Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2021, 07:41:58 AM
-
Kicking off this thread with:
https://amgreatness.com/2021/08/10/florida-school-districts-attempt-to-defy-ban-on-mask-mandates-desantis-threatens-to-withhold-salaries/
-
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/08/18-20-of-illegal-immigrant-coming-into-us-have-covid-19-report-says/?fbclid=IwAR2VvN1YxPotUb_JrSZhHqDdF4LjcQx56XuqO6jIZ9j6Fe1QYiQUoMGo2Og
-
https://nypost.com/2021/08/10/biden-looking-at-ordering-universal-masking-for-school-kids/
-
https://washingtontimes-dc.newsmemory.com/?token=8bf57704919bc188ded98e2f5e8e74b9_6113cd6e_6d25b5f&selDate=20210811
-
Third post
https://www.theepochtimes.com/harvard-epidemiologist-martin-kulldorff-on-vaccine-passports-the-delta-variant-and-the-covid-public-health-fiasco_3942556.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-08-11&est=ZrWbokevQJVLrPWjNEFKhRxV34VRT%2BpwWH6uUDkavGkdnj1WKhTiTpO92ayH3d4m3n1%2F
-
https://www.breitbart.com/health/2021/08/12/coronavirus-australia-locks-down-431000-people-in-capital-over-4-cases/
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-strips-chicago-mother-parental-142800477.html
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/08/31/follow-the-science-toward-tyranny/
-
Very good article!
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/covidian-cult-part-iii-theres-reality-theres-reality
-
https://coldfury.com/2021/09/03/the-social-contract-construct/
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-eliminates-testing-opt-out-requiring-all-public-workers-and-contractors-get
I WILL NOT SUBMIT!
-
I heard there was a weekly testing option , , ,
-
I heard there was a weekly testing option , , ,
The option, for those interested is: suck my nuts!
-
I heard there was a weekly testing option , , ,
The option, for those interested is: suck my nuts!
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechserenitymisbehave.htm
-
I heard there was a weekly testing option , , ,
The option, for those interested is: suck my nuts!
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechserenitymisbehave.htm
https://coldfury.com/2021/09/09/shot-heard-round-the-world-part-the-second/
-
All major employers are required to require vaccination of their employees? The unvaccinated should not work, not even from home? Will the government then pay them what they are accustomed to making?
The good news is that Democrat overreach is about the only offense conservatives have.
Candidate Joe Biden one month before the election:
"In terms of the whole notion of a vaccine, we’re for a vaccine, but we don’t trust him at all, nor do you."
[Well Joe, WE don't trust YOU.]
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-does-not-trust-trump-to-deliver-a-safe-vaccine
The only thing that changed since then is the virus. The vaccine aimed at the 'alpha' is far less effective against the 'delta' variant while the risks remain the same and become better known.
It wasn't just Joe, here is Kamala:
"if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it. I’m not taking it.”
That's funny. Who sowed distrust? Doesn't it fallow that Biden Harris say it's good, it's bad?
When I took it, it was "95% effective" - against so called alpha, but no one told me the entire threat was now from delta and the alpha vaccinated can still be a carrier and get sick.
Hey Biden, where is the delta vaccine?
------------------------------------
In 'civics' class they used to teach how a bill becomes a law and why the long, arduous process is good for the republic and consent of the governed. Those were the days. Now executives Obama and Biden tell us they don't have the constitutional power to do something and they do it. I'm thinking of a remedy more severe than impeachment.
I wondered how Babylon Bee, America's newspaper of record, covered this latest development. I was thinking maybe this is Joe Biden's bill to help small business, by destroying all large ones. Here are two Babylon Bee headlines:
"Biden Announces He Has Natural Immunity To The Constitution"
https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-announces-he-has-natural-immunity-to-the-constitution
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Biden has announced a sweeping vaccine mandate for private citizens and companies that experts say is a grossly unconstitutional government overreach. Biden, however, has said it won't be a problem as he has developed a natural immunity to the Constitution.
"Joe Biden Announces Civil War"
https://babylonbee.com/news/joe-biden-announces-civil-war
"we're gonna force millions of people to get vaccinated against their will..."To enforce this, we're just gonna have ourselves a little Civil War.
Moron Joe thinks it's a good idea for the country and for public health to make the vaccine even more political and adversarial.
-------------------
Joe says mandated. Kamala says choice, free from government interference. Same day. Good grief.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFFaC9ZZj5g
-
I now identify as an illegal alien and a postal worker, so I am doubly immune to vax mandates!
-
https://www.americanpartisan.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/IMG_4459.jpeg
(https://www.americanpartisan.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/IMG_4459.jpeg)
-
https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/GetAttachmentThumbnail-3.jpg
(https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/GetAttachmentThumbnail-3.jpg)
-
https://fakemaskusa.com/
-
https://fakemaskusa.com/
Here’s your 10% coupon to spend at Fake Mask USA fakemaskusa.com.
GovernThis
Simply enter the code into the Promo Code box during checkout to claim your discount.
Have a great day!
The team @Fake Mask USA
-
I now identify as an illegal alien and a postal worker, so I am doubly immune to vax mandates!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/report-us-postal-workers-exempt-bidens-federal-vax-mandate-private-businesses-face-14000-fine-per-violation/
Some animals more equal than others.
-
https://fakemaskusa.com/
Here’s your 10% coupon to spend at Fake Mask USA fakemaskusa.com.
GovernThis
Simply enter the code into the Promo Code box during checkout to claim your discount.
Have a great day!
The team @Fake Mask USA
It's happened again, but this time it hurt, bad. The web hosting company enom.com cancelled us and shut down our website earlier today. We retained all order information and ALL outstanding orders will still be fulfilled with the highest urgency.
We spent the last several hours standing up a new site with another webhost provider, and we need your help to get the word out. The new website url is www.FakeMaskUSA2.com
Forward it to your friends
Forward it to your family
Forward that link to your doctor, your neighbor's dog, and if anyone knows Trump forward it to him. This is a call to arms!
We are working tirelessly to try and recover the original URL domain.
It is terrifying how much control the left has over us freedom fighters. We must do everything we can to continue fighting back in whatever means we have. We must take steps every day to sever as many ties as possible with the leftist tyrannical organizations and become completely independent as conservatives. It's a long road, but we are committed to doing our part to help push the initiative. We hope you will help us keep pushing as well.
If there was ever a time we could use your help, it is now. Please spread the word that our new website is www.fakemaskusa2.com. Share it on all the liberal social media platforms. We can not let them win.
The shutdown of our previous website is going to hurt, and has already hurt quite bad. Because of that, we are extending the storewide sale we announced yesterday through next Thursday. Use discount code "MERICA" for a massive 35% OFF your ENTIRE ORDER. Enter discount code at checkout to apply the promotion.
We. Will. Not. Be. Defeated.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/snyder-there-no-turning-back-after
-
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/1055493/daily-wire-says-no-to-red-communist-regime-in-white-house
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/1055493/daily-wire-says-no-to-red-communist-regime-in-white-house
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/for%20your%20leader%20choose.jpg
(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/for%20your%20leader%20choose.jpg)
-
I now identify as an illegal alien and a postal worker, so I am doubly immune to vax mandates!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/report-us-postal-workers-exempt-bidens-federal-vax-mandate-private-businesses-face-14000-fine-per-violation/
Some animals more equal than others.
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/members-congress-staff-exempt-biden-vaccine-mandate
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/10/msnbc-guest-calls-drone-strikes-americans-opposed-vaccine-mandates/
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/448/583/original/ff01a3eadabfce17.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/448/583/original/ff01a3eadabfce17.png)
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/755/207/original/cc76abd0029d7e67.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/755/207/original/cc76abd0029d7e67.png)
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/755/207/original/cc76abd0029d7e67.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/755/207/original/cc76abd0029d7e67.png)
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/118/835/original/c369b421c988a2b2.webp
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/118/835/original/c369b421c988a2b2.webp)
-
A powerful pair of memes GM. Thanks for the URLs, I'm playing them forward.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/kentucky-health-care-workers-refused-comply-vaccine-mandate-forced-hospital-fire-videos/
-
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/09/12/whats-it-all-about/#more-248604
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/995/050/original/e03fec4e523e6f99.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/084/995/050/original/e03fec4e523e6f99.png)
Plan accordingly
-
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2021/09/16/rap-star-nicki-minaj-compares-cancel-culture-in-u-s-to-communist-china-dont-yall-see-whats-fking-happening/
-
Tucker has been backing her play and she has played clips of him.
The world retains its ability to surprise.
-
https://www.libertystorch.info/2021/09/17/you-have-been-told/
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/1087361/pandemic-raging-in-highly-vaccinated-countries-such-as-singapore-israel
-
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/on-this-day-the-supreme-court-rules-on-vaccines-and-public-health
-
https://rumble.com/vmpf52-nunez-on-biden-reducing-fla.-monoclonal-supply-politics-at-its-worst-disgus.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=One+America+News+Network&ep=2
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/085/682/226/original/4e9da0c74e8bace6.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/085/682/226/original/4e9da0c74e8bace6.png)
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-pushing-dishonourable-discharges-court-martials-troops-who-refuse-vaccines
A dishonorable discharge is the legal equivalent of a felony conviction.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/just-part-ii-project-veritas-bombshell-covid-vaccine-recordings-fda-employee-feds-need-create-nazi-germany-style-registry-unvaccinated-americans-go-door-door-stab-eve/
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-pushing-dishonourable-discharges-court-martials-troops-who-refuse-vaccines
A dishonorable discharge is the legal equivalent of a felony conviction.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/395652.php
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/085/729/847/original/df24492f4d65d131.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/085/729/847/original/df24492f4d65d131.jpg)
Vote at it all you want.
-
https://notthebee.com/article/ron-desantis-sticks-it-to-the-feds-gets-life-saving-covid-treatment-for-florida-after-biden-admin-restricted-supply?utm_source=jeeng
-
https://www.barnhardt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/img_5078.png
(https://www.barnhardt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/img_5078.png)
-
https://twitter.com/EmeraldRobinson/status/1440305398305624069
Emerald Robinson:
The pandemic is to force you to get the vaccine.
The vaccine is to force you to get the vaccine passport.
The vaccine passport is to force you into the social credit system.
The social credit system is to force you into obeying the government.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/damn-you-hell-you-will-not-destroy-america-here-spartacus-covid-letter-thats-gone-viral
-
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-big-tell/
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/086/230/203/original/cf51c4ec39783f9f.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/086/230/203/original/cf51c4ec39783f9f.png)
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/breaking-project-veritas-johnson-johnson-children-dont-need-fcking-covid-vaccine-unknown-repercussions-video/
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/1117270/zulu-time-jabbing-back-against-the-jab
-
Americans with natural immunity look for ways around vaccination mandates
Policymakers prefer low-cost shots over tests for antibodies
BY TOM HOWELL JR. THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Vaccine holdouts with some immunity from prior coronavirus infections find themselves in the muddled middle as the nation debates how far to go in mandating the shots, with some employers giving them carve-outs and blue states taking hard lines.
Spectrum Health in Michigan is granting exemptions to employees who can show positive antibody tests within the past three months. Major health care systems in eastern Pennsylvania said they will grant yearlong reprieves from their vaccine rules to those who demonstrate natural immunity.
Strict mandates in Washington and New York states require workers to get vaccines, flustering those who say they are already producing antibodies.
Meanwhile, the Consumer Brands Association, a trade group representing 2.1 million workers, wants to know how President Biden’s push to require vaccination or weekly testing at large companies will be applied to workers with prior infections.
Firms are waiting for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to shed light on the situation.
“How will the requirements address natural immunity? Will individuals that have contracted COVID-19 be required to be vaccinated or submit to testing requirements?” the association said this month in a letter to Mr. Biden.
Favorable treatment is unlikely because Dr. Anthony Fauci and other administration
officials have repeatedly told people with previous infections to get vaccines.
They point to a high-profile study out of Kentucky that found unvaccinated people with previous infections are twice as likely to be reinfected as those who recovered and then got vaccinated. The offi cials also question the durability of naturally induced protection, even as they acknowledge that more research is needed.
“It is conceivable you got protected, but you may not be protected for an indefinite period of time,” Dr. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN this month. “I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously.”
The lack of formal deference to those who have recovered from COVID-19 and fears of side effects from vaccines are frustrating some lawmakers. Sen. Ron Johnson, Wisconsin Republican, recently told the National Institutes of Health that constituents want exemptions for the previously infected.
He cited studies from Israel and elsewhere that suggest infection- acquired immunity can be as robust as those from messenger-RNA vaccines in people who never had COVID-19.
Nurses and other constituents are flooding his office with calls and emails saying officials and companies pushing mandates “totally disregarded” those with natural immunity.
Scientists say some people who have been infected might get a similar immune response as that afforded by vaccines, though individual experiences differ based on factors such as genetics, the nuances of their immune systems and their COVID-19 illnesses.
They also say it’s more cumbersome and costly to rely on repeated lab tests to prove individual protection than a low-cost vaccine on the front end.
“It’s a fair statement that natural infection can produce substantial immunity, but it’s much more variable than the vaccinations. You just don’t know what you’re going to get,” said Roger Shapiro, an associate professor of immunology and infectious diseases at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
“It is very complicated to try and have a public strategy that relies on people drawing blood and saying, ‘My COVID infection from two years ago still shows protection,’” he said.
He said vaccines should produce consistent responses from T cells in the body. Antibody levels may subside months after vaccination, he said, but T cells have long memories and are useful in recognizing and attacking new variants of the coronavirus.
Natural infection also spurs a T-cell response, but relying on infection as a strategy has a high human cost. History shows viruses can burn through populations in multiple waves before the collective immune response reduces the pathogen from a deadly illness into a mild one.
The Russian flu of 1890 killed about 1 million people out of a global population of about 1.5 billion in multiple waves before subsiding into a manageable problem. Recent research suggests a known coronavirus that causes common colds might have been the culprit at the time.
Scientists say the best way to stop waves of infection is through vaccination.
“Trying to get protected from COVID through natural infection is not protection; it’s getting infected. It’s completely nonsensical,” Dr. Shapiro said. “We certainly never would want to rely on something so risky for protection when 1% to 2% of those under that strategy might die from trying to use it.”
When patients who have been infected ask Dr. Panagis Galiatsatos in Maryland whether they should get a vaccine, he tells them yes.
“The vaccines give us an exact outcome of antibodies,” said Dr. Galiatsatos, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. “There is data that supports those with the best immunity are those with natural [immunity] and vaccine.”
Still, plenty of people who have beaten the virus say they are ready to fight rules that force them to decide between getting vaccinated or losing their jobs.
George Mason University relented to one objector, law professor Todd Zywicki, who sued for an exemption from the school’s vaccine mandate.
He presented multiple antibody tests and statements from his doctor, who said the vaccine was medically unnecessary. The professor will hold office hours and in-person events as long as he maintains 6 feet of distance and will be tested for infection once a week.
New York state does not allow exemptions for previously infected health care workers subject to vaccine mandates.
“While you may have some short-term antibody protection after recovering from COVID19, we don’t know how long this protection will last,” the state’s website says.
Many health care workers in New York had until Monday to get their initial shots, meaning thousands of holdouts might be nudged from their jobs in the coming days.
“I’m young, I’m healthy and I have no comorbidities. I had COVID already. So I don’t understand why I have to be forced to get a vaccine,” nurse Stephanie Defonte told Spectrum News NY1.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, is not backing down from the mandate. She said the state might bring in the National Guard or declare a state of emergency that allows qualified health care staff from other states and countries to fill gaps at medical centers whose workers are weary from the pandemic.
Also Monday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan lifted a lower-court judge’s block on a vaccine mandate covering all teachers and workers in the nation’s largest school district.
Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in August that about 148,000 New York City public school employees would have to get at least a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by Sept. 27.
In Massachusetts, a police union is warning that dozens of state troopers plan to resign after a judge rejected its attempts to provide “reasonable alternatives” such as mask-wearing or regular testing to a vaccine mandate issued by Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican.
Those seeking accommodations include troopers who have recovered from COVID-19, have antibody levels and don’t want a vaccine.
“It is unfortunate that the governor and his team have chosen to mandate one of the most stringent vaccine mandates in the country with no reasonable alternatives,” said Michael Cherven, president of the State Police Association of Massachusetts.
Mr. Johnson said it is “shocking” that the Biden administration is putting forth mandates and others cannot give firm answers on how natural immunity stacks up against vaccination.
“This administration clearly does not want the public to question whether natural immunity is more effective than vaccines,” the senator said. “As President Biden revealingly declared, the vaccine mandate ‘is not about freedom or personal choice.’ This administration’s decision to disregard the effectiveness of natural immunity and demand vaccination ignores current data and is an assault on all Americans’ civil liberties.”
Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said the data supported exemptions for the previously infected if they can show positive PCR or antigen tests for the coronavirus and positive antibody tests.
The system said workers who have recovered from COVID-19 ought to get vaccinated, however.
“There is increasing evidence that natural infection affords protection from COVID-19 reinfection and severe symptoms for a period of time,” the system said. “Current studies are not clear on how long natural immunity protects from reinfection.”
St. Luke’s University Health Network in Pennsylvania is allowing employees to defer the vaccine for a year after the date they tested positive. The nearby Lehigh Valley Health Network also added the deferral option.
“Some of the evidence that came out recently from an Israeli study, as well as our own observation, is that if you have had a natural infection — we are talking about that this can be verified by a PCR — that it appears that the kind of immunity that you develop is actually either equal or superior to that than someone who might get two doses of an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer or Moderna,” Dr. Jeffrey Jahre of St. Luke’s told WNEP-TV, the local ABC affiliate.
He said people should get the vaccine to maximize their protection and should not try to become infected to achieve immunity.
“The important thing for everyone to know is to please get the vaccine,” he said. “Don’t rely on natural infection."
-
https://rumble.com/vn2bl9-patriot-joe-rogan-exposes-the-truth-in-epic-video.html?mref=23gga&mc=8uxj1
-
https://summit.news/2021/09/30/state-governments-preparing-quarantine-facilities-for-americans-unable-to-isolate-at-home/
-
Not necessarily a bad thing. There are family situations where isolation is not possible and elders are put at risk.
-
CALIFORNIA
Professor vows to fight on after judge rejects ‘natural immunity’ exemption
BY TOM HOWELL JR. THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A psychiatry professor is vowing to continue the fight after a federal judge rejected his attempt to block a COVID-19 vaccine mandate at the University of California on the grounds that persons like him enjoy natural immunity from previous infection and don’t need the shots.
Aaron Kheriaty, who works at the Irvine campus of the university system, said he wants to procure evidence about how the university reached its decision to require the shots.
“We are eager to move to the discovery phase and depose their expert witnesses, gather data on infection rates from the university, etc.,” Mr. Kheriaty told The Washington Times in an email. “If we lose the case at trial we certainly will appeal to the circuit court.”
U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, California, said Thursday the university acted rationally in imposing a mandate designed to protect public health while failing to provide an exemption for those with natural immunity.
The ruling denied a motion from Mr. Kheriaty for a preliminary injunction.
It is believed to be the first ruling of its kind as Republican lawmakers and others urge governments and employers to create exemptions for people who recovered from COVID-19 and demonstrate antibody levels.
Biden administration officials have pressed people with prior infection to get the vaccine. They say immunity from vaccines is easier to measure, and it is unclear how durable natural infection is in each person. And they point to a study in Kentucky that found people with prior infection were twice as likely to be reinfected if they shirked the vaccine versus those who came forward for the shots.
The debate is likely to intensify over the coming months.
Mr. Biden is pushing for companies with 100 or more workers to require the shots or weekly testing, while California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he plans to add COVID-19 vaccines to the list of mandatory vaccines at K-12 schools over the coming year.
Sen. Roger Marshall, Kansas Republican, led a group of doctors this week in pressing the administration to give deference to those with some level of protection from their infection.
More than 43 million Americans have tested positive for the virus during the pandemic.
The senators said failing to recognize those who recovered and have some level of protection could cause a crisis as military members refuse the vaccine, or employers see their workers walk off instead of getting the shots.
“We urge the CDC to harness available data and technology to establish better patient-centered solutions that will truly determine an individual’s level of protection against COVID19,” the senators wrote to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“It may be the case that it is not medically necessary for an individual to receive a vaccination. It may also be the case that a sufficient level of protection may be produced from one dose.”
For now, Mr. Kheriaty said he received a letter from a senior associate dean on Thursday that said he will be placed on “investigatory leave” with pay during the month of October, after which he could face “corrective action.”
“While on Investigatory Leave, you are not to perform any work for the university,” the letter says. “You are not to be present on the premises at the UC Irvine campus in Irvine, California, nor on any clinical space owned or operated by the University of California, Irvine
-
second
Unlearned AIDS Lessons for Covid
In the 1980s, Fauci and Redfield sowed fear about a heterosexual epidemic that never happened.
By John Tierney
Oct. 3, 2021 5:02 pm ET
‘Follow the science,” we’ve been told throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. But if we had paid attention to history, we would have known that once a disease becomes newsworthy, science gets distorted by researchers, journalists, activists and politicians eager for attention and power—and determined to silence those who challenge their fear-mongering.
When AIDS spread among gay men and intravenous drug users four decades ago, it became conventional wisdom that the plague would soon devastate the rest of the American population. In 1987, Oprah Winfrey opened her show by announcing, “Research studies now project that 1 in 5—listen to me, hard to believe—1 in 5 heterosexuals could be dead of AIDS in the next three years.” The prediction was outlandishly wrong, but she wasn’t wrong in attributing the scare to scientists.
One early alarmist was Anthony Fauci, who made national news in 1983 with an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association warning that AIDS could infect even children because of “the possibility that routine close contact, as within a family household, can spread the disease.” After criticism that he had inspired a wave of hysterical homophobia, Dr. Fauci (who in 1984 began his current job, as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), promptly pivoted 180 degrees, declaring less than two months after his piece appeared that it was “absolutely preposterous” to suggest AIDS could be spread by normal social contact. But other supposed experts went on warning erroneously that AIDS could spread widely via toilet seats, mosquito bites and kissing.
Robert Redfield, an Army physician who would later direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the Covid pandemic, claimed in 1985 that his research on soldiers showed AIDS would soon spread as rapidly among heterosexuals as among homosexuals. He and other scientists became much-quoted authorities for the imminent “heterosexual breakout,” which was proclaimed on the covers of Life in 1985 (“Now No One Is Safe from AIDS”) and the Atlantic in 1987 (“Heterosexuals and AIDS: The Second Stage of the Epidemic”).
In reality, researchers discovered early on that transmission through vaginal intercourse was rare, and that those who claimed to have been infected that way were typically concealing intravenous drug use or homosexual activity. One major study estimated the risk of contracting AIDS during intercourse with someone outside the known risk groups was 1 in 5 million. But the CDC nonetheless started a publicity campaign warning that everyone was in danger. It mailed brochures to more than 100 million households and aired dozens of public-service announcements, like a television ad with a man proclaiming, “If I can get AIDS, anyone can.”
The CDC’s own epidemiologists objected to this message, arguing that resources should be focused on those at risk, as the Journal reported in 1996. But they were overruled by superiors who decided, on the advice of marketing consultants, that presenting AIDS as a universal threat was the best way to win attention and funding. By those measures, the campaign succeeded. Polls showed that Americans became terrified of being infected, and funding for AIDS prevention surged—much of it squandered on measures to protect heterosexuals.
Scientists and public officials sustained the panic by wildly overestimating the prevalence of AIDS. Challenging those numbers was a risky career move, as New York City’s health commissioner, Stephen C. Joseph, discovered in 1988 when he reduced the estimated number of AIDS cases in the city by half. He had good reasons for the reduction—the correct number turned out to be much lower still—but he soon needed police protection. Activists occupied his office, disrupted his speeches, and picketed and spray-painted his home.
Another victim of 1980s-style cancel culture was Michael Fumento, who meticulously debunked the scare in his 1990 book, “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS.” It received good reviews and extensive publicity, but it was unavailable in much of the country because local bookstores and national chains succumbed to pressure not to sell it. Mr. Fumento’s own publisher refused to keep it in print, and he was forced out of two jobs—one as an AIDS analyst in the federal government.
The AIDS fear-mongers suffered few consequences for their mistakes. The false alarms were long forgotten by the start of the Covid pandemic, when the news and public policy were dominated by scientists who overestimated fatalities by a factor of 10 and erroneously warned that people could easily be infected by touching contaminated surfaces or breathing air outdoors. Today most people, especially the young, vastly overestimate their risk of dying thanks to press coverage more uniformly alarmist than during the AIDS epidemic.
Even at the height of the AIDS panic, there was some skepticism across the political spectrum. The same year that Life promoted the heterosexual scare, another Time Inc. magazine, Discover, dismissed it in large type on the cover declaring that AIDS would likely remain “largely the fatal price one can pay for anal intercourse.” Rolling Stone ran a long article of mine debunking the heterosexual breakout, and Mr. Fumento’s arguments were featured in leading newspapers and in both liberal and conservative magazines. While doomsayers got the most attention, their attempts to curtail civil liberties—like mandating universal testing to identify and isolate AIDS carriers—failed because of opposition from both the left and the right.
With Covid, though, skepticism is mostly confined to the right. The mainstream press and public-health authorities have largely ignored or smeared eminent scientists who question the worst-case scenarios and the wisdom of lockdowns and mandates for tests, masks and vaccines. Their legitimate challenges to Covid orthodoxy have been rejected by medical journals, denounced by officials like Dr. Fauci, and censored by social-media platforms. The journalistic, political and scientific establishments haven’t merely ignored the lessons of the AIDS epidemic. They’ve repeated and amplified the mistakes, spreading more needless fear and eliminating more civil liberties than the AIDS alarmists ever imagined.
Mr. Tierney is a contributing editor of City Journal and a co-author of “The Power of Bad: How the Negativity Effect Rules Us and How We Can Rule It.”
-
"Fauci and Redfield sowed fear about a heterosexual epidemic that never happened."
Fauci disgusts me.
Hugh Hewitt let him off easy.
Lousy interview
he sucked up to him too much
I don't think he even mentioned how Fauci lied and still does about the origin of covid 19 fro a Chinese lab
-
Fake conservative buttkisser Hewitt.
"Fauci and Redfield sowed fear about a heterosexual epidemic that never happened."
Fauci disgusts me.
Hugh Hewitt let him off easy.
Lousy interview
he sucked up to him too much
I don't think he even mentioned how Fauci lied and still does about the origin of covid 19 fro a Chinese lab
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/086/748/923/original/99f4cac7ee428bc2.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/086/748/923/original/99f4cac7ee428bc2.jpg)
-
https://reclaimthenet.org/vaccine-passport-domestic-air-travel-bill/
-
https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/7d564c094efd5993.jpg
(https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/7d564c094efd5993.jpg)
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/meme%2020211006%2008.jpg
(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/meme%2020211006%2008.jpg)
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10064889/Hospital-denies-kidney-transplant-unvaccinated-woman-donor.html
-
ccp:
Hugh Hewitt let him off easy.
Lousy interview
he sucked up to him too much
I don't think he even mentioned how Fauci lied and still does about the origin of covid 19 fro a Chinese lab
--------------------------------------------------
Recent Hewitt Fauci interview:
https://youtu.be/mCiC60JWC0g
What you say is true. Hewitt brings in people we don't like and calls it "an interview, not a debate". He did however ask some tough questions, told Fauci he had lost trust, backed that up with examples and called for his resignation to his face. On the softball side of it, Hewitt wants to be known as pro-vaccination and offered his audience to Fauci to make that case with him to people Fauci normally wouldn't reach.
He could shout down his adversary guests but then, like every other show, there wouldn't be any. Also, he has the rest of the 15 hours per week to make his own views known. Career-wise, he wants to be a great interviewer, he wants to be a debate moderator, and he gets a weekly shot at putting one (mostly) conservative view on the Washington (com)Post along with occasional Meet the (de)Press(ed) appearances.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/uc-irvine-director-medical-ethics-placed-investigatory-leave-over-refusal-get-vaxxed?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=133
-
https://odysee.com/@RandyHillier:c/we-must-make-ready:b
-
A post I made on FB:
Said respectfully, but I think you are mssing my point.
My point is that the data being offered to prove the efficacy of the shots, includes people who have natural antibodies and that this is bad science.
Given the refusal to gather data on who does and who does not have natural antibodies, this would appear to be quite dishonest.
Cui bono?
With that point clarified, and as best as I can tell it is incontrovertible, we then need to look at the comparative efficacy of natural antibodies and the various shots.
My readings persuade me that the natural antibodies are better than the shots and that the immune response conferred lasts quite a bit longer-- indeed there are serious people who raise the possibility that it could be very long term.
I have seen it asserted by the vaxxers, without any quality studies to back it up of which I am aware, that topping off natural immunities with a shot is a good idea. OTOH I have seen quality studies showing natural superiority of a magnitude of 6.72 (Israel) or 13 or more times effective.
In my case, I would have gotten a shot but caught the Wuhan Cooties in October 2020-- before it was available to me. Since then I have tested my antibodies in April and August.
They are fine.
My assessment of what is best for me is to stick with my naturals until I decide otherwise. My operating philosophy is to change my mind if/when facts prove me wrong-- but that determination is mine, and does not belong to the State. I am a free man, an American by God!
What genuinely angers me is the apparent purposeful dishonesty in calling people with natural immunities "unvaccinated" as part of an apparent propaganda ploy to portray me as an ignorant yahoo spreading the Wuahn Cooties as part of a massive authoritarian play to cause a fear stampede so they can assert control over a free people.
This is serious stuff.
I am aware of the legal issues here-- the assertion of the power to compel vaccinations in the SCOTUS decision in 1905 of Jacobson but:
a) the assertion of power was founded on legislation, not the executive edic we have here-- Biden's assertion of this power violates the Separation of Powers;
b) since the decision in 1905 Consitutional Law has recognized a Ninth Amendment right to privacy (the Griswald case for example.
I would add my Fourth Amendment right to be "secure in my person" and the Fourth's requirement of "reasonableness" on the part of governmental action to the contrary.
Given the contamination of governmental data as I describe above and given that I have a more than reasonable basis for my belief in my natural immunties, the government fails to meet its burden to assert force over my choices with my body.
Fuck off Joe Biden. Fuck off Anthony Fauci.
=================
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/natural-immunity-an-alternative-to-vaccines_4039793.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-09&mktids=c7e7e5758b5a8b6c4844d199556e6dff&est=5tOAPVwivQLY6lNz2ohXkLb0VI4mpKAsdkLuF%2BeM7lEyhXWgOVECF8ZKVw%2FgIp1%2FDBkw
=============
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/court-sides-with-unvaccinated-michigan-athletes-in-mandate-case_4039447.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-09&mktids=c7e7e5758b5a8b6c4844d199556e6dff&est=Wv%2BC6u1eBoh5bYgsh%2BOrVNBE2FHE04dpktjLYcu4Ig93xY9iCgvVa8ZxdwyFP09atWnc
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/meme%2020211008%2001.jpg
(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/meme%2020211008%2001.jpg)
A post I made on FB:
Said respectfully, but I think you are mssing my point.
My point is that the data being offered to prove the efficacy of the shots, includes people who have natural antibodies and that this is bad science.
Given the refusal to gather data on who does and who does not have natural antibodies, this would appear to be quite dishonest.
Cui bono?
With that point clarified, and as best as I can tell it is incontrovertible, we then need to look at the comparative efficacy of natural antibodies and the various shots.
My readings persuade me that the natural antibodies are better than the shots and that the immune response conferred lasts quite a bit longer-- indeed there are serious people who raise the possibility that it could be very long term.
I have seen it asserted by the vaxxers, without any quality studies to back it up of which I am aware, that topping off natural immunities with a shot is a good idea. OTOH I have seen quality studies showing natural superiority of a magnitude of 6.72 (Israel) or 13 or more times effective.
In my case, I would have gotten a shot but caught the Wuhan Cooties in October 2020-- before it was available to me. Since then I have tested my antibodies in April and August.
They are fine.
My assessment of what is best for me is to stick with my naturals until I decide otherwise. My operating philosophy is to change my mind if/when facts prove me wrong-- but that determination is mine, and does not belong to the State. I am a free man, an American by God!
What genuinely angers me is the apparent purposeful dishonesty in calling people with natural immunities "unvaccinated" as part of an apparent propaganda ploy to portray me as an ignorant yahoo spreading the Wuahn Cooties as part of a massive authoritarian play to cause a fear stampede so they can assert control over a free people.
This is serious stuff.
I am aware of the legal issues here-- the assertion of the power to compel vaccinations in the SCOTUS decision in 1905 of Jacobson but:
a) the assertion of power was founded on legislation, not the executive edic we have here-- Biden's assertion of this power violates the Separation of Powers;
b) since the decision in 1905 Consitutional Law has recognized a Ninth Amendment right to privacy (the Griswald case for example.
I would add my Fourth Amendment right to be "secure in my person" and the Fourth's requirement of "reasonableness" on the part of governmental action to the contrary.
Given the contamination of governmental data as I describe above and given that I have a more than reasonable basis for my belief in my natural immunties, the government fails to meet its burden to assert force over my choices with my body.
Fuck off Joe Biden. Fuck off Anthony Fauci.
=================
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/natural-immunity-an-alternative-to-vaccines_4039793.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-09&mktids=c7e7e5758b5a8b6c4844d199556e6dff&est=5tOAPVwivQLY6lNz2ohXkLb0VI4mpKAsdkLuF%2BeM7lEyhXWgOVECF8ZKVw%2FgIp1%2FDBkw
=============
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/court-sides-with-unvaccinated-michigan-athletes-in-mandate-case_4039447.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-09&mktids=c7e7e5758b5a8b6c4844d199556e6dff&est=Wv%2BC6u1eBoh5bYgsh%2BOrVNBE2FHE04dpktjLYcu4Ig93xY9iCgvVa8ZxdwyFP09atWnc
-
https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/9cfYJBvR-24361962-768x525.jpeg
(https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/9cfYJBvR-24361962-768x525.jpeg)
Plan accordingly.
-
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/vaccine-sickout-spreads-to-amtrak/
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/meme%2020211011%2010.jpg
(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/meme%2020211011%2010.jpg)
-
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/vaccine-sickout-spreads-to-amtrak/
https://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/2021/10/updated-flight-weather-report-shtstorm.html?m=1
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/397/016/original/9853c626ae5b34ae.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/397/016/original/9853c626ae5b34ae.png)
-
https://fee.org/articles/stanford-epidemiologist-says-covid-vaccination-is-primarily-a-matter-of-personal-health-not-public-health/
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/396/429/original/6f6cbdaf99526fd6.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/396/429/original/6f6cbdaf99526fd6.png)
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/racial-bias-challenge-to-new-york-citys-vaccine-passport-system-rejected-by-federal-judge_4045093.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-10-12-3&mktids=ac9b3b03ccc3bc4240eab23548f71a22&est=814r3zlQjcuRKcR86IsSbZb4H6GBsuED2%2BXZRTeje7bWQVgvkXQ0QJ79BLxKUOpitgJP
-
https://summit.news/2021/09/30/state-governments-preparing-quarantine-facilities-for-americans-unable-to-isolate-at-home/
https://summit.news/2021/10/12/australia-building-quarantine-camps-for-ongoing-operations/
-
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3906452
-
Very useful piece-- I will track down the referenced cases and give them a proper read.
In the meantime I would note that:
a) in Jacobson there was a LAW, not an executive edit. This raises separation of powers issues with attendant Delegation doctrine issues;
b) the Constitution has evolved since then. We now have "levels of scrutiny" according to the nature of the C'l right in question and we now have a recognized to Privacy via the Ninth Amendent.
-
... we now have a (selectively) recognized right to Privacy..
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/10/13/federal-judge-rules-against-vaccine-mandate-for-united-airlines/
-
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2021/10/12/smoke-and-mirrors-bidens-vaccine-mandate-doesnt-actually-exist-n1523401
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/597/966/original/59ba7b09bb510254.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/597/966/original/59ba7b09bb510254.png)
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/681/581/original/c950f93bdf20379b.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/681/581/original/c950f93bdf20379b.png)
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/774/690/original/6f1111dce549fbcd.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/774/690/original/6f1111dce549fbcd.png)
-
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2021/10/12/smoke-and-mirrors-bidens-vaccine-mandate-doesnt-actually-exist-n1523401
https://twitter.com/ARmckay82/status/1448318472337989641
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1449142757335863297
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/774/690/original/6f1111dce549fbcd.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/774/690/original/6f1111dce549fbcd.png)
https://consentfactory.org/2021/10/12/the-great-new-normal-purge/
Plan accordingly.
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/967/566/original/898d17bfc916ea11.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/967/566/original/898d17bfc916ea11.jpg)
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/967/566/original/898d17bfc916ea11.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/967/566/original/898d17bfc916ea11.jpg)
Did she slip and say “marked people”.
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/967/566/original/898d17bfc916ea11.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/087/967/566/original/898d17bfc916ea11.jpg)
Did she slip and say “marked people”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ABAvzAIAEag
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/1183916/actual-scientists-do-exist-start-with-courage
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/1183916/actual-scientists-do-exist-start-with-courage
He is correct.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/us-supreme-court-declines-stop-covid-vax-mandate-maine-healthcare-workers/
Must be a tax!
