher concentration of COVID-19 antibodies in their swabs than children living with unjabbed parents.

The study found: “Log transformation of the data from thirty-four adult-child pairs established antibody cut-offs for high vs low parental intranasal antibody levels. Evaluation of samples in this fashion revealed that high intranasal IgG in vaccinated parents was significantly associated (p-value = 0.01) with a 0.38 increase in the log transformed intranasal IgG gMFIs within a child from the same household (Fig 1F).”

In short, children who were both unjabbed and not previously infected mysteriously possessed higher antibodies in their nasal cavities in households where their parents were jabbed.

Wait a second, according to Facebook-funded FactCheck.org, this can’t be:

What they failed to say is that many clinicians have stated that shedding the spike protein is possible. But no studies have specifically measured the shedding’s effect on reproductive issues. Nor have they specifically measured the amount of shedding during various periods post-jab. Although we’ve seen reproductive issues arise from direct inoculation regarding male fertility and some now-corrected but still troubling data concerning pregnancy.

FactCheck.org continued:

Note the words “experts tell us”. Well, yeah, you only speak to one side.

The idea that “no biological path” enables shedding goes directly against the Colorado study authors’ conclusions. They specifically stated the only means by which these children would test positive for antibodies is that the jabbed parents likely passed them on. How else would unjabbed and uninfected kids consistently show higher antibodies? Or is this just another coincidence?

Here we come to the interesting part of the study.

The authors specifically wanted to explore the possibility of airborne shedding. After testing face masks used by jabbed individuals, they indeed found antibodies on the masks and thus ruled it as potential evidence of aerosolisation that could be transmitted to others.

Think about that for a second. Not only can face masks pose bacterial risks, but they can also operate as antibody/spike protein vehicles.

Even the Pfizer trial data alluded to their knowledge of shedding as an event that needed to be reported and monitored:

Many will likely rebuke the study until it passes peer review. Although, in our ever-expanding world of bias, even these have their limitations now according to a new paper published by Juergen Huber.

After conducting a field experiment, Huber and his team found that journal reviewers are far more likely to say a paper should be rejected when the research associate is relatively unknown. In other words, some papers are plagued by status bias.

This means that many aspiring scientists are potentially having their work dismissed because they haven’t yet achieved a standing in their field. A standing they would perhaps achieve if their work wasn’t dismissed for such reasons.

Talk about catch-22s.

As for FactCheck.org well…