Red Phoenix

In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, in its only award for treatments of infectious diseases since six decades prior, honoured the discovery of ivermectin (IVM), a multifaceted drug deployed against some of the world’s most devastating tropical diseases. Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2052297521000883

Here the link to another recent pre-print study addressing the IgG4 'class switch' > https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.29.23296354v1 The study reports same results as the earlier posted pre-print which is the subject of this thread. Results We observed a substantial increase in the proportion of RBD-specific IgG4 antibodies (median 21%) in healthy/untreated controls after a third mRNA vaccination. This IgG4 skewing was absent when primary vaccination was adenoviral vector-based and was profoundly reduced in both dupilumab- and TNFi-treated patients (<1%), but only moderately in patients treated with MTX (7%). = = = The reason why this is a HOT TOPIC explained in lay-man's terms: After the 3rd mRNA jab studies show that there is this IgG4 class switch to antibodies (immune to the antigen, in this case the spike antigen). This plays a major role in immune tolerance. and the implications can be disastrous. The boosters get you more accustomed to the vaccine, but the induced antibodies will have no impact on the target antigen (spike protein) and you could actually be extremely vulnerable to infection and severe illness. Scientists are trying to understand this observed mechanism as it can provide an explanation WHY you are more prone to get covid-infected with every additional mRNA shot (as already indicated in the large 2023 Cleveland clinic study results).

Deep sigh, always deflection and ad-hominem attacks. This thread is not about the Nobel-prize winning drug IVM. And it is surely not about providing evidence for the qualifications of dr John CAMPBELL. Note: Yes he IS a dr, because dr is used as a designation for a person who has obtained a doctorate (commonly a PhD/DPhil).

John CAMPBELL holds a diploma in nursing from the University of London, a BSc in biology from the Open University, an MSc in health science from the University of Lancaster, and a Ph.D. in nursing from the University of Bolton. He received the Ph.D. for his work on developing methods of teaching via digital media such as online videos.

The couple of times that I bought an onward-flight reservation (using onwardticket.com) I got the flight-reservation within seconds after having paid on-line with my creditcard.

Simply ask for supervisor, when clueless airline staff wants to see an onward-flight reservation when checking in on your flight and you have a valid VISA.

There should not be any problem at all. You have a 60-day Tourist Visa, so there is no need to show an onward-flight when boarding your flight in USA. And there is certainly no requirement from Thai border-immigration for such an onward-flight (as that requirement only pertains to VisaExemp entries). In the last 1-2 weeks of the 60-days Permission to stay you will be stamped in for by Thai border-immigration on arrival, you simply need to go to any Thai Immigration Office and apply for a 30-days extension of stay. That costs 1.900,- THB, is delivered on the spot and the 30 days added to the expiry date of your 60-days Permission to stay. So that's exactly 90 days.

We do not know whether the shift to igG4 will 'spell disaster', as much is unknown about the complex immune-system the mRNA-vaccines are tampering with. But the referenced study below suggests that it is NOT a beneficial alteration... IgG4 Antibodies Induced by Repeated Vaccination May Generate Immune Tolerance to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10222767/#:~:text=Increased IgG4 synthesis due to,autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals

You are referring to a December 2021 opinion-piece. The very large April 2023 Cleveland study, where more than 50.000 thousand Cleveland Clinic employees were followed from Sept 2022 confirmed in its results statement: The risk of COVID-19 also increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received. > The Figure 2 graph shows that with each additional vaccine dose, the risk of catching Covid INCREASED. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37274183/ Figure 2 (see below) of that study shows the cumulative incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for study participants stratified by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. Day 0 was 12 September 2022, the date the bivalent vaccine was first offered to employees. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals are jittered along the x-axis to improve visibility.

To paraphrase Orwell's 'Animal Farm' > All covid-jabs are toxic But some covid-jabs are less toxic than others...

