Thou shall not be indifferent.
2/2

Then comes bureaucracy. Signatures falsified, procedures rubber-stamped, oversight hollowed out. The paper says “legal,” but reality is abuse. The judge looks away. Once the system lies on paper, cruelty scales effortlessly.
3/3

History doesn’t start with concentration camps, but as mentioned, those are present already. It starts with normalisation: camps framed as “protective custody,” people packed together, unhygienic conditions excused as temporary, rights quietly suspended “for safety.”
2/3

The authors did get feedback, but they only show 2 valid points out of 9. Eventually, it was published by what is considered a predatory journal with a questionable reputation, within 2 months, over Christmas.....

It is just bad science and actually shows the system works.
5/5

The patient had mild leukopenia even before the first vaccination, which can be an early, subtle, indication of an underlying bone marrow disorder, including leukaemia.
journals.sagepub.com...

www.sciencedirect.co...
4/5

one that adds on an entirely scientifically unsubstantiated opinion. The case itself has no evidence of causality. Like pre-mRNA vaccines, people do develop cancer. The abstract is unscientific, with wild claims of "vaccines having an affinity for bone marrow", etc.
3/5

That is the norm. It gets worse if you make claims that are against established knowledge and not substantiated. i.e. strong and new claims need even more data. That is simply the case here. There are no "Covid gene therapies" for a start. The paper? A case study .... but
2/5

If there are any particular risk factors,consult with your physician. Getting an additional vaccine is beneficial if there are concerns or if better temporal protection against infection is desired.

all kinds of infections, many of which have risk of long-term effects as well.,

When one gets older, the border is set around 60, immune memory may be maintained a bit less robustly by an increasing amount of people the older they get. Here annual vaccination is recommended.

T cells and antibodies will recognise and bind to SC2/kill infected cells. This will protect you agains severe disease and secondary effects.

Over time, this may decrease somewhat, which can be boosted again by an additional vaccine (or an infection). For most people this is how it works for

In short: yes, also older vaccines taken some years ago protect against severe disease.

The initial vaccines will have selected and matured memory B and T cells. Although the virus changes (10s of mutations, most of the 29,900 nucleotides, giving ~9860 amino acids, remain intact.
This means most

Preprints are for expert critique, not public alarmism. Reviews are not news.

Elevating unreviewed speculation to health warnings erodes trust and misinforms people. Science progresses via peer review, replication, and epidemiology, not viral threads about viral cancer.
4/4

“Immune exhaustion,” “persistent RNA,” “tumour-permissive landscape”: all asserted, none demonstrated longitudinally or epidemiologically. No excess cancer signal in real-world cohorts. Hypotheses are not outcomes. Preprints don’t override population data or common sense!
3/4

Listing common pathways (p53, NF-κB, JAK-STAT…) ≠ demonstrating causality, it mentions knowns. Acute perturbation ≠ oncogenesis. If pathway name-dropping were proof, every viral infection would be carcinogenic. This is immunology by association, not data.
2/4