Financial Times Censors Criticism of Vaccine Article

Earlier today, the Financial Times removed a comment from a reader calling himself ‘Mykonos Mike’ underneath an article about why COVID-19 infection and vaccination are only partially effective – and, in some cases, completely ineffective after a certain period of time has passed – when it comes to reducing a person’s likelihood of becoming re-infected, infecting others, and ending up with a severe bout of the disease. The reason given for removing the comment, in spite of the fact that it was the most liked and commented on, was “violating our community guidelines”, although, needless to say, no more detail was provided.

In light of this, we thought it was only right to republish Mykonos Mike’s comment in full.

Is this the long winded drivel to explain how people who have taken four doses of a 95% effective vaccine can get infected multiple times? The science in the pandemic has been so wrong it entered fairy tale wonderland story telling level, almost from the beginning. This is volume 15 of series four of the story. I’ll provide a spoiler – nobody cares anymore. And the decisions made in relation to this virus were ineffective and have created massive social and economic problems that will last decades. Time to start calling it as it is FT, the media are hugely complicit in this nonsense. Governments, scientists, health authorities and pharmaceutical companies need to answer very direct questions.

You can read the FT article Mike is commenting on here. Here’s an excerpt.

A surge in COVID-19 hospital admissions driven by the BA.5 subvariant of Omicron, accompanied by the inability of vaccines to prevent reinfection, has prompted health policymakers to rethink their approach to boosters.

U.S. regulators last week recommended changing the design of vaccines to produce a new booster targeting Omicron — the first change to the make-up of shots since their introduction in late 2020. Research into immune imprinting, whereby exposure to the virus via either infection or vaccination determines an individual’s level of protection, is now driving the debate over the make-up of COVID-19 vaccines.

Immunologists say that, more than two years into the coronavirus pandemic, people have acquired very different types of immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, depending on which strain or combination of strains they have been exposed to — leading to big differences in COVID-19 outcomes between individuals and countries.

“The effect is more nuanced than ‘more times you have it, less protection you get’,” said Professor Danny Altmann of Imperial College London, who is investigating the phenomenon with colleagues. “It’s more helpful to consider it as progressive fine-tuning of a huge repertoire. Sometimes this will be beneficial for the next wave, sometimes not.” …

A study of 700 U.K. healthcare workers by the Imperial team, published last month in the journal Science, found that Omicron infection had little or no beneficial effect of boosting any part of the immune system — antibodies, B-cells or T-cells — among people who had been imprinted with earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The Daily Sceptic has addressed the claims being made about this study and the supposed loss of natural immunity with Omicron here.