To satisfy your curiosity > Me and my lady are the only ones in our Isaan village that did NOT take the jabs. And coincidentally we are also the only ones that didn't catch covid (or didn't notice it if we did). And to clarify: we are not hermits and attended several meetings (mostly funerals) and did not practice 'safe distancing', nor used face-diapers or any other mitigation measures. At this very moment 2 of my lady's triple-jabbed aunts are in the local hospital, as they catched covid again and seem not to be able to recover. I am not worried about myself or my lady as we have robust natural immunity (I probably did catch covid, but I never tested as it was just like a mild cold and better next day). But I am worried about my loved ones that were coerced into taking these '100% safe and effective' shots.

The relevance of the study - funded by the Dutch government - is that it might help understand the mechanism that makes triple-jabbed people more prone to covid-infections.

The preprint is just a rendering of the results of the study. Obviously it cannot be used 'to guide clinical practice', because at this moment NOBODY really knows what the impact of much-higher-than-normal IgG4 levels may be.

Scientists in the Netherlands carried out a large study, which included 604 patients and was funded by the Dutch government. The researchers posted their findings online as a preprint already 3 weeks ago: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.29.23296354v1.full.pdf Title: Suppressed IgG4 class switching in dupilumab- and TNF inhibitor-treated patients after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination = = = The jist of the study: Scientists reported people who had received at least three mRNA shots showed a sharp increase in a type of antibodies called IgG4. Usually, the IgG4 class make up less than 5 percent of all IgG antibodies, and often less than 1 percent. But the scientists found that after a third shot, IgG4 made up about 21 percent of all the IgG antibodies they found in the average healthy adult. The levels varied very widely, though, and in 1 in 4 adults IgG4 was nearly 50 percent of all IgG antibodies. Because IgG4 is so uncommon when the immune system is working normally, no one really knows what the impact of much-higher-than-normal IgG4 levels may be. = = =

@TallGuyJohninBKK - It's tell-tale that you attempt to discredit David Speicher (MSc, PhD, Former Associate Professor, Biology and Health Sciences – Redeemer University) because he is a member of the Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. In May 2023 the CCCA published a 21-page report titled The Building Case Against COVID-19 Vaccination of Students in Canada < source: https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/23MY3_Case-against-C19-vaccine-requirements.pdf > in which they "strongly recommend against any future mandates of COVID-19 vaccination of students in primary, secondary and post-secondary schools and institutions". The Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee that authored that study consists of 18 Authors, of which 13 are University Professors. Byram Bridle, MSc, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph Philip Britz-McKibbin, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, McMaster University Glenn Chan, BAA, Patient Advocate Claudia Chaufan, MA, MD, PhD, Associate Professor, Health Policy, York University John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC (retired) Ondrej Helgas, MSc, PhD York Hsiang, MB, MHSc, FRCSC, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Surgery, University of British Columbia Niel Karrow, PhD, Professor of Immunology, Dept. of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph Bonnie Mallard, Msc, PhD, Professor of Immunogenetics, Dept. of Pathobiology, University of Guelph Kanji Nakatsu, PhD, Professor Emeritus Pharmacology, Queen's University Susan Natsheh, MD, Pediatrician (retired) Philip Oldfield, DPhil, CSci, CChem, FRSC (UK) (retired) Steven Pelech, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Medicine, University of British Columbia Patrick Provost, PhD, Professor, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval Denis Rancourt, PhD, Former Professor, University of Ottawa Wendi Roscoe, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Health Science at Fanshawe College Christopher A. Shaw, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Ophthalmology, University of British Columbia David Speicher, MSc, PhD, Former Associate Professor, Biology and Health Sciences – Redeemer University

A new preprint study was issued Thursday last week by McKernan, Rose and others, providing more evidence of COVID-19 vaccine contamination in vials from Ontario, Canada. The title of the study speaks for itself: DNA fragments detected in monovalent and bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada: Exploratory dose response relationship with serious adverse events. https://osf.io/mjc97/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Fill in ' 1 year' , otherwise the Thai Consulate handling your application might erroneously think that you are applying for the 90-day SingleEntry Non Imm O Marriage Visa.