-
https://gatesofvienna.net/2021/10/a-reminder-we-will-not-comply/
-
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/10/20/are-the-us-supply-chain-disruptions-deliberate/#more-251313
-
https://notthebee.com/article/check-out-this-video-megathread-on-chinas-forced-vaccinations-quarantine-prison-camps-and-people-climbing-over-barbed-wire-to-escape-the-dystopia
-
FK!!!
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/20/illegal-immigrants-exempt-dojs-vaccine-mandate-dep/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=ARjHdydAismIdTJUIx2dU6mCH9Ew67y3kxrAfmM8Nk0YAIRRTuM2inY%2BxSPxyp9f&bt_ts=1634766191609
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/10/20/nih-contradicts-fauci-admits-funding-gain-of-function-research-at-wuhan-lab/
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/088/303/426/original/f590678ce2ef5a98.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/088/303/426/original/f590678ce2ef5a98.png)
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-vindicated-rand-paul-blasts-lying-fauci-over-civilization-ending-experiments?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=207
-
some one said "gain of function" research is happening all around the world
though I don't remember the source
fauci certainly is a liar
hiding behind his credentials
and "science"
well he is not fooling anyone anymore
-
some one said "gain of function" research is happening all around the world
though I don't remember the source
fauci certainly is a liar
hiding behind his credentials
and "science"
well he is not fooling anyone anymore
Someday, there will be a Nuremberg 2. There will be accountability.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=147&v=yy4yTIFUknw&feature=youtu.be
As I was saying…
Fake conservative buttkisser Hewitt.
"Fauci and Redfield sowed fear about a heterosexual epidemic that never happened."
Fauci disgusts me.
Hugh Hewitt let him off easy.
Lousy interview
he sucked up to him too much
I don't think he even mentioned how Fauci lied and still does about the origin of covid 19 fro a Chinese lab
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/is-europe-wrong-or-are-we/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WIR%20-%20Sunday%202021-10-24&utm_term=WIR-Smart
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/is-europe-wrong-or-are-we/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WIR%20-%20Sunday%202021-10-24&utm_term=WIR-Smart
Nuremberg 2.0 will be LIT.
Accountability is coming.
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/088/638/993/original/ec8e896bb3748cb1.mp4
Plan accordingly.
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/10/25/thousands-of-nyc-municipal-workers-march-in-massive-protest-against-de-blasios-vaccine-mandate/
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/ample-scientific-data-congresswoman-introduces-natural-immunity-is-real-act_4066937.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-10-25-1&mktids=f2add05e68389f982413376af12c5e88&est=ERPjSVnXmVC88oa92nIY9ni3UQ3c%2F4b6dxkgnFZcaqbg4671KYI6YTxM1Gu3BVUtjUUT
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/health-care-workers-speak-out-on-why-they-would-rather-lose-their-jobs-than-take-a-covid-19-vaccine_4065164.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-26&mktids=4393bd947bd545e31711ca61f8cf4867&est=yOcG3d1C2PywG11hXaJAhwU6DIcCuYQTbfvWUrBVMnZ9KrKNhXdDHRYJNfxoK97dSFVC
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/children-shouldnt-get-covid-19-vaccines-kulldorff_4069255.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-27&mktids=8cbfd2f506c65b5b64a26e4d3a891200&est=hz6aDN6vBZ4urFQaqfGiPI3kbr9EjkTLUMDAswP6USvhg1AzQe9pqq7u6TrZYCyPwHTW
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/california-in-n-out-shut-down-permanently-for-refusing-to-check-customers-vaccination-status_4071086.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-10-27-2&mktids=8fad7d3c419cbc705c54928a13445e7d&est=GWP%2B9vHAZHxk8twuP7IovZHA2RpQ0gmol74dgyALHe5cKCTc9wWggzXu28sMoxQ8r5DL
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-vaccine-employees-judge-injunction
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/vaccinated-people-easily-transmit-covid-19-delta-variant-in-households-uk-study_4074277.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-29&mktids=441fb8cdbb840e1bf985645dec549317&est=8TElbZokk%2F2eHQgoUhCzYl1USLFimNEMWvCoenqK9Ua7eBiFwxy7o2hj24bjmi3215ol&fbclid=IwAR3MxvRiycnydMvAd_51R0kp73zw9YOXatRoXl04q8RAAdD7yW1WrSOiZqE
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext
-
"so much for the argument for mandatory vaxxing"
Right. Alpha vaccine isn't stopping the spread of delta virus. It went from 95% protection from any infection (against 'alpha'), zero risk, to perhaps margin of error improvement with significant risks. It was one and done with two doses, and now it's a subscription.
IF THEY CAN FORCE INJECTION OF THIS INTO YOUR BLOODSTREAM, WHAT ELSE CAN THEY FORCE ON YOU.
I'm not cynical but coincidentally Pfizer hires an immeasurable number of lobbyists in Washington and Moderna is a top performing stock in our time.
If this vax was 100% effective with no risk, a mandate would still be a very questionable constitutional and moral question This doesn't even come close. PS: I am vaccinated but not likely to take the 'booster'.
-
Exactly. As the left has decided that masculinity is toxic and a threat to public health, can they compel men to take female hormones to counter testosterone? If not, why not?
"so much for the argument for mandatory vaxxing"
Right. Alpha vaccine isn't stopping the spread of delta virus. It went from 95% protection from any infection (against 'alpha'), zero risk, to perhaps margin of error improvement with significant risks. It was one and done with two doses, and now it's a subscription.
IF THEY CAN FORCE INJECTION OF THIS INTO YOUR BLOODSTREAM, WHAT ELSE CAN THEY FORCE ON YOU.
I'm not cynical but coincidentally Pfizer hires an immeasurable number of lobbyists in Washington and Moderna is a top performing stock in our time.
If this vax was 100% effective with no risk, a mandate would still be a very questionable constitutional and moral question This doesn't even come close. PS: I am vaccinated but not likely to take the 'booster'.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dan-bongino-ends-radio-program-vaccine-mandate-battle-employer
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXm0fkDituE
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXm0fkDituE
My response to the vax mandates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPWYcjypSWo
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/barrett-and-kavanaugh-supply-majority-to-deny-religious-liberty-claim-on-vaccine-mandate/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=25525490
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10148881/The-26-NY-firehouses-forced-close-firefighters-refused-vaccinated.html
-
Winter 2021 Predictions:
Biden regime will mandate covid death jabs for air travel for all passengers in the next several months.
They will orchestrate grid powerdowns this winter to cause more chaos.
Supply chains will continue to unravel.
Next they will mandate jabs for interstate travel in the spring after we have a lot of deaths this winter from ADE. There will be lots of deaths this winter from covid among the vaxxed.
There will be false flags to help justify travel checkpoints domestically that will look for guns and vaxx papers.
These things are coming in the next six months imho if we do not all resist all the initial mandates rolling out now. We may not stop them from coming but at least we can make them less successful if we resist peacefully in public and prepare now.
-
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/10/31/sunday-talks-transportation-secretary-pete-buttigieg-says-west-coast-port-backlog-unlikely-to-be-resolved-until-every-american-is-vaccinated/
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/10/20/are-the-us-supply-chain-disruptions-deliberate/#more-251313
-
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/10/31/sunday-talks-transportation-secretary-pete-buttigieg-says-west-coast-port-backlog-unlikely-to-be-resolved-until-every-american-is-vaccinated/
We overlapped on Sec. Pete in different threads because none of what the Transportation Secretary said had anything to do with transportation.
If vaccinations are everything, why is Jen Psaki quarantined? Psaki and every person she knows is vaccinated. Does Sec. Pete not read the news?
The pandemic is not why ships are backed up in the ports. Answers to that are already posted on the forum. Government policies that prevent supply of needed workers and capital. Best thing Pete could do to ease the transportation crisis would be to close the federal government Department of Transportation.
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/11/01/judge-rules-chicago-police-do-not-have-to-get-vaccinated-for-now/
-
The article is 107 pages, but from Page 103 to the end will give you the gist:
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=012017103006067097118030083122069027113078029065058058030089008028004114005087097125107016062038118063096014094112097080071020029080030038029112007001025020117001025089010095098027016091012015083028112100081127065114070030027121018025024083104005125&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE
Also see:
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/challenging-laws-3-levels-of-scrutiny-explained/
-
third post
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/federal-judge-blocks-hospital-from-putting-unvaccinated-workers-on-unpaid-leave_4080397.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-11-01-3&mktids=60dd129ad23306ff3ae5c54301ee472e&est=ZRUW4uGcZ1JyGP4pY2HbDpX9I%2ByWuiyKO%2B9gZEl%2FCr7goVTXK8qCN6ZluAOKSqGXBM%2Fi
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/cdc-immunity-from-both-vaccines-covid-19-lasts-at-least-6-months_4081906.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-11-02-2&mktids=366b70d4471f7d03f271eb6e1f6b278d&est=aEUdkKAl%2B5MZuMsmrbCQiz%2FdJSe8lh7FhjHX5KpoHhKjKKQLO9eEqeph6TsLG1sQYNVO
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/11/03/los-angeles-sheriff-announces-that-he-will-not-enforce-vaccine-mandates/
-
second post
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/cdc-changed-definition-of-vaccine-because-of-covid-19-vaccines-emails_4083638.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-11-03-1&mktids=aad4291dd26bc1faef5c4c15f72787d9&est=OQ8vU7wsasXC6KaR8DX7Z3HLEdWY2qDsey9T%2BfXN2d%2FTF%2Fgx11RyGBdDMiNeZzIpqNW4
-
https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/03/fauci-nih-ecohealth-peter-daszak-gain-of-function-wuhan-covid-19/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2680&pnespid=suF7F3sdP.0B1efMp2nvEs_C7hmiX8FwM7Hj37cxswRm4VSiIZPhxvbNM5h6riY0ZrKCDHMK
-
https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/04/rand-paul-demands-fauci-resign-gain-of-function/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2360&tpcc%3D=newsletter&pnespid=sb58Gn4eOrtCw_if_Dm.HpXUoBP.BZ5tPPSwnOlo8BhmsZ3gxaDaN3VIGV7EKfVbe6bZ9YyX
-
https://conservativebrief.com/biden-4-53965/
-
https://ag.ky.gov/Press%20Release%20Attachments/Complaint%20-%20FINAL%20FILED.pdf
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/089/662/157/original/33136fa3bb48268d.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/089/662/157/original/33136fa3bb48268d.jpg)
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/noam-chomsky-goes-deep-end-proving-all-socialism-leads-tyranny
-
https://beckernews.com/dem-governor-signs-executive-order-to-turn-away-unvaccinated-from-hospitals-and-prioritize-treatment-to-vaccinated-patients-42917/
Does this include unvaxxed illegal aliens?
-
https://beckernews.com/dem-governor-signs-executive-order-to-turn-away-unvaccinated-from-hospitals-and-prioritize-treatment-to-vaccinated-patients-42917/
the unvaccinated , like it or not, one might argue be the first to be seen since they are at most risk
to me it would be first come first serve .......
as for the HIV example - your point is well taken and accurate
-
We could also point to fat diabetics etc.
Anyway, here is this:
https://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/crX1qBVlHDj?fbclid=IwAR15TZ2T7z7l91exE8_jQ_7cWLgRDh3Kax0esURjANqD6PwnueVidn69ob0
-
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/21/21-60845.0.pdf
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/feds-seek-to-block-promotion-of-a-nasal-spray-against-covid-19_4088366.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-11-08&mktids=3c5eaec8ad7f65fdefca9f9b55b03803&est=g5q2QIhNhLJdkR7%2BEqOzvyP%2Fj2KSUQFJtPCs2VBO%2FP4y1k7012AxZlF1ozFWl0MOgZp0
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.16.21262044v2.full
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alr.22703
-
Will it cause heart attacks and blood clots in the population? Then NO!
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/feds-seek-to-block-promotion-of-a-nasal-spray-against-covid-19_4088366.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-11-08&mktids=3c5eaec8ad7f65fdefca9f9b55b03803&est=g5q2QIhNhLJdkR7%2BEqOzvyP%2Fj2KSUQFJtPCs2VBO%2FP4y1k7012AxZlF1ozFWl0MOgZp0
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.16.21262044v2.full
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alr.22703
-
Covid Confusion at the CDC
Decisions on boosters relied on data from Israel. Why isn’t the U.S. producing this research?
By Marty Makary
Sept. 13, 2021 1:02 pm ET
The U.S. spends lavishly on healthcare yet can’t answer basic questions about Covid-19. Some of the best research has come from Israel. American public health agencies should be producing data on breakthrough infections, boosters and natural immunity. But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has failed to provide the information needed to inform a sound Covid strategy.
Israel began its vaccine rollout with Pfizer in December, only days after the U.S. But Israel kept good data, reported them out frequently and quickly, and used them to track subsequent Covid infections. When the White House announced its plan to recommend a booster shot for all Americans, it cited Israeli data. The World Health Organization and others criticized the plan, calling the evidence insufficient, and in what seemed like a coordinated protest, two top scientists at the Food and Drug Administration abruptly resigned.
The Biden administration recently got the supporting data it needed to justify its booster plan. But not from the CDC. Another Israeli study showed that a booster resulted in a 10-fold reduction in severe Covid illness in people over 60. The results were published mere weeks after the study’s completion, not months later as often happens in the U.S.
“There’s no doubt,” Anthony Fauci said of the findings in a press briefing, “from the dramatic data from the Israeli study that the boosts that are being now done there and contemplated here support very strongly the rationale for such an approach.” The FDA, trying to evaluate the question of boosters, scrambled to obtain the raw data from Israel.
The bigger question is: Why didn’t the CDC produce the research? The agency has 21,000 employees and a $15 billion annual budget. It has data on more than 40 million Americans who have tested positive for Covid and 200 million who have been vaccinated. The data include the vaccine type, dosing schedule and vaccination date. Calculating the rate of U.S. breakthrough infections and subsequent hospitalizations and deaths isn’t the Manhattan Project. It’s Epidemiology 101.
The CDC’s failure to report meaningful data has left policy makers flying blind. In the absence of good data to answer the basic questions Americans have been asking, political opinions have filled the vacuum. Strong data might have prevented much of the polarization over Covid.
Sound data from the CDC has been especially lacking on natural immunity from prior Covid infection. On Aug. 25, Israel published the most powerful and scientifically rigorous study on the subject to date. In a sample of more than 700,000 people, natural immunity was 27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic infections.
Despite this evidence, U.S. public health officials continue to dismiss natural immunity, insisting that those who have recovered from Covid must still get the vaccine. Policy makers and public health leaders, and the media voices that parrot them, are inexplicably sticking to their original hypothesis that natural immunity is fleeting, even as at least 15 studies show it lasts.
Meanwhile, employers fire workers with natural immunity who won’t get vaccinated. Schools disenroll students who won’t comply.
The CDC did put out a study on natural immunity last month, forcefully concluding that vaccinated immunity was 2.3 times better than natural immunity. The CDC used these results to justify telling those with natural immunity to get vaccinated.
But the rate of infection in each group was less than 0.01%, meaning infections were exceedingly rare in the short two-month time period the agency chose to study. This is odd, given there are more than a year of data available. Moreover, despite having data on all 50 states, the CDC only reported data from Kentucky. Was Kentucky the only state that produced the desired result? Why else exclude the same data from the other 49 states?
Some public health officials are afraid to acknowledge natural immunity because they fear some will choose infection over vaccination. But leaders can encourage all Americans who aren’t immune to get vaccinated and be transparent with the data at the same time.
The CDC shouldn’t fish for data to support outdated hypotheses. Heeding the robust Israeli data on natural immunity could help restore the agency’s credibility and even help vaccination efforts.
Israel also contributed a brilliant study on vaccinating children. Researchers found that one dose of the Pfizer vaccine, instead of the normal two, was 100% effective in children ages 12 to 15. Such a finding could have significant implications for achieving broad immunity in adolescents while reducing the risk of heart complications, which have been clustered around the second dose.
These are the studies U.S. public health agencies should be doing but aren’t. By any metric, the CDC has failed in its primary task of preparing the country for a pandemic and telling us how to reduce harm from the novel Covid pathogen.
Dr. Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and the author of “The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care—And How To Fix It.”
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/396402.php
It’s the new religion for people who think they are too smart to believe in god.
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/396402.php
It’s the new religion for people who think they are too smart to believe in god.
The religion of exaggerating climate change wasn't as fulfilling as promised.
They still haven't developed a safe and easy to breathe through mask, but want us to wear one every second anyway.
-
https://andmagazine.com/talk/2021/11/09/time-for-another-tea-party-nationwide-strike-against-vax-mandates/
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/396402.php
It’s the new religion for people who think they are too smart to believe in god.
The religion of exaggerating climate change wasn't as fulfilling as promised.
They still haven't developed a safe and easy to breathe through mask, but want us to wear one every second anyway.
They have! Buy a fake mask or two.
https://fakemaskworldwide.com/
-
accine-Mandate Debate Makes It to Federal Agency Where Fauci Works
The NIH, workplace of Dr. Anthony Fauci, has scheduled a seminar on the ethics of mandates featuring a senior researcher who is pushing back
The National Institutes of Health has scheduled a Dec. 1 live-streamed roundtable session over the ethics of vaccine mandates.
PHOTO: BRYAN DOZIER/SHUTTERSTOCK
By Jenny Strasburg
Nov. 7, 2021 7:00 am ET
The debate over vaccine mandates is surfacing in an unlikely venue: The National Institutes of Health.
The sprawling federal research agency has led government efforts studying and battling Covid-19, including funding the development and testing of vaccines. Anthony Fauci, a top NIH scientist, has been a public face of the Biden administration’s case for wider vaccine mandates, including a federal one affecting the NIH’s own staff.
But just like at workplaces across the country, vaccine mandates are sparking controversy at the NIH. The agency’s main bioethics department has scheduled a Dec. 1 live-streamed roundtable session over the ethics of mandates. The seminar is one of four agencywide ethics debates this year, accessible to all of the NIH’s nearly 20,000 staff, as well as patients and the public, organizers say. It was set up after a senior infectious-disease researcher at the institute pushed back against broadening discussion of mandates this summer and requested an agency ethics review.
“There’s a lot of debate within the NIH about whether [a vaccine mandate] is appropriate,” said David Wendler, the senior NIH bioethicist who is in charge of planning the session. “It’s an important, hot topic.”
A federal appeals court on Saturday temporarily blocked Biden administration rules issued last week by the U.S. Labor Department requiring many private employers to ensure workers are vaccinated or tested weekly for Covid-19. The Labor Department’s top legal adviser said the administration was confident in its authority to issue the mandate and prepared to defend the rules.
In the NIH-scheduled roundtable next month, Matthew Memoli, who runs a clinical studies unit within the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, will make the case against mandates. Dr. Memoli, 48 years old, opposes mandatory Covid-19 vaccination with currently available shots, and he has declined to be vaccinated.
“I think the way we are using the vaccines is wrong,” he said. In a July 30 email to Dr. Fauci and two of his lieutenants, Dr. Memoli called mandated vaccination “extraordinarily problematic.” He says one of Dr. Fauci’s colleagues thanked him for his email. Dr. Fauci and a NIAID spokeswoman declined to comment.
Dr. Memoli said he supports Covid-19 vaccination in high-risk populations including the elderly and obese. But he argues that with existing vaccines, blanket vaccination of people at low risk of severe illness could hamper the development of more-robust immunity gained across a population from infection.
Epidemiologists and public-health experts overwhelmingly support widespread vaccinations as the best, most predictable way to save lives, build immunity and ultimately defeat the virus. In their view, holdouts like Dr. Memoli—doctors and other healthcare workers who potentially hold sway over others—damage efforts to prevent deaths and severe illness.
A body of research suggests vaccines provide stronger protection against coronavirus than previous infection. A study released last month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found Covid-19 was over five times more common among hospitalized people who were unvaccinated and had a previous infection, compared with those who were fully vaccinated and hadn’t had Covid-19 before.
Timothy Schacker, vice dean for research and infectious-disease physician at the University of Minnesota Medical School, said relying on Covid-19 infections over tried-and-tested vaccines would be dangerous and irresponsible. “That’s a terrible idea if we have a vaccine that prevents serious disease,” he said.
Dr. Memoli’s views, and his status as an unvaccinated doctor, make him an outlier inside and outside the NIH. More than 88% of the NIH’s federal employees were fully vaccinated at the end of October, according to the agency. The rest will need to prove they are vaccinated, or have sought an exemption, before a federal deadline of Nov. 22.
Dr. Memoli has sought an exemption from the NIH mandate and has applied for an exception, on religious grounds, from requirements imposed by health authorities in Washington, D.C., where he is licensed to practice medicine. He says he is willing to risk his job and his license for the right not to receive a Covid-19 shot.
Christine Grady, head of the NIH’s Clinical Center bioethics department, signed off on the Dec. 1 seminar, a session called “Grand Rounds.” She said via email that she believes there is interest in the topic across the agency. “Our hope is that the December Grand Rounds will be relevant to the debates that are going on around the country regarding vaccine mandates,” an agency spokeswoman said on her behalf.
Dr. Grady is married to Dr. Fauci, who has advocated strict mandates to propel vaccination drives. Dr. Wendler, who reports to Dr. Grady, said the bioethics department doesn’t set out to influence government policy. “We’re a consultation service and sort of an academic department,” he said. “We’re not policy people.”
Dr. Memoli, a 16-year NIH veteran, was selected this month for a 2021 NIH director’s award, a top recognition from the head of the agency, for his supervision of a national study into undiagnosed Covid-19 cases early in the pandemic.
Dr. Memoli said his children have all their childhood vaccinations. “I do vaccine trials. I, in fact, help create vaccines,” he said. “Part of my career is to share my expert opinions, right or wrong.…I mean, if they all end up saying I’m wrong, that’s fine. I want to have the discussion.”
-
https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/2021/11/09/hotel-australia/
Line in the sand.
-
https://summit.news/2021/11/10/pfizers-attempt-at-winning-the-meme-war-backfires-disastrously/
-
https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2021/11/10/singapore-axes-free-universal-coronavirus-healthcare-for-unvaccinated-by-choice/
-
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/todays-blacklisted-american-ucla-threatens-to-expell-remote-student-for-not-revealing-his-covid-shot-status/
-
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-recognition/
-
WOW!!!
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60845-CV0.pdf
-
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/watch-as-epidemic-of-the-unvaccinated
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeu1EPl6IyI&t=113s
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/austria-orders-lockdown-for-only-the-unvaccinated-directs-police-to-carry-spot-checks_4103355.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-11-14-2&mktids=f19c58e4069bc821af1ed63a24f1e18c&est=NOSLX9DQGUSEpzsdc8cEYIiNBeyHOgDZ%2Bf7M20RH3j3zxZffppouLUOyUnYG%2BgzO5z2A
-
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-recognition/
"They [the Left] will fall because dishonesty undermines the entire scaffold of their “narrative.” ... And then maybe we will begin again, walking in sunlight rather than darkness."
[Doug] Why does the entire civilization have to come all the way down to prove their narrative is dishonest? The evidence is all around us already.
-
"[Doug] Why does the entire civilization have to come all the way down to prove their narrative is dishonest? The evidence is all around us already."
1) free everything to large numbers of people courtesy of those who pay the bills
2) recruit from overseas more votes - illegals - flood them in
3) perhaps I could include race cards gender cards and non hetero sex cards
seems simple to me.
-
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-recognition/
"They [the Left] will fall because dishonesty undermines the entire scaffold of their “narrative.” ... And then maybe we will begin again, walking in sunlight rather than darkness."
[Doug] Why does the entire civilization have to come all the way down to prove their narrative is dishonest? The evidence is all around us already.
Ask your lefty friends.
-
"Ask your lefty friends" [and family!]
Yes. One friend who I have sparred with on economics over the years just wrote he is leaning right. I think that means leaning right from where he was, not to vote conservative or Republican or for freedom and constitution supporting candidates.
Another who is in the suburbs said he was glad that defund the police failed in Minneapolis. [but of course will still keep voting for 'moderate' Dems who vote mostly the same as the radicals].
It always seems that no minds can be changed with even the strongest argument - but then suddenly with no assist from us shifts in voting patterns occur.
I used to say, decline is a choice. Now make that, collapse is a choice. Civil war (no.2) is a choice. We could choose growth over decline, economic survival over collapse, nuclear power over brown outs and black outs, equal treatment under the law over unrest. But no...
ccp wrote: ...
1) free everything to large numbers of people courtesy of those who pay the bills
[Yes, but the friends whose liberal voting I whine about tend to be extremely rich and still vote to support these programs and think they are doing the right thing.]
2) recruit from overseas more votes - illegals - flood them in
[Yes, but even illegals mostly want a better life for their family. Reliance on government long term is not a better life than say being a successful entrepreneur in a vibrant, dynamic economy. Especially if the government you rely on is collapsing.]
These voters (enough of these voters) can be won with sustained messaging and reasoning which we haven't really ever tried.
In the current case, our messaging success comes from Biden et al who say build back better and the people see build back worse. You can't buy a campaign ad as effective as watching this negligent administration fail.
-
“Yes, but even illegals mostly want a better life for their family.”
Just being here is better for them and their families, however most lack the intelligence, education or culture to function as anything but parasites on American society.
-
Actually quite a few of them keep things going in the fields, in restaurant kitchens, clearing tables, gardening, construction, nanny work, etc. Then their childre grow up to work for US Border Patrol (a joking reference to how many of BP are Latino)
-
Actually quite a few of them keep things going in the fields, in restaurant kitchens, clearing tables, gardening, construction, nanny work, etc. Then their childre grow up to work for US Border Patrol (a joking reference to how many of BP are Latino)
Working under the table for cash while collecting government benefits, sometimes using multiple fake IDs as their low IQ children suck up taxpayer money in ESL classes and JV correctional facilities.
https://new-iq-test.com/haiti-average-iq.html
The average Somali IQ is 68, Guatemala is 78.
-
ESL classes are a good thing. It is called "learning English".
Agreed fraud is a not infrequent part of the mix, but most of these people are not lazy.
As for the IQ argument, is your argument genetics or something else?
-
"Working under the table for cash while collecting government benefits"
- Yes, this is exactly how our underclass economy works. Are we sure the under the table workers support the Dem agenda of hiring 80,000 new IRS agents? THIS is where tax cheating occurs. Rich people can't hide large amounts of money and don't work "under the table" for cash. The Left planners actually want to eliminate cash, and now eliminate private banks; everything would go through the government.
Back to the topic above, strangely the so-called underclass most dependent on government is the least trusting of government.
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/
Eventually the divides in their coalition will be their downfall.
-
ESL classes are a good thing. It is called "learning English".
The only thing we should be doing is shipping them home.
Agreed fraud is a not infrequent part of the mix, but most of these people are not lazy.
The crime rates reflect that.
As for the IQ argument, is your argument genetics or something else?
I’m sure it’s a combination of factors. That’s irrelevant to my point that there are real consequences to who enters and remains in a country. Compatible cultural backgrounds and intellectual ability matters.
Singapore has an average IQ of 106
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexcapri/2018/09/21/5-reasons-why-the-worlds-tech-firms-are-moving-to-singapore/?sh=290310a42aa0
Not Singapore:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT8LxJcRwy8R7GknPcc_gGfaU72YZuzIfeaOQ&usqp=CAU)
-
"Working under the table for cash while collecting government benefits"
- Yes, this is exactly how our underclass economy works. Are we sure the under the table workers support the Dem agenda of hiring 80,000 new IRS agents? THIS is where tax cheating occurs. Rich people can't hide large amounts of money and don't work "under the table" for cash. The Left planners actually want to eliminate cash, and now eliminate private banks; everything would go through the government.
Back to the topic above, strangely the so-called underclass most dependent on government is the least trusting of government.
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/
Eventually the divides in their coalition will be their downfall.
Will all of your houses have been burned down or confiscated in the name of social justice by then?
-
"Will all of your houses have been burned down or confiscated in the name of social justice by then?"
- Thanks for the concern. It wouldn't be a total loss (and they won't find all my houses), I would get my life back and THEY would get to keep their smoldering city - with no affordable housing in it and no one left to over-tax.
Property taxes assessed on my inner city houses just went up 25% for next year. Moral hazard has turned back on them. If my property value goes to zero, their tax revenue goes to zero.
-
We are agreed that a flood of two million illegals is bad for the country, particular those with whom they will compete for jobs and by so doing drive down wages but there is no need for IQ comparisons. Anyway, I'm guessing those with whom they will be competing don't score so high either.
-
We are agreed that a flood of two million illegals is bad for the country, particular those with whom they will compete for jobs and by so doing drive down wages but there is no need for IQ comparisons. Anyway, I'm guessing those with whom they will be competing don't score so high either.
Does intelligence matter?
Why is the left so concerned with importing millions of low IQ 3rd worlders?
Permanent underclass. Easily controlled and manipulated.
-
Of course IQ matters but the way you expressed yourself leaves you (and by implication, us) vulnerable to accusations of outright racial superiority.
-
Of course IQ matters but the way you expressed yourself leaves you (and by implication, us) vulnerable to accusations of outright racial superiority.
Yes, the left constantly accuses everyone they don’t like of racism.
Is it racist to point out that black Americans are responsible for roughly half the homicides in the US, despite being roughly 13% of the population? Or is that just because of structural racism?
-
Of course not and I am in the middle of an extended conversation on my FB page (just under 5,000 "friends") making this and related points but going into comparable IQ test scores without a non-racist explanation for the disparity is to toss a floater down the middle of the plate.
If you don't think latinos are genetically inferior, what is the point of bringing it up? Without citation yet? Why not just say the people crossing on the whole are less educated, don't speak English, and will drive down wages for working class Americans?-- and are entering illegally!
-
Of course not and I am in the middle of an extended conversation on my FB page (just under 5,000 "friends") making this and related points but going into comparable IQ test scores without a non-racist explanation for the disparity is to toss a floater down the middle of the plate.
If you don't think latinos are genetically inferior, what is the point of bringing it up? Without citation yet? Why not just say the people crossing on the whole are less educated, don't speak English, and will drive down wages for working class Americans?-- and are entering illegally!
I'm glad there are so many interested in social media virtue signalling as the FUSA continues to collapse.
https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php
There is an article that was posted here about all the technological advancements produced by Israel and it was pointed out that lack of technology produced by the much larger islamic population that surrounds it (Figuring out how to use garage door openers and cell phones to initiate IEDs doesn't win Nobel prizes for some reason, probably structural racism). Are we allowed to be aware of such things?
https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/elephant-classroom-mass-immigrations-impact-public-education
https://townhall.com/columnists/lawrencemead/2021/10/28/the-border-crisis-and-american-culture-n2598105
-
You are avoiding my point.
-
You are avoiding my point.
Which is?
-
If you don't think latinos are genetically inferior, what is the point of bringing it up?
I said "The average Somali IQ is 68, Guatemala is 78."
Are Somalis latinos now? I missed that memo.
-
"Actually quite a few of them keep things going in the fields, in restaurant kitchens, clearing tables, gardening, construction, nanny work, etc.
You failed to mention all the illegal alien neurosurgeons, engineers and IT professionals making vital contributions to America. Why is that?
-
"Which is?"
That bringing up group IQ makes this forum look genuinely racist.
-
"Which is?"
That bringing up group IQ makes this forum look genuinely racist.
Is it a real phenomenon?
-
My point is clear.
-
Be sure to put an asterisk at the end of “we pursue the truth”.
-
My house my rules.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/fda-asks-court-for-55-years-to-fully-release-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-data_4110761.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-11-18-1&mktids=ac18077764210e342f54a0002ebb98cd&est=SzUYfq7KzMRjrxLDCuTzCwLLC300CmUZrs1YUVvHMaWDVm2mp1%2BBx%2B5jIxbqlKQ%2Bi1Fk
-
https://noqreport.com/2021/11/13/cdc-finally-quietly-begrudgingly-releases-natural-immunity-numbers-and-now-we-know-why-they-waited/
https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/after-osha-suspends-vaccine-rule-white-house-tells-businesses-to-move-forward-with-it_4112421.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-11-19&mktids=979a9fa29183704770db0a1226d1cd5b&est=pPT4CDMPE3PNRG15LtSuvXeP0KhsOztqn26gHDth7utLzkOIEDiSN59tw%2F50ONOTD1Le
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/business-lobby-files-court-notice-over-bidens-vaccine-mandate-bullying-of-small-business-owners_4115102.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-11-20-2&mktids=700ba2d53ecf68f3be3f2d137d3f32ef&est=s9T7csBNdy8bEV%2FNsR9ylKVSsIEU5oKTmAoPThdc9CrrEHDDAL%2Ba%2BMG0wDbaPn0Q3%2Fcv
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/business-lobby-files-court-notice-over-bidens-vaccine-mandate-bullying-of-small-business-owners_4115102.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-11-20-2&mktids=700ba2d53ecf68f3be3f2d137d3f32ef&est=s9T7csBNdy8bEV%2FNsR9ylKVSsIEU5oKTmAoPThdc9CrrEHDDAL%2Ba%2BMG0wDbaPn0Q3%2Fcv
It's a plenty big and bad pollutant. Single use plastics should be ended where not needed, there are better ways. Throwing it in a river: to an ocean should be a criminal act.
But there doesn't seem to be a floating island of plastic in the Pacific twice the size of Texas, whether we call that fiction or a lie.
-
Yes, and plastic island or not, my understanding is that there are lots and lots and lots of tiny pellets that wind up in fish we eat and fukk with our hormones.
-
Daily Memo: Protests Erupt in Europe, Deal Reached in Sudan
Thousands demonstrated in several European cities against COVID-19 restrictions.
By: Geopolitical Futures
Anger boils over. Protests broke out across Europe over the weekend after governments announced new COVID-19 restrictions last week. In Vienna, roughly 40,000 people demonstrated against lockdown measures and a new mandate making vaccinations mandatory beginning in 2022. In Brussels, police clashed with protesters at a demonstration attended by 35,000 people, according to authorities. Violent clashes also erupted in the Netherlands, including in Rotterdam, where 20 people were arrested and seven injured. Demonstrations were also held in Croatia, Northern Ireland and Italy.
-
https://twitter.com/cryptonian86/status/1462720391642853376?s=12
-
https://notthebee.com/article/here-are-some-of-the-massive-mandate-protests-around-the-world-that-the-media-isnt-showing-you?utm_source=jeeng
-
second
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/biden-administration-asks-us-appeals-court-to-reinstate-osha-vaccine-rule_4119759.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-11-23-1&mktids=f90766fc880cd0502fc9cc217f1ed589&est=MJ3gcITFi4D8vcBjdcAZov1yfq%2FNXOVRd5ryNFLANVpO01KjhFculyIhYBDYRWc%2FxSaB
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/1350819/america-s-crimes-against-its-own-children
-
second
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/new-york-declares-a-health-care-state
-
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/11/28/fauci-on-gop-criticism-im-going-to-be-saving-lives-and-theyre-going-to-be-lying/
this guy needs to be removed from his office forcefully in a straight jacket!
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/nov/29/judge-halts-biden-admin-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-h/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=wON%2FW2Q%2BkeJu97A80OkhS6aWXfTkGVGKkcJ%2BMz5O7nebYFFvqf9bteXxKQf3xN3X&bt_ts=1638213715914
-
COVID-19 is a serious disease that can have deadly consequences. The good news is that now the recovery rate is between 97% and 99.75%. As the world approaches its second full year grappling with the ever-mutating virus and the public health response, some serious public policy and political questions require attention:
Are some people looking to leverage vaccination status to stigmatize and marginalize political opponents?
Is vaccine status being equated with ideology or political affiliation?
Is vaccine status going to be the new societal discriminator for those who might be "more equal" than others?
Are we seeing efforts to control and pressure citizens for daring to question government officials?
What about officials who seek to change the meaning of terms such as "fully vaccinated," or altogether abandon terms and conditions that were used to persuade the public to shut down businesses and society at-large.
The German news magazine, Der Spiegel, recently featured a story titled: "Study Finds Link Between Far Right and High Corona Rates in Germany." The subtitle of the story is:
"The number of coronavirus infections is rising sharply in parts of Germany where the far-right AfD party enjoys greater support. Is it a coincidence? Researchers took a close look at the corollaries and drew some conclusions that surprised even them."
Der Spiegel reporters Holger Dambeck and Peter Maxwill reported:
"An interdisciplinary team at the Research Institute for Social Cohesion and a researcher from Munich systematically investigated the connection between the election results and the spread of the pathogen. The experts' findings are clear: The higher the number of votes the AfD got in a region in the 2017 election, the faster the coronavirus spread there in 2020."
The broader political messaging is clear: Conservatives are disease-spreading troglodytes that endanger civilization.
The sensationalized findings focus on correlation and not a causal relationship, so the study and the speculative reporting are transparently sloppy smear-jobs. The real objective of both the study and the magazine reporting is clearly to damage political opponents by associating them with a deadly disease.
Given Germany's notorious history of brutally stigmatizing various minority populations, it is shocking and outrageous that a German "research institute" and the Hamburg-based weekly news magazine would sink to such sleazy malice.
Sadly, the United States has its own set of operatives seeking to marginalize those who question vaccine mandates, as well as persons with valid reservations concerning the long-term safety and efficacy of the various vaccines. In the British medical journal, The Lancet, Dr. Günter Kampf, a professor at the Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Science at the University of Greifswald in Germany, wrote an important, brief piece, published on November 20, 2021: "COVID-19: Stigmatizing the Unvaccinated is Not Justified." Kampf wrote:
"In the USA and Germany, high-level officials have used the term pandemic of the unvaccinated, suggesting that people who have been vaccinated are not relevant in the epidemiology of COVID-19. Officials' use of this phrase might have encouraged one scientist to claim that 'the unvaccinated threaten the vaccinated for COVID-19'. But this view is far too simple."