@moderator This thread can now be closed as the answers provided to the Topic-question clarified it. And also the reason for the non-acceptance during the 'under consideration' period of my friends 1-year Marriage extension has now become clear (although it is still somewhat dodgy). Thanks to all those that responded with insights on how to tackle the issue.

In a sense you are correct, as it now turns out that there is more to this story. My friend read all the comments in this thread (and is grateful to all the posters) - and she double-checked her phone again, and SHE did not get any phone-call from the Imm Officer. Then to make sure she checked the phone of her Thai husband and indeed HE received a call from the Imm Officer. Unfortunately he had a hang-over at that early morning time and my friend was out to the temple when the visit took place. So we can only guess what happened when the Imm Officer arrived, and the fact that her husband did not tell her anything about the call nor the visit (until she confronted him with it after seeing that he had received a call) is the obvious clue why HER application was not approved. With that latest info it is clear that trying to get it reversed at the Phuket Imm Office will not work. So she has no choice and has to exit Thailand latest on Wednesday, and her best option in order to return to Thailand being to apply for a new Visa at a Thai embassy/consulate abroad (e.g. the Savannakhet 1-year ME Non Imm O Mariage Visa) as a VisaExempt re-entry might spell trouble due to that '7 days to leave the country' stamp.

She nor her Thai husband did leave Phuket. She was probably just at the temple or at the grocery store when the Imm Officer arrived UNANNOUNCED (NO phone-call). Are you suggesting that you are under virtual house-arrest during the under consideration period so that the Imm Officer can drop-in at any time of his liking?

She is married to a Thai national, so there is no financial requirement to be met for her Non Imm O Marriage Visa and subsequent extensions. So there is no reason to use an agent, and I am pertinent that she did not make use of one, not even for a 'handhold' service to help with the other requirements for her 1-year extension of stay application.

Yes, there must be a reason. But Immigration did not tell her what the reason was, but instead provided her with a '7 days to leave the country' stamp.

Three months ago she did got the 90-day Non Imm O Marriage Visa at Phuket Immigration, and also her application last month for the 1-year extension of stay was accepted by Phuket Immigration. She was 'under consideration' and normally had to come back on 18 October to get the stamp in her Passport. She went to Phuket Imm Office on that date and they told her 'it wasn't ready yet'. When she checked 2 days later on-line the status of her application it said ' Not Approved'. Alarmed she went again to Phuket Imm Office, were they confirmed the application was Not approved and did not give a reason, but instead gave her a '7 day to leave the country' stamp. The whole thing is totally out of bounds, announcing a Non Approved and 'leave the country' just two days after telling her on date of return for the stamp that 'it was not ready yet' and that she should check the status on-line. Note that there was however a non-announced home-visit by Immigration when she and her Thai husband were out, so it's possible that that unsuccessful and non-announced home-visit was the reason for the rejection of her 1-year extension of stay application. It could also be because during the 1-year extension of stay application, her Thai husband mentioned that they were in the process of applying for a trip to the USA.

A US friend of mine was 'under consideration' for her 1-year extension of stay application for reason of marriage (based on her 90-day Non Imm O Marriage Visa). However at the end of that 'under consideration' period she did receive notice that her 1-year extension of stay was NOT approved and that she had to report to the local Imm Office (Phuket). The Imm Officer there did not tell her the reason for the non-approval, but provided her with a retro-active '7 days to leave the country' permission. As that does not provide her with sufficient time to organize for that situation which arose completely unexpectedy, she will leave Thailand in 4 days as required but wants to return semi-immediately. And she is considering either doing a border-run and returning VisaExempt, or alternatively applying for the 1-year ME Non Imm O Marriage Visa at the Thai consulate in Savannakhet. But the MAIN QUESTION is of course whether that '7 days to leave the country' stamp in her passport, would provide problems when exiting and then semi-immediately wanting to re-enter Thailand (or when applying for the Visa at the Savannakhet Consulate)..

Here the link to the page with the 'Retirement extension' requirements as published on the website of the Phuket Immigration Volunteers. The info was last updated October 2023. > http://piv-phuket.com/retirement/