Kampf goes on to detail substantial, documented evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in COVID-19 transmission. He describes a July 2021 COVID outbreak in Massachusetts, wherein 74% of the cases were in people who were fully or partly vaccinated. He closes his argument with a plea:
"I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatization of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens, and to put extra effort into bringing society together."
Kampf is not alone. Dr. Paul Elias Alexander is a clinical epidemiologist who teaches evidence-based medicine and research methodology. He was also a senior advisor on COVID pandemic policy for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Alexander has been published by the Brownstone Institute, writing:
"... existing immunity should be assessed before any vaccination... Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. This will function to mitigate the societal anxiety with these forced vaccine mandates and societal upheaval due to job loss, denial of societal privileges etc. Tearing apart the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in a society, separating them, is not medically or scientifically supportable."
Alexander's report on naturally acquired immunity to Covid-19 seems to be ignored in the media and by government officials. Why is that? 130 research studies discussing the relative merits and protections of natural immunity appear to be scrupulously ignored. One would think that a full, open and honest public dialogue and corresponding public treatment plan would discuss the full spectrum of medical facts, conditions, and treatments.
Conspicuous for defying convention and taking the broader, holistic approach to COVID-19 is Florida's Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, who holds both MD and PhD degrees from Harvard. He is the refreshing exception to authoritarianism and a seemingly endless cycle of public scare tactics.
We are seeing a growing authoritarianism by governments across the globe concerning the drive to vaccinate everyone: mandates, lockdowns, vaccine passports and restrictions on civil liberties. We are also seeing a corresponding resistance to heavy-handed, government imposed measures. Protests have erupted across Europe over renewed lockdown drives by European governments. Australians are also now pushing back in protest.
The Biden administration attempted to issue an unprecedented federal mandate for vaccination, that has been thwarted (for the time-being) by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court made it explicitly clear that the mandate raises grave constitutional concerns. Nonetheless, the Biden White House arrogantly "encouraged" — some might say ordered – businesses to continue forward with forcing employees to be vaccinated.
Despite the Biden White House's seemingly power-mad drive to defy courts, browbeat businesses, and intimidate citizens, this is still the United States and the Constitution is still the law of the land. Even though the normally vocal "my body, my choice" crowd seems to have vanished hypocritically from the public square over vaccine choice — American workers are pushing back against the fascist-like government/corporate partnership demanding vaccinations.
COVID-19 is a serious disease, but it bears constant repeating that the recovery rate now is between 97% and 99.75%. The American public has never had a federal vaccine mandate imposed upon it. Fear, shock, intimidation and ultimatums are not the decision-making components of a representative democracy. The Constitution is not "waived" due to disease or natural disaster. We must beware of politicians and other officials who seek to exercise power through "mandates" without a single vote or the active exercise of informed consent.
We must resist authoritarian impulses and exercises by various officials seeking to consolidate power and impose their will over the constitutional processes and guarantees we enjoy. Our Constitution was designed and ratified for exactly such challenges and it has endured 231 years through a myriad of challenges far more grave than a virus. The Constitution guarantees that we remain a country of freedom and opportunity in spite of a pandemic and those officials seeking to address public health.
Chris Farrell is Director of Investigations at Judicial Watch and Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/germany-announces-national-lockdown-for-the-unvaccinated_4135243.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-12-03&mktids=84b38f09c23bc8ab1db62497fa4b93f8&est=3PwVVyjSqI5Cj7tMuqiD9qgaH6NRMgvX2pN61L65yOuoMdYeQFhh1BGZm4WzUagyYqOo
-
America’s Two-Track Jobs Recovery
Memo to Ron Klain: Here are the pandemic policies that worked.
By The Editorial Board
Dec. 2, 2021 6:46 pm ET
Lockdowns and other harsh government measures don’t stop Covid, so why is the White House still trying to defend them? “Stronger COVID measures produce STRONGER ECONOMIC outcomes,” White House chief of staff Ron Klain tweeted Wednesday. “That’s why jobs, growth and economic activity are UP this year, significantly over last year.”
Egad. Jobs and economic growth have rebounded as vaccines became widely available and Democratic-led states finally lifted their destructive lockdowns. But lockdown states continue to suffer high unemployment while Republican-led states that maintained many fewer restrictions have almost fully recovered.
It’s clear from the numbers, if you’ll bear with us. The Labor Department recently reported that the unemployment rate in October hit the lowest on record since 1976 in West Virginia (4.3%), Georgia (3.1%), Oklahoma (2.7%), Utah (2.2%) and Nebraska (1.9%). Vermont (2.8%), Idaho (2.8%), South Dakota (2.8%), New Hampshire (2.9%), Alabama (3.1%), Montana (3.1%), Wisconsin (3.2%) and Indiana (3.3%) are close to their pre-pandemic rates.
In some of these states, many unemployed have dropped out of the labor force, which has reduced their unemployment rates. But the labor force has grown in Idaho, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah and Wisconsin as well as some others. All these states have GOP governors and legislatures, with the exception of Wisconsin (Democratic Governor) and Vermont (Democratic legislature).
Nine states, on the other hand, have unemployment rates above 6%—California (7.3%), Nevada (7.3%), New Jersey (7%), New York (6.9%), New Mexico (6.5%), Connecticut (6.4%), Hawaii (6.3%), Michigan (6.1%) and Alaska (6.1%). All have Democratic government trifectas save Michigan (GOP legislature) and Alaska (GOP Governor and legislature).
While payroll jobs nationwide are 2.7% below their pre-pandemic peak, Utah and Idaho have exceeded theirs by 3.5% and 1.6%, respectively. Arizona (-0.2%), Texas (-0.5%), South Dakota (-0.7%), Nebraska (-0.8%), Alabama (-1.2%), Arkansas (-1.2%), Montana (-1.2%), Georgia (-1.3%), Tennessee (-1.7%), South Carolina (-1.8%) and Florida (-1.9%) will do so soon.
By contrast, New York (-8.2%), Pennsylvania (-5.4%), Michigan (-5.1%), Massachusetts (-5.1%), California (-5%), New Jersey (-4.8%), Connecticut (-4.7%) and Illinois (-4.7%) will take much longer to recover the jobs they lost, if they ever do. The New York City (-10.1%), San Francisco/East Bay (-7.4%) and Los Angeles (-6.6%) regions have even further to go.
Utah
Idaho
Ariz.
Texas
S.D.
N.Y.
Pa.
Md.
Mich.
Calif.
-10%
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
There are about four million “missing” jobs since February 2020 in the 23 states with Democratic governors versus 1.3 million in the 27 with GOP governors even though they have only 15% more population. (State and national data don’t always align.) Incredibly, the missing jobs in California, Illinois and New Jersey exceed all those in the 27 GOP-led states combined.
What explains this startling dichotomy? One obvious culprit is the extent of lockdowns. Democratic governors tended to favor extensive lockdowns that were especially hard on small businesses. Population migration has also reduced the demand for services. Many offices in New York and San Francisco haven’t fully reopened, so hospitality jobs that depend on them haven’t returned.
Yet there are also many more missing workers in leading lockdown states. Florida’s labor force has expanded 1.2% during the pandemic while California’s has shrunk 2.1%. There are 950,000 fewer employed workers in California than before the pandemic versus 12,000 fewer in Florida. Put another way, California is missing 40 times more workers than Florida, adjusting for population. This is one reason ships are backed up in Los Angeles, where the unemployment rate is still 9.4%, though the labor force has shrunk by 120,000.
Government payments also reduced the incentive to work. Most Republican-led states withdrew expanded pandemic unemployment benefits by early July but they didn't lapse in Democratic states until Labor Day. California’s eviction moratorium didn’t expire until October, and Democrats have offered to pay 100% of the back rent for tenants dating to April 2020. The Golden State this summer also sent $1,100 checks to lower-income families.
We wish this partisan distinction didn’t exist, but the pandemic heightened the economic policy differences between the two political parties. The states have provided a market test, and GOP policies won. Mr. Klain is taking credit for the pandemic policy results in Florida and Georgia, not in New York or California.
-
third post
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/1375043/the-drugs-industrial-complex-has-lied-to-our-parents
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/04/nobody-in-my-home-died-from-chinese-coronavirus-and-that-should-make-you-angry/
-
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/a-giant-florida-hospital-system-has/comments
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/vaccine-mandates-also-suspended-at/comments
-
second
https://www.theepochtimes.com/covid-19-a-pandemic-of-fear-manufactured-by-authorities-yale-epidemiologist_4106244.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-12-05-1&est=9VhXPt36rxDB7j6bTxTcPP1KTQnXr%2FFGuK%2FE63vuA8TbwDJVwNikf54Tk1HDq4msz%2FJr
-
Third:
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-god-that-failed?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDUwMjM4ODgsIl8iOiJKK1dFNCIsImlhdCI6MTYzODczNzc4NywiZXhwIjoxNjM4NzQxMzg3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.hqArevw1HydljWCxuPT9BpUcoQbGKroHo-WK-K_NITI
-
Fourth
https://www.theepochtimes.com/er-doctor-omicron-may-provide-natural-immunity-with-mild-symptoms_4139482.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-12-05-2&est=aGSjtxKPCNMcJIjhX%2BVRE8p5S6i52IK4tHEYd2IV6hQcHLvMeheESWCXDC9VeQfC%2FvKE
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/a-president-betrayed-by-bureaucrats-scott-atlass-masterpiece-on-the-covid-disaster_4139781.html?utm_source=opinionnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=opinionnl-2021-12-07
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/bidens-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-for-federal-contractors-now-blocked-nationwide_4143790.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-12-07-3&mktids=1947c53a59c9f17cbc490effed67f2e5&est=a6aU%2BbxYczdxyUtrMyTKddtv41zV1D2EtZgOmBHtiHzrIHRqhA64d7OjwzzT4Pa78%2Bax
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/dec/7/jon-tester-becomes-second-senate-democrat-buck-bid/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=nFLJN%2FP0LrMKvsTbiiUtA%2F100UxaZFGyul1%2FDT9bxym0n55EVUEj5pbNv5t2CzC3&bt_ts=1638925625814
-
Given who the author works for, this article is surprisingly accurate:
Lawsuits challenging Biden’s vaccine mandates target overreach
By Robert Charrow
Editor’s note: This is one in a series examining the Constitution and Federalist Papers in today’s America.
This has not been a good month for the Biden administration with respect to COVID-19. First, the new omicron variant has landed on our shores, and Moderna announced that its vaccine may not be as effective against this new variant. The Dow Jones Industrial Average and other markets have reacted accordingly.
Second, as of this week, more Americans have died from COVID-19 under the 10 months of the Biden administration, with both vaccines and effective therapeutics, than during the same 10-month stretch under the Trump administration without the vaccine and few therapeutics.
Third, President Biden’s three-pronged attempt to compel Americans to get vaccinated — a Department of Labor rule aimed at workplaces, a Department of Health and Human Services rule aimed at certain providers who bill Medicare, and an executive order aimed at federal contractors — has been rebuffed by the courts in what has become a litigation feeding frenzy. These three sets of cases do not question the efficacy or safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. They are likely the safest vaccines ever produced, and more folks should voluntarily get vaccinated. Nor are the cases necessarily about individual liberties. State governments have, for more than 100 years, imposed vaccine mandates on their citizenry, especially children.
Rather, the cases focus on whether the federal government (in contrast to the state governments) has the constitutional authority to impose the mandates, and if so, can that authority be exercised by the agencies through emergency rule making or by the president through an edict.
The health of our citizenry has traditionally been a matter exclusively within the purview of the states. Our earliest federal laws — from the 1790s — related to quarantines. They authorized federal authorities to assist the states in enforcing their health laws, but only when requested.
The actions of the early Congresses shine light on how our Founding Fathers envisioned the division of power between the states and the federal government. Our more recent laws, including Medicare and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, have been careful to pay heed to state authority in this area, especially with respect to the practice of medicine. Nevertheless, the recent vaccine mandate cases show that some still have difficulty seeing the line dividing state and federal authority.
First up was the Labor Department rule from the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, which seeks to require employers of 100 or more to mandate their employees be vaccinated or be tested weekly and wear masks while at work. The rule also requires employers to give employees a paid day off to recover from the side effects of the vaccine. The rule was issued on an “emergency” basis without notice and comment, thereby short-circuiting the normal rule-making process.
Challenges to OSHA rules like this go directly to the federal courts of appeals. The states of Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Utahand numerous businesses that would be adversely affected by the rule immediately challenged it in the 5th Circuit, located in New Orleans. On Nov. 12, the court stayed the rule pending further judicial review, concluding, among other things, that “health agencies do not make housing policy, and occupational safety administrations do not make health policy … In seeking to do so here, OSHA runs afoul of the statute from which it draws its power and, likely, violates the constitutional structure that safeguards our collective liberty.”
Many other states and businesses also challenged the OSHA rule in various other appeals courts. In an odd twist, a panel of judges in the District of Columbia consolidated the many cases, including the one from the 5th Circuit, under the “lottery rule.” Under the law, when numerous parties challenge an agency order in different appeals courts, all the cases are supposed to go to a single appeals court, chosen through a random draw. The winner of this lottery was the 6th Circuit, which sits in Cincinnati.
It will now be up to the 6th Circuit to decide the fate of the OSHA rule. Maybe. It is unclear whether the lottery rule even applies in this instance. It comes into play only when “orders” are being challenged. Here, a rule is being challenged, and a “rule” is, by definition, not an “order.” The two are mutually exclusive. As the legal battle started, OSHA put its rule on ice until the court could resolve the matter.
Next up is the rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services mandating all employees of hospitals and other health care providers that participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs be vaccinated. This rule was challenged by three groups of states in three federal trial courts — Pensacola, Florida; St. Louis; and New Orleans.
The first case went the federal government’s way. A conservative judge in Pensacola concluded that Florida had not demonstrated that it would be irreparably injured by the rule and therefore, denied the state’s request for a temporary restraining order.
Nine days later, though, the St. Louis court preliminarily halted the rule in 10 states. The following day, the New Orleans court put the rule out of its misery by granting a nationwide preliminary injunction. It stressed both federal government overreach and CMS’ failure to go through notice- and-comment rule making as factors in its decision.
Last to be reviewed judicially was Mr. Biden’s executive order mandating that government contractors require their employees to be vaccinated. It was challenged in a Kentucky federal court by the states of Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. The court issued an injunction on the requirement in those three states, finding the “president exceeded his authority.”
These successful legal challenges have all been mounted by states that are understandably concerned that the executive branch is seeking to encroach into areas traditionally reserved for state governance. The cases bring to the fore the tension that has existed throughout the life of our federal system, between state autonomy and federal authority. In recent years, the Supreme Court has been more mindful than in the past that federal power is inherently limited by the Constitution. Merely because federal action may be good for public health does not mean it is lawful or constitutional.
• Robert Charrow was the general counsel at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of his law firm or its clients
-
https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/news/pfizer-document-concedes-that-there-is-a-large-increase-in-types-of-adverse-event-reaction-to-its-vaccine/
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/nih-no-documents-available-on-removal-of-gain-of-function-definition-from-website_4147680.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-12-09-1&mktids=fec0ce9be1d2fb3bc63298780fec2dea&est=XOcIG5gzGRMyZ2OOrOwSI1%2BZr%2BKN%2FcJL9iTQ50q7erN1LEYyDLdzp4A98qglcLQ4ab0W
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/10/minnesota-bistro-owner-sentenced-with-90-days-in-jail-and-1000-fine-for-defying-covid-lockdown-order/
-
Biden’s Federal Vaccine Mandate Wipeout
The Administration ignored the law. It is getting crushed in court.
By The Editorial Board
Follow
Updated Dec. 9, 2021 7:25 pm ET
What legal sage advised President Biden to impose vaccine mandates? The adviser needs to have his law licence pulled because the courts are repudiating the Administration’s mandates at an astonishing pace. A federal judge in Georgia was the latest on Tuesday when he blocked its vaccine requirement for employees of federal contractors—the fifth judicial rebuke in less than a month.
Judge R. Stan Baker ruled in a challenge brought by seven states that the Administration had exceeded its authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. The President claimed his executive order would “promote economy and efficiency in procurement” by contracting with sources “that provide adequate Covid-19 safeguards for their workforce.”
But the law does not give the President “the right to impose virtually any kind of requirement on businesses that wish to contract with the Government (and, thereby, on those businesses’ employees) so long as he determines it could lead to a healthier and thus more efficient workforce or it could reduce absenteeism,” Judge Baker wrote.
Last week federal Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove enjoined the Administration from enforcing the contractor mandate in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. While conceding that Congress delegated broad power to the President, the judge noted that his “authority is not absolute” and the President’s overreach raises “several concerning statutory and constitutional implications.” The mandate “intrudes on an area that is traditionally reserved to the States,” Judge Tatenhove wrote, noting the Constitution grants the states general police powers to regulate public health and welfare.
Two judges recently scored the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for exceeding its authority by mandating vaccines for employees of healthcare providers that receive government funds. The Social Security Act authorizes CMS to prescribe rules and regulations that may be necessary to carry out the Medicaid and Medicare programs.
But as both judges noted, the Supreme Court has said that Congress must “speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency, decisions of vast economic and political significance.” “If CMS has the authority by a general authorization statute to mandate vaccines, they have authority to do almost anything they believe necessary, holding the hammer of termination of the Medicare/Medicaid Provider Agreement,” Louisiana Judge Terry Doughty noted.
Judge Doughty also blasted CMS for skipping notice-and-comment, and failing to consider surgical alternatives to its sweeping mandate and the reliance interest of states and providers on federal funds. “The Plaintiff States make a strong case that the CMS Mandate violates the States’ police power,” he wrote.
These smackdowns come on the heels of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling early last month that stayed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s vaccinate-or-test mandate for workers of employers with 100 or more employees. The Fifth Circuit ruled against the Administration on procedural, statutory and constitutional grounds.
Mr. Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees is still standing, but the Administration has said that those who didn’t comply by the Nov. 22 deadline won’t be punished. “The goal of the federal employee vaccination requirement is to protect federal workers, not to punish them,” Office of Personnel Management and Office of Management and Budget leaders wrote to executive agencies.
They added: “We encourage your agencies to continue with robust education and counseling efforts through this holiday season as the first step in an enforcement process, with no subsequent enforcement actions.” Why not do the same for private employers and workers? The White House is punishing private workers while inoculating government servants from its overreach.
***
Perhaps White House chief of staff Ron Klain thought mandates would be popular, but public opinion is turning negative as the costs become plain. Democrats Jon Tester and Joe Manchin joined all Senate Republicans in voting Wednesday to block the President’s mandate on private employers. Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t allow a vote in the House, but the bipartisan Senate repudiation, like the judicial rulings, shows what a blunder the coercive mandates are.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/with-ivermectin-in-hand-wife-dies-while-husband-begs-hospital-to-administer_4148789.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-12-11-2&mktids=4cd562a74d8ab54bdfee7f2cb435774e&est=jCS58QiU39gm1k91tT61Tfp%2BWX7%2FDCeeOfiYwCSa9AE0iWHfee%2Bk2vPTOMDtFrY420o1
-
third
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/pennsylvania-supreme-court-ends-school-mask-mandate_4150863.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-12-11-1&mktids=9805ee31bb7917fb743f9893ce8d3600&est=d4c05wp3D4bMMNJonKBO9%2FXA8JQNdCj3t7e9Pmbz%2Bb5fejv1I8bNTaSJgUwIjdBnDc9i
-
Democrats’ message shifts, portrays vaccine mandate only as option
Biden’s hard line on workers backfires
BY TOM HOWELL JR. THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Democrats are increasingly talking up the testing option for employees who refuse to get vaccinated for COVID-19, a tacit acknowledgment that they are losing the public relations battle over President Biden’s mandates.
Rhetoric about the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s workplace rule initially highlighted the effort to get Americans vaccinated. After a slew of lawsuits, mounting worries about layoffs and Republicans’ portrayal of the mandate as an attack on individual liberties, Democrats are talking more about testing and masking requirements.
“The OSHA rule does not mandate the vaccine. It’s a way out of the weekly test. A weekly test that is a little swab swirled around your nostril five or six times for 30 seconds. That’s the requirement,” Sen. Christopher Murphy, Connecticut Democrat, said Wednesday in a speech slamming a Republican resolution to quash the OSHA rule.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters a day later that OSHA dictated “not just a vaccine requirement, but also a testing option.”
It’s a shift in tenor from September, when Mr. Biden characterized the OSHA rule for federal employees as a lever to reduce the spread of the coronavirus by increasing the share of vaccinated workers.
The science around controlling the virus hasn’t changed since early fall, and the White House pointed to instances when it accurately described the regulation as a choice between weekly testing or vaccination.
Public health experts have taken note of the rhetorical shift.
“The White House is focused on softening the public perception of the OSHA rule,” said Lawrence Gostin, a global health law professor at Georgetown University who is tracking the issue.
“I do think there is a shift in tone and messaging,” he said. “Initially, the OSHA rule was intended to substantially boost vaccination coverage in the U.S. Had it gone forward without legal challenges, I believe President Biden would have achieved far higher rates of vaccination in the country. The legal and political backlash has been intense, and much of that backlash is focused on coerced vaccination. The Biden administration has pushed back by saying that the rule is not a vaccine mandate but has a testing and masking opt-out.”
The OSHA rule, or emergency temporary standard, requiring companies with 100 or more workers to form a roster of who is vaccinated and unvaccinated was published in November. Workers who remained unvaccinated were told to start wearing a mask in December and submit to weekly testing as of Jan. 4.
A federal appeals court suspended the rule while judges across the country hear arguments that it is onerous and legally dubious.
Before the wave of lawsuits, the White House promoted the plan as one way to compel vaccination. Officials suggested that some companies would follow the practices of employers and universities with vaccine-only standards, which are less expensive to administer. The government provides shots across America but doesn’t plan to pick up the tab for testing under the OSHA rule.
“Many businesses may choose the option of allowing for testing as an option. Many may choose that they should just make vaccines the requirement. But it leaves it up to them to make that decision,” Ms. Psaki said in a Sept. 10 briefing. “The vaccines are free and available to everyone in the country. [Businesses] have to make that decision themselves. It’s certainly more cost-effective to require vaccines. They may not decide to do that.”
On Wednesday, as the Senate prepared to pass a resolution disapproving of the OSHA rule, Ms. Psaki characterized the mandate as a broad and flexible strategy to improve safety.
“It’s about not just requiring vaccination,” she said, “but the alternative of testing — so, testing once a week.
“And I think our view and the view of many Americans is that if people aren’t vaccinated, having them test once a week is quite reasonable as we’re thinking about how to protect our workplaces, how to protect stores and retail locations as people are out shopping for Christmas and the holidays, how to protect our children in schools and public places,” she said.
Capitol Hill Democrats made similar arguments while slamming the Senate Republicans’ disapproval resolution, which passed with the help of two Democrats but faces long odds in the House and Mr. Biden’s veto pen.
“Despite how my Republican colleagues talk about it, letting employers have the flexibility to offer a testing option means they don’t have to ask workers to leave their job if they choose not to get vaccinated,” said Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat and chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “This step for getting people vaccinated or requiring testing is overwhelmingly popular with the American people.”
A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released this month found that a majority, 52%, supported the federal government’s rule forcing large employers to ensure vaccination or weekly testing, with 45% opposing the idea. More than half of respondents with 100 or more people in their workplaces said their employer already requires vaccination (36%) or said they want their employer to require it (17%).
A Politico/Morning Consult poll from September found that 58% support the OSHA rule, including 41% who “strongly support” it and 17% who “somewhat support” it.
The debate over the OSHA rule is unfolding at a delicate time for Mr. Biden, who is trying to sell his agenda but is buffeted by high inflation and a low approval rating. A CNBC survey released Friday shows the president’s approval has settled around 41%.
Arthur Caplan, director of the division of medical ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, said Mr. Biden is politically vulnerable, so “the administration has lost some of its heft to try and push policies that remain unpopular among many — not all, but many.”
He said the initial messaging was “100%” focused on increasing vaccination.
“So I think we’re seeing an attempt to reshape a mandate into something that gives more options and more flexibility in order to get something done,” he said.
The White House rejected the suggestion that there has been a sea change. It pointed to instances in which aides noted a testing option.
“As for the legal side of this, let me be crystal clear to avoid what appears to be possible misinformation or disinformation around the emergency temporary standard being a vaccine mandate: That would be, on its face, incorrect,” White House deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Nov. 5. “As has been explicit for months, it is a standard for a safe workplace to either comply with weekly testing or to be vaccinated.”
The testing option has reemerged this month as Republican lawmakers force Democrats to go on record in support or opposition of the OSHA rule and as New York Mayor Bill de Blasio pushes a more stringent city mandate for vaccinations.
The Democratic mayor, who will leave office at the end of the year, said anyone who reports to a private-sector workplace in the city must be vaccinated as of Dec. 27. Adults must show proof of two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by Dec. 27, and children ages 5-11 must show proof of at least one dose by Dec. 14 to enter social venues or dine indoors in the city, Mr. de Blasio said.
The Partnership for New York City, a business group, said it was blindsided. It said Mr. Biden’s OSHA rule provided a testing option and more time to comply.
Democrats in Washington said the wiggle room afforded by Mr. Biden should obviate objections to the federal standard.
“Estimates suggest that that requirement can save thousands of lives,” Mr. Murphy said in his floor speech. “But apparently, the cost of a nose tickle is too great a cost to pay to save thousands and thousands of Americans from dying from a preventable pandemic.”
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/doctor-says-he-was-fired-for-trying-to-treat-covid-19-patients-with-ivermectin_4153096.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-12-13&mktids=eaf9818e3ea49c2add9f814ef5b738fa&est=yjCpzWg4yZ7FIS%2FotiDtuVg%2F2kNAzsrbFWd0wFR2XbCgTTsGdlJUMsP6FyfflPOI9y9R
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/democrat-governor-declares-covid-19-emergency-over_4154168.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-12-13-2&mktids=241521887deb50b7ac7861e791f23110&est=jCcaww%2F5PWrA0kPYVsv63c%2B1pBsnNxNOzwhGV9TLkr0P6jsK6s3nPaz8QfDVINSO3Nx3
-
Fourth
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-religious-challenge-to-vaccine-mandate-for-ny-health-care-workers/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=26029978
-
I would note an important difference between State/municipal mandates and federal ones:
Federal efforts at police power have weak Constitutional basis, whereas per the Tenth Amendment State and municipal police power is very strong.
============
Vaccine Mandates and Religious Exemptions
SCOTUS rejects another chance to weigh in on states eliminating religious exemptions to COVID vaccine mandates.
Thomas Gallatin
In a 6-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an emergency request brought by healthcare workers in New York objecting to that state's vaccine mandate for medical workers that intentionally excludes religious exemptions. This is the second such emergency request rejected by the Court. Back in October, the justices rejected hearing a lawsuit brought by healthcare workers in Maine seeking religious exemption to their state's vaccine mandate. What gives?
Similar to the Maine case, the healthcare workers in New York sought exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate based on their religious objection to abortion. The suit contended that "abortive-derived fetal cell lines" were used in developing the vaccines.
For its part, the state of New York claimed that the COVID vaccines themselves do not contain aborted fetal cells, but also acknowledged the "HEK-293 cells — which are currently grown in a laboratory and are thousands of generations removed from cells collected from a fetus in 1973 — were used in testing during the research and development phase of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines." The state also argued, "The use of fetal cell lines for testing is common, including for the rubella vaccination, which New York's healthcare workers are already required to take."
Furthermore, New York observed that Catholic leaders including Pope Francis have given their approval for receiving the COVID vaccines.
Writing for the Court's three dissenting members, Justice Neil Gorsuch not only disagreed with the majority's rejection of the case but further noted that he would have ruled against the state. He contended that New York's actions show clear animus toward religion. "Even if one were to read the State's actions as something other than signs of animus," Gorsuch stated, "they leave little doubt that the revised mandate was specifically directed at the applicants' unorthodox religious beliefs and practices." He also highlighted the fact that several other states have been able to meet "COVID-19 public health goals without coercing religious objectors to accept a vaccine."
The justice wasn't done. Warning of the nature of political leaders to abuse emergencies for the "collective good," Gorsuch alluded to wars: "Pandemics often produce demanding new social rules aimed at protecting collective interests — and with those rules can come fear and anger at individuals unable to conform for religious reasons."
Gorsuch also blasted the majority for failing to address the issue, writing, "We should know the costs that come when this Court stands silent as majorities invade the constitutional rights of the unpopular and unorthodox."
But it's not all bad news when it comes to challenges to COVID vaccine mandates. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt recently announced, "The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Department of Justice's motion for stay pending appeal in our lawsuit against the vaccine mandate on healthcare workers, meaning our injunction will stay in place."
Moreover, thanks to shortages of nurses and other workers, as well as continued court setbacks for Biden's mandate, many big hospital systems have dropped vaccine mandates. Not that long ago, nearly a third of healthcare workers remained unvaccinated.
Finally, while the Court has once again dodged weighing in on religious exemptions in relation to these COVID vaccine mandates, it seems that at some point the Court will eventually be forced to take up one of these cases. It's apparent that some state leaders will continue to push against religious liberty rights at any opportunity that arises.
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/14/dr-peter-mccullough-covid-pandemic-was-coordinated-and-planned-to-promote-mass-vaccination/
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/lancet-scolds-those-claiming-pandemic-unvaccinated?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=348
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/virginia-hospital-found-in-contempt-of-court-for-not-giving-patient-prescribed-ivermectin_4156904.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-12-15-1&mktids=ec6b20b9281c4f7aa7189abb896a1cbb&est=Y4tR1030r5J2DNwK6n8kh05icoHxC4x2mnREzIzcVZtYLwqrsHnQkkJ3sDLOl8AcUjPA
-
What I see here is a State exercise of Police Power under the Tenth, which is where the police power properly resides; as such it is not limited by the C. The remaining question is whether the absence of Legislative action violates Separation of Powers. For example, in Jacobson for example there was legislative action.
The article says "It is unclear if lawmakers will now pursue further court action against the mandate."
I could be wrong, but I am guessing that standing here would be for those purported to be subject to the mandate, not the State Legislature.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/louisiana-governor-to-add-covid-19-vaccine-to-list-of-required-school-immunizations_4158355.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-12-16&mktids=8d26f9d2b2a6ab16ddb8b98410a0553a&est=uEA22FxLEVNsr4J3fm9JwoGfq9HKYVefujd3p0f731SKmmm5h22MOJIX4ulk6cJkCEFs
-
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0287p-06.pdf
-
https://www.oann.com/moderna-halts-mrna-patent-with-federal-govt/
-
Japan’s Vaccination Policy: No Force, No Discrimination
Aaron Kheriaty
Aaron Kheriaty
December 17, 2021 Updated: December 18, 2021 biggersmaller Print
Commentary
Japan’s ministry of health is taking a sensible, ethical approach to Covid vaccines. They recently labeled the vaccines with a warning about myocarditis and other risks. They also reaffirmed their commitment to adverse event reporting to document potential side-effects.
Japan’s ministry of health states: “Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided.”
Furthermore, they state: “Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent.”
Finally, they clearly state: “Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.”
They also link to a “Human Rights Advice” page that includes instructions for handling any complaints if individuals face vaccine discrimination at work.
Other nations would do well to follow Japan’s lead with this balanced and ethical approach.
This policy appropriately places the responsibility for this healthcare decision with the individual or family.
We can contrast this with the vaccine mandate approach adopted in many other Western nations. The United States provides a case study in the anatomy of medical coercion exercised by a faceless bureaucratic network.
A bureaucracy is an institution that exercises enormous power over you but with no locus of responsibility. This leads to the familiar frustration, often encountered on a small scale at the local DMV, that you can go round in bureaucratic circles trying to troubleshoot problems or rectify unfair practices. No actual person seems to be able to help you get to the bottom of things—even if a well-meaning person sincerely wants to assist you.
Here’s how this dynamic is playing out with coercive vaccine mandates in the United States. The CDC makes vaccine recommendations. But the ethically crucial distinction between a recommendation and mandate immediately collapses when institutions (e.g., a government agency, a business, employer, university, or school) require you to be vaccinated based on the CDC recommendation.
Try to contest the rationality of these mandates, e.g., in federal court, and the mandating institution just points back to CDC recommendation as the rational basis for the mandate. The court will typically agree, deferring to the CDC’s authority on public health. The school, business, etc., thus disclaims responsibility for the decision to mandate the vaccine: “We’re just following CDC recommendations, after all. What can we do?”
But CDC likewise disclaims responsibility: “We don’t make policy; we just make recommendations, after all.”
Meanwhile, the vaccine manufacturer is immune and indemnified from all liability or harm under federal law. No use going to them if their product—a product that you did not freely decide to take—harms you.
You are now dizzy from going round in circles trying to identify the actual decision-maker: it’s impossible to pinpoint the relevant authority. You know that enormous power is being exercised over your body and your health, but with no locus of responsibility for the decision and no liability for the outcomes.
You are thus left with the consequences of a decision that nobody claims to have made. The only certainty is that you did not make the decision and you were not given the choice.
Japan’s policy avoids most of these problems simply placing responsibility for the decision on the individual receiving the intervention, or the parent in the case of a child who is not old enough to consent.
Incidentally, this focus on choice and freedom was somewhat reflected in Japan’s policies throughout the pandemic, which were less stringent that most countries, including those in the United States.
-
The Supreme Court’s Covid Vaccine Test
Justices have to decide if they want to let OSHA rewrite the law.
By The Editorial Board
Follow
Dec. 20, 2021 6:47 pm ET
Justice Antonin Scalia famously wrote that Congress doesn’t hide elephants in mouseholes. But that’s essentially what a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals majority said Congress did late Friday when they lifted a stay on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s vaccinate mandate.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last month stayed OSHA’s “emergency temporary standard” after finding the agency exceeded its legal authority by requiring that employees of private employers with 100 or more workers be vaccinated or tested weekly. The Biden Administration appealed to the Sixth Circuit, where numerous other lawsuits were consolidated.
Judges Julia Smith Gibbons and Jane Branstetter Stranch rescued the mandate by deferring to the Administration. They say Congress gave OSHA the power to issue emergency orders to protect workers from “grave dangers.” The Labor Secretary merely must find “that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents” that are toxic or physically harmful and that an “emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.”
Covid meets the dictionary definition of an “agent,” the majority says, ergo OSHA can issue its mandate. The majority also says new variants support OSHA’s determination that Covid still poses a grave danger, and it is not “appropriate to second-guess that agency determination considering the substantial evidence, including many peer-reviewed scientific studies, on which it relied.”
But the question the judges are asked to decide isn’t whether Covid is a grave danger, as Judge Joan Larsen explains in her potent dissent. The question is whether OSHA acted within the law as written by Congress. It certainly didn’t as we read the law.
For starters, the Labor Secretary must show that an emergency temporary standard is “necessary” to protect workers from a grave danger—not merely “reasonably necessary or appropriate.” OSHA argues its mandate is effective and useful, but this is irrelevant.
OSHA waited nearly a year after vaccines became available to issue its sweeping rule. The agency also didn’t attempt to calculate the number of Americans who have contracted Covid at work or identify a particular risk of workplace exposure. OSHA claims workplaces in general are risky and unvaccinated workers in general are at high risk. But some workers at some workplaces have a higher risk of contracting the virus and getting severely ill.
“The government’s own data reveal that the death rate for unvaccinated people between the ages of 18 and 29 is roughly equivalent to that of vaccinated persons between 50 and 64,” Judge Larsen notes. OSHA is obligated by administrative law to consider more tailored alternatives, and it did not.
The Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine says Congress must “speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’” Congress also cannot delegate sweeping legislative power to regulators.
The agency has only issued 10 emergency temporary standards in 50 years—six were challenged in court and five were struck down—but all involved discrete illnesses in particular industries. “This emergency rule remains a massive expansion of the scope of its authority,” Judge Larsen writes, comparing it to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s eviction moratorium that the Supreme Court struck down.
***
Businesses have appealed the Sixth Circuit’s vaccine decision directly to the High Court. The Biden Administration has also asked the Court to stay lower-court decisions enjoining its vaccine mandate for healthcare workers.
This is an important moment for the Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have declined to enjoin New York’s and Maine’s healthcare-worker vaccine mandates that deny religious, but not medical, exemptions. Some Justices may want to defer to regulators on health and safety during the pandemic.
But the separation of powers is crucial to safeguarding individual liberty. Justices now have two key tests on whether they will rein in the administrative state. They will have to decide if they take their major question and non-delegation doctrines seriously, or are they merely seminars at the Federalist Society?
-
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a416
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/20/covid-spin-ops-government-failures-buried-government-actions-hyped/
COVID Spin-Ops: Government Failures Buried, Government Actions Hyped
Government failures created COVID and increased its spread and kill. Spin-ops then treated government actions as the solution. Buyer and citizen beware.
By James Anthony
December 20, 2021
Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, here is what we know about the origins of the disease and governments’ role in bungling the response.
The United States, French, and Chinese governments collaborated on gain-of-function research. This research created a pandemic-capable respiratory virus that for humans was more infectious and more dangerous than most coronaviruses, which are commonplace.
Much of this research was done in a lab sited not in a remote location but in Wuhan, China: a metropolis with a population of 8.3 million people. An accidental release there could not be contained. An intentional release there could be made to look like an accident. Building the lab there grievously violated safety practices that had been near-universal since the disastrous Union Carbide toxic-chemical accident in Bhopal, India in 1984.
Government officials dismissed the possibility of effective early treatment of COVID-19. No industrialized nation’s government funded or otherwise encouraged timely, well-designed clinical trials or other clinical work with immune-boosting vitamin D, generic antiviral ivermectin, generic antiviral hydroxychloroquine with zinc, or the clot-reducing supplement NAC. In the United States, state governments likewise did not fund or incentivize clinical trials or use of preventives or treatments not sold by government cronies. All governments and cronies cautioned strongly against using preventives or treatments not sold by government cronies.
No industrialized nation’s government systematically funded or otherwise encouraged testing for immunity, especially testing not for antibodies known to fade but for lasting immunity known to endure 17 years and counting in the case of SARS-CoV-1.
Every industrialized nation’s government strongly recommended using only negligible early-outpatient treatment, government cronies’ branded drugs, and government cronies’ hospital treatments.
New York and other state governments mandated that infectious patients be accepted into nursing homes that were unable to prevent transmission via aerosols; the route normally dominant in pandemics involving respiratory viruses.
The U.S. government claimed jurisdiction over fast, inexpensive home tests, prevented the sale of the tests developed first, and greatly delayed the sale of the tests developed later. State governments had asserted jurisdiction but didn’t defend their jurisdiction and didn’t defend customers’ and businesses’ rights.
In every industrialized jurisdiction but Sweden and Florida, governments deprived many people of the right to work for extended periods.
Remdesivir had never been approved for other diseases, had serious side effects, and like the later messenger RNA therapies, promoted development of more-dangerous variants of the virus. But the U.S. government approved remdesivir for COVID first out of the gate, and long held it up as the sole approved therapy.
The U.S. government also blocked liability for, funded development of, approved, and promoted novel mRNA therapies with narrow action that reproduced only the virus’ disease-causing spike protein and none of COVID-19’s other 28 proteins.
These mRNA therapies’ narrow action caused variants to evolve that were more infectious and, in the case of the Delta variant, more deadly. The narrow action also crowded out what would otherwise have been the more effective broad-spectrum immune response of people who had natural immunity from prior infection but whose possible natural immunity was ignored as these people were persuaded to also get the vaccine, and made to believe that this would help.
Reproducing the disease-causing spike protein made the vaccine itself produce disease, which was treated as a side effect, in significant numbers of people—producing death in some, serious disease in others, and unknown future contributions to serious disease in an unknowable number of people. In many of these cases, people would have done far better if they could have just fought the more conventional virus itself rather than been persuaded to try a novel mRNA therapy.
Government Spin Doctoring
And here is a short account of everything government officials have told the public since lockdowns and other restrictions began in March 2020.
The novel coronavirus could be devastating to mankind. Millions would die unless governments acted quickly.
U.S. government scientists were the world’s best experts on healthcare for a novel pandemic-generating virus.
Above all, the virus needed to be caught by as few people as humanly possible.
Allowing people to catch the virus and reach herd immunity would have killed people. People were going to be killed by Sweden’s government. People were going to be killed by Florida’s government.
People needed to wash their hands frequently. People needed to disinfect surfaces frequently. People needed to not touch other people. People needed to stay six feet away from other people. People needed to stay six feet away from other family members.
Masks wouldn’t prevent transmission. Surgical masks would reduce transmission. Surgical masks and cloth masks would reduce transmission. Masks were the key to beating this disease. If a person didn’t wear a mask, he would be killing people. Children needed to wear masks. Small children needed to wear masks.
To make sure hospitals had enough capacity, governments needed to slow the spread by keeping healthy people who had nonessential jobs from working for 15 days, then for 28 days, then for months on end, depending upon the U.S. government’s advice and the state, county, and city governments’ competence.
To make sure hospitals had enough capacity, governments also needed to move elderly, infected people out of hospitals and into nursing homes.
The virus was natural. It originated in bats and was transmitted to a human through a wet-market grocery where live animals were sold for food. The virus originated in bats, was transmitted to some to-be-established intermediate species, and from there was transmitted to a human.
Hydroxychloroquine had a side effect that killed people. Plus, for this novel virus, hydroxychloroquine was unproven. It was a good thing that the government waited and scientifically checked out hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy, because the drug didn’t work on this virus.
Ivermectin was a horse medicine. People aren’t horses. Ivermectin was an antiparasitic, so it obviously wouldn’t treat a virus. Ivermectin overdoses would kill people. Ivermectin use in place of medicines approved for COVID-19 would kill people.
Fast tests weren’t accurate enough, and that would hurt people. The U.S. government was protecting people from the test manufacturers who, unlike the government, cared only about profit and not people’s lives. The U.S. government simply was protecting people from themselves.
Remdesivir was safe and was effective against this novel virus.
Experts all said that vaccines take five to 10 years to develop, but the government’s innovative public-private partnership developed not one but three vaccines in nine months.
All three vaccines were “safe and effective” at preventing transmission of the virus. The vaccines prevented transmission of the disease.
The vaccines were proven, but natural immunity failed sometimes and hadn’t been shown to last. Antibodies didn’t last, either. When antibodies were gone, the strong implication was that immunity would also be gone or would be insufficient.
The vaccines didn’t prevent transmission but did prevent serious disease. Boosters would prevent serious disease. Vaccines for all ages were safe for all and would keep the people who were at risk from getting the virus transmitted to them, and doing anything less than that would kill these people.
The Delta and Omicron variants each called for near-universal vaccination with the vaccines developed for the original virus.
New variants would call for new narrow-spectrum vaccines.
The Cure
Governments caused this disaster, worsened it, and used every study, crony, and avenue of communication for spin.
For the government officials who knew that their government was culpable, the spin was damage control. For the government officials who didn’t know that their government was culpable, the spin was marketing. Every action helped the government and controlled everyone else.
Healthcare doesn’t need to be vulnerable to centralized-government failures.
The internet had been developed so that if conventional communications were destroyed by a nuclear attack, communications would continue. It provides this resilience by being massively decentralized.
Massive decentralization has been, and can continue to be, a feature of the practice of medicine. Each skilled practitioner has preparation going into any novel situation, can rapidly gain clinical knowledge, and can rapidly share knowledge with peers.
Some doctors have applied clinical knowledge and individual judgment to COVID and have produced excellent outcomes.
But many doctors have dispensed centralized, government-funded advice.
This advice has been much like the coverage in legacy media, in which the press buried vital information and offered highly misleading, government-sanctioned advice.
The result? Important research is being ignored, if it’s done at all. What studies have been done have applied generics wrong. Hydroxychloroquine has been studied without supplementing zinc. Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have been administered late, when their efficacy was weakest and the disease effects were strongest.
All such studies predictably generated outcomes that fail to indicate how effective these generics might have been if they were properly administered early in the course of the infection and disease.
No patent-protected medicine from government cronies has been studied in such disadvantageous ways, or ever would be. Let every buyer beware.
Government fails all the time—in war, in control of the economy, in health-payment systems, in social services, in schools, you name it.
The cure is for individuals to use their best judgment when shopping for every product. For individuals to use their best judgment when voting for every politician. And for politicians to use judgment and have the emotional intelligence to limit other politicians.
Individuals and politicians can each push back on other politicians, limiting governments. Then we the people will be free to work out the best solutions ourselves.
About James Anthony
James Anthony is the author of The Constitution Needs a Good Party and rConstitution Papers and has written articles in The Federalist, American Thinker, Foundation for Economic Education, and rConstitution.us. Mr. Anthony is a chemical engineer with a master’s in mechanical engineering.
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/dec/22/supreme-court-hear-challenges-biden-vaccine-mandat/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=yjctAXxk6tEwPO3l4eu5t9OqmtchafCBmuU2aAVYX0zi59ZQcAHNRrR8C4t0QyQS&bt_ts=1640220475156
-
https://nypost.com/2021/12/21/biden-must-tell-fda-to-stop-blocking-lifesaving-covid-treatments/
https://nypost.com/2021/12/08/nih-and-cdc-fail-on-omicron-as-they-have-throughout-pandemic/
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/your-time-chicago-mayor-threatens-unvaccinated-draconian-measures?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=368
-
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/12/22/msnbc-medical-analyst-dr-gupta-time-to-place-lower-priority-on-unvaccinated-patients/
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/12/22/cnn-medical-analyst-wen-biden-should-go-further-to-restrict-the-activities-of-the-unvaccinated/
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/24/fake-vaccine-cards-punishable-by-one-year-in-prison-in-new-york-state/
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/lancet-editor-comes-clean-admits-he-knew-peter-daszak-had-significant-regrettable?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=371
-
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.10.21261846v1.full.pdf
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/uk-mulls-door-door-vaccination-squads?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=372
https://nypost.com/2021/12/26/white-house-puts-teachers-unions-ahead-of-science-on-covid-safety/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=com.facebook.Messenger.ShareExtension&fbclid=IwAR1qG8Flaz5zOiTZHmv9S6rC4ZSGyX1cAEaPkk1NTfpSCWxxbCxCysJRVfE
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/27/biden-says-covid-surge-needs-to-be-solved-at-state-level-vows-full-federal-support.html
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-thousands-monthly-covid-deaths-fauci-vaccine-bias?fbclid=IwAR2spCNbXzXvYzFmGimubwtTljtBlGs5IqOkVctzc_pDNCsy6UQs36uGDNE
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/can-someone-help-me-understand-the?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDYyNjIwMTksIl8iOiJKK1dFNCIsImlhdCI6MTY0MDcwNjgxNCwiZXhwIjoxNjQwNzEwNDE0LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.R6Dcwgq9bKRuQofGOZxF9NJNYH5Iq0vmtud4M9JLhZ4
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/29/dr-robert-malone-renowned-physician-and-inventor-of-mrna-technology-permanently-banned-from-twitter/
-
WITH TOUGH ELECTION YEAR AHEAD, BIDEN HEALTH OFFICIALS RAPIDLY SHIFT TALKING POINTS…
ANTHONY FAUCI FINALLY ADMITS: MANY CHILDREN BILLED AS ‘COVID HOSPITALIZATIONS’ AREN’T ACTUALLY SICK FROM COVID… (VIDEO)
White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted that many children being hospitalized with COVID-19 are there for reasons other than the virus, and just happened to test positive for it upon being admitted.
Fauci appeared in an interview on the Rachel Maddow show Wednesday evening, and was asked about an ongoing increase in children’s hospitalizations with the virus. Hospitalizations have ticked up as the Omicron variant has caused a surge in new cases, but overall deaths are stagnant from the virus.
“Quantitatively, you’re having so many more people, including children, who are getting infected. And even though hospitalization among children is much much lower on a percentage basis than hospitalizations for adults, particularly elderly individuals,” Fauci said when asked why there’s been an increase in hospitalizations even though Omicron is more mild than prior variants. “However, when you have such a large volume of infections among children, even with a low level of rate of infection, you’re gonna still see a lot more children who get hospitalized.”
“But the other important thing, is that if you look at the children who are hospitalized, many of them are hospitalized with COVID, as opposed to because of COVID,” he continued. “And what we mean by that, if a child goes in the hospital, they automatically get tested for COVID, and they get counted as a COVID hospitalized individual. When in fact, they may go in for a broken leg or appendicitis or something like that.”
“So it’s overcounting the number of children who are quote hospitalized with COVID as opposed to because of COVID,” Fauci said.
FLASHBACK… SEPTEMBER 13, 2021… THE TRUTH BEHIND THE CASE COUNTS… ‘ROUGHLY HALF’ OF ALL HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS WITH COVID ‘MAY HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR ANOTHER REASON ENTIRELY’ … DAVID ZWEIG: Our Most Reliable Pandemic Number Is Losing Meaning
Some patients need extensive medical intervention, such as getting intubated. Others require supplemental oxygen or administration of the steroid dexamethasone. But there are many COVID patients in the hospital with fairly mild symptoms, too, who have been admitted for further observation on account of their comorbidities, or because they reported feeling short of breath. Another portion of the patients in this tally are in the hospital for something unrelated to COVID, and discovered that they were infected only because they were tested upon admission. How many patients fall into each category has been a topic of much speculation. In August, researchers from Harvard Medical School, Tufts Medical Center, and the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System decided to find out. […]
The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease. […]
[T]his study suggests that COVID hospitalization tallies can’t be taken as a simple measure of the prevalence of severe or even moderate disease, because they might inflate the true numbers by a factor of two. “As we look to shift from cases to hospitalizations as a metric to drive policy and assess level of risk to a community or state or country,” Doron told me, referring to decisions about school closures, business restrictions, mask requirements, and so on, “we should refine the definition of hospitalization. Those patients who are there with rather than from COVID don’t belong in the metric.”
NOW ROCHELLE WALENSKY ADMITS TEST RESULTS ARE OFTEN USELESS, MISLEADING… Setbacks, Inconsistencies Mount For CDC Under Walenksy
Inconsistencies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and director Rochelle Walensky have continued as the Omicron wave sweeps across the U.S.
Walensky told the public in a Good Morning America interview Wednesday that PCR tests for COVID-19 can stay positive for up to 12 weeks after infection. For that reason, Walensky said, a negative PCR test would not be needed to leave quarantine or isolation under new CDC guidelines.
“So we would have people in isolation for a very long time if we were relying on PCRs,” Walensky told GMA.
Rapid antigen tests aren’t good indicators of whether someone is actually contagious with COVID-19, Walensky said. “We know it performs really well during that period where you’re initially infected, but the FDA has not at all looked at whether … your positive antigen really does correlate with whether you’re transmissible or not.”
Nearly two years into the pandemic, this is the first time Walensky has told Americans that they could be testing positive on PCR tests due to a COVID-19 infection that dissipated weeks ago, or that someone could test negative on a rapid test and still be contagious
-
second
https://www.theepochtimes.com/slouching-toward-endemicity_4185679.html?utm_source=opinionnoe&utm_campaign=opinion-2021-12-31&utm_medium=email
-
third
Omicron: My Current Model
by Zvi
December 30, 2021 9:28 AM
A year and a half ago, I wrote a post called Covid-19: My Current Model. Since then things have often changed, and we have learned a lot. It seems like high time for a new post of this type.
Note that this post mostly does not justify and explain its statements. I document my thinking, sources and analysis extensively elsewhere, little of this should be new.
This post combines the basic principles from my original post, which mostly still stand, with my core model for Omicron. I’ll summarize and update the first post, then share my current principles for Omicron and how to deal with and think about it.
There’s a lot of different things going on, so this will likely be incomplete, but hopefully it will prove useful. The personally useful executive summary version first.
Omicron has already taken over, most cases are being missed, crunch time is now. Crunch time will likely last 1-2 months.
First two shots don’t protect against infection, boosters do somewhat (60%?).
Vaccination and natural infection protect against severe disease, hospitalization and death (best guess ~80% reduction in death for double vaccination, 95%+ reduction in death for boosters but too soon to know).
Tests work, but when delayed are mostly useless for preventing infection especially when delayed, as Omicron can spread within 1-2 days after exposure. Rapid tests mostly test for infectiousness, not being positive.
Omicron probably milder than Delta (~50%) so baseline IFR likely ~0.3% unless hospitals overload, lower for vaccinated or reinfected.
Being young and healthy is robust protection against severe disease and death, being not that means a lot more risk. Long Covid risk small but real for all age groups, vaccination likely helps a lot.
Medical system is under strain, could be overwhelmed soon, should be better again in a few months at most if it gets bad. Delaying infection has value but stopping it fully is likely not worth the cost. If you care about real prevention, the tools that matter are vaccination, good masks (N95 or even better P100+), social distancing and air ventilation.
Vitamin D and Zinc, and if possible Fluvoxamine, are worth it if you get infected, also Vitamin D is worth taking now anyway (I take 5k IUs/day). Paxlovid is great (~88%) if available right after you test positive, but in very limited supply for now.
Default action on positive test is 5 days isolation at home as per new CDC guidelines, if possible is good to get a negative rapid test before ending isolation. If things get bad, especially if you have trouble breathing, call your doctor, seek treatment and so on.
Here are the old principles that still apply, with adjustments as appropriate:
Risks follow Power Laws. Focus on reducing your biggest risks.
Sacrifices to the Gods are demanded everywhere. Most intervention effort treats Covid-19 as a morality in which the wicked must be punished, rather than aiming physical interventions to achieve physical results.
Governments Most Places Are Lying Liars With No Ability To Plan or Physically Reason. They Can’t Even Stop Interfering and Killing People. There is a War, and the WHO, FDA and CDC, and most similar agencies abroad, and most elected officials, are not on our side of it. Instead they focus mostly on getting in the way, protecting their power and seeking to avoid blame on a two week time horizon.
Silence is Golden. Talking or singing greatly increases infection risk, and the directions people face matter too. You’re still not safe or anything, but it helps.
Surfaces are Mostly Harmless. Mostly don’t worry about them.
Food is Mostly Harmless. Mostly don’t worry about it.
Outdoor Activity Is Relatively Harmless. It’s a huge relative risk reduction.
Masks Are Effective. I’m less excited about cloth masks than I used to be, but I remain confident in N95s, and if you actually need to not get Covid-19 you can step up and use P100s or other heavy-duty options at the cost of social awkwardness. My rule of thumb at this point: Cloth masks are for satisfying mask requirements. N95s are for reducing Covid-19 risk. P100s are for actually attempting to prevent Covid-19. Choose your fighter.
Six Feet Is An Arbitrary Number. There’s still nothing better than an inverse square law, so by default I presume 12 feet is a quarter of the risk of 6 feet, and 3 feet is quadruple the risk, there is no magic number. No one seems to care about distancing much anymore. If there was one big omission last time, it was not focusing on air ventilation and flow.
Partial Herd Immunity Matters. 75% immunity no longer cuts it under Omicron, but every little bit helps. This isn’t an all-or-nothing situation. Every person that is immune, or even partially immune, slows the spread.
Yes, We Know People Who Have Been Infected Are (Largely) Immune. This is less absolute than it used to be. Infection by Delta or earlier strains provides strong protection against severe disease, hospitalization and death, but not total protection, and it provides far less protection against infection.
Our Lack of Experimentation Is Still Completely Insane. Yes.
We Should Be Spending Vastly More on Vaccines, Testing and Other Medical Solutions. Yes.
R0 Defaults In Medium-Term To Just Under One. This is true because case rates and behaviors and rates of previous infection adjust until it becomes true. It’s importantly not true if pushed past its breaking point, and the question is whether or not this happened with Omicron. But in a few months, it will be true again either way.
The Default Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) Is At Most 1%. Still true, but my estimates are now doubly lower for better treatments and Omicron being milder, see the new section.
Many Deaths and Infections are missed. The numbers I put here no longer apply, and the rate at which cases are missed varies a lot based on conditions. My guess is that most deaths are now identified in the United States, but that most cases are once again being missed under Omicron because they’re milder and testing is once again in short supply.
People Don’t Modify Behavior Much In Response To Rules. Most of the reaction to conditions is private choices on how to react. Private reaction to Omicron happened despite not much public imposition of new rules. Vaccine mandates are the one big exception.
It’s Out of Our Hands. Almost entirely true at this point. It’s on individuals to react wisely.
Support Longevity Research. If you think that people dying is bad, maybe we should do something about it.
Next, how to personally think about Omicron beyond the above.
First, infection.
Importance of air ventilation is the biggest thing I didn’t talk about before. It makes a huge difference to risk of infection whether or not there is good air flow. The glass barriers in restaurants are probably counterproductive (and my not realizing this early on was a mistake on my part).
You are probably going to get Omicron, if you haven’t had it already. The level of precaution necessary to change this assessment is very high, and you probably don’t want to pay that price.
You can probably guard against Omicron if you want to do so badly enough and don’t need to work outside the home, either short term or entirely. This means a P100-style or better mask, if you’re actually trying. It means extreme social distancing and isolation and caring about ventilation. It also means getting vaccinated and boosted. For those who are immunocompromised or otherwise at extremely high risk, this is a reasonable option.
There are a ton more cases out there than are being reported. Hard to tell exactly how many, but it’s a lot more. In addition to missing a lot of cases, being several days behind can mean you’re at several times more risk than it otherwise looks like at any given time, until things stabilize. So looking at current positive tests can be an order of magnitude or more too low.
Omicron spreads easier than Delta even among the unvaccinated. We don’t know this for a pure fact yet but it seems very likely to be a large effect. Assume the amount of exposure it takes to reach critical mass has gone down.
Vaccination with one or two doses of current vaccines is minimally protective against infection by Omicron. The data isn’t fully in, but this seems clear. If you haven’t been boosted, your protection is mostly against severe disease, hospitalization and death, rather than infection, although you’re somewhat less likely to spread the disease further because you’ll recover faster.
Vaccination with three doses is protective against infection by Omicron, but less protective than vaccines were against Delta.
As a rule of thumb I am currently acting as if a booster shot is something like 60%-70% protective against infection but I don’t have confidence in that number. The main protection is still against severe disease, hospitalization and death.
The generation time (serial interval) of Omicron is lower than Delta. Someone who is infected today will often be highly contagious the day after tomorrow, and may be infectious tomorrow. Much of infectiousness proceeds symptoms.
Next, testing and isolation.
PCR tests are useful and accurate, but don’t mean you’re not infectious, and if they are delayed they become useless. The ideal is getting it back in 24 hours, but even that is a lot of the window before someone is infectious, so this doesn’t provide that big a risk reduction against Omicron. If it takes 48+ hours, use other than for treatment is greatly reduced.
Rapid tests are useful and mostly tell you if you’re currently infectious. They can have ‘false’ negatives, and actual false negatives, mostly because you can be infected but not infectious, and then you’ll mostly come back negative. Also user error is always an issue. Rapid tests are the more useful way to identify who is infectious and prevent spread, but far from foolproof.
All rapid and PCR tests detect Omicron. I include this because I know of people who aren’t confident on that and are freaking out a bit.
A negative rapid test should be necessary before ending isolation. The CDC’s new guidelines don’t say this but this seems overdetermined and obvious to me. If you care about not being infectious, you should check on that before exposing others.
The majority of infectiousness is within the first five days, and CDC guidelines now only require five days of isolation. That doesn’t mean five days is suddenly safe instead of unsafe, but the show must go on, so the rules have changed. Five days plus a negative test seems fine in general, but I still wouldn’t visit any grandparents that soon.
Next, vaccination, prognosis and treatment.
Omicron is probably substantially milder than Delta. My guess is something like 50% milder, so half the risks. How much comfort that provides is your call.
Being young is still the best defense. Everyone please stop being terrified about what might happen to young children. Most deaths will still be among the old and unhealthy. Remember that these are orders of magnitude differences.
Being healthy still helps a lot. If you are at a healthy weight and don’t have diabetes, and aren’t immunocompromised, those are also big games. If you do have these issues, that’s a problem. See my old post on comorbidity.
Vaccination is highly protective against severe disease, hospitalization and death. The vaccines are likely somewhat less effective against Omicron than Delta here, but still highly effective. Protection against hospitalization is probably something like 80%, with likely additional protection above that against severe disease, and then even more protection against death.
Booster shots are even more protective. I urge everyone to get their booster shots.
Previous infection, including by Delta, is highly protective as well. It’s at least similar to being vaccinated normally. Unclear if it’s better than that.
The risks of Covid-19 prevented by vaccination greatly exceed the risks of vaccination. Even the specific ‘risks’ of vaccination are net decreased by vaccination, because it prevents Covid-19 and makes Covid-19 more mild. If you are worried about unknown risks, get vaccinated. There are a few exceptions for specific medical situations, if you think you’re one of those exceptions talk to your doctor.
Most cases will be asymptomatic or mild, even if you are unvaccinated. It’s important not to forget this, or pretend otherwise in order to scare people.
If you do have symptoms or test positive, take at least Zinc and Vitamin D. You should be taking Vitamin D regardless. This isn’t a statement that you shouldn’t take anything else, but there’s nothing else that I know rises to this level.
If you test positive, consider Fluvoxamine. It is an SSRI, so it’s not something one should take lightly or proactively, only when you know you’ve been infected. Again, I’m not saying not to take anything else that I’m not listing, I’m merely saying I don’t have this level of confidence in anything else that’s available. Merck’s pill increases risk of mutations and I now believe it should not have been approved, but it likely is good for your personal health outcomes if you can get it in time and adhere to the protocol. If you do take it, you really, really, really need to follow the full protocol exactly.
If you test positive and can get it in time, take Paxlovid. Paxlovid reduces hospitalization and severe disease by about 88%. If you’re young and in good health and don’t want to take from the currently limited supply, I applaud that decision until there’s sufficient supply.
By default, recover while isolating at home. The medical system is there if you need it, but most of the time you will not need it. Trouble breathing is the biggest ‘seek treatment now’ sign, but I am not a doctor, this is not medical advice, and when in doubt call a real doctor.
Once you go to the hospital or otherwise seek treatment, I don’t have anything for you beyond wishing you luck. If I get sick, I will follow my wife’s advice, as she is a doctor. Can only focus on so many questions at once.
If the hospitals get overloaded things get much worse. A lot of patients that would otherwise live, will die without treatments the hospitals can give, especially oxygen.
Getting Omicron in January (or late December) is worse than getting it in February, which is worse than getting it in March. At some point in January (or maybe February, but probably January) there will be a turning point where strain on hospitals and the testing system begins to decline. If you get sick during the period when things are bad, then your prospects are worse. A small amount worse if the system is merely under strain, but much worse if things start to collapse and capacity runs out. Also Paxlovid is coming.
Long Covid is real but rare and risk scales with severity. This is not something we can be confident in, and there are big unknowns to be sure, but my baseline continues to be that Long Covid risks are mostly proportional to short-term serious Covid risks aside from not scaling as much with age, and other things that reduce one reduce the other. Long Covid is still the biggest downside to getting Covid if one is young. I wish I could put a magnitude on this risk, but my best guess continues to be that this is not that much worse or different than e.g. Long Flu or Long Lyme, sometimes getting diseases does longer term damage than we realize and curing and preventing disease is therefore even more valuable than we think. But to extent you worry, Paxlovid probably does a lot to prevent this, so holding out until it is available would help you here.
Other modeling observations and general prognosis.
Omicron is already the dominant strain. Delta will not go away entirely, but is unlikely to be a substantial presence going forward.
Things will peak in January, or perhaps February (or possibly the last few days of December). This is overdetermined.
After the peak things will probably decline rapidly, then stabilize at a new normal level. Fluctuations will happen as before, but there won’t be another Omicron peak like this one. If there is sufficient overshoot on immunity things might collapse further.
There might be another strain in the future. I don’t know how likely this is, but that’s the most likely way that things ‘don’t mostly end’ after this wave.
Once this wave is over and Paxlovid is widely available, restrictions don’t make sense. Continuing to require distancing or masks, or pushing hard on further vaccinations, isn’t justified by the levels of risk we will face, and there’s no collective risk justification either.
Taking action to ‘stop the spread’ mostly no longer makes sense. The spread isn’t going to be stopped, that ship has very much sailed. Slowing it down a bit has some value, but ‘pandemic ethics’ no longer apply.
Modifying how you live your life also won’t make sense. Covid-19 will be one more disease among many, and life will be marginally worse, but by about April you shouldn’t act substantially differently than if it no longer existed.
We’ll have to fight to end many restrictions. They will by default continue long past the point when they stop making any sense. Various forces will fight to use these restrictions to expand their powers permanently.
Discuss
-
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A240/206956/20211230141226947_CMS%20Stay%20Opp%20Final.pdf
-
Fifth
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mayo-patients-family-begs-judge-to-allow-fighting-chance-with-ivermectin_4184766.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-12-31-3&utm_medium=email&est=An4HplJE4Ri3XLWwRVIyaMVjyqKJVO4MVPZ4MgT82PWnbl%2FQ5%2Fu2Rkiuw1h%2Bd%2Frf4xm5
-
sixth
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/30/joe-biden-denies-monoclonal-antibody-treatments-as-states-experience-shortages/
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/the-covid-insanity-has-to-end/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Saturday%20New%202022-01-01&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart
-
https://straightlinelogic.com/2021/12/31/2022-more-stupidity-more-arrogance-more-evil-more-rebellion-by-robert-gore/
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQPHzVhAhpo
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQPHzVhAhpo
Surprised it’s still up. I expect it will be memory-holed soon on Goolag-tube.
-
https://andmagazine.com/talk/2022/01/02/the-lemmings-keep-running-for-the-cliff-how-long-until-bidens-covid-policies-create-a-mid-air-disaster/
-
Still haven't made up my mind as to whether Berenson is reliable.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/dis-information-comes-from-the-new/comments?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDY0OTU5NzIsIl8iOiJKK1dFNCIsImlhdCI6MTY0MTE3MzE4NywiZXhwIjoxNjQxMTc2Nzg3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.olgOrLEiXMtp9HwGJWSm8DJa7h51hfkvnw9qo3dmE1I
-
Still haven't made up my mind as to whether Berenson is reliable.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/dis-information-comes-from-the-new/comments?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDY0OTU5NzIsIl8iOiJKK1dFNCIsImlhdCI6MTY0MTE3MzE4NywiZXhwIjoxNjQxMTc2Nzg3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.olgOrLEiXMtp9HwGJWSm8DJa7h51hfkvnw9qo3dmE1I
Well, he did work for the New (Walter) Duranty Times.
He did sound credible on the radio.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1476560686662799377
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNN2jfl0S9Y&t=67s
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQPHzVhAhpo
Surprised it’s still up. I expect it will be memory-holed soon on Goolag-tube.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/direct-hit-youtube-begins-removing-uploads-dr-robert-malones-bombshell-interview-joe-rogan-platform/
-
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/a-small-victory-in-nevada-against-covid-mandates-illustrates-the-ongoing-corrupt-politicizing-of-all-of-american-culture/
-
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/joe-biden-backlash-fda-process-booster-shots-children?fbclid=IwAR0bk_TKJ_AfZjeIgOO7Dr1JbNTrVYAoSjCXV_nGxvqTqRidIZ1o4VdRrbU
-
https://straightlinelogic.com/2021/12/31/2022-more-stupidity-more-arrogance-more-evil-more-rebellion-by-robert-gore/
Notice that "fully digitized money" is one of the warning signs.
Resist.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/scotus-should-nix-bidens-vaccine-mandates/?itm_campaign=headline-testing-scotus-should-nix-bidens-vaccine-mandates&itm_medium=headline&itm_source=nationalreview&itm_content=SCOTUS%20Should%20Nix%20Biden%E2%80%99s%20Vaccine%20Mandates&itm_term=SCOTUS%20Should%20Nix%20Biden%E2%80%99s%20Vaccine%20Mandates
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/scotus-should-nix-bidens-vaccine-mandates/?itm_campaign=headline-testing-scotus-should-nix-bidens-vaccine-mandates&itm_medium=headline&itm_source=nationalreview&itm_content=SCOTUS%20Should%20Nix%20Biden%E2%80%99s%20Vaccine%20Mandates&itm_term=SCOTUS%20Should%20Nix%20Biden%E2%80%99s%20Vaccine%20Mandates
Can’t wait until Roberts decided the vax is a tax.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/governments-admit-using-mass-formation-psychosis-tool-population-control
-
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/why-dr-james-thorp-is-a-hero-but
-
"Why the medical boards will win in court
"We talked about why, even though Dr. Thorp is being honest about the vaccines, masking, mandates, and early treatment, the medical boards are likely to prevail in a court of law even though the science is clear that Thorp is correct.
"The reason is simple: judges don’t believe they can adjudicate the merits of medical arguments, so they always side with the “respected authorities.” The medical boards simply say, “See your honor, every doctor in the country says the vaccines are safe. Dr. Thorp is a quack and a danger to society.” It works every time."
Exactly so, but how can it be otherwise?
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/1501239/exciting-news-death-jabs-available-for-children
-
"Why the medical boards will win in court
"We talked about why, even though Dr. Thorp is being honest about the vaccines, masking, mandates, and early treatment, the medical boards are likely to prevail in a court of law even though the science is clear that Thorp is correct.
"The reason is simple: judges don’t believe they can adjudicate the merits of medical arguments, so they always side with the “respected authorities.” The medical boards simply say, “See your honor, every doctor in the country says the vaccines are safe. Dr. Thorp is a quack and a danger to society.” It works every time."
Exactly so, but how can it be otherwise?
In the next few years, I think we will start to know the horrific cost medical groupthink brought us.
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/1501239/exciting-news-death-jabs-available-for-children
Nuremberg 2.0 is coming.
-
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/crimes-against-our-country/
-
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2022/01/04/letter-from-a-banished-rcmp-officer/#more-255991
-
COVID-19 Vaccine Creator: ‘We Can’t Vaccinate the Planet Every 6 Months’
BY JACK PHILLIPS January 4, 2022 Updated: January 5, 2022biggersmaller Print
The creator of one of the most used COVID-19 vaccines in the world acknowledged Tuesday that it is “not sustainable” to continuously provide booster doses to people twice per year.
Speaking to The Telegraph in an interview on Tuesday, Andrew Pollard, one of the creators of the Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 shot, remarked, “We can’t vaccinate the planet every six months.”
Policymakers should instead try to “target the vulnerable” moving forward rather than providing doses to anyone aged 12 and older, said Pollard, who is also in charge of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization. More data should be gathered on “whether, when, and how often those who are vulnerable will need additional doses,” he continued.
It comes as some countries, including Israel, are starting or are considering the rollout of a fourth vaccine dose. On Monday, Israeli officials started offering the dose to all medical workers and individuals aged 60 and older.
In Israel, booster doses are connected to individuals’ COVID-19 vaccine passports, known as “green passes,” that are used to enter certain businesses. Authorities announced last year that green passes would expire if the person doesn’t receive a booster within six months of getting their second initial vaccine dose.
German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach in late December told public broadcaster ZDF that Germans “will need a fourth vaccination” for COVID-19 in the coming months, while authorities in the Netherlands remarked last week that they have purchased enough vaccine doses to provide three extra boosters through 2023.
“At some point, society has to open up. When we do open, there will be a period with a bump in infections, which is why winter is probably not the best time,” Pollard said in the Tuesday interview. “But that’s a decision for the policymakers, not the scientists. Our approach has to switch, to rely on the vaccines and the boosters. The greatest risk is still the unvaccinated.”
The UK, he added, should not blindly follow the booster policies that were implemented or are being currently proposed in Germany in Israel.
Since the heavily mutated variant was first detected in November, World Health Organization data shows it has spread quickly and emerged in at least 128 countries, presenting dilemmas for many nations and people seeking to reboot their economies and lives after nearly two years of COVID-related disruptions.
But more evidence is emerging that the Omicron variant is affecting the upper respiratory tract, causing milder symptoms than previous variants and resulting in a “decoupling” in some places between soaring case numbers and low death rates, a WHO official said Tuesday.
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/01/05/cnn-medical-guest-says-penalize-unvaccinated-americans-deny-them-affordable-health-insurance/
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/01/05/cnn-medical-guest-says-penalize-unvaccinated-americans-deny-them-affordable-health-insurance/
Now do illegal aliens.
-
https://summit.news/2022/01/04/covid-passport-microchip-developer-says-chipping-of-humans-happening-whether-we-like-it-or-not/
-
https://bittercenturion.blogspot.com/2022/01/public-enemy.html?m=1#:~:text=January%2005%2C%202022,PUBLIC%20ENEMY
-
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2022/01/06/stigmatizing-the-unvaxxed-and-unboosted/
-
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/mass-formation-psychosis?fbclid=IwAR1VXmmXFqVYsFoEp430dzeu11Mt621C_wo09GuYi4g6zcVqGyz9efFm7u0
-
second
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/588625-appeals-court-upholds-decision-to-temporarily-block-vaccine-mandate
-
third
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/judge-rejects-fdas-75-year-delay-vax-data-cuts-8-months?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=399
-
third
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/judge-rejects-fdas-75-year-delay-vax-data-cuts-8-months?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=399
So safe and effective it needs to be hidden!
-
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/when-that-ol-mojo-stops-workin/
Plan accordingly.
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-asks-key-covid-19-question-when-will-the-emergency-end?utm_campaign=dw_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile&utm_content=non_member
-
Cloth masks and influenza (virus) like illness; both correlation and causation. Sources included
CDC data shows that among adults ≥18 years who were coronavirus [COVID 19] outpatients in 11 academic health care facilities 70.7% wore masks all the time and 3.9% never wore them. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf
A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers found "...the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in INCREASED risk of infection."
Results: "The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of [Influenza Like Illnesses] ILI statistically SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
-
‘Think Twice Before You Vaccinate Your Kids,’ Dr. Robert Malone Warns Parents on COVID-19 Shots
By Mimi Nguyen Ly and Jan Jekielek January 9, 2022 Updated: January 9, 2022biggersmaller Print
Dr. Robert Malone, a virologist and immunologist who has contributed significantly to the technology of mRNA vaccines, issued a strong caution for those who seek to have their children vaccinated against COVID-19.
“Think twice before you vaccinate your kids. Because if something bad happens, you can’t go back and say, ‘whoops, I want a do-over,'” Malone told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program in an interview, Part 1 of which premiered on Sunday.
He also said, “It is clear that parents should think twice about vaccinating their child,” adding that serious adverse events can occur and can be “so severe that it puts your child in the hospital.”
Malone noted that with regard to myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart, “there’s a good chance that if your child takes the vaccine, they won’t be damaged, they won’t show clinical symptoms—[but] they may have subclinical damage.”
“But the question is, do you want to take that chance with your child? Because if you draw the short straw and your child was damaged, most of these things, if not all of them, are irreversible. There is no way to fix it,” he said. “And I get these emails all the time: ‘Doctor, doctor, what can we do? This has happened.’ And that once it’s happened, there’s … you can’t go back you can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.”
He pointed to information compiled on his website, which includes a list of peer-reviewed studies related to COVID-19 vaccine adverse events in children, the main one being myocarditis. The website also includes a collection of adverse events reports as well as death reports in the pediatric community, submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
“They’re there as links to the VAERS database, and if you click on them, you can see the actual VAERS report that was filed by a physician saying this is what happened,” Malone said. “And you can make your own decision about whether or not you think that that’s vaccine-related. So all of those data are there.”
Epoch Times Photo
A 5-year-old girl looks at her arm after getting a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in New York City on Nov. 8, 2021. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Malone’s warning comes after he issued a prepared statement in mid-December 2021 aimed at parents, in which he said that with regard to mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, “a viral gene will be injected into your children’s cells” that “forces your child’s body to make toxic spike proteins.”
“These proteins often cause permanent damage in children’s critical organs, including their brain and nervous system, their heart and blood vessels, including blood clots, their reproductive system, and this vaccine can trigger fundamental changes to their immune system.”
Malone is strongly opposed to COVID-19 vaccine mandates for children. He is the chief science officer and regulatory officer for The Unity Project, a movement seeking to resist COVID-19 vaccine mandates for K–12 children.
“The Unity Project’s position is one based on the logic of informed consent versus forced vaccination—that mandates should not happen,” Malone told EpochTV. “The state should not be forcing itself into the family. The decisions belong at the level of parents not at the level of the state or the school board. School boards and schools and teachers have no right to understand and seek out medical information about their students‚ that’s illegal. And yet, it’s being done all the time. And students are being bullied if they haven’t taken vaccine.”
Malone is also the president of the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists—a group of 16,000 professionals who have signed a declaration that says healthy children “shall not be subject to forced vaccination.”
“Mandates are illegal based on the Nuremberg Code, Helsinki Accord, the Belmont Report,” Malone said. “These continued to be unlicensed products, they’re only available through emergency use authorization … These are not licensed products, and they’re being forced on your children, and they have risks. And the media, through its censorship, and Big Tech is blocking your ability to even learn what those risks are. So you can make an informed decision for your children yourself. That is a huge crime in my mind.”
Epoch Times Photo
Municipal workers hold placards and shout slogans as they march across Brooklyn Bridge during a protest against the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, in New York on Oct. 25, 2021. (Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images)
Malone said that people can join a “Defeat the Mandates” rally and march in Washington, D.C., scheduled for Jan. 23, to unite against mandatory vaccinations.
Two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are currently available in the United States under emergency use authorization (EUA)—one from Pfizer-BioNTech and the other from Moderna.
The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, marketed as Comirnaty, is the only one that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for people 16 and older. The approval is only for Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine doses produced in the future, according to FDA documents, while the existing supply of COVID-19 vaccines under Pfizer-BioNTech in the United States continue to be administered under an updated EUA.
The FDA granted an EUA for Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine for those aged 12–15 in May 2021, and for children aged 5–11 in October 2021.
California in October 2021 became the first state to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for children, followed by Louisiana in December 2021. Both states said they will only enforce the mandate if the FDA fully authorizes the vaccines for children.
Related Coverage
‘Think Twice Before You Vaccinate Your Kids,’ Dr. Robert Malone Warns Parents on COVID-19 ShotsDr. Robert Malone: COVID Dogma, Media Fearmongering, and ‘Mass Formation’ Hypnosis of Society | PART 1
The Pfizer vaccine remains the only jab against COVID-19 available for people aged under 18 in the United States. The FDA in October 2021 delayed a decision on whether to grant Moderna an EUA for its COVID-19 for those aged 12 to 17, saying it needs more time to further review the vaccine’s risk for myocarditis in this population.
The Epoch Times has reached out to Pfizer-BioNTech and the FDA for comment.
-
Nuremberg 2.0 is coming.
‘Think Twice Before You Vaccinate Your Kids,’ Dr. Robert Malone Warns Parents on COVID-19 Shots
By Mimi Nguyen Ly and Jan Jekielek January 9, 2022 Updated: January 9, 2022biggersmaller Print
Dr. Robert Malone, a virologist and immunologist who has contributed significantly to the technology of mRNA vaccines, issued a strong caution for those who seek to have their children vaccinated against COVID-19.
“Think twice before you vaccinate your kids. Because if something bad happens, you can’t go back and say, ‘whoops, I want a do-over,'” Malone told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program in an interview, Part 1 of which premiered on Sunday.
He also said, “It is clear that parents should think twice about vaccinating their child,” adding that serious adverse events can occur and can be “so severe that it puts your child in the hospital.”
Malone noted that with regard to myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart, “there’s a good chance that if your child takes the vaccine, they won’t be damaged, they won’t show clinical symptoms—[but] they may have subclinical damage.”
“But the question is, do you want to take that chance with your child? Because if you draw the short straw and your child was damaged, most of these things, if not all of them, are irreversible. There is no way to fix it,” he said. “And I get these emails all the time: ‘Doctor, doctor, what can we do? This has happened.’ And that once it’s happened, there’s … you can’t go back you can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.”
He pointed to information compiled on his website, which includes a list of peer-reviewed studies related to COVID-19 vaccine adverse events in children, the main one being myocarditis. The website also includes a collection of adverse events reports as well as death reports in the pediatric community, submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
“They’re there as links to the VAERS database, and if you click on them, you can see the actual VAERS report that was filed by a physician saying this is what happened,” Malone said. “And you can make your own decision about whether or not you think that that’s vaccine-related. So all of those data are there.”
Epoch Times Photo
A 5-year-old girl looks at her arm after getting a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in New York City on Nov. 8, 2021. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Malone’s warning comes after he issued a prepared statement in mid-December 2021 aimed at parents, in which he said that with regard to mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, “a viral gene will be injected into your children’s cells” that “forces your child’s body to make toxic spike proteins.”
“These proteins often cause permanent damage in children’s critical organs, including their brain and nervous system, their heart and blood vessels, including blood clots, their reproductive system, and this vaccine can trigger fundamental changes to their immune system.”
Malone is strongly opposed to COVID-19 vaccine mandates for children. He is the chief science officer and regulatory officer for The Unity Project, a movement seeking to resist COVID-19 vaccine mandates for K–12 children.
“The Unity Project’s position is one based on the logic of informed consent versus forced vaccination—that mandates should not happen,” Malone told EpochTV. “The state should not be forcing itself into the family. The decisions belong at the level of parents not at the level of the state or the school board. School boards and schools and teachers have no right to understand and seek out medical information about their students‚ that’s illegal. And yet, it’s being done all the time. And students are being bullied if they haven’t taken vaccine.”
Malone is also the president of the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists—a group of 16,000 professionals who have signed a declaration that says healthy children “shall not be subject to forced vaccination.”
“Mandates are illegal based on the Nuremberg Code, Helsinki Accord, the Belmont Report,” Malone said. “These continued to be unlicensed products, they’re only available through emergency use authorization … These are not licensed products, and they’re being forced on your children, and they have risks. And the media, through its censorship, and Big Tech is blocking your ability to even learn what those risks are. So you can make an informed decision for your children yourself. That is a huge crime in my mind.”
Epoch Times Photo
Municipal workers hold placards and shout slogans as they march across Brooklyn Bridge during a protest against the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, in New York on Oct. 25, 2021. (Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images)
Malone said that people can join a “Defeat the Mandates” rally and march in Washington, D.C., scheduled for Jan. 23, to unite against mandatory vaccinations.
Two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are currently available in the United States under emergency use authorization (EUA)—one from Pfizer-BioNTech and the other from Moderna.
The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, marketed as Comirnaty, is the only one that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for people 16 and older. The approval is only for Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine doses produced in the future, according to FDA documents, while the existing supply of COVID-19 vaccines under Pfizer-BioNTech in the United States continue to be administered under an updated EUA.
The FDA granted an EUA for Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine for those aged 12–15 in May 2021, and for children aged 5–11 in October 2021.
California in October 2021 became the first state to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for children, followed by Louisiana in December 2021. Both states said they will only enforce the mandate if the FDA fully authorizes the vaccines for children.
Related Coverage
‘Think Twice Before You Vaccinate Your Kids,’ Dr. Robert Malone Warns Parents on COVID-19 ShotsDr. Robert Malone: COVID Dogma, Media Fearmongering, and ‘Mass Formation’ Hypnosis of Society | PART 1
The Pfizer vaccine remains the only jab against COVID-19 available for people aged under 18 in the United States. The FDA in October 2021 delayed a decision on whether to grant Moderna an EUA for its COVID-19 for those aged 12 to 17, saying it needs more time to further review the vaccine’s risk for myocarditis in this population.
The Epoch Times has reached out to Pfizer-BioNTech and the FDA for comment.
-
but the emphasis on Jacobson is outdated. Nonetheless, a good read.
https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-19-vaccine-mandates-fail-the-jacobson-test/
-
second
https://www.dailywire.com/news/bret-baier-challenges-cdc-director-to-call-out-justice-sotomayor-on-covid-misinformation?itm_source=parsely-api&utm_campaign=daily_shapiro&utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile&utm_content=daily
-
Omicron Makes Biden’s Vaccine Mandates Obsolete
There is no evidence so far that vaccines are reducing infections from the fast-spreading variant.
By Luc Montagnier and Jed Rubenfeld
Jan. 9, 2022 5:20 pm ET
Federal courts considering the Biden administration’s vaccination mandates—including the Supreme Court at Friday’s oral argument—have focused on administrative-law issues. The decrees raise constitutional issues as well. But there’s a simpler reason the justices should stay these mandates: the rise of the Omicron variant.
It would be irrational, legally indefensible and contrary to the public interest for government to mandate vaccines absent any evidence that the vaccines are effective in stopping the spread of the pathogen they target. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening here.
Both mandates—from the Health and Human Services Department for healthcare workers and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for large employers in many other industries—were issued Nov. 5. At that time, the Delta variant represented almost all U.S. Covid-19 cases, and both agencies appropriately considered Delta at length and in detail, finding that the vaccines remained effective against it.
Those findings are now obsolete. As of Jan. 1, Omicron represented more than 95% of U.S. Covid cases, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Because some of Omicron’s 50 mutations are known to evade antibody protection, because more than 30 of those mutations are to the spike protein used as an immunogen by the existing vaccines, and because there have been mass Omicron outbreaks in heavily vaccinated populations, scientists are highly uncertain the existing vaccines can stop it from spreading. As the CDC put it on Dec. 20, “we don’t yet know . . . how well available vaccines and medications work against it.”
The Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) that the right to refuse medical treatment could be overcome when society needs to curb the spread of a contagious epidemic. At Friday’s oral argument, all the justices acknowledged that the federal mandates rest on this rationale. But mandating a vaccine to stop the spread of a disease requires evidence that the vaccines will prevent infection or transmission (rather than efficacy against severe outcomes like hospitalization or death). As the World Health Organization puts it, “if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission.” For Omicron, there is as yet no such evidence.
The little data we have suggest the opposite. One preprint study found that after 30 days the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines no longer had any statistically significant positive effect against Omicron infection, and after 90 days, their effect went negative—i.e., vaccinated people were more susceptible to Omicron infection. Confirming this negative efficacy finding, data from Denmark and the Canadian province of Ontario indicate that vaccinated people have higher rates of Omicron infection than unvaccinated people.
Meantime, it has long been known that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections are highly contagious, and preliminary data from all over the world indicate that this is true of Omicron as well. As CDC Director Rochelle Walensky put it last summer, the viral load in the noses and throats of vaccinated people infected with Delta is “indistinguishable” from that of unvaccinated people, and “what [the vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”
There is some early evidence that boosters may reduce Omicron infections, but the effect appears to wane quickly, and we don’t know if repeated boosters would be an effective response to the surge of Omicron. That depends among other things on the severity of disease Omicron causes, another great unknown. According to the CDC, the overwhelming majority of symptomatic U.S. Omicron cases have been mild. The best policy might be to let Omicron run its course while protecting the most vulnerable, naturally immunizing the vast majority against Covid through infection by a relatively benign strain. As Sir Andrew Pollard, head of the U.K.’s Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, said in a recent interview, “We can’t vaccinate the planet every four or six months. It’s not sustainable or affordable.”
In any event, the vaccine mandates before the court don’t require boosters. They define “fully vaccinated” as two doses of Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech or one dose of Johnson & Johnson. Even if boosters would help, the mandates would leave tens or hundreds of thousands of unboosted employees on the job, who have zero or negative protection against Omicron infection, and who would be highly contagious if they become infected. In other words, there is no scientific basis for believing these mandates will curb the spread of the disease.
Omicron was mentioned sparsely at Friday’s oral argument, but the justices—particularly those most favorable to the mandates—appeared to labor under drastically false assumptions. Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that if mandatory vaccination went forward, that would prevent all new Covid infections—750,000 new cases every day, he said. This is wildly false. So is Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s assertion that “we have over 100,000 children . . . in serious condition, many on ventilators.” According to Health and Human Services Department data, there are currently fewer than 3,500 confirmed pediatric Covid hospitalizations, and that includes patients who tested positive and were hospitalized for other reasons.
It is axiomatic in U.S. law that courts don’t uphold agency directives when the agency has entirely failed to consider facts crucial to the problem. In many contexts courts send regulations back to the agency for reconsideration in light of dramatically changed circumstances. If the agency’s action “is not sustainable on the record itself, the proper judicial approach has been to vacate the action and to remand the matter back to the agency for further consideration,” as the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia put it.
Neither HHS nor OSHA ever considered Omicron or said a word about vaccine efficacy against it, for the simple reason that it hadn’t yet been discovered. In these circumstances, longstanding legal principles require the justices to stay the mandates and send them back to the agencies for a fresh look.
Dr. Montagnier was a winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering the human immunodeficiency virus. Mr. Rubenfeld is a constitutional scholar.
-
Omicron Makes Biden’s Vaccine Mandates ObsoleteThere is no evidence so far that vaccines are reducing infections from the fast-spreading variant.By Luc Montagnier and Jed RubenfeldJan. 9, 2022 5:20 pm ETSAVEPRINTTEXT1,982
(https://www.wsj.com/articles/omicron-makes-bidens-vaccine-mandates-obsolete-covid-healthcare-osha-evidence-supreme-court-11641760009?mod=hp_opin_pos_1#comments_sector)ILLUSTRATION: DAVID GOTHARDListen to articleLength7 minutesQueueFederal courts considering the Biden administration’s vaccination mandates—including the Supreme Court at Friday’s oral argument—have focused on administrative-law issues. The decrees raise constitutional issues as well. But there’s a simpler reason the justices should stay these mandates: the rise of the Omicron variant.
It would be irrational, legally indefensible and contrary to the public interest for government to mandate vaccines absent any evidence that the vaccines are effective in stopping the spread of the pathogen they target. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening here.
OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH (https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch)The Supreme Court Hears Vaccine Mandate Arguments (https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/the-supreme-court-hears-vaccine-mandate-arguments/A605E7F3-E8B0-4D34-8A57-1FC42FDFEE78)00:001xSUBSCRIBEBoth mandates—from the Health and Human Services Department for healthcare workers and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for large employers in many other industries—were issued Nov. 5. At that time, the Delta variant represented almost all U.S. Covid-19 cases, and both agencies appropriately considered Delta at length and in detail, finding that the vaccines remained effective against it.
Those findings are now obsolete. As of Jan. 1, Omicron represented more than 95% of U.S. Covid cases, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Because some of Omicron’s 50 mutations are known to evade antibody protection, because more than 30 of those mutations are to the spike protein used as an immunogen (https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/IMGN) by the existing vaccines, and because there have been mass Omicron outbreaks in heavily vaccinated populations, scientists are highly uncertain the existing vaccines can stop it from spreading. As the CDC put it (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/omicron-variant.html) on Dec. 20, “we don’t yet know . . . how well available vaccines and medications work against it.”
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UPOpinion: Morning Editorial ReportAll the day's Opinion headlines.
PREVIEWSUBSCRIBEDThe Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) that the right to refuse medical treatment could be overcome when society needs to curb the spread of a contagious epidemic. At Friday’s oral argument, all the justices acknowledged that the federal mandates rest on this rationale. But mandating a vaccine to stop the spread of a disease requires evidence that the vaccines will prevent infection or transmission (rather than efficacy against severe outcomes like hospitalization or death). As the World Health Organization puts (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy-brief-Mandatory-vaccination-2021.1) it, “if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission.” For Omicron, there is as yet no such evidence.
The little data we have suggest the opposite. One preprint study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v3.full) found that after 30 days the Moderna and Pfizer (https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/PFE) vaccines no longer had any statistically significant positive effect against Omicron infection, and after 90 days, their effect went negative—i.e., vaccinated people were more susceptible to Omicron infection. Confirming this negative efficacy finding, data from Denmark and the Canadian province of Ontario indicate that vaccinated people have higher rates of Omicron infection than unvaccinated people.
Meantime, it has long been known that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections are highly contagious, and preliminary data from all over the world indicate that this is true of Omicron as well. As CDC Director Rochelle Walensky put it last summer, the viral load in the noses and throats of vaccinated people infected with Delta is “indistinguishable” from that of unvaccinated people, and “what [the vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”
There is some early evidence that boosters may reduce Omicron infections, but the effect appears to wane quickly, and we don’t know if repeated boosters would be an effective response to the surge of Omicron. That depends among other things on the severity of disease Omicron causes, another great unknown. According to the CDC, the overwhelming majority of symptomatic U.S. Omicron cases have been mild. The best policy might be to let Omicron run its course while protecting the most vulnerable, naturally immunizing the vast majority against Covid through infection by a relatively benign strain. As Sir Andrew Pollard, head of the U.K.’s Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, said in a recent interview, “We can’t vaccinate the planet every four or six months. It’s not sustainable or affordable.”
In any event, the vaccine mandates before the court don’t require boosters. They define “fully vaccinated” as two doses of Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech or one dose of Johnson & Johnson (https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/JNJ). Even if boosters would help, the mandates would leave tens or hundreds of thousands of unboosted employees on the job, who have zero or negative protection against Omicron infection, and who would be highly contagious if they become infected. In other words, there is no scientific basis for believing these mandates will curb the spread of the disease.
Omicron was mentioned sparsely at Friday’s oral argument, but the justices—particularly those most favorable to the mandates—appeared to labor under drastically false assumptions. Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that if mandatory vaccination went forward, that would prevent all new Covid infections—750,000 new cases every day, he said. This is wildly false. So is Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s assertion that “we have over 100,000 children . . . in serious condition, many on ventilators.” According to Health and Human Services Department data (https://healthdata.gov/dataset/COVID-19-Reported-Patient-Impact-and-Hospital-Capa/6xf2-c3ie), there are currently fewer than 3,500 confirmed pediatric Covid hospitalizations, and that includes patients who tested positive and were hospitalized for other reasons.
It is axiomatic in U.S. law that courts don’t uphold agency directives when the agency has entirely failed to consider facts crucial to the problem. In many contexts courts send regulations back to the agency for reconsideration in light of dramatically changed circumstances. If the agency’s action “is not sustainable on the record itself, the proper judicial approach has been to vacate the action and to remand the matter back to the agency for further consideration,” as the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia put it.
Neither HHS nor OSHA ever considered Omicron or said a word about vaccine efficacy against it, for the simple reason that it hadn’t yet been discovered. In these circumstances, longstanding legal principles require the justices to stay the mandates and send them back to the agencies for a fresh look.
Dr. Montagnier was a winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering the human immunodeficiency virus. Mr. Rubenfeld is a constitutional scholar.
-
Second post of the day
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/if-you-are-a-vaccine-company-executive?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email
-
third post
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/internal-hospital-data-confirm-a/comments?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDY5Njc2NjYsIl8iOiJKK1dFNCIsImlhdCI6MTY0MTk0MjIyNywiZXhwIjoxNjQxOTQ1ODI3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.eVhs5M_oxjOVwCnnJ8dQOwDWQRIvmiWxl9mogI3s77A
-
third post
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/internal-hospital-data-confirm-a/comments?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDY5Njc2NjYsIl8iOiJKK1dFNCIsImlhdCI6MTY0MTk0MjIyNywiZXhwIjoxNjQxOTQ1ODI3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.eVhs5M_oxjOVwCnnJ8dQOwDWQRIvmiWxl9mogI3s77A
Nuremberg 2.0 is coming
-
Repeat Covid Booster Shots Risk Overloading Immune System, EU Regulators Warn - Bloomberg
If you can't see it here is Berenson's summary:
European drug regulators abruptly reverse course on boosters (substack.com)
-
https://assets.ctfassets.net/syq3snmxclc9/2mVob3c1aDd8CNvVnyei6n/95af7dbfd2958d4c2b8494048b4889b5/JAG_Docs_pt1_Og_WATERMARK_OVER_Redacted.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1NanxO1FWTx8Mt-4wECSnEGXYJI58YlBRPQu6mXYzTsWMgtu2d2ROfQL0
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/fauci-was-told-privately-by-key-scientists-that-natural-origin-was-highly-unlikely-newly-unredacted-emails-confirm_4207003.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2022-01-12&mktids=d1e62fbaafc1a1101bd7071f31bb0874&est=yNUqgosuO17pMy9XzB%2FnMaXBj4zc8ZtDsQM2kJ2I%2BMCNm%2FdRl%2BUevocM%2FvEWtx5XkjgU
-
By Natali _ Mis/Shutterstock
By Natali _ Mis/Shutterstock
HEALTH NEWS
SARS-COV-2 Vaccines and Neurodegenerative Disease
By Stephanie Seneff and GreenMedInfo January 11, 2022 Updated: January 11, 2022biggersmaller Print
Since December 2021, when several novel unprecedented vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 began to be approved for emergency use, there has been a worldwide effort to get these vaccines into the arms of as many people as possible as fast as possible. These vaccines have been developed “at warp speed,” given the urgency of the situation with the COVID-19 pandemic. Most governments have embraced the notion that these vaccines are the only path towards resolution of this pandemic, which is crippling the economies of many countries.
Thus far, there are four different vaccines that have been approved for emergency use for protection against COVID-19 in the US and/or Europe. Two (the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine) are based on mRNA technology, whereas the other two (produced by Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca) are based on a double-stranded DNA recombinant viral vector. The mRNA vaccines contain only the code for the SARS-CoV-2 envelope spike protein, whereas the DNA-based vaccines both contain an adenovirus viral vector that has been augmented with DNA that codes for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The DNA-based vaccines have a certain advantage over the RNA-based vaccines in that they do not have to be stored at deep-freeze temperatures, because double-stranded DNA is much more stable than single-stranded RNA. But a disadvantage is that those who have been exposed to natural forms of the adenovirus have antibodies to the virus that will likely block the synthesis of the spike protein, and therefore not afford protection against SARS-CoV-2.
In this regard, the AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccine has a slight advantage over the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine because the virus normally infects chimpanzees rather than humans, so fewer people are likely to have been exposed to it. On the other hand, several studies have shown that viruses that normally infect one species can cause tumors if they are injected into a different species. For example, a human adenovirus injected into baboons caused retinoblastoma (cancer of the eye) in the baboons . So, it can’t be ruled out that the AZ vaccine could lead to cancer.
People don’t realize that these vaccines are vastly different from the many childhood vaccines we are now used to getting early in life. I find it shocking that the vaccine developers and the government officials across the globe are wrecklessly pushing these vaccines on an unsuspecting population. Together with Dr. Greg Nigh, I recently published a peer-reviewed paper on the technology behind the mRNA vaccines and the many potentially unknown consequences to health . Such unprecedented vaccines normally take twelve years to develop, with only a 2% success rate, but these vaccines were developed and brought to market in less than a year. As a consequence, we have no direct knowledge of any effects that the vaccines might have on our health over the long term. However, knowledge about how these vaccines work, how the immune system works and how neurodegenerative diseases come about can be brought to bear on the problem in order to predict potential devastating future consequences of the vaccines.
The mRNA in these vaccines codes for the spike protein normally synthesized by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, both the mRNA and the protein it produces have been changed from the original version in the virus with the intent to increase rate of production of the protein in an infected cell and the durability of both the mRNA and the spike protein it codes for. Additional ingredients like cationic lipids and polyethylene glycol are also toxic with unknown consequences. The vaccines were approved for emergency use based on grossly inadequate studies to evaluate safety and effectiveness.
Our paper showed that there are several mechanisms by which these vaccines could lead to severe disease, including autoimmune disease, neurodegenerative diseases, vascular disorders (hemorrhaging and blood clots) and possibly reproductive issues. There is also the risk that the vaccines will accelerate the emergence of new strains of the virus that are no longer sensitive to the antibodies produced by the vaccines. When people are immune compromised (e.g., taking chemotherapy for cancer), the antibodies they produce may not be able to keep the virus in check because the immune system is too impaired. Just as in the case of antibiotic resistance, new strains evolve within an infected immune-compromised person’s body that produce a version of the spike protein that no longer binds with the acquired antibodies. These new strains quickly come to dominate over the original strain, especially when the general population is heavily vaccinated with a vaccine that is specific to the original strain. This problem is likely going to necessitate the repeated rollout of new versions of the vaccine at periodic intervals that people will have to receive to induce yet another round of antibody production in an endless game of cat and mouse.
Like the mRNA vaccines, the DNA vaccines are based on novel biotech gene editing techniques that are brand new, so they too are a massive experiment unleashed on a huge unsuspecting population, with unknown consequences. Both DNA vector vaccines have been associated with a very rare condition called thrombocytopenia, in which platelet counts drop precipitously, resulting in system-wide blood clots and a high risk of cerebral hemorrhaging [5]. This is likely due to an autoimmune reaction to the platelets, and it comes with a high risk of mortality. In the case of the AZ vaccine, this has caused over 20 European countries to temporarily pause their vaccination programs [6]. And the United States called a temporary halt on the J&J vaccine.
Even experts don’t really understand the mechanism as of now, although a fascinating theory to explain this depends on the fact that DNA vector vaccines require the DNA to be copied into RNA in the nucleus, and this presents the possibility of producing an incomplete copy, generated through “splice variants,” that is missing the code for attaching to the membrane. These soluble partial sequences wander off to other parts of the body and bind to ACE2 receptors throughout the vasculature. Antibodies to these ACE2-bound partial spike fragments cause an acute inflammatory response that results in disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC).
How to Make an Adenovirus DNA Vector Vaccine
The adenovirus vaccines are created through techniques that the average citizen can’t possibly fathom could even exist. For the AZ vaccine, the bulk of the DNA in the vaccine codes for the various proteins that are needed by a strain of adenovirus that mainly infects chimpanzees and causes cold-like symptoms. However, it is not a “normal” version of this cold virus. First of all, it has been stripped of certain genes that it needs in order to replicate, and for this reason it is referred to as an “adenovirus vector.” This defect, it is argued, keeps it from actually infecting the vaccinated patient. Secondly, it is modified, through gene editing techniques, to create a recombinant version of the virus that contains the complete coding sequence for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, spliced into its DNA sequence – the same protein that the RNA vaccines code for. The recombinant DNA is a linear double-stranded DNA sequence where proteins from two different species are integrated through gene editing.
Since this virus can’t proliferate, it is difficult to manufacture large quantities of it. But they solved this problem by making use of a genetically modified version of a human cell line, called HEK (human embryonic kidney) 293 cells, where the human cell’s DNA was transfected long ago with fragments of the genome of an adenovirus – conveniently providing the defective recombinant virus with the missing proteins it needs to be able to proliferate. Within a culture of these HEK 293 cells, the virus can replicate, assisted by the proteins that are produced by the host cells. The HEK 293 cells originally came from a kidney of an aborted fetus, and it has been maintained in culture ever since the 1970s, because it was modified to become immortal, with the help of the adenovirus. Although it was obtained from a kidney, it is not a kidney cell. In fact, it has many properties that are characteristic of a neuronal stem cell. The fact is, they don’t really know what kind of cell it is. The ability of a cell line to survive indefinitely is a feature of tumor cells. Although the vaccine is “purified” during the processing, there is no guarantee that it is not contaminated with remnants from the host cells, i.e., human DNA of a neuronal tumor cell line. It does not seem like a good idea to inject the DNA of a human tumor cell into anyone.
The J&J vaccine has a very similar manufacturing process, except with a different adenovirus strain and a different human host cell. For J&J, the host cell is another fetal cell line harvested long ago and made immortal through the incorporation of adenovirus genes into the host human genome. This cell line was taken from the retina of the eye of the fetus.
The Spike Protein is Toxic
The COVID-19 vaccines are all based on supplying genetic code to produce the spike protein that is the main constituent of the SARS-CoV-2 protein cage that encloses its RNA contents. Both the DNA vector and the RNA vaccines induce the vaccine-infected cell to manufacture many copies of the spike protein according to the code. Through experimentation, researchers have determined that the spike protein is toxic even when introduced all by itself. In a revealing experiment, researchers injected spike protein into hamsters, and found that it was taken up by endothelial cells lining the blood vessels, via ACE2 receptors. This caused a downregulation of ACE2, which had significant effects on the metabolic policy in the cells. In particular, it inhibited the synthesis of mitochondria, and caused the existing mitochondria to fragment. Mitochondria are the organelles in the cell that produce large quantities of ATP (the energy currency of cells) by oxidizing nutrients, while consuming oxygen and producing water and carbon dioxide. The spike protein reduced the production of ATP by mitochondria and increased glycolysis — the alternative, much less efficient, way to produce ATP without using oxygen. This metabolic change towards getting energy through glycolysis is a characteristic feature of cancer cells and of neurons in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
In another experiment, researchers showed that spike protein can cross the blood-brain barrier in mice and be taken up by neurons throughout the brain. This too is likely mediated by ACE2 receptors (which neurons also produce). These same researchers also showed that spike protein administered in the nose was able to reach the brain by traveling along the olfactory nerve. When they induced inflammation in the brain through exposure to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), they saw an increased uptake of spike protein into the brain, which they hypothesized was caused by increased leakiness in the barrier. As you will see, these points become important when we later consider what happens following a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, which is designed to induce inflammation.
Many people suffering from COVID-19 have experienced symptoms characteristic of the central nervous system such as headache, nausea, dizziness, fatal brain blood clots and encephalitis. In an advanced 3D microfluid model of the human BBB, researchers in the United States showed that the spike protein by itself disrupts the blood brain barrier by inducing an inflammatory state, and they proposed that this could be the source of such symptoms.
A published preprint found widespread expression of ACE2 in many parts of the brain. ACE2 was expressed in astrocytes, pericytes (cells that wrap around the endothelial cells lining capillary walls) and in endothelial cells — and all of these are key components of the blood-brain barrier. Perhaps of even greater concern is that ACE2 was highly expressed in the substantia nigra, a brain-stem nucleus where damaged dopaminergic neurons lead to Parkinson’s disease.
Bell’s Palsy, Autism and Parkinson’s Disease
In a paper aptly titled, “Is COVID-19 a Perfect Storm for Parkinson’s Disease?” researchers made a strong case for the possibility that we will see an increase in Parkinson’s disease in the future, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They refer to three separate cases where acute Parkinsonism developed shortly after a COVID-19 infection. They proposed that systemic inflammation caused by severe COVID-19 could trigger neuroinflammation in the substantia nigra, killing off dopaminergic neurons. These neurons express high levels of the ACE2 receptor, making them highly vulnerable to the spike protein. A viral infection is known to upregulate α-synuclein, which, in high concentrations, forms soluble oligomers that then precipitate out as fibrils and accumulate within “Lewy bodies” that are tightly linked to Parkinson’s disease. Further corroboration of this idea comes from a paper which demonstrated that an infection with SARS-CoV-2 causes brain inflammation in macaques and induces the formation of Lewy bodies.
Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder and the most common neurodegenerative motor disorder. The root cause of nearly 90% of cases remains unknown, but it has been theorized that viral infections are often involved. It can be argued that the loss of a sense of smell and/or taste in association with COVID-19 is a sign of a Parkinsonian link, since this symptom is also an early sign of Parkinson’s disease.
The mRNA vaccines appear to disrupt the body’s ability to keep latent viruses from “waking up” and causing disease symptoms. This observation is based on the fact that shingles and facial palsy (Bell’s palsy) are being commonly reported in side-effect reports in the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. As of May 21, 2021, over 2500 reports of Bell’s palsy following COVID-19 vaccines had appeared in VAERS. A primary cause of Bell’s palsy is the activation of latent viral infections, most notably Herpes simplex and Varicella zoster, Varicella zoster is also the virus responsible for shingles.
While Bell’s palsy usually resolves over time, there can be some serious longer-term consequences. Pregnant women who are diagnosed with active herpes infections during pregnancy have a 2-fold increased risk of having an autistic male child from that pregnancy. This should make a pregnant woman hesitate to get a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Bell’s palsy can also be a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease much later in life. A study on nearly 200 Parkinson’s disease patients compared with age- and gender-matched controls found that six of the Parkinson’s patients had had an earlier diagnosis of Bell’s palsy, whereas none of the control patients had. There’s also a link between autism and Parkinson’s disease. A study on autistic adults over 39 years old found that one third of them had symptoms that meet the criteria for a Parkinson’s diagnosis.
Prion Diseases
Prion diseases are a group of severe neurodegenerative diseases that are caused by misfolded prion proteins. The most common prion disease in humans is the always-fatal sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), which accounts for more than 85% of the cases. Prion diseases are more specifically called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), and infection can spread through exposure to misfolded proteins as “infective” agents, without requiring a live pathogen. PrP is the name given to the specific prion protein associated with these TSEs. Misfolded PrP proteins act as a seed or catalyst that then recruits other molecules of PrP to misfold in the same way and glom together into pathogenic fibrils.
MADCOW, the disease that affected a large number of cows in Europe beginning in the 1990s, is probably the best-known TSE. While eating beef from an infected animal is a very rare risk factor, most cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease occur for unknown reasons, and no other risk factors have been identified. A study based in Switzerland confirmed that many patients who died of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease had detectable levels of a prion protein in their spleen and muscles, in addition to the olfactory lobe and the central nervous system. More generally, diseases involving misfolded PrPs have consistently been found to involve an initial early phase of prion replication in the spleen which happens long before overt symptoms appear. This point becomes important when we consider whether the COVID-19 vaccines might cause prion diseases.
PrP has a unique feature that it contains multiple copies of a characteristic motif in its amino acid sequence that is called a “GxxxG” motif, also known as a “glycine zipper”. These proteins normally fold into a characteristic shape called an alpha helix, which allows the protein to penetrate the plasma membrane. The glycines in the zipper motif play an essential role in cross-linking and stabilizing alpha helices. This glycine zipper motif is also a common characteristic of many transmembrane proteins (proteins that cross the membrane of the cell).
Indeed, the coronavirus spike protein has a GxxxG motif in its transmembrane domain (specifically, GFIAG — glycine, phenylalanine, isoproline, alanine, glycine). There is a platform called “Uniprot” where you can look up the sequence of specific proteins. The Uniprot entry for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has five glycine zipper sequences altogether. According to J. Bart Classen, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has the ability “to form amyloid and toxic aggregates that can act as seeds to aggregate many of the misfolded brain proteins and can ultimately lead to neurodegeneration.”
Many neurodegenerative diseases have been linked to specific proteins that have prion-like properties, and these diseases are characterized as protein-misfolding diseases or proteopathies. Like PrP, prion-like proteins become pathogenic when their alpha helices misfold as beta sheets, and the protein is then impaired in its ability to enter the membrane. These diseases include Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Huntington’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, and each of these is associated with a particular protein that misfolds and accumulates in inclusion bodies in association with the disease. We already saw that Parkinson’s disease is characterized by Lewy bodies in the substantia nigra that accumulate misfolded α-synuclein.
Glycines within the glycine zipper transmembrane motifs in the amyloid beta precursor protein (APP) play a central role in the misfolding of amyloid beta linked to Alzheimer’s disease (Decock et al., 2016). APP contains a total of four GxxxG motifs (one fewer than the spike protein).
A case study presented the case of a man who developed CKD simultaneously with symptomatic COVID-19. The authors proposed that infection with SARS-CoV-2 precipitates or accelerates neurodegenerative diseases. A theoretical paper published by researchers in India showed that the spike protein binds to a number of aggregation-prone prion-like proteins, including amyloid beta, α-synuclein, tau, PrP and TDP-43. They argued that this could initiate aggregation of these proteins in the brain, leading to neurodegeneration.
Tracing the Vaccine Trail to the Spleen
It is important to understand what happens to the contents of a vaccine after it is injected into the arm. Where does it travel in the body, and what does it do in the places where it settles in?
Vaccine developers are keen to know whether the vaccine induces a strong immune response, reflected in high antibody production against the spike protein, in the case of COVID-19 vaccines. And to do this, they need to trace its movement in the body.
CD8+ T-cells are cytotoxic immune cells that can kill cells that are infected with a virus. They detect an immune complex with viral proteins that are exposed on the surface of an infected cell. A study on an adenovirus-vector based vaccination of mice used clever methods to produce a marker that could track the activity of CD8+ T-cells in the lymph system and the spleen, in the days following vaccination. It can be inferred that immune cells (antigen-presenting cells, where the “antigen” is the spike protein) were initially present at the arm muscle injection site and synthesized the virus spike protein from the vaccine DNA code, exposing it on their surface. Once activated by the foreign protein, they translocated into the draining lymph nodes and finally made their way to the spleen via the lymph system. The CD8+ T-cells are idly waiting within the lymphatics until they spot an infected immune cell. Researchers could detect activation of CD8+ immune cells over time and inferred that this was caused by the arrival of the contents of the vaccine to the site where these immune cells reside. Activated CD8+ T-cells first appeared in the draining lymph nodes, but after five days began to show up in the spleen. Their numbers there peaked sharply by 12 days and then remained high with a slow decay up to 47 days, when the researchers stopped looking. What this means is that the vaccine is picked up by antigen-presenting cells at the injection site and carried to the spleen via the lymph system. The carrier cells then hang out in the spleen for a long time. And this is where the danger lies in terms of the potential to cause prion disease.
In the paper that Greg Nigh and I published recently on the mRNA vaccines, we argued that the mRNA vaccines are rather perfectly set up to produce a very dangerous situation in the spleen that is poised to launch a prion disease. Given the fact that the DNA vector vaccines also end up concentrated in the spleen, I think that the same thing holds true for them as well. The spleen is where the action is for seeding misfolded prion proteins. The vaccine-infected cells have been programmed to produce large amounts of spike proteins. Prion proteins misfold into damaging beta-sheet oligomers when there are too many of them in the cytoplasm. Might the spike protein do the same?
Three out of the four COVID-19 vaccines currently on the market in the U.S. and Europe (Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J) use a genetic code for the spike protein that has been slightly tweaked, in order to produce a more potent antibody response. Normally, after binding to the ACE2 receptor, the spike protein spontaneously changes its shape in a dramatic way in order to fuse with the membrane of the cell. In a Web publication, Ryan Cross described this action very graphically based on a spring-like model, as follows: “When the spike protein binds to a human cell, that spring is released, and the two helices and the loop straighten into one long helix that harpoons the human cell and pulls the virus and human membranes close together until they fuse.” As Cross explains, through trial and error, but taking structural information into account, researchers came up with the idea of swapping out two adjacent amino acids for prolines in the membrane fusion domain in order to stabilize the shape of the spike protein in its pre-fusion form. In this form, it exposes critical antigenic areas, and this assures more rapid formation of matching antibodies, the only goal of the vaccine design. This also prevents the protein from fusing with the plasma membrane of a host cell. I’d imagine that the spike protein attaches to the ACE2 receptor and then gets stuck there, like a sitting duck. But a worrisome thought is whether this open state, not fused with the membrane, might more closely resemble the shape of a misfolded prion-like protein like amyloid beta than does the collapsed shape it needs to go into the membrane?
Tetz and Tetz have argued in a published online preprint that prion-like domains in the spike protein enable higher affinity for the ACE2 receptor, making the virus more virulent than its earlier cousins. These same authors published an earlier peer-reviewed journal paper where they observed that many other viruses have proteins in their coat that have distinct features of prion proteins.
Germinal Centers and Parkinson’s Disease
Germinal centers in the spleen are a primary factory where antibodies against specific antigens (such as the spike protein) are manufactured and perfected. Makers of the mRNA vaccines were pleased to see that antigen-presenting cells (mainly dendritic cells), originally attracted to the site of the injection, take up the mRNA particles and then migrate via the lymph system to the spleen in high numbers and induce high levels of antibody production in these germinal centers.
Unfortunately, these same germinal centers are a primary site for the initiation of a process of producing and distributing misfolded prion proteins, often seeded by viral proteins, and triggered by an acute inflammatory response.
B cells, also known as B lymphocytes, are a type of immune cell that is the key player in the process that leads to the production of specific antibodies to a foreign antigen [38]. They originate from precursor cells in the bone marrow, and then migrate to the spleen and other lymphoid organs, where they bind to antigens presented to them by antigen-presenting cells, such as the dendritic cells. A maturation process beginning with a multipotent progenitor B cell ends with a mature “memory” B cell that has gone through a complex process to perfect its antibody production process to specifically match the antigen it has been assigned to (e.g., the spike protein). B cells also go through another process called class switching, which changes the type of antibody they produce from one class to another, without changing its specificity to the antigen.
Antibodies are also known as immunoglobulins (Igs), and the possible classes include IgM, IgG, IgA and IgE. IgM is the first immunoglobulin class that is produced (primarily in the spleen), and it is converted into IgG through class switching. IgG is the dominant class in the blood, making up 75% of the serum antibodies, and it is essential for clearing infections in the tissues. Long-lived mature memory B cells cruise the blood stream looking for any appearances of the antigen they have been assigned to, but they are useless for anything else. When the virus they’ve been trained to match mutates to the point where their antibodies no longer match well, they become useless even for the disease they’re trained to fight.
When mice are injected with PrP in the abdomen (intraperitoneal injection), the PrP shows up very quickly in the spleen. From there, the PrP travels along the spinal cord and the vagus nerve to reach the brain, causing prion disease [39]. As we will soon see, α-synuclein, the prion-like protein linked to Parkinson’s disease, also makes its way to the brain from the spleen along the vagus nerve. The mRNA vaccines set up perfect conditions in the spleen for the formation and distribution of conglomerates made up of misfolded α-synuclein, PrP and spike protein.
While α-synuclein causes neurodegenerative disease when it misfolds, in its normal shape it is an active participant in the immune response. α-Synuclein facilitates the processes that lead to antibody production in response to foreign antigens. Dendritic cells express α-synuclein, and it is upregulated (over-expressed) in response to stressors, such as the mRNA, the cationic lipids, and the PEG in the mRNA vaccines. Much can be learned by studying mice that have been genetically engineered to have a defective version of α-synuclein. These mice have a decreased capacity to clear pathogens through phagocytosis, and an impairment in the ability to generate B cells from precursor stem cells. They also had a four-fold reduction in progenitor B cells in the bone marrow. The amount of immunoglobulin G was reduced compared to wildtype, suggesting impaired class switching. Altogether, they are unable to mount an effective immune response to antigens, whether they come from a natural threat or a vaccine.
Dendritic cells under stress accumulate prion proteins and release them into small lipid particles called exosomes, which are then distributed throughout the body, either along nerve fibers or in the general circulation. There is reason to believe that these vaccines will accelerate the release of exosomes containing misfolded prion-like spike proteins that are being produced in large amounts under instruction from the vaccines. These spike proteins will act as seeds to cause α-synuclein and PrP to also misfold and form toxic oligomers together with the spike protein, which are released into the extracellular space as exosomes. These exosomes, released under the severe stress conditions induced by the vaccine, then carry prion proteins into the brain along the vagus nerve, to initiate prion diseases.
Impaired Immune Response due to Over-vaccination
A characteristic of the elderly is an impaired ability to mount antibodies against new pathogenic threats, and this is reflected in a failure to generate protective antibodies in response to vaccination. It has been demonstrated in experiments with mice that aged mice have an overabundance of long-lived memory (antigen-experienced) B cells, and this is paired with an inability to generate new B cells from progenitor cells in the bone marrow, as well as impairment in the process of refinement of the antibody response in germinal centers in the spleen and the associated class switching that produces effective IgG antibodies. A significant reduction in the number of naive follicular B cells, combined with an impaired ability to convert them into mature memory B cells leaves these aged mice highly vulnerable to new infections. It is likely that the same principle applies to humans. A plausible conclusion is that aggressive vaccination campaigns accelerate the pace at which an individual’s immune system reaches an “aged” status due to exuberant generation of memory B cells in response to the artificial stimuli induced by repeated vaccination.
It has now been confirmed that the S1 component of the spike protein shows up in the blood one day after the first mRNA vaccine and remains detectable for up to a month after vaccination, becoming cleared as IgA and IgG antibodies become available. For immune compromised people, it likely stays in the blood much longer, exposing all the tissues — the spleen, the heart, the brain, the gonads, etc. – to the toxic prion-like spike protein.
Today’s children are by far the most vaccinated generation in the history of humankind. If we decide in the near future to deliver a booster COVID-19 shot to them every year, as seems possible given the current climate of enthusiasm for these vaccines, are we inviting disaster for them in years to come? Will their immune system “age” much faster than that of previous generations, due to the exhaustion of the pool of progenitor B cells by all these vaccines? Will they succumb to Parkinson’s disease or other debilitating prion-based neurodegenerative diseases much sooner and in much greater numbers than previous generations? This is an experiment that I hope we finally decide not to carry out.
Summary
There are many reasons to be wary of the COVID-19 vaccines, which have been rushed to market with grossly inadequate evaluation and aggressively promoted to an uninformed public, with the potential for huge, irreversible, negative consequences. One potential consequence is to exhaust the finite supply of progenitor B cells in the bone marrow early in life, causing an inability to mount new antibodies to infectious agents. An even more worrisome possibility is that these vaccines, both the mRNA vaccines and the DNA vector vaccines, may be a pathway to crippling disease sometime in the future. Through the prion-like action of the spike protein, we will likely see an alarming increase in several major neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, CKD, ALS and Alzheimer’s, and these diseases will show up with increasing prevalence among younger and younger populations, in years to come. Unfortunately, we won’t know whether the vaccines caused this increase, because there will usually be a long time separation between the vaccination event and the disease diagnosis. Very convenient for the vaccine manufacturers, who stand to make huge profits off of our misfortunes — both from the sale of the vaccines themselves and from the large medical cost of treating all these debilitating diseases.
Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She received the B.S. degree in Biophysics in 1968, the M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1980, and the Ph.D degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1985, all from MIT. For over three decades, her research interests have always been at the intersection of biology and computation: developing a computational model for the human auditory system, understanding human language so as to develop algorithms and systems for human computer interactions, as well as applying natural language processing (NLP) techniques to gene predictions. She has published over 170 refereed articles on these subjects, and has been invited to give keynote speeches at several international conferences. She has also supervised numerous Master’s and PhD theses at MIT. In 2012, Dr. Seneff was elected Fellow of the International Speech and Communication Association (ISCA).
Originally published on GreenMedInfo.com
References
[1] MDJ Dicks, AJ Spencer, NJ Edwards et al. A Novel Chimpanzee Adenovirus Vector with Low Human Seroprevalence: Improved Systems for Vector Derivation and Comparative Immunogenicity. PLoS ONE 2012; 7(7): e40385. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040385
[2] J Custers, D Kim, M Leyssen et al. Vaccines Based on Replication Incompetent Ad26 Viral Vectors: Standardized Template with Key Considerations for a Risk/Benefit Assessment. Vaccine 2021; 39(22): 3081-3101. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X20311609
[3] N Mukai, SS Kalter, LB Cummins et al. Retinal Tumor Induced in the Baboon by Human Adenovirus 12. Science 1980; 210: 1023-1025. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7434012.
[4] S. Seneff and G. Nigh. Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19. International Journal of Vac-cine Theory, Practice, and Research 2021; 2(1): 38-79. https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/23
[5] A Greinacher, T Thiele, TE Warkentin, et al. Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination. NEJM 2021; April 9, 2021 [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840
[6]B Pancevski. Scientists Say They Found Cause of Rare Blood Clotting Linked to AstraZeneca Vaccine. Wall Street Journal. March 19, 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-say-they-found-cause-of-blood-clotting-linked-to-astrazeneca-vaccine-11616169108
[7] E Kowarz, L Krutzke, J Resi, et al. “Vaccine-Induced Covid-19 Mimicry” Syndrome: Splice Reactions within the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Open Reading Frame Result in Spike Protein Variants that May Cause Thromboembolic Events in Patients Immunized with Vector-Based Vaccines. Research Square Preprint. May 26, 2021. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-558954/v1
[8] N Lewis, C Evelegh, and FL Graham. Cloning and sequencing of the cellular-viral junctions from the human adenovirus type 5 transformed 293 cell line. Virology 1997; 233: 423-429. https://doi.org/10.1006/viro.1997.8597
[9] G Shaw, S Morse, M Ararat et al. Preferential Transformation of Human Neuronal Cells by Human Adenoviruses and the Origin of HEK 293 Cells. FASEB J 2002; 16(8): 869-71. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.01-0995fje.
[10] Y Lei, J Zhang, CR Schiavon et al. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2. Circulation Research 2021; 128: 1323-1326. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.31
[11] EM Rhea, AF Logsdon, KM Hansen et al. The S1 Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Crosses the Blood-Brain Barrier in Mice. Nature Neuroscience 2021; 24: 368-378. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-00771-8
[12] TP Buzhdygana, BJ DeOrec, A Baldwin-Leclairc et al. The SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Alters Barrier Function in 2D Static and 3D Microfluidic in-Vitro Models of the Human Blood-Brain Barrier. Neurobiol Dis 2020; 146: 105131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2020.105131.
[13] VS Hernández, MA Zetter, EC Guerra et al. ACE2 expression in rat brain: implications for COVID-19 associated neurological manifestations. bioRxiv preprint May 3, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.01.442293.
[14] P Brundin, A Nath, and JD Beckham. Is COVID-19 a Perfect Storm for Parkinson’s Disease? Trends in Neurosciences 2020; 43(12): 931-933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2020.10.009.
[15] IHCHM Philippens, KP Böszörményi, JA. Wubben et al. SARS-CoV-2 causes brain inflammation and induces Lewy body formation in macaques. bioRxiv preprint. May 5, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.23.432474.
[16] E Dowd and DP McKernan. Back to the future: lessons from past viral infections and the link with Parkinsons disease. Neuronal Signaling 2021; 5: NS20200051. https://doi.org/10.1042/NS20200051
[17] M Mahic, S Mjaaland, HM Bvelstad, et al. Maternal Immunoreactivity to Herpes Simplex Virus 2 and Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder in Male Offspring. mSphere 2017; 2(1): e00016-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00016-17.
[18] R Savica, JH Bower, DM Maraganore, eta l. Bell’s Palsy Preceding Parkinson’s Disease: A Case-Control Study. Movement Disorders 2009; 24(10): 1530-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.22616
[19] S Starkstein, S Gellar, M Parlier et al. High Rates of Parkinsonism in Adults with Autism. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders 2015; 7: 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11689-015-9125-6
[20] S. Nasralla, DD Rhoads, and BS Appleby. Prion Diseases. In: Hasbun, MD MPH R., Bloch, MD MPH K.C., Bhimraj, MD A. (eds) Neurological Complications of Infectious Diseases. Current Clinical Neurology. Humana, Cham. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56084-3_18
[21] M Glatzel, E Abela, M Maissen and A Aguzzi. Extraneural Pathologic Prion Protein in Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1812-20. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa030351
[22] J Marchant. Prion Diseases Hide Out in the Spleen. Nature January 26, 2012: 9904. https://www.doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.9904
[23] N Daude. Prion Diseases and the Spleen. Viral Immunol 2004; 17(3): 334-49. https://doi.org/10.1089/vim.2004.17.334.
[24] J-K Choi, S-J Park, Y-C Jun et al. Generation of Monoclonal Antibody Recognized by the GXXXG Motif (Glycine Zipper) of Prion Protein. Hybridoma (Larchmt) 2006; 25(5): 271-7. https://doi.org/10.1089/hyb.2006.25.271.
[25] BK Mueller, S Subramaniam, and A. Senes. A Frequent, GxxxG-mediated, Transmembrane Association Motif Is Optimized for the Formation of Interhelical C-H Hydrogen Bonds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014; 111(10): E888-95. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319944111
[26] R Broer, B Boson, W Spaan et al. Important Role for the Transmembrane Domain of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Spike Protein during Entry. J Virol 2006; 80(3): 1302-1310. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.80.3.1302-1310.2006
[27] Uniprot. Spike Glycoprotein. https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P0DTC2.
[28] JB Classen. Review of COVID-19 Vaccines and the Risk of Chronic Adverse Events Including Neurological Degeneration. Journal of Medical-Clinical Research and Reviews 2021; 5(4): 1-7. https://foundationforhealthresearch.org/review-of-covid-19-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-chronic-adverse-events/.
[29] Y Chu and JH Kordower. The Prion Hypothesis of Parkinsons Disease. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports v2015; 15: 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-015-0549-x
[30] MJ Young, M O’Hare, M Matiello et al. Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in a Man with COVID-19: SARS-CoV-2-Accelerated Neuro Degeneration? Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 2020; 89: 601-603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.07.007
[31] D Idrees and V Kumar. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Interactions with Amyloidogenic Proteins: Potential Clues to Neurodegeneration. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2021; 554: 94-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2021.03.100
[32] TC Yang, K Dayball, Y H Wan, and J Bramson. Detailed Analysis of the CD8+ T-Cell Response following Adenovirus Vaccination. J Virol 2003; 77(24): 13407-13411. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.77.24.13407-13411.2003
[33] R Cross. The Tiny Tweak behind COVID-19 Vaccines. Chemical & Engineering News 2020; 98(38). https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/tiny-tweak-behind-COVID-19/98/i38
[34] G Tetz and V Tetz. SARS-CoV-2 Prion-like Domains in Spike Proteins Enable Higher Affinity to ACE2. TBDL Preprint. 2020. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202003.0422.v1
[35] G Tetz and V Tetz. Prion-like Domains in Eukaryotic Viruses. Scientific Reports 2018; 8: 8931. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27256-w
[36] K Lederer D Castaño, DG Atria et al. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines Foster Potent Antigen-Specific Germinal Center Responses Associated with Neutralizing Antibody Generation. Immunity 2020; 53: 1281-1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2020.11.009
[37] A Aguzzi and M Heikenwalder. Prions, Cytokines, and Chemokines: A Meeting in Lymphoid Organs. Immunity 2005; 22: 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2004.12.007
[38] TW LeBien and TF Tedder. B Lymphocytes: How they Develop and Function. Blood 2008; 112(5): 1570-1580. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2008-02-078071.
[39] AJ Raeber, MA Klein, R Frigg et al. PrP-Dependent Association of Prions with Splenic but not Circulating Lymphocytes of ScrapieInfected Mice. EMBO J 1999; 18: 2702-2706. https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/18.10.2702
[40] W Xiao, A Shameli, CV Harding et al. Late Stages of Hematopoiesis and B Cell Lymphopoiesis are Regulated by α-Synuclein, a Key Player in Parkinson’s Disease. Immunobiology 2014; 219(11): 836-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imbio.2014.07.014
[41] R Castro-Seoane, H Hummerich, T Sweeting et al. Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cells Sequester High Prion Titres at Early Stages of Prion Infection. PLoS Pathogens 2012; 8(2): e1002538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002538
[42] NA Mabbott and GG MacPherson. Prions and Their Lethal Journey to the Brain. Nature Reviews Microbiology 2006; 4: 201-211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1346
[43] D Frasca, E Van der Put, RL Riley et al. Reduced Ig Class Switch in Aged Mice Correlates with Decreased E47 and Activation-Induced Cytidine Deaminase. J Immunol 2004; 172(4): 2155-2162. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.172.4.2155
[44] Z Keren, S Naor, S Nussbaum et al. B-Cell Depletion Reactivates B Lymphopoiesis in the BM and Rejuvenates the B Lineage in Aging. Hematopoiesis and Stem Cells 2011; 117(11): 3104-12. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2010-09-307983
[45] AF Ogata, C-A Cheng, M Desjardins et al. Circulating SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients. Clinical Infectious Diseases May 20, 2021 [Epub ahead of print] ciab465d. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab465.
-
Nuremberg 2.0 is coming.
By Natali _ Mis/Shutterstock
By Natali _ Mis/Shutterstock
HEALTH NEWS
SARS-COV-2 Vaccines and Neurodegenerative Disease
By Stephanie Seneff and GreenMedInfo January 11, 2022 Updated: January 11, 2022biggersmaller Print
Since December 2021, when several novel unprecedented vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 began to be approved for emergency use, there has been a worldwide effort to get these vaccines into the arms of as many people as possible as fast as possible. These vaccines have been developed “at warp speed,” given the urgency of the situation with the COVID-19 pandemic. Most governments have embraced the notion that these vaccines are the only path towards resolution of this pandemic, which is crippling the economies of many countries.
Thus far, there are four different vaccines that have been approved for emergency use for protection against COVID-19 in the US and/or Europe. Two (the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine) are based on mRNA technology, whereas the other two (produced by Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca) are based on a double-stranded DNA recombinant viral vector. The mRNA vaccines contain only the code for the SARS-CoV-2 envelope spike protein, whereas the DNA-based vaccines both contain an adenovirus viral vector that has been augmented with DNA that codes for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The DNA-based vaccines have a certain advantage over the RNA-based vaccines in that they do not have to be stored at deep-freeze temperatures, because double-stranded DNA is much more stable than single-stranded RNA. But a disadvantage is that those who have been exposed to natural forms of the adenovirus have antibodies to the virus that will likely block the synthesis of the spike protein, and therefore not afford protection against SARS-CoV-2.
In this regard, the AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccine has a slight advantage over the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine because the virus normally infects chimpanzees rather than humans, so fewer people are likely to have been exposed to it. On the other hand, several studies have shown that viruses that normally infect one species can cause tumors if they are injected into a different species. For example, a human adenovirus injected into baboons caused retinoblastoma (cancer of the eye) in the baboons . So, it can’t be ruled out that the AZ vaccine could lead to cancer.
People don’t realize that these vaccines are vastly different from the many childhood vaccines we are now used to getting early in life. I find it shocking that the vaccine developers and the government officials across the globe are wrecklessly pushing these vaccines on an unsuspecting population. Together with Dr. Greg Nigh, I recently published a peer-reviewed paper on the technology behind the mRNA vaccines and the many potentially unknown consequences to health . Such unprecedented vaccines normally take twelve years to develop, with only a 2% success rate, but these vaccines were developed and brought to market in less than a year. As a consequence, we have no direct knowledge of any effects that the vaccines might have on our health over the long term. However, knowledge about how these vaccines work, how the immune system works and how neurodegenerative diseases come about can be brought to bear on the problem in order to predict potential devastating future consequences of the vaccines.
The mRNA in these vaccines codes for the spike protein normally synthesized by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, both the mRNA and the protein it produces have been changed from the original version in the virus with the intent to increase rate of production of the protein in an infected cell and the durability of both the mRNA and the spike protein it codes for. Additional ingredients like cationic lipids and polyethylene glycol are also toxic with unknown consequences. The vaccines were approved for emergency use based on grossly inadequate studies to evaluate safety and effectiveness.
Our paper showed that there are several mechanisms by which these vaccines could lead to severe disease, including autoimmune disease, neurodegenerative diseases, vascular disorders (hemorrhaging and blood clots) and possibly reproductive issues. There is also the risk that the vaccines will accelerate the emergence of new strains of the virus that are no longer sensitive to the antibodies produced by the vaccines. When people are immune compromised (e.g., taking chemotherapy for cancer), the antibodies they produce may not be able to keep the virus in check because the immune system is too impaired. Just as in the case of antibiotic resistance, new strains evolve within an infected immune-compromised person’s body that produce a version of the spike protein that no longer binds with the acquired antibodies. These new strains quickly come to dominate over the original strain, especially when the general population is heavily vaccinated with a vaccine that is specific to the original strain. This problem is likely going to necessitate the repeated rollout of new versions of the vaccine at periodic intervals that people will have to receive to induce yet another round of antibody production in an endless game of cat and mouse.
Like the mRNA vaccines, the DNA vaccines are based on novel biotech gene editing techniques that are brand new, so they too are a massive experiment unleashed on a huge unsuspecting population, with unknown consequences. Both DNA vector vaccines have been associated with a very rare condition called thrombocytopenia, in which platelet counts drop precipitously, resulting in system-wide blood clots and a high risk of cerebral hemorrhaging [5]. This is likely due to an autoimmune reaction to the platelets, and it comes with a high risk of mortality. In the case of the AZ vaccine, this has caused over 20 European countries to temporarily pause their vaccination programs [6]. And the United States called a temporary halt on the J&J vaccine.
Even experts don’t really understand the mechanism as of now, although a fascinating theory to explain this depends on the fact that DNA vector vaccines require the DNA to be copied into RNA in the nucleus, and this presents the possibility of producing an incomplete copy, generated through “splice variants,” that is missing the code for attaching to the membrane. These soluble partial sequences wander off to other parts of the body and bind to ACE2 receptors throughout the vasculature. Antibodies to these ACE2-bound partial spike fragments cause an acute inflammatory response that results in disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC).
How to Make an Adenovirus DNA Vector Vaccine
The adenovirus vaccines are created through techniques that the average citizen can’t possibly fathom could even exist. For the AZ vaccine, the bulk of the DNA in the vaccine codes for the various proteins that are needed by a strain of adenovirus that mainly infects chimpanzees and causes cold-like symptoms. However, it is not a “normal” version of this cold virus. First of all, it has been stripped of certain genes that it needs in order to replicate, and for this reason it is referred to as an “adenovirus vector.” This defect, it is argued, keeps it from actually infecting the vaccinated patient. Secondly, it is modified, through gene editing techniques, to create a recombinant version of the virus that contains the complete coding sequence for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, spliced into its DNA sequence – the same protein that the RNA vaccines code for. The recombinant DNA is a linear double-stranded DNA sequence where proteins from two different species are integrated through gene editing.
Since this virus can’t proliferate, it is difficult to manufacture large quantities of it. But they solved this problem by making use of a genetically modified version of a human cell line, called HEK (human embryonic kidney) 293 cells, where the human cell’s DNA was transfected long ago with fragments of the genome of an adenovirus – conveniently providing the defective recombinant virus with the missing proteins it needs to be able to proliferate. Within a culture of these HEK 293 cells, the virus can replicate, assisted by the proteins that are produced by the host cells. The HEK 293 cells originally came from a kidney of an aborted fetus, and it has been maintained in culture ever since the 1970s, because it was modified to become immortal, with the help of the adenovirus. Although it was obtained from a kidney, it is not a kidney cell. In fact, it has many properties that are characteristic of a neuronal stem cell. The fact is, they don’t really know what kind of cell it is. The ability of a cell line to survive indefinitely is a feature of tumor cells. Although the vaccine is “purified” during the processing, there is no guarantee that it is not contaminated with remnants from the host cells, i.e., human DNA of a neuronal tumor cell line. It does not seem like a good idea to inject the DNA of a human tumor cell into anyone.
The J&J vaccine has a very similar manufacturing process, except with a different adenovirus strain and a different human host cell. For J&J, the host cell is another fetal cell line harvested long ago and made immortal through the incorporation of adenovirus genes into the host human genome. This cell line was taken from the retina of the eye of the fetus.
The Spike Protein is Toxic
The COVID-19 vaccines are all based on supplying genetic code to produce the spike protein that is the main constituent of the SARS-CoV-2 protein cage that encloses its RNA contents. Both the DNA vector and the RNA vaccines induce the vaccine-infected cell to manufacture many copies of the spike protein according to the code. Through experimentation, researchers have determined that the spike protein is toxic even when introduced all by itself. In a revealing experiment, researchers injected spike protein into hamsters, and found that it was taken up by endothelial cells lining the blood vessels, via ACE2 receptors. This caused a downregulation of ACE2, which had significant effects on the metabolic policy in the cells. In particular, it inhibited the synthesis of mitochondria, and caused the existing mitochondria to fragment. Mitochondria are the organelles in the cell that produce large quantities of ATP (the energy currency of cells) by oxidizing nutrients, while consuming oxygen and producing water and carbon dioxide. The spike protein reduced the production of ATP by mitochondria and increased glycolysis — the alternative, much less efficient, way to produce ATP without using oxygen. This metabolic change towards getting energy through glycolysis is a characteristic feature of cancer cells and of neurons in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
In another experiment, researchers showed that spike protein can cross the blood-brain barrier in mice and be taken up by neurons throughout the brain. This too is likely mediated by ACE2 receptors (which neurons also produce). These same researchers also showed that spike protein administered in the nose was able to reach the brain by traveling along the olfactory nerve. When they induced inflammation in the brain through exposure to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), they saw an increased uptake of spike protein into the brain, which they hypothesized was caused by increased leakiness in the barrier. As you will see, these points become important when we later consider what happens following a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, which is designed to induce inflammation.
Many people suffering from COVID-19 have experienced symptoms characteristic of the central nervous system such as headache, nausea, dizziness, fatal brain blood clots and encephalitis. In an advanced 3D microfluid model of the human BBB, researchers in the United States showed that the spike protein by itself disrupts the blood brain barrier by inducing an inflammatory state, and they proposed that this could be the source of such symptoms.
A published preprint found widespread expression of ACE2 in many parts of the brain. ACE2 was expressed in astrocytes, pericytes (cells that wrap around the endothelial cells lining capillary walls) and in endothelial cells — and all of these are key components of the blood-brain barrier. Perhaps of even greater concern is that ACE2 was highly expressed in the substantia nigra, a brain-stem nucleus where damaged dopaminergic neurons lead to Parkinson’s disease.
Bell’s Palsy, Autism and Parkinson’s Disease
In a paper aptly titled, “Is COVID-19 a Perfect Storm for Parkinson’s Disease?” researchers made a strong case for the possibility that we will see an increase in Parkinson’s disease in the future, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They refer to three separate cases where acute Parkinsonism developed shortly after a COVID-19 infection. They proposed that systemic inflammation caused by severe COVID-19 could trigger neuroinflammation in the substantia nigra, killing off dopaminergic neurons. These neurons express high levels of the ACE2 receptor, making them highly vulnerable to the spike protein. A viral infection is known to upregulate α-synuclein, which, in high concentrations, forms soluble oligomers that then precipitate out as fibrils and accumulate within “Lewy bodies” that are tightly linked to Parkinson’s disease. Further corroboration of this idea comes from a paper which demonstrated that an infection with SARS-CoV-2 causes brain inflammation in macaques and induces the formation of Lewy bodies.
Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder and the most common neurodegenerative motor disorder. The root cause of nearly 90% of cases remains unknown, but it has been theorized that viral infections are often involved. It can be argued that the loss of a sense of smell and/or taste in association with COVID-19 is a sign of a Parkinsonian link, since this symptom is also an early sign of Parkinson’s disease.
The mRNA vaccines appear to disrupt the body’s ability to keep latent viruses from “waking up” and causing disease symptoms. This observation is based on the fact that shingles and facial palsy (Bell’s palsy) are being commonly reported in side-effect reports in the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. As of May 21, 2021, over 2500 reports of Bell’s palsy following COVID-19 vaccines had appeared in VAERS. A primary cause of Bell’s palsy is the activation of latent viral infections, most notably Herpes simplex and Varicella zoster, Varicella zoster is also the virus responsible for shingles.
While Bell’s palsy usually resolves over time, there can be some serious longer-term consequences. Pregnant women who are diagnosed with active herpes infections during pregnancy have a 2-fold increased risk of having an autistic male child from that pregnancy. This should make a pregnant woman hesitate to get a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Bell’s palsy can also be a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease much later in life. A study on nearly 200 Parkinson’s disease patients compared with age- and gender-matched controls found that six of the Parkinson’s patients had had an earlier diagnosis of Bell’s palsy, whereas none of the control patients had. There’s also a link between autism and Parkinson’s disease. A study on autistic adults over 39 years old found that one third of them had symptoms that meet the criteria for a Parkinson’s diagnosis.
Prion Diseases
Prion diseases are a group of severe neurodegenerative diseases that are caused by misfolded prion proteins. The most common prion disease in humans is the always-fatal sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), which accounts for more than 85% of the cases. Prion diseases are more specifically called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), and infection can spread through exposure to misfolded proteins as “infective” agents, without requiring a live pathogen. PrP is the name given to the specific prion protein associated with these TSEs. Misfolded PrP proteins act as a seed or catalyst that then recruits other molecules of PrP to misfold in the same way and glom together into pathogenic fibrils.
MADCOW, the disease that affected a large number of cows in Europe beginning in the 1990s, is probably the best-known TSE. While eating beef from an infected animal is a very rare risk factor, most cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease occur for unknown reasons, and no other risk factors have been identified. A study based in Switzerland confirmed that many patients who died of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease had detectable levels of a prion protein in their spleen and muscles, in addition to the olfactory lobe and the central nervous system. More generally, diseases involving misfolded PrPs have consistently been found to involve an initial early phase of prion replication in the spleen which happens long before overt symptoms appear. This point becomes important when we consider whether the COVID-19 vaccines might cause prion diseases.
PrP has a unique feature that it contains multiple copies of a characteristic motif in its amino acid sequence that is called a “GxxxG” motif, also known as a “glycine zipper”. These proteins normally fold into a characteristic shape called an alpha helix, which allows the protein to penetrate the plasma membrane. The glycines in the zipper motif play an essential role in cross-linking and stabilizing alpha helices. This glycine zipper motif is also a common characteristic of many transmembrane proteins (proteins that cross the membrane of the cell).
Indeed, the coronavirus spike protein has a GxxxG motif in its transmembrane domain (specifically, GFIAG — glycine, phenylalanine, isoproline, alanine, glycine). There is a platform called “Uniprot” where you can look up the sequence of specific proteins. The Uniprot entry for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has five glycine zipper sequences altogether. According to J. Bart Classen, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has the ability “to form amyloid and toxic aggregates that can act as seeds to aggregate many of the misfolded brain proteins and can ultimately lead to neurodegeneration.”
Many neurodegenerative diseases have been linked to specific proteins that have prion-like properties, and these diseases are characterized as protein-misfolding diseases or proteopathies. Like PrP, prion-like proteins become pathogenic when their alpha helices misfold as beta sheets, and the protein is then impaired in its ability to enter the membrane. These diseases include Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Huntington’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, and each of these is associated with a particular protein that misfolds and accumulates in inclusion bodies in association with the disease. We already saw that Parkinson’s disease is characterized by Lewy bodies in the substantia nigra that accumulate misfolded α-synuclein.
Glycines within the glycine zipper transmembrane motifs in the amyloid beta precursor protein (APP) play a central role in the misfolding of amyloid beta linked to Alzheimer’s disease (Decock et al., 2016). APP contains a total of four GxxxG motifs (one fewer than the spike protein).
A case study presented the case of a man who developed CKD simultaneously with symptomatic COVID-19. The authors proposed that infection with SARS-CoV-2 precipitates or accelerates neurodegenerative diseases. A theoretical paper published by researchers in India showed that the spike protein binds to a number of aggregation-prone prion-like proteins, including amyloid beta, α-synuclein, tau, PrP and TDP-43. They argued that this could initiate aggregation of these proteins in the brain, leading to neurodegeneration.
Tracing the Vaccine Trail to the Spleen
It is important to understand what happens to the contents of a vaccine after it is injected into the arm. Where does it travel in the body, and what does it do in the places where it settles in?
Vaccine developers are keen to know whether the vaccine induces a strong immune response, reflected in high antibody production against the spike protein, in the case of COVID-19 vaccines. And to do this, they need to trace its movement in the body.
CD8+ T-cells are cytotoxic immune cells that can kill cells that are infected with a virus. They detect an immune complex with viral proteins that are exposed on the surface of an infected cell. A study on an adenovirus-vector based vaccination of mice used clever methods to produce a marker that could track the activity of CD8+ T-cells in the lymph system and the spleen, in the days following vaccination. It can be inferred that immune cells (antigen-presenting cells, where the “antigen” is the spike protein) were initially present at the arm muscle injection site and synthesized the virus spike protein from the vaccine DNA code, exposing it on their surface. Once activated by the foreign protein, they translocated into the draining lymph nodes and finally made their way to the spleen via the lymph system. The CD8+ T-cells are idly waiting within the lymphatics until they spot an infected immune cell. Researchers could detect activation of CD8+ immune cells over time and inferred that this was caused by the arrival of the contents of the vaccine to the site where these immune cells reside. Activated CD8+ T-cells first appeared in the draining lymph nodes, but after five days began to show up in the spleen. Their numbers there peaked sharply by 12 days and then remained high with a slow decay up to 47 days, when the researchers stopped looking. What this means is that the vaccine is picked up by antigen-presenting cells at the injection site and carried to the spleen via the lymph system. The carrier cells then hang out in the spleen for a long time. And this is where the danger lies in terms of the potential to cause prion disease.
In the paper that Greg Nigh and I published recently on the mRNA vaccines, we argued that the mRNA vaccines are rather perfectly set up to produce a very dangerous situation in the spleen that is poised to launch a prion disease. Given the fact that the DNA vector vaccines also end up concentrated in the spleen, I think that the same thing holds true for them as well. The spleen is where the action is for seeding misfolded prion proteins. The vaccine-infected cells have been programmed to produce large amounts of spike proteins. Prion proteins misfold into damaging beta-sheet oligomers when there are too many of them in the cytoplasm. Might the spike protein do the same?
Three out of the four COVID-19 vaccines currently on the market in the U.S. and Europe (Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J) use a genetic code for the spike protein that has been slightly tweaked, in order to produce a more potent antibody response. Normally, after binding to the ACE2 receptor, the spike protein spontaneously changes its shape in a dramatic way in order to fuse with the membrane of the cell. In a Web publication, Ryan Cross described this action very graphically based on a spring-like model, as follows: “When the spike protein binds to a human cell, that spring is released, and the two helices and the loop straighten into one long helix that harpoons the human cell and pulls the virus and human membranes close together until they fuse.” As Cross explains, through trial and error, but taking structural information into account, researchers came up with the idea of swapping out two adjacent amino acids for prolines in the membrane fusion domain in order to stabilize the shape of the spike protein in its pre-fusion form. In this form, it exposes critical antigenic areas, and this assures more rapid formation of matching antibodies, the only goal of the vaccine design. This also prevents the protein from fusing with the plasma membrane of a host cell. I’d imagine that the spike protein attaches to the ACE2 receptor and then gets stuck there, like a sitting duck. But a worrisome thought is whether this open state, not fused with the membrane, might more closely resemble the shape of a misfolded prion-like protein like amyloid beta than does the collapsed shape it needs to go into the membrane?
Tetz and Tetz have argued in a published online preprint that prion-like domains in the spike protein enable higher affinity for the ACE2 receptor, making the virus more virulent than its earlier cousins. These same authors published an earlier peer-reviewed journal paper where they observed that many other viruses have proteins in their coat that have distinct features of prion proteins.
Germinal Centers and Parkinson’s Disease
Germinal centers in the spleen are a primary factory where antibodies against specific antigens (such as the spike protein) are manufactured and perfected. Makers of the mRNA vaccines were pleased to see that antigen-presenting cells (mainly dendritic cells), originally attracted to the site of the injection, take up the mRNA particles and then migrate via the lymph system to the spleen in high numbers and induce high levels of antibody production in these germinal centers.
Unfortunately, these same germinal centers are a primary site for the initiation of a process of producing and distributing misfolded prion proteins, often seeded by viral proteins, and triggered by an acute inflammatory response.
B cells, also known as B lymphocytes, are a type of immune cell that is the key player in the process that leads to the production of specific antibodies to a foreign antigen [38]. They originate from precursor cells in the bone marrow, and then migrate to the spleen and other lymphoid organs, where they bind to antigens presented to them by antigen-presenting cells, such as the dendritic cells. A maturation process beginning with a multipotent progenitor B cell ends with a mature “memory” B cell that has gone through a complex process to perfect its antibody production process to specifically match the antigen it has been assigned to (e.g., the spike protein). B cells also go through another process called class switching, which changes the type of antibody they produce from one class to another, without changing its specificity to the antigen.
Antibodies are also known as immunoglobulins (Igs), and the possible classes include IgM, IgG, IgA and IgE. IgM is the first immunoglobulin class that is produced (primarily in the spleen), and it is converted into IgG through class switching. IgG is the dominant class in the blood, making up 75% of the serum antibodies, and it is essential for clearing infections in the tissues. Long-lived mature memory B cells cruise the blood stream looking for any appearances of the antigen they have been assigned to, but they are useless for anything else. When the virus they’ve been trained to match mutates to the point where their antibodies no longer match well, they become useless even for the disease they’re trained to fight.
When mice are injected with PrP in the abdomen (intraperitoneal injection), the PrP shows up very quickly in the spleen. From there, the PrP travels along the spinal cord and the vagus nerve to reach the brain, causing prion disease [39]. As we will soon see, α-synuclein, the prion-like protein linked to Parkinson’s disease, also makes its way to the brain from the spleen along the vagus nerve. The mRNA vaccines set up perfect conditions in the spleen for the formation and distribution of conglomerates made up of misfolded α-synuclein, PrP and spike protein.
While α-synuclein causes neurodegenerative disease when it misfolds, in its normal shape it is an active participant in the immune response. α-Synuclein facilitates the processes that lead to antibody production in response to foreign antigens. Dendritic cells express α-synuclein, and it is upregulated (over-expressed) in response to stressors, such as the mRNA, the cationic lipids, and the PEG in the mRNA vaccines. Much can be learned by studying mice that have been genetically engineered to have a defective version of α-synuclein. These mice have a decreased capacity to clear pathogens through phagocytosis, and an impairment in the ability to generate B cells from precursor stem cells. They also had a four-fold reduction in progenitor B cells in the bone marrow. The amount of immunoglobulin G was reduced compared to wildtype, suggesting impaired class switching. Altogether, they are unable to mount an effective immune response to antigens, whether they come from a natural threat or a vaccine.
Dendritic cells under stress accumulate prion proteins and release them into small lipid particles called exosomes, which are then distributed throughout the body, either along nerve fibers or in the general circulation. There is reason to believe that these vaccines will accelerate the release of exosomes containing misfolded prion-like spike proteins that are being produced in large amounts under instruction from the vaccines. These spike proteins will act as seeds to cause α-synuclein and PrP to also misfold and form toxic oligomers together with the spike protein, which are released into the extracellular space as exosomes. These exosomes, released under the severe stress conditions induced by the vaccine, then carry prion proteins into the brain along the vagus nerve, to initiate prion diseases.
Impaired Immune Response due to Over-vaccination
A characteristic of the elderly is an impaired ability to mount antibodies against new pathogenic threats, and this is reflected in a failure to generate protective antibodies in response to vaccination. It has been demonstrated in experiments with mice that aged mice have an overabundance of long-lived memory (antigen-experienced) B cells, and this is paired with an inability to generate new B cells from progenitor cells in the bone marrow, as well as impairment in the process of refinement of the antibody response in germinal centers in the spleen and the associated class switching that produces effective IgG antibodies. A significant reduction in the number of naive follicular B cells, combined with an impaired ability to convert them into mature memory B cells leaves these aged mice highly vulnerable to new infections. It is likely that the same principle applies to humans. A plausible conclusion is that aggressive vaccination campaigns accelerate the pace at which an individual’s immune system reaches an “aged” status due to exuberant generation of memory B cells in response to the artificial stimuli induced by repeated vaccination.
It has now been confirmed that the S1 component of the spike protein shows up in the blood one day after the first mRNA vaccine and remains detectable for up to a month after vaccination, becoming cleared as IgA and IgG antibodies become available. For immune compromised people, it likely stays in the blood much longer, exposing all the tissues — the spleen, the heart, the brain, the gonads, etc. – to the toxic prion-like spike protein.
Today’s children are by far the most vaccinated generation in the history of humankind. If we decide in the near future to deliver a booster COVID-19 shot to them every year, as seems possible given the current climate of enthusiasm for these vaccines, are we inviting disaster for them in years to come? Will their immune system “age” much faster than that of previous generations, due to the exhaustion of the pool of progenitor B cells by all these vaccines? Will they succumb to Parkinson’s disease or other debilitating prion-based neurodegenerative diseases much sooner and in much greater numbers than previous generations? This is an experiment that I hope we finally decide not to carry out.
Summary
There are many reasons to be wary of the COVID-19 vaccines, which have been rushed to market with grossly inadequate evaluation and aggressively promoted to an uninformed public, with the potential for huge, irreversible, negative consequences. One potential consequence is to exhaust the finite supply of progenitor B cells in the bone marrow early in life, causing an inability to mount new antibodies to infectious agents. An even more worrisome possibility is that these vaccines, both the mRNA vaccines and the DNA vector vaccines, may be a pathway to crippling disease sometime in the future. Through the prion-like action of the spike protein, we will likely see an alarming increase in several major neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, CKD, ALS and Alzheimer’s, and these diseases will show up with increasing prevalence among younger and younger populations, in years to come. Unfortunately, we won’t know whether the vaccines caused this increase, because there will usually be a long time separation between the vaccination event and the disease diagnosis. Very convenient for the vaccine manufacturers, who stand to make huge profits off of our misfortunes — both from the sale of the vaccines themselves and from the large medical cost of treating all these debilitating diseases.
Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She received the B.S. degree in Biophysics in 1968, the M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1980, and the Ph.D degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1985, all from MIT. For over three decades, her research interests have always been at the intersection of biology and computation: developing a computational model for the human auditory system, understanding human language so as to develop algorithms and systems for human computer interactions, as well as applying natural language processing (NLP) techniques to gene predictions. She has published over 170 refereed articles on these subjects, and has been invited to give keynote speeches at several international conferences. She has also supervised numerous Master’s and PhD theses at MIT. In 2012, Dr. Seneff was elected Fellow of the International Speech and Communication Association (ISCA).
Originally published on GreenMedInfo.com
References
[1] MDJ Dicks, AJ Spencer, NJ Edwards et al. A Novel Chimpanzee Adenovirus Vector with Low Human Seroprevalence: Improved Systems for Vector Derivation and Comparative Immunogenicity. PLoS ONE 2012; 7(7): e40385. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040385
[2] J Custers, D Kim, M Leyssen et al. Vaccines Based on Replication Incompetent Ad26 Viral Vectors: Standardized Template with Key Considerations for a Risk/Benefit Assessment. Vaccine 2021; 39(22): 3081-3101. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X20311609
[3] N Mukai, SS Kalter, LB Cummins et al. Retinal Tumor Induced in the Baboon by Human Adenovirus 12. Science 1980; 210: 1023-1025. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7434012.
[4] S. Seneff and G. Nigh. Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19. International Journal of Vac-cine Theory, Practice, and Research 2021; 2(1): 38-79. https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/23
[5] A Greinacher, T Thiele, TE Warkentin, et al. Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination. NEJM 2021; April 9, 2021 [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840
[6]B Pancevski. Scientists Say They Found Cause of Rare Blood Clotting Linked to AstraZeneca Vaccine. Wall Street Journal. March 19, 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-say-they-found-cause-of-blood-clotting-linked-to-astrazeneca-vaccine-11616169108
[7] E Kowarz, L Krutzke, J Resi, et al. “Vaccine-Induced Covid-19 Mimicry” Syndrome: Splice Reactions within the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Open Reading Frame Result in Spike Protein Variants that May Cause Thromboembolic Events in Patients Immunized with Vector-Based Vaccines. Research Square Preprint. May 26, 2021. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-558954/v1
[8] N Lewis, C Evelegh, and FL Graham. Cloning and sequencing of the cellular-viral junctions from the human adenovirus type 5 transformed 293 cell line. Virology 1997; 233: 423-429. https://doi.org/10.1006/viro.1997.8597
[9] G Shaw, S Morse, M Ararat et al. Preferential Transformation of Human Neuronal Cells by Human Adenoviruses and the Origin of HEK 293 Cells. FASEB J 2002; 16(8): 869-71. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.01-0995fje.
[10] Y Lei, J Zhang, CR Schiavon et al. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2. Circulation Research 2021; 128: 1323-1326. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.31
[11] EM Rhea, AF Logsdon, KM Hansen et al. The S1 Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Crosses the Blood-Brain Barrier in Mice. Nature Neuroscience 2021; 24: 368-378. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-00771-8
[12] TP Buzhdygana, BJ DeOrec, A Baldwin-Leclairc et al. The SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Alters Barrier Function in 2D Static and 3D Microfluidic in-Vitro Models of the Human Blood-Brain Barrier. Neurobiol Dis 2020; 146: 105131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2020.105131.
[13] VS Hernández, MA Zetter, EC Guerra et al. ACE2 expression in rat brain: implications for COVID-19 associated neurological manifestations. bioRxiv preprint May 3, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.01.442293.
[14] P Brundin, A Nath, and JD Beckham. Is COVID-19 a Perfect Storm for Parkinson’s Disease? Trends in Neurosciences 2020; 43(12): 931-933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2020.10.009.
[15] IHCHM Philippens, KP Böszörményi, JA. Wubben et al. SARS-CoV-2 causes brain inflammation and induces Lewy body formation in macaques. bioRxiv preprint. May 5, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.23.432474.
[16] E Dowd and DP McKernan. Back to the future: lessons from past viral infections and the link with Parkinsons disease. Neuronal Signaling 2021; 5: NS20200051. https://doi.org/10.1042/NS20200051
[17] M Mahic, S Mjaaland, HM Bvelstad, et al. Maternal Immunoreactivity to Herpes Simplex Virus 2 and Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder in Male Offspring. mSphere 2017; 2(1): e00016-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00016-17.
[18] R Savica, JH Bower, DM Maraganore, eta l. Bell’s Palsy Preceding Parkinson’s Disease: A Case-Control Study. Movement Disorders 2009; 24(10): 1530-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.22616
[19] S Starkstein, S Gellar, M Parlier et al. High Rates of Parkinsonism in Adults with Autism. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders 2015; 7: 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11689-015-9125-6
[20] S. Nasralla, DD Rhoads, and BS Appleby. Prion Diseases. In: Hasbun, MD MPH R., Bloch, MD MPH K.C., Bhimraj, MD A. (eds) Neurological Complications of Infectious Diseases. Current Clinical Neurology. Humana, Cham. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56084-3_18
[21] M Glatzel, E Abela, M Maissen and A Aguzzi. Extraneural Pathologic Prion Protein in Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1812-20. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa030351
[22] J Marchant. Prion Diseases Hide Out in the Spleen. Nature January 26, 2012: 9904. https://www.doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.9904
[23] N Daude. Prion Diseases and the Spleen. Viral Immunol 2004; 17(3): 334-49. https://doi.org/10.1089/vim.2004.17.334.
[24] J-K Choi, S-J Park, Y-C Jun et al. Generation of Monoclonal Antibody Recognized by the GXXXG Motif (Glycine Zipper) of Prion Protein. Hybridoma (Larchmt) 2006; 25(5): 271-7. https://doi.org/10.1089/hyb.2006.25.271.
[25] BK Mueller, S Subramaniam, and A. Senes. A Frequent, GxxxG-mediated, Transmembrane Association Motif Is Optimized for the Formation of Interhelical C-H Hydrogen Bonds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014; 111(10): E888-95. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319944111
[26] R Broer, B Boson, W Spaan et al. Important Role for the Transmembrane Domain of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Spike Protein during Entry. J Virol 2006; 80(3): 1302-1310. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.80.3.1302-1310.2006
[27] Uniprot. Spike Glycoprotein. https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P0DTC2.
[28] JB Classen. Review of COVID-19 Vaccines and the Risk of Chronic Adverse Events Including Neurological Degeneration. Journal of Medical-Clinical Research and Reviews 2021; 5(4): 1-7. https://foundationforhealthresearch.org/review-of-covid-19-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-chronic-adverse-events/.
[29] Y Chu and JH Kordower. The Prion Hypothesis of Parkinsons Disease. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports v2015; 15: 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-015-0549-x
[30] MJ Young, M O’Hare, M Matiello et al. Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in a Man with COVID-19: SARS-CoV-2-Accelerated Neuro Degeneration? Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 2020; 89: 601-603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.07.007
[31] D Idrees and V Kumar. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Interactions with Amyloidogenic Proteins: Potential Clues to Neurodegeneration. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2021; 554: 94-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2021.03.100
[32] TC Yang, K Dayball, Y H Wan, and J Bramson. Detailed Analysis of the CD8+ T-Cell Response following Adenovirus Vaccination. J Virol 2003; 77(24): 13407-13411. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.77.24.13407-13411.2003
[33] R Cross. The Tiny Tweak behind COVID-19 Vaccines. Chemical & Engineering News 2020; 98(38). https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/tiny-tweak-behind-COVID-19/98/i38
[34] G Tetz and V Tetz. SARS-CoV-2 Prion-like Domains in Spike Proteins Enable Higher Affinity to ACE2. TBDL Preprint. 2020. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202003.0422.v1
[35] G Tetz and V Tetz. Prion-like Domains in Eukaryotic Viruses. Scientific Reports 2018; 8: 8931. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27256-w
[36] K Lederer D Castaño, DG Atria et al. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines Foster Potent Antigen-Specific Germinal Center Responses Associated with Neutralizing Antibody Generation. Immunity 2020; 53: 1281-1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2020.11.009
[37] A Aguzzi and M Heikenwalder. Prions, Cytokines, and Chemokines: A Meeting in Lymphoid Organs. Immunity 2005; 22: 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2004.12.007
[38] TW LeBien and TF Tedder. B Lymphocytes: How they Develop and Function. Blood 2008; 112(5): 1570-1580. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2008-02-078071.
[39] AJ Raeber, MA Klein, R Frigg et al. PrP-Dependent Association of Prions with Splenic but not Circulating Lymphocytes of ScrapieInfected Mice. EMBO J 1999; 18: 2702-2706. https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/18.10.2702
[40] W Xiao, A Shameli, CV Harding et al. Late Stages of Hematopoiesis and B Cell Lymphopoiesis are Regulated by α-Synuclein, a Key Player in Parkinson’s Disease. Immunobiology 2014; 219(11): 836-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imbio.2014.07.014
[41] R Castro-Seoane, H Hummerich, T Sweeting et al. Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cells Sequester High Prion Titres at Early Stages of Prion Infection. PLoS Pathogens 2012; 8(2): e1002538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002538
[42] NA Mabbott and GG MacPherson. Prions and Their Lethal Journey to the Brain. Nature Reviews Microbiology 2006; 4: 201-211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1346
[43] D Frasca, E Van der Put, RL Riley et al. Reduced Ig Class Switch in Aged Mice Correlates with Decreased E47 and Activation-Induced Cytidine Deaminase. J Immunol 2004; 172(4): 2155-2162. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.172.4.2155
[44] Z Keren, S Naor, S Nussbaum et al. B-Cell Depletion Reactivates B Lymphopoiesis in the BM and Rejuvenates the B Lineage in Aging. Hematopoiesis and Stem Cells 2011; 117(11): 3104-12. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2010-09-307983
[45] AF Ogata, C-A Cheng, M Desjardins et al. Circulating SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients. Clinical Infectious Diseases May 20, 2021 [Epub ahead of print] ciab465d. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab465.
-
https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/11/mass-formation-is-a-two-headed-coin/
-
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2022/01/12/why-would-the-government-need-a-database-of-unvaxxed-americans-seeking-a-religious-exemption-to-mandate-n1548846
https://m.imgur.com/eUlwNPU (https://m.imgur.com/eUlwNPU)
https://m.imgur.com/eUlwNPU
-
Biden’s Operation Snail Speed on Covid Therapies
Less than 1% of $1.9 trillion in last March’s relief cash went for treatments.
By The Editorial Board
Follow
Jan. 12, 2022 6:32 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
106
The GlaxoSmithKline headquarters in London.
PHOTO: MATTHEW CHILDS/REUTERS
The Biden Administration on Tuesday ordered another 600,000 doses of GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology’s monoclonal antibody. Last week it increased its order of Pfizer’s antiviral Paxlovid by 10 million. Great, but these treatments will probably arrive after the Omicron Covid variant crests. Why didn’t it order more treatments sooner?
That’s an especially good question given that the stated purpose of Democrats’ $1.9 trillion spending bill last March was Covid relief. Yet less than 1% of the spending was allocated for therapies. About as much money was given last year to New York’s financially ailing transit system as the Administration spent procuring Covid therapies. The result: A persistent treatment shortage and countless preventable deaths.
***
It was obvious even early in the pandemic that treatments were going to be critical to living with Covid, especially oral antivirals that patients can pick up at pharmacies soon after developing symptoms. Francis Collins, then the National Institutes of Health director, explained this on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in March. But therapies were a very low priority for the White House Covid team.
OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
WSJ Opinion Potomac Watch
The Supreme Court Hears Vaccine Mandate Arguments
SUBSCRIBE
In June 2021 the Administration placed an advance order for 1.7 million courses of Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics’ antiviral molnupiravir, which had shown promise in early trials. In November after stronger data came out, it increased the order to 3.1 million courses, which were to be delivered by early 2022. Why not more?
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.
PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
Perhaps because the White House believed money would be better spent on monoclonal antibodies and Pfizer’s Paxlovid, which were shown to be somewhat more effective in trials. But the Administration didn’t order nearly enough of those either.
Monoclonals in short supply had to be rationed during the summer Delta surge. In mid-September, as Delta was receding, the Administration ordered 1.4 million doses of Regeneron’s monoclonal and 388,000 of Eli Lilly’s . Unable to get enough from the feds for his state, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in September went around the Administration to purchase the monoclonal from GSK and Vir.
Their monoclonal was authorized by the Food and Drug Administration in May. It is unique in neutralizing both the SARS virus and Covid-19, making it less susceptible to new variants. It holds up well against Omicron while those by Regeneron and Lilly haven’t. But the Administration apparently didn’t think GSK-Vir’s was needed.
In June GSK had 450,000 doses on hand. Yet the Administration waited until the fall to order $1 billion in treatments, covering about 450,000 doses. On Nov. 18, the Administration also ordered 10 million courses of Pfizer’s Paxlovid after trial data showed it reduced hospitalizations by nearly 90%. Yet manufacturing the pills takes six to eight months so supply has been very limited.
Had the Administration ordered more treatments sooner, more would have been available this winter. The Trump Administration’s Operation Warp Speed accelerated vaccine development and production by placing advance orders so a supply would be available as soon as the FDA approved a vaccine. President Biden could have done the same for treatments but didn’t.
Instead, the Administration has focused relentlessly on masking, testing and vaccines with therapies as a fourth priority. The focus has been on preventing infection, rather than treating it. Vaccines prevent serious disease. But as we are learning with Omicron, they don’t stop infection or transmission. Despite President Biden’s efforts at coercion, many Americans remain unvaccinated.
Masking seems increasingly beside the point with Omicron spreading like wildfire and millions of Americans wearing them improperly. Testing can help people who want to protect the vulnerable in their orbit, but the Administration also failed to prepare for a winter surge in testing demand.
***
Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra oversees therapy procurement, but he’s been missing in action. He didn’t even appear at a Senate hearing Tuesday with officials Anthony Fauci, Janet Woodcock and Rochelle Walensky. Then again, he has no health-care expertise and his only apparent credential for the job was suing the Trump Administration as California Attorney General.
As Omicron spreads far and wide, Americans are beginning to appreciate that we all may eventually be infected. President Biden’s campaign promise to “shut down the virus” was always a false boast and will never be met. Fortunately, Omicron is so far causing milder illness. But living with endemic Covid means that therapies are crucial.
Having more therapies this winter would have reduced the burden on hospitals and might have saved thousands of lives.
-
I like the term for the Biden administration on anything good we wish they would do, "Operation Snailspeed".
Harris' border task force = Operation Snailspeed?
He wasn't Snailspeed closing pipelines and energy supply.
-
I like the term for the Biden administration on anything good we wish they would do, "Operation Snailspeed".
Harris' border task force = Operation Snailspeed?
He wasn't Snailspeed closing pipelines and energy supply.
Operation Cloward-Piven.
-
https://summit.news/2022/01/14/british-government-used-propagandistic-fear-tactics-to-scare-public-into-mass-compliance/
-
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ny-anti-vaxx-father-girl-missing-mom-searching-20220112-mu4zjqtd4zh5phqepbim7lll34-story.html
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/washington-secrets/democrats-ok-with-fines-prison-mandates-for-vax-deniers-poll
Any time you feel like trying.
-
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/editorial/2022/01/15/utah-leaders-have/
Crazy AND evil.
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/washington-secrets/democrats-ok-with-fines-prison-mandates-for-vax-deniers-poll
Any time you feel like trying.
(https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/61if35.jpg)
-
Sent to me by someone who follows my FB page. It is in Italian, but English subtitles are an option:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE-T8VnymJA
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/fauci-invested-in-chinese-companies-with-ties-to-beijing-according-to-financial-disclosures_4217809.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-01-17-2&utm_medium=email2&est=N6EoxkDeuVUgVi81VeXryZqxABQOQEOuSY%2Bo8h5A19LXptPJjCsG3Y5sbHWcEeqpUcFD
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/fauci-invested-in-chinese-companies-with-ties-to-beijing-according-to-financial-disclosures_4217809.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-01-17-2&utm_medium=email2&est=N6EoxkDeuVUgVi81VeXryZqxABQOQEOuSY%2Bo8h5A19LXptPJjCsG3Y5sbHWcEeqpUcFD
Good thing pResident Kidsniffer McAlzheimer's hasn't been compromised by Chy-Nah!
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/397425.php
Know your place, serf!
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/pfizer-ceo-predicts-return-to-normal-by-spring-but-expects-covid-19-to-circulate-for-years_4217601.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-01-17-1&utm_medium=email&est=WOaScJAbfPfP8OmzfnoVeq87uBiVkvY4pQigfprNBAzPWCJNcJv0H85pw2pSR6ey5OBo
-
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/how-to-generate-a-societal-immune
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe0b271ce-1e6a-4719-be42-9e569ad70ced_1059x1200.jpeg
(https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe0b271ce-1e6a-4719-be42-9e569ad70ced_1059x1200.jpeg)
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-did-us-deaths-shoot-up-40-above-normal-last-year_4216590.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-01-16-4&utm_medium=email&est=0lrVQUB%2FRvP6oK3re4M3FdChTG01y81zXdLXwDjwEO7bojjKgEWOX5bwecnqXSzJPCLg
=======================================================
https://patriotpost.us/memes/85568-fau-chi-2022-01-15?mailing_id=6422&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.6422&utm_campaign=humor
-
second post
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/remember-how-health-authorities-said
-
second post
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/remember-how-health-authorities-said
Nuremberg 2.0 is coming.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/pfizer-ceo-predicts-return-to-normal-by-spring-but-expects-covid-19-to-circulate-for-years_4217601.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-01-17-1&utm_medium=email&est=WOaScJAbfPfP8OmzfnoVeq87uBiVkvY4pQigfprNBAzPWCJNcJv0H85pw2pSR6ey5OBo
I didn't realize, he is a veterinarian.
-
Joseph Mercola: Do More Children Die From the COVID Shot Than From COVID? (theepochtimes.com)
January 15, 2022 Updated: January 16, 2022
According to published research, children are at risk for potentially lifelong health effects from the jab. Read here to learn what the experts say.
Video Player
00:00
03:27
The video above features Collette Martin, a practicing nurse who testified before a Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee hearing December 6, 2021. Martin claims she and her colleagues have witnessed “terrifying” reactions to the COVID shots among children—including blood clots, heart attacks, encephalopathy and arrhythmias—yet their concerns are simply dismissed.
Among elderly patients, she’s noticed an uptick in falls and acute onset of confusion “without any known ideology.” Coworkers are also experiencing side effects, such as vision and cardiovascular problems.
Martin points out that few doctors or nurses are aware the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) even exists, so injury reports are not being filed. Hospitals also are not gathering data on COVID jab injuries in any other ways, so there’s no data to investigate even if you wanted to. According to Martin:
“We are not just seeing severe acute [short term] reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long-term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.
We are potentially sacrificing our children for fear of MAYBE dying, getting sick of a virus — a virus with a 99% survival rate. As of now, we have more children that died from the COVID vaccine than COVID itself.
And then, for the Health Department to come out and say the new variant [Omicron] has all the side effects of the vaccine reactions we’re currently seeing — it’s maddening, and I don’t understand why more people don’t see it. I think they do, but they fear speaking out and, even worse, being fired … Which side of history will you be on? I have to know that this madness will stop.”
What the VAERS Data Tell Us About COVID Jab Risks
I recently interviewed Jessica Rose, Ph.D., a research fellow at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Israel, about what the VAERS data tell us about the COVID jabs’ risks. As noted by Rose, the average number of adverse event reports following vaccination for the past 10 years has been about 39,000 annually, with an average of 155 deaths. That’s for all available vaccines combined.
The COVID jabs alone now account for 983,756 adverse event reports as of December 17, 2021, including 20,622 deaths—and this doesn’t include the underreporting factor, which we know is significant and likely ranges from five to 40 times higher than reported. Most doctors and nurses don’t even know what VAERS is and even if they do, they chose not to report the incidents.
In the case of the COVID jabs, 50 percent of the deaths occur within 48 hours of injection. It’s simply not conceivable that 10,000 people died two days after their shot from something other than the shot. It cannot all be coincidence. Especially since so many of them are younger, with no underlying lethal conditions that threaten to take them out on any given day. A full 80 percent have died within one week of their jab, which is still incredibly close in terms of temporality.
Children Risk Permanent Heart Damage
Aside from the immediate risk of death, children are also at risk for potentially lifelong health problems from the jab. Myocarditis (heart inflammation) has emerged as one of the most common problems, especially among boys and young men.
In early September 2021, Tracy Beth Hoeg and colleagues posted an analysis of VAERS data on the preprint server medRxiv, showing that more than 86 percent of the children aged 12 to 17 who report symptoms of myocarditis were severe enough to require hospitalization.
Cases of myocarditis explode after the second shot, Hoeg found, and disproportionally affect boys. A full 90 percent of post-jab myocarditis reports are males, and 85 percent of reports occurred after the second dose. According to Hoeg et al.:
“The estimated incidence of CAEs [cardiac adverse events] among boys aged 12-15 years following the second dose was 162 per million; the incidence among boys aged 16-17 years was 94 per million. The estimated incidence of CAEs among girls was 13 per million in both age groups.”
No doubt, doctors are seeing an increase in myocarditis, but few are willing to talk about it. In a recent Substack post, Steve Kirsch writes:
“I just read a comment on my private ‘healthcare providers only’ substack. An estimated100X elevation in rate of myocarditis, but nobody will learn of it since cardiologists aren’t going to speak out for fear of retribution.
His comment was a private conversation he had with a pediatric cardiologist. The cardiologist is never going to say this in public, to the press, or have his name revealed since his first duty is to his family (keeping his job).
If a ‘fact checker’ called the cardiologist, he might either refuse to comment or say ‘I’m seeing somewhat more cases after the vaccine rolled out.’ Here’s the exact comment that was posted to the private substack:
‘Pre-jab, one or two cases per year of myocarditis. Now, half his waiting room. Tells parents they are ‘studying’ the causality. Refers them to infectious disease specialist for discussions on their other children.
Admits he and about 50% of his colleagues know what’s going on but are too terrified to speak out for fear of retaliation from hospitals and state licensing boards.
Other 50% don’t want to know, don’t care and/or are reveling in the cognitive dissonance (like Dr. Harvey [Cohen] at Stanford) and/or letting loose their authoritarian demon. Good luck with these former colleagues of mine. The stench is overpowering.’
… From 1 or 2 cases per year to ‘half his waiting room.’ I don’t know the size of his waiting room, but it’s at least two people since he said ‘half.’ So, the rate has increased by: 250 day per year open/1.5 avg cases per year=166X.”
Myocarditis Is Not a Mild, Inconsequential Side Effect
Together with Dr. Peter McCullough, in October 2021 Rose also submitted a paper on myocarditis cases in VAERS following the COVID jabs to the journal Current Problems in Cardiology. Everything was set for publication when, suddenly, the journal changed its mind and took it down.
You can still find the pre-proof on Rose’s website, though. The data clearly show that myocarditis is inversely correlated to age, so the risk gets higher the younger you are. The risk is also dose-dependent, with boys having a sixfold greater risk of myocarditis following the second dose.
While our health authorities are shrugging off this risk saying cases are “mild,” that’s a frightening lie. The damage to the heart is typically permanent.
Omicron Poses No Risk to Young People
As noted in a recent analysis by Dr. Robert Malone, (who recently got banned from Twitter but can be found on Substack), the risk-benefit ratio of the COVID shot is becoming even more inverted with the emergence of Omicron, as this variant produces far milder illness than previous variants, putting children at even lower risk of hospitalization or death from infection than they were before, and their risk was already negligible.
Malone is currently spearheading the second Physicians Declaration by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, which has been signed by more than 16,000 doctors and scientists, stating that “healthy children shall not be subjected to forced vaccination” as their clinical risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection is negligible and long term safety of the shots cannot be determined prior to such policies being enacted.
Not only are children at high risk for severe adverse events from the shots, but having healthy, unvaccinated children in the population is crucial to achieving herd immunity.
Shots Double Risk of Acute Coronary Syndrome
Researchers have also found Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 shots dramatically increase biomarkers associated with thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following injection.
People who had received two doses of the mRNA jab more than doubled their five-year risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the researchers found, driving it from an average of 11 percent to 25 percent. ACS is an umbrella term that includes not only heart attacks, but also a range of other conditions involving abruptly reduced blood flow to your heart. In a November 21, 2021, tweet, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra wrote:
“Extraordinary, disturbing, upsetting. We now have evidence of a plausible biological mechanism of how mRNA vaccine may be contributing to increased cardiac events. The abstract is published in the highest impact cardiology journal so we must take these findings very seriously.”
What Do the VAERS Data Show?
Research published in 2017 calculated the background rate of myocarditis in children and youth, showing it occurs at a rate of four cases per million per year. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2020 there were 73.1 million people under the age of 18 in the U.S. That means the background rate for myocarditis in adolescents (18 and younger) would be about 292 cases per year.
As of December 17, 2021, looking only at U.S. reports and excluding the international ones, VAERS had received:
308 cases of myocarditis among 18-year-olds
252 cases among 17-year-olds
226 cases in 16-year-olds
256 cases in 15-year-olds
193 in 14-year-olds
132 in 13-year-olds
108 in 12-year-olds
In total, that’s 1,475 cases of myocarditis in teens aged 18 and younger—five times the background rate. And again, this does not take into account the underreporting rate, which has been calculated to be anywhere from five to 40.
Meanwhile, the CDC claims that, between March 2020 and January 2021, “the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients diagnosed with COVID-19,” compared to a background rate of 0.009 percent among patients who did not have a diagnosis of COVID-19.
After adjusting for “patient and hospital characteristics,” COVID-19 patients between the ages of 16 and 39 were on average seven times more likely to develop myocarditis than those without COVID.
That said, the CDC stressed that “Overall, myocarditis was uncommon” among all patients, COVID or not. What’s more, only 23.7 percent of myocarditis patients between the ages of 16 and 24 had a history of COVID-19, so a majority of the cases in that age group were not due to COVID.
We’re also not talking about big numbers in terms of actual COVID infections. The weekly adolescent hospitalization rate peaked at 2.1 per 100,000 in early January 2021, declined to 0.6 per 100,000 in mid-March, and rose to 1.3 per 100,000 in April.
Using that peak hospitalization rate of 2.1 per 100,000 (or 21 per million) in this age group, and assuming the risk for myocarditis is 0.146 percent among COVID-positive patients, we get a myocarditis-from-COVID rate among adolescents of 0.03 per million. That’s a far cry from the normal background rate of four cases per million, so the risk of getting myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 infection is probably quite small.
Now, assuming the COVID hospitalization rate for adolescents is 21 per million, and we have 73.1 million adolescents, we could expect there to be 1,535 hospitalizations for COVID in this age group in a year. If 0.146 percent of those 1,535 teens develop myocarditis, we could expect 2.2 cases of myocarditis to occur in this age group each year, among those who come down with COVID.
In summary, based on CDC statistics, we could expect just over two teens to contract myocarditis from COVID-19 infection. Meanwhile, we have 1,475 cases reported following the COVID jab in just six months (shots for 12- to 17-year-olds were authorized July 30, 2021).
Taking into account underreporting, the real number could be anywhere between 7,375 and 59,000—again, in just six months! To estimate an annual rate, we’d have to double it, giving us anywhere from 14,750 to 118,000 cases of myocarditis. So, is it actually true that “For adolescents and young adults, the risk of myocarditis caused by COVID infection is much higher than after mRNA vaccination”? I doubt it.
Can You Lessen the Damaging Effects?
There is absolutely no medical rationale or justification for children and teens to get a COVID shot. It’s all risk and no gain. If for whatever reason your son or daughter has already received one or more jabs, and you hope to lessen their risk of cardiac and cardiovascular complications, there are a few basic strategies I would suggest implementing.
Keep in mind these suggestions DO NOT supersede or cancel out any medical advice they may receive from their pediatrician. These are really only recommendations for when there are no adverse symptoms. If your child experiences any symptoms of a cardiac or cardiovascular problem, seek immediate medical attention.
First and foremost, do not give them another shot or booster.
Measure their vitamin D level and make sure they take enough vitamin D orally and/or get sensible sun exposure to make sure their level is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/ml (150 to 2000 nmol/l).
Eliminate all vegetable (seed) oils in their diet. This involves eliminating nearly all processed foods and most meals in restaurants unless you convince the chef to only cook with butter. Avoid any sauces or salad dressings as they are loaded with seed oils. Also avoid conventionally raised chicken and pork as they are very high in linoleic acid, the omega-6 fat that is far too high in nearly everyone and contributes to oxidative stress that causes heart disease.
Consider giving them around 500 milligrams per day of NAC, as it helps prevent blood clots and is a precursor for the important antioxidant glutathione.
Consider fibrinolytic enzymes that digest the fibrin that leads to blood clots, strokes and pulmonary embolisms. The dose is typically two to six capsules, twice a day, but must be taken on an empty stomach, either an hour before or two hours after a meal. Otherwise, the enzymes will merely act as a digestive enzyme rather than digesting fibrin.
References
Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee Meeting, Dec. 6, 2021
Louisiana Government Archived Videos 2021 (see Health and Welfare)
OpenVAERS Data as of Dec. 17, 2021
Dare to Seek the Truth Dr. Peter McCullough
SteveKirsch.substack, Dec. 30, 2021
Journal Pre-proof, A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with […]
Census.gov 2020 Statistics
OpenVAERS Myocarditis cases by age as of Dec. 17, 2021
CDC MMWR Sept. 3, 2021; 70(35);1228–1232
CDC MMWR Aug. 6, 2021; 70(31);1053-1058
From Mercola.com
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/17/cdc-finally-admits-cloth-masks-were-always-political-theater/
-
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/nothing-is-over-until-wall-street?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDczMTI1MzYsIl8iOiI5UmZmVCIsImlhdCI6MTY0MjUzMjEwNCwiZXhwIjoxNjQyNTM1NzA0LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.RY8RlUCAXdHF9XmRzfbPxvYvYJ8IgNem9jw-FBZgZBQ
-
https://www.theburningplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/25-photo_472@14-01-2022_08-40-49-900x1024.jpg
(https://www.theburningplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/25-photo_472@14-01-2022_08-40-49-900x1024.jpg)
-
Researcher Calls Out Censorship After Journal Pulls COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Events Analysis
By Petr Svab January 19, 2022 Updated: January 19, 2022biggersmaller Print
Jessica Rose didn’t ask for any of this. She started to analyze data on adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccines simply as an exercise to master a new piece of software. But she couldn’t ignore what she saw and decided to publish the results of her analysis. The next thing she knew, she was in a “bizzarro world,” she told The Epoch Times.
A paper she co-authored based on her analysis was withdrawn by the academic journal Elsevier under circumstances that raised eyebrows among her colleagues. The journal declined to comment on the matter.
Rose received her PhD in computational biology from the Bar-Ilan University in Israel. After finishing her post-doctoral studies on molecular dynamics of certain proteins, she was looking for a new challenge. Switching to a new statistical computing software, she was looking for an interesting data set to sharpen her skills on. She picked the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a database of reports of health problems that have occurred after a vaccination and may or may not have been caused by it.
CCP virus vaccine scotland uk
A nurse administers a CCP virus vaccine to a health and care staff member at the NHS Louisa Jordan Hospital in Glasgow, Scotland, on Jan. 23, 2021. (Jane Barlow/PA)
She said she wasn’t looking for anything in particular in the data.
“I don’t go in with questions,” she said.
What she found, however, was disturbing to her.
VAERS has been in place since 1990 to provide an early warning signal that there might be a problem with a vaccine. Anybody can submit the reports, which are then checked for duplicates. They are largely filed by health care personnel, based on previous research. Usually, there would be around 40,000 reports a year, including several hundred deaths.
But with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, VAERS reports went through the roof. By Jan. 7, there were over a million reports, including more than 21,000 deaths. Other notable issues include over 11,000 heart attacks, nearly 13,000 cases of Bell’s palsy, and over 25,000 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis.
Rose found the data alarming, only to realize authorities and even some experts were generally dismissing it.
“Clearly, there’s no concern [among these authorities and experts] for people who are suffering adverse events,” she said.
The usual arguments against the VAERS data have been that it’s unverified and unreliable.
Rose, however, sees such arguments as irrelevant—VAERS was never meant to provide definitive answers, it’s meant to give early warning and, as she sees it, it’s doing just that.
“It’s emitting so many safety signals and they’re being ignored,” she said.
Epoch Times Photo
A screenshot of the homepage of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is co-sponsored by the CDC, FDA, and HHS. (Screenshot/The Epoch Times)
She teamed up with Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, to write a paper on VAERS reports of myocarditis in youth—an issue already acknowledged as a side effect of the vaccination, though usually described as rare.
As of July 9, they found 559 VAERS reports of myocarditis, 97 among children ages 12–15. Some of them may have been related to COVID itself, which can also cause heart problems, but there were too many cases to dismiss the likelihood the vaccines were involved, according to the authors.
“Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12–15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group,” the paper said.
After two weeks, on Oct. 15, the paper disappeared from the Elsevier website, replaced by a notice of “Temporary Removal.” Not only weren’t the authors told why, they weren’t informed at all, according to Rose.
“It’s unprecedented in the eyes of all of my colleagues,” she said.
When they brought up the issue with the journal, they were first told the paper was pulled because it wasn’t “invited,” Rose said. That was shot down as irrelevant by McCullough, who threatened to sue for breach of contract. The journal then turned to its terms of use, saying it has the right to refuse any paper for any reason.
Epoch Times Photo
Jessica Rose. (Courtesy of Jessica Rose)
It’s still not clear why the paper was pulled.
“I do apologise, but Elsevier cannot comment on this enquiry,” said Jonathan Davis, the journal’s communications officer, in an email to The Epoch Times.
In late November, the paper was replaced by a notice that the “article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor.”
“It just feels like weird censorship that isn’t really justified,” Rose said.
The paper’s conclusions are not necessarily controversial. A recent Danish study concluded, for example, an elevated risk of myocarditis for young people following the Moderna COVID vaccine.
It’s common, however, even for papers that examine potential issues with the vaccines to frame their results in a way that still endorses vaccination.
“That’s what you have to say to get your work published these days,” Rose said.
Her paper did no such thing.
“As part of any risk/benefit analysis which must be completed in the context of experimental products, the points herein must be considered before a decision can be made pertaining to agreeing to 2-dose injections of these experimental COVID-19 products, especially into children and by no means, should parental consent be waived under any circumstances to avoid children volunteering for injections with products that do not have proven safety or efficacy,” the paper said.
The paper also called the vaccines “injectable biological products”—a reference to the fact that they are distinct from all other traditional vaccines.
A traditional vaccine uses “whole live or attenuated pathogens” while the COVID vaccines use “mRNA in lipid nanoparticles,” Rose explained via email. She said the lipid nanoparticles include “cationic lipids which are highly toxic.” Pfizer, the manufacturer of the most popular COVID-19 vaccine in many countries, addressed the issue by saying the dose is sufficiently low to ensure “an acceptable safety margin,” according to the European drug authority, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (pdf).
Rose also noted that the COVID-19 vaccines haven’t gone “through the 10-15 years of safety testing that vaccines have always had to go through … for obvious reasons.”
By this point, Rose is no longer a dispassionate observer. Reading through countless VAERS reports gave her a window into the hardships of those who believe they’ve been harmed by the vaccines.
“I speak for all of those people,” she said.
Epoch Times Photo
An internal medicine resident sits in a waiting area before receiving a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a hospital in Aurora, Colorado, on Dec. 16, 2020. (Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images)
In the past, 50 reports of deaths in VAERS would prompt authorities to hit the breaks and investigate, Rose said. In her view, that should have happened with the COVID-19 vaccines a year ago.
Not only has that not happened, but it isn’t even clear what would be enough to convince the authorities to do so.
“What’s the cut-off number for the number of deaths?” Rose asked.
The counterargument is that the vaccines save more lives than they cost. But in Rose’s view, this logic is flawed since the vaccines haven’t been around long enough and studied thoroughly enough to tell how many lives they may cost.
It is known, however, that VAERS understates adverse events following vaccination—by a factor of anywhere between 5 and as much as 100, based on some estimates.
Submitting a VAERS report takes about 30 minutes and many medical practitioners simply don’t have the time, Rose said. Some may feel that filing the report may get them labeled as “anti-vaxxers.” Some may simply not associate whatever health issue they’re facing with the vaccination. Some may not even be aware VAERS exists.
It’s unlikely that any significant number of the reports would be fraudulent, she suggested, noting it’s a federal offense to submit a false report.
Rose has now joined the ranks of dissident doctors and researchers skeptical of the official line on the vaccines and the pandemic in general. She described it as something she’s compelled to do despite the disincentives involved.
“We don’t want to be doing this. But it is our duty. Doctors swore an oath to do no harm. And researchers with integrity cannot look away from this,” she said via email.
-
second
England Ends All COVID Passports, Mask Mandates, Work Restrictions
By Lily Zhou January 19, 2022 Updated: January 19, 2022biggersmaller Print
Restrictions including COVID-19 passes, mask mandates, and work-from-home guidance will be removed in England, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced on Wednesday.
Johnson also suggested that self-isolation rules may also be thrown out at the end of March as the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic becomes endemic.
Effective immediately, the UK government is no longer asking people to work from home.
The COVID pass mandate for nightclubs and large events won’t be renewed when it expires on Jan. 26.
Also from Jan. 27, indoor mask-wearing will no longer be compulsory anywhere in England.
The requirement for secondary school pupils to wear masks during class and in communal areas will be lifted on Jan. 20. The Department for Education is expected to update its national guidance soon.
Health Secretary Sajid Jajid will also announce plans to ease restrictions on care home visits in the coming days.
Roaring cheers from lawmakers could be heard in the House of Commons following Johnson’s announcements on masks.
Epoch Times Photo
Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks during Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons, London, on Jan. 19, 2022. (House of Commons/PA)
People who test positive for COVID-19 and their unvaccinated contacts are still required to self-isolate, but Johnson said he “very much expect not to renew” the rule when the relevant regulations expire on March 24.
“As COVID becomes endemic, we will need to replace legal requirements with advice and guidance, urging people with the virus to be careful and considerate of others,” the prime minister said.
Asked to remove testing rules for vaccinated UK-bound travellers, Johnson said the government is reviewing the testing arrangements on travel and that an announcement can be expected in the coming days.
But he refused to reconsider the vaccination mandate for frontline health care workers, insisting “the evidence is clear that health care professionals should get vaccinated.”
Johnson told MPs that the Cabinet decided to remove its so-called “Plan B” measures on Wednesday morning as data suggest the Omicron wave has peaked nationally, and he attributed stabilising hospital admission numbers to “the extraordinary booster campaign” and the public’s compliance to the restriction measures.
The removal of the “Plan B” measures against the CCP virus came as the prime minister battles increasing pressure calling for him to resign over alleged lockdown-breaching parties in Number 10 Downing Street, the prime minister’s official residence, during the pandemic.
It also came after Number 10 received a petition on Monday signed by more than 200,000 people, calling for an end to vaccine passports and similar COVID certifications.
A separate petition calling on the reversal of vaccine mandates for health care workers, which was also delivered to Number 10 on Monday, received about 160,000 signatures.
Governments in Scotland and Wales have also announced the removal of Omicron curbs, but mandatory indoor mask-wearing and COVID passes will remain in place.
Correction: Mandatory indoor mask-wearing will be lifted on Jan. 27. The Epoch Times regrets the error.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-says-natural-immunity-outperformed-vaccines-against-delta-strain/ar-AASWPCZ?ocid=msedgntp
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/397474.php
Anyone see any issues with this?
-
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2022/01/20/the-narrative-is-falling-apart-piece-by-piece/#more-257227
-
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/will-vaccines-hinder-the-development?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDc0MzEwODcsIl8iOiI5UmZmVCIsImlhdCI6MTY0MjcxMDA5MywiZXhwIjoxNjQyNzEzNjkzLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.-Q_f7m14QZpRF-3TSfKW0POzVbITa9IkZqftiAAY_jA
-
https://www.breitbart.com/health/2022/01/21/federal-judge-blocks-bidens-vaccine-mandate-for-federal-workers/
-
Ireland to End Most CCP Virus Restrictions, Including COVID Passport
By Lily Zhou January 21, 2022 Updated: January 21, 2022biggersmaller Print
Almost all CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus restrictions in Ireland will end on Saturday, including domestic COVID-19 Certificates, curfews, social distancing, and capacity limits.
Addressing the nation following the recommendation to lift the restrictions from the National Public Health Emergency Team, Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Micheál Martin declared it’s time for the Irish to “be ourselves again.”
This makes Ireland the second country following England to remove mandatory vaccine passports after they were implemented.
But the mask mandate, self-isolation rules, and protective measures in schools will remain, and Martin “strongly encourage[d]” people to get themselves and their children vaccinated.
After a Cabinet meeting on Friday afternoon, Martin said the Coalition government agreed to lift most of the restrictions the next day.
“Humans are social beings and we Irish are more social than most. As we look forward to this spring, we need to see each other again. We need to see each other smile. We need to sing again,” he said.
“As we navigate this new phase of COVID, it is time to be ourselves again.”
The Taoiseach said people’s trust in the government is a “precious and powerful,” yet “fragile” thing that requires “confidence that the government will do what is needed in an emergency,” as well as knowing “their government will not impose restrictions on their personal freedoms for any longer than is necessary.”
From 6 a.m. on Saturday, COVID certificates, which are currently required as proof of vaccination or recovery to access indoor hospitality venues, cinemas, theatres, gyms, and leisure centres, will be scrapped.
Premises will no longer have to manage people’s movements, group sizes, and distances, and the 8 p.m. curfew for hospitality businesses and indoor events will be lifted.
Restrictions on private indoor meetings (up to four families) and capacity limits for events and weddings will also be removed.
However, mask-wearing will still be required on public transport for those aged 9 and over, in schools for children in third class and above, and in most indoor public spaces for those aged 13 and over, unless food and drinks are being consumed.
The testing and isolation guidance for people with CCP virus symptoms, positive cases, and their contacts remain the same.
The mask mandate and testing and isolation guidance will be reviewed in mid-February, by which time Martin estimates children aged between 5 and 11 “will have had the opportunity to be fully vaccinated.”
In Ireland, all over-16s have been offered a booster dose of a CCP virus vaccine, and children aged between 5 and 15 have been offered one dose.
The rules on international travels also remain unchanged, with all arrivals required to show proof of vaccination, recovery, or negative PCR test results.
The Taoiseach went on to say that “a number of key supports particularly the employment wage subsidy scheme” will be extended to support the recovery of society.
-
Time to pivot to WWWIII
Ireland to End Most CCP Virus Restrictions, Including COVID Passport
By Lily Zhou January 21, 2022 Updated: January 21, 2022biggersmaller Print
Almost all CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus restrictions in Ireland will end on Saturday, including domestic COVID-19 Certificates, curfews, social distancing, and capacity limits.
Addressing the nation following the recommendation to lift the restrictions from the National Public Health Emergency Team, Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Micheál Martin declared it’s time for the Irish to “be ourselves again.”
This makes Ireland the second country following England to remove mandatory vaccine passports after they were implemented.
But the mask mandate, self-isolation rules, and protective measures in schools will remain, and Martin “strongly encourage[d]” people to get themselves and their children vaccinated.
After a Cabinet meeting on Friday afternoon, Martin said the Coalition government agreed to lift most of the restrictions the next day.
“Humans are social beings and we Irish are more social than most. As we look forward to this spring, we need to see each other again. We need to see each other smile. We need to sing again,” he said.
“As we navigate this new phase of COVID, it is time to be ourselves again.”
The Taoiseach said people’s trust in the government is a “precious and powerful,” yet “fragile” thing that requires “confidence that the government will do what is needed in an emergency,” as well as knowing “their government will not impose restrictions on their personal freedoms for any longer than is necessary.”
From 6 a.m. on Saturday, COVID certificates, which are currently required as proof of vaccination or recovery to access indoor hospitality venues, cinemas, theatres, gyms, and leisure centres, will be scrapped.
Premises will no longer have to manage people’s movements, group sizes, and distances, and the 8 p.m. curfew for hospitality businesses and indoor events will be lifted.
Restrictions on private indoor meetings (up to four families) and capacity limits for events and weddings will also be removed.
However, mask-wearing will still be required on public transport for those aged 9 and over, in schools for children in third class and above, and in most indoor public spaces for those aged 13 and over, unless food and drinks are being consumed.
The testing and isolation guidance for people with CCP virus symptoms, positive cases, and their contacts remain the same.
The mask mandate and testing and isolation guidance will be reviewed in mid-February, by which time Martin estimates children aged between 5 and 11 “will have had the opportunity to be fully vaccinated.”
In Ireland, all over-16s have been offered a booster dose of a CCP virus vaccine, and children aged between 5 and 15 have been offered one dose.
The rules on international travels also remain unchanged, with all arrivals required to show proof of vaccination, recovery, or negative PCR test results.
The Taoiseach went on to say that “a number of key supports particularly the employment wage subsidy scheme” will be extended to support the recovery of society.
-
https://thebluestateconservative.com/2022/01/14/narratives-shifting-the-experts-catch-up-to-the-rest-of-us/
I was promised a winter of illness and death!
-
andemic Lessons Learned: Rushed COVID Vaccines
Joe Wang
Joe Wang
January 22, 2022 Updated: January 22, 2022biggersmaller Print
Commentary
I was a young vaccine research scientist when SARS-CoV-1 emerged in China and spread around the world in 2003, killing 811 people. Our team jumped on the newly available SARS-CoV genomic sequence, applying the then state-of-the-art bioinformatics tools to design a vaccine against the disease. In the end, the project did not move forward as the disease eventually disappeared.
Seventeen years later, when SARS-CoV-2 emerged, I had already moved on to a new career. Like a retired baseball player watching the World Series, I could not help but call balls and strikes on what was going on.
Of course, what we have witnessed so far is quite remarkable. Brilliant scientists, using today’s even more advanced technologies, developed vaccines against COVID-19 with lightning speed. It was truly a miracle that a vaccine could be developed, manufactured, and delivered to people in less than a year after the genome sequence of the particular virus was published. This is like hitting grand slams in every inning to win Game 1.
Game over! We won! I remember the excitement when the first vaccines were rolled out in early 2021. Politicians and health experts exclaimed, “Vaccines are our only way out of this pandemic,” and “When enough people are vaccinated, we reach herd immunity. We may need a 60 percent, 70 percent, even 80 percent vaccination rate to achieve that.”
We now have a more complete picture after a year-long push for vaccination. The quickly developed vaccines did not provide the anticipated protection, even in countries with a more than 90 percent vaccination rate, such as Israel. Now we’re being told to get boosted, to get a third and even a fourth dose. Some are saying new booster shots should be given every six months, while others say different vaccines are necessary for different variants.
It’s becoming clear now that the available vaccines are not the way out of the pandemic—as they were initially touted to be—and trust in public health authorities is eroding.
What went wrong?
Where COVID Vaccine Design Falls Short
In 2003, our team examined the whole genome of SARS-CoV-1 and modelled the selection of antigens from the virus against different types of anticipated human immune responses. Our vaccine candidates did not get into testing, but the designed effect was that the vaccine, once inoculated, would work with the immune system to stimulate the desired responses to generate strong and lasting protection against future SARS-CoV-1 infections.
Epoch Times Photo
A freeway sign displaying a COVID-19 message shines above the 5 Freeway in Los Angeles, Calif., on Jan. 20, 2022. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)
The human body is really remarkable, a close to perfect creation with an amazingly sophisticated immune system. It consists not only of short-term defence mechanisms (such as antibody-producing B cells) that can be mounted quickly to destroy invaders, but also has long-term memory T cells and memory B cells to provide sometimes life-long immunity in case the pathogen invades again.
Unlike drugs that are prescribed to treat the sick, vaccines are for healthy people to prevent diseases from happening. Vaccines should be taken in an orderly fashion, with informed consent and without political, social, or emotional pressure, unless there is an emergency.
COVID-19 was regarded as an emergency, so the U.S. Food and Drug Administration skipped the approval process for use of the newly developed vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization. It can be said that the designs of the spike protein-based vaccines were also rushed. The COVID-19 vaccines are the only vaccines in history that were developed and distributed in the midst of a pandemic. All the other vaccines took years to be designed, tested, and approved.
Previously, when designing a vaccine, although short-term protection was welcome, long-term immune response was always the top priority. The most important immune response that a vaccine must induce is the memory T cell response.
Today, the most widely used SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are Pfizer-BioNTech’s BNT162b2, Moderna’s mRNA-1273, and Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccines. Without exception, they are all solely based on SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein, or S protein.
The spike protein is an obvious choice as it is the most exposed viral protein, ideal as a vaccine candidate. It is totally understandable that, when pressured by the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed, these companies designed their vaccines using the spike protein, without testing the specific immune response, especially memory T cell responses that the S protein stimulates. Necessary steps to assure the safety and efficacy of the vaccines were shortened significantly using educated guesses—instead of real data from tests—in order to get the vaccines to market in months instead of years.
However, assumptions, even educated assumptions, simply cannot replace testing.
Epoch Times Photo
People arrive to be vaccinated at the New South Wales Health mass vaccination hub at Homebush in Sydney, Australia, on Aug. 23, 2021. (Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images)
It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that these rushed vaccines failed to behave the way they were supposed to. When reports emerged showing waning protection after six months of vaccination, it became evident that the design of the vaccines was not ideal.
The assumption that the S protein induces memory T cell response is wrong.
On Jan. 10 this year, Nature Communications published the peer-reviewed article, “Cross-reactive memory T cells associate with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in COVID-19 contacts.” The authors presented data showing a very “limited protective function of spike-cross-reactive T cells.” This explains why today’s three most popular vaccines all provide good protection in the short term, and only in the short term.
The S protein vaccine strategy, albeit an obvious choice, is now proven to be lacking. “S” stands for short-lived, short-term, and, unfortunately, short-sighted. The spike-protein-only vaccines were rushed.
This is not to diminish the incredible job the vaccines did in the short term to protect lives when no other effective protection was available. It would have been so much better, though, if the vaccine manufacturers had included SARS-CoV-2’s N protein (nucleocapsid), for example, as well as the S protein in their vaccine design.
It is time now for vaccine developers and public health authorities to take a deep breath, calmly evaluate the well-researched data currently available, and endeavour to provide the public with answers to the following questions:
Given the immunity already established by the widespread natural infections of all the variants, and the large-scale vaccinations, should the authorities continue pushing vaccine mandates with the existing, less perfect, rushed vaccines?
Like the seasonal flu, if there is a need for a new generation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to reduce serious cases in a future endemic situation, what mechanisms are in place to ensure the rushed vaccines approach is not repeated?
Every vaccine has side effects. What are the side effects of the existing vaccines, and what safety measures will be in place to minimize such side effects in the next generation of vaccines?
It takes a team and different skills to win a game. Hitting grand slams in the first game is a good thing, but it would not necessarily win you the World Series. The first generation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has accomplished its mission. Now, the vaccination-only approach should give way to a holistic approach of managing the upcoming endemic phase of SARS-CoV-2. As we say goodbye to the pandemic, we should also bid farewell to vaccine mandates and lockdowns.
More importantly, when the next devastating infectious agent (not necessarily a coronavirus) arrives, our political and medical leaders need to be more level-headed and even-handed in their approach, and enable the populace to navigate the storm without a heavy loss of life from the disease or from missteps in crisis management policies.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Joe Wang
Joe Wang
Follow
Joe Wang, Ph.D., was a lead scientist for Sanofi Pasteur’s SARS vaccine project in 2003. He is now the president of New Tang Dynasty TV (Canada), a media partner of The Epoch Times.
-
https://bittercenturion.blogspot.com/2022/01/disconnect.html?m=1
January 22, 2022
DISCONNECT
Well, well, well....apparently the tide is turning on the politicians, media pundits, so-called 'experts', and other assorted asswipes and idiots that managed to convince the entire planet that everyone was going to die and absolutely, positively, without a doubt HAD to submit to their 'masters' in government and have an experimental mRNA substance injected into their bodies.
It seems people have not only caught on that they were lied to the entire time, clued in by the constantly shifting narrative and goalposts, but also that the substance they injected into themselves all willy-nilly not only doesn't work in protecting them from the virus or spreading it to others, no matter how many doses you take, but does, in fact, actually destroy their immune system - revelations only known now thanks to the several dozens of bona fide doctors and scientists - leaders in their chosen disciplines - who cared more about the integrity of their chosen professions than the money taken by their contemporaries that turned them into whores.
That, unfortunately, is going to be a massive kick in the dick for a lot of people. I've read on another blog, probably Busted Knuckles, that the black pill is the hardest one to swallow. He wasn't fucking kidding.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, personally, especially since A LOT of people I know (family, acquaintances, and coworkers) not only told me I was insane for trying to warn them of what they're only finding out now, but I'm fairly certain wouldn't have had any problems with the 'unclean', like my kids and I, mercilessly thrown into fucking internment camps. The compassionate side of me, which I don't think is completely dead, would like to hope that there's a cure for what's been done to these people. That maybe they could be saved and given a second chance. That maybe they've seen the error of their ways.
On the other hand? For some of them, ESPECIALLY the ones I personally witnessed cruelty and condemnation from, towards people who didn't take the clot shot? Thoughts and prayers, fuckers.
Amid all this, I happened to catch a small clip, courtesy of Paul Joseph Watson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5iG-728tDw
Holy fucking crap. Seriously?
In the clip, this intellectually bankrupt harpy, Ngaire Woods (who happens to be a professor at Oxford) goes on to say the elites get along and trust each other, but the commoners don't trust them in every single country where they operate.
Really? Now why the hell do you think that is, Ngaire?? Could it be because, for decades, you and people like you have been lying to, cheating, and stealing from us 'common folk'? Could it have anything to do with the fact that you barely regard us as human beings, if you bother to pay attention at all? Do you suppose it could have anything to do with how pretty much EVERY DAMN THING you people do is at the expense of common people? I mean, Jesus tap dancing Murphy...you even refer to yourselves as the 'elite'. Self aware much?
I wonder if it ever once occurred to these people to, even once, put themselves in the shoes of a commoner and ask themselves what it would be like to live under the 'rules' and 'policies' that they expect everybody else but them to live under? I know, I know....of course they didn't.
I'm a HUGE fan of the Raging Dissident podcast up here in Canada - never miss a show and I HIGHLY recommend it (https://ragingdissident.com/). Recently, he did a rant on something that I'd been saying for years: there are no 'left' or 'right' wings. It's the common people vs. these uber wealthy, uber powerful bastards who spend immense amounts of time and money getting the commoners to fight over bullshit like political ideology, religion, and whatever else they can conjure up so that WE aren't paying attention to how hard THEY continue to fuck with us. These people don't give a rusty fuck about any of us, no matter who we vote for, what God we worship, what brand of laundry detergent we use, none of it. They fucking hate us, that much should be obvious by now.
And they're actually so fucking stupid, despite all their education and experience that supposedly makes them oh-so-better than us proles, they can't even understand why WE don't trust them.
Consider the COVID-19 narrative. You want to know why it's falling apart? Because they're not very smart people. They decided to use GOVERNMENT to administer and carry out their plans with the pandemic. Government - the most bottom shelf, half-assed, inefficient, bloated, and wasteful institution on the planet; they were counting on this to carry out THEIR plans to do....shit, I don't even know anymore. Bring about a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)? De-populate the planet? Bring about a social credit system? Could be any of these things, all of them, or none of them. I don't know and I don't care. I DO know they weren't being honest and I knew that all along, which is precisely why I went along with NONE of it.
But they counted on the grossly incompetent and profoundly ignorant governments of the world (particularly the developed world) to carry out these plans and, true to form, they fucked it up. These 'elites' are the worst example of the Dunning-Kruger effect I have ever seen. They're dumb and they suck, and everybody knows it except them because they're dumb and they suck.
Right now, there's a massive convoy of truckers and supporters heading to Ottawa to confront Prime Minister Blackface over his bullshit vaccine mandates. At the time of this writing, these guys have raised well over a million and a half dollars since Wednesday afternoon. They're showing the balls and the honour that a good deal of our so-called 'heroes' in law enforcement and the military SHOULD have shown, but couldn't be bothered to, instead leaving assholes like me to stand alone.
I hope these guys succeed. I hope they force a stop to these fucking mandates and I hope they topple this corrupt government in every way that the majority of apathetic, lazy, mouth breathing assholes in this country couldn't in THREE goddamn elections. I don't think they're gonna back down. Prime Minister Blackface basically kicked a tiger in the balls here. He'd better have a plan to deal with the teeth.
Show some support to these truckers, if you can. They're not doing this to 'throw a tantrum' or because they're 'afraid of a needle' - comments I've seen from a lot of gutless scumbags on social media. They're doing it because, despite what the artsy-fartsy 'intellectual' crowd tends to think of blue collar working folks, they ARE the salt of the earth, they're much more intelligent than they're given credit for, have a wealth of life experience, and believe it or not, they give a damn about our country and our rights and liberties. Rights and liberties these clueless 'elites' would rather we not had.
They deserve our support and respect.
-
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2022/01/federal-court-issues-nationwide-pause-bidens-federal-employee-vaccine-mandate/361018/
-
second post
The world retains its ability to surprise:
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/catastrophic-moral-crime-bari-weiss-bill-maher-say-quiet-part-out-loud-leftist-covid?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=435
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/397540.php
Why are they so desperate to push the ClotShot?
-
New York Judge Strikes Down Governor Hochul’s Mask Mandate
By BRITTANY BERNSTEIN
January 24, 2022 8:03 PM
New York Governor Kathy Hochul delivers the State of the State address in the Assembly Chamber at the state Capitol in Albany, N.Y., January 5, 2022. (Hans Pennink/Pool via Reuters)
A New York State Supreme Court judge on Monday ruled that Governor Kathy Hochul’s mask mandate for schools and other public locations is unconstitutional.
Judge Thomas Rademaker found that the governor and the state health commissioner did not have the authority to enact a mask mandate without the state legislature, given that the governor no longer has emergency powers.
The mask mandate has been in place since mid-December, when the state saw a surge in the highly transmissible Omicron variant.
“There can be no question that every person in this State wishes, wants and prays that this era of COVID ends soon and they will surely do their part to see that is accomplished,” Rademaker wrote in his decision. “However, enacting any laws to this end is entrusted solely to the State Legislature. While the intentions of Commissioner Bassett and Governor Hochul appear to be well aimed squarely at doing what they believe is right to protect the citizens of New York State, they must take their case to the State Legislature.”
The ruling comes from a state Supreme Court based in Nassau County, which is a trial court. The New York Court of Appeals is akin to a more traditional “Supreme Court” in terms of authority, in that it is the state’s highest court.
JOIN THE TUESDAY
Get Kevin D. Williamson’s newsletter delivered to your inbox each Tuesday.
Email Address
In a statement Monday evening, Hochul vowed to appeal the ruling.
“My responsibility as Governor is to protect New Yorkers throughout this public health crisis, and these measures help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and save lives,” Hochul said. “We strongly disagree with this ruling, and we are pursuing every option to reverse this immediately.”
The ruling comes weeks after Nassau County’s newly sworn-in Republican county executive issued an order allowing school districts to decide whether to institute mask mandates, in defiance of Hochul’s order.
“School boards are comprised of elected officials who make decisions based upon the unique circumstances of each district,” county executive Bruce Blakeman said at a press conference at the time. “They are in the best position to make these decisions, not an autocracy in Albany.”
Blakeman also issued orders to formalize his decision not to enforce the governor’s mask mandates that he said “unfairly fine residents and small businesses thousands of dollars” and also allow public county workers to go maskless indoors.
The county executive celebrated the ruling in a tweet on Monday: “A NYS Supreme Court Judge has ruled that the Governor’s mask mandate is illegal. The Governor and State Education Department have NO authority to enforce this mandate without the approval of State lawmakers. This is a major win for students & parents.”
-
https://nypost.com/2022/01/24/emails-reveal-suspected-covid-leaked-from-a-wuhan-lab-then-censored-themselves/?fbclid=IwAR3iBDfmIMNo3IPu3lrRoiH16Lt1qhLPaPmnBWlmL-Jc0ieAMGbBX63xWc8
-
third
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10439735/Boston-father-two-31-removed-heart-transplant-list-hes-not-vaccinated.html
-
Laws don’t apply to dems.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/397562.php
New York Judge Strikes Down Governor Hochul’s Mask Mandate
By BRITTANY BERNSTEIN
January 24, 2022 8:03 PM
New York Governor Kathy Hochul delivers the State of the State address in the Assembly Chamber at the state Capitol in Albany, N.Y., January 5, 2022. (Hans Pennink/Pool via Reuters)
A New York State Supreme Court judge on Monday ruled that Governor Kathy Hochul’s mask mandate for schools and other public locations is unconstitutional.
Judge Thomas Rademaker found that the governor and the state health commissioner did not have the authority to enact a mask mandate without the state legislature, given that the governor no longer has emergency powers.
The mask mandate has been in place since mid-December, when the state saw a surge in the highly transmissible Omicron variant.
“There can be no question that every person in this State wishes, wants and prays that this era of COVID ends soon and they will surely do their part to see that is accomplished,” Rademaker wrote in his decision. “However, enacting any laws to this end is entrusted solely to the State Legislature. While the intentions of Commissioner Bassett and Governor Hochul appear to be well aimed squarely at doing what they believe is right to protect the citizens of New York State, they must take their case to the State Legislature.”
The ruling comes from a state Supreme Court based in Nassau County, which is a trial court. The New York Court of Appeals is akin to a more traditional “Supreme Court” in terms of authority, in that it is the state’s highest court.
JOIN THE TUESDAY
Get Kevin D. Williamson’s newsletter delivered to your inbox each Tuesday.
Email Address
In a statement Monday evening, Hochul vowed to appeal the ruling.
“My responsibility as Governor is to protect New Yorkers throughout this public health crisis, and these measures help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and save lives,” Hochul said. “We strongly disagree with this ruling, and we are pursuing every option to reverse this immediately.”
The ruling comes weeks after Nassau County’s newly sworn-in Republican county executive issued an order allowing school districts to decide whether to institute mask mandates, in defiance of Hochul’s order.
“School boards are comprised of elected officials who make decisions based upon the unique circumstances of each district,” county executive Bruce Blakeman said at a press conference at the time. “They are in the best position to make these decisions, not an autocracy in Albany.”
Blakeman also issued orders to formalize his decision not to enforce the governor’s mask mandates that he said “unfairly fine residents and small businesses thousands of dollars” and also allow public county workers to go maskless indoors.
The county executive celebrated the ruling in a tweet on Monday: “A NYS Supreme Court Judge has ruled that the Governor’s mask mandate is illegal. The Governor and State Education Department have NO authority to enforce this mandate without the approval of State lawmakers. This is a major win for students & parents.”
-
Be aware that in NY the "Supreme Court" is NOT its' supreme court, "the Court of Appeals" is, and for the moment it has just reversed this decision. The mask mandate is back in effect.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/do-lockdowns-reduce-covid-19-mortality_4232386.html?utm_source=Opinion&utm_campaign=opinion-2022-01-25&utm_medium=email&est=k7Dy%2BFsaEMMLp5S9ZKGf3xJN1%2BhcZz3d%2FLfwBF09g4hDDpwPNhCgIY0E7oKL6mNa6bGo
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/special-report-outlines-fresh-questions-on-what-fauci-government-knew-about-covid-origin
I think what is also revealing
is not only the obvious fact Fauci was lying up his ass the whole time about the China lab origins
is the power he wields being the money man at NIH
it sounds like researchers were all cowards in that they would not contradict him and thus get onto his shit list
they mostly all jumped on board to cover it up even though it was obvious it was not true
in the name of SCIENCE!
we have to continue to collaborate with China!
Hey Fauc - I thought science sought to seek the truth
no cover it up
and lie when at your discretion you determine what is best for the world
and your ego.
-
"the power he wields being the money man at NIH"
Yup.
-
https://brownstone.org/articles/is-natural-immunity-a-case-of-lost-knowledge/
-
The High Cost of Disparaging Natural Immunity to CovidVaccines were wasted on those who didn’t need them, and people who posed no risk lost jobs.By Marty MakaryJan. 26, 2022 11:52 am ETSAVEPRINTTEXT1,485 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-cost-of-disparaging-natural-immunity-to-covid-vaccine-mandates-protests-fire-rehire-employment-11643214336?mod=opinion_lead_pos5#comments_sector)
Public-health officials ruined many lives by insisting that workers with natural immunity to Covid-19 be fired if they weren’t fully vaccinated. But after two years of accruing data, the superiority of natural immunity over vaccinated immunity is clear. By firing staff with natural immunity, employers got rid of those least likely to infect others. It’s time to reinstate those employees with an apology.
For most of last year, many of us called for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its data on reinfection rates, but the agency refused. Finally last week, the CDC released data (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm) from New York and California, which demonstrated natural immunity was 2.8 times as effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times as effective in preventing Covid infection compared with vaccination.
OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH (https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch)Are Free Tests & Booster Shots Biden's Covid Answer? (https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/are-free-tests-booster-shots-biden-covid-answer/E5294BE4-FCE0-4849-A855-E524C0CAF465)00:001xSUBSCRIBEYet the CDC spun the report to fit its narrative, bannering the conclusion “vaccination remains the safest strategy.” It based this conclusion on the finding that hybrid immunity—the combination of prior infection and vaccination—was associated with a slightly lower risk of testing positive for Covid. But those with hybrid immunity had a similar low rate of hospitalization (3 per 10,000) to those with natural immunity alone. In other words, vaccinating people who had already had Covid didn’t significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization.
Similarly, the National Institutes of Health repeatedly has dismissed natural immunity by arguing that its duration is unknown—then failing to conduct studies to answer the question. Because of the NIH’s inaction, my Johns Hopkins colleagues and I conducted the study. We found that among 295 unvaccinated people who previously had Covid, antibodies were present in 99% of them up to nearly two years after infection. We also found that natural immunity developed from prior variants reduced the risk of infection with the Omicron variant. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of the two-dose Moderna vaccine against infection (not severe disease) declines to 61% against Delta and 16% against Omicron at six months, according to a recent Kaiser Southern California study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.07.22268919v2). In general, Pfizer (https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/PFE)’s Covid vaccines have been less effective than Moderna’s.
The CDC study and ours confirm what more than 100 other studies on natural immunity have found: The immune system works. The largest of these studies (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1), from Israel, found that natural immunity was 27 times as effective as vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic illness.
None of this should surprise us. For years, studies have shown that infection with the other coronaviruses that cause severe illness, SARS and MERS, confers lasting immunity. In a study (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abc4776) published in May 2020, Covid-recovered monkeys that were rechallenged with the virus didn’t get sick.
Public-health officials have a lot of explaining to do. They used the wrong starting hypothesis, ignored contrary preliminary data, and dug in as more evidence emerged that called their position into question. Many, including Rochelle Walensky, now the CDC’s director, signed the John Snow memorandum (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32153-X/fulltext) in October 2020, which declared that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection.”
Many clinicians who talk to other physicians nationwide had have long observed that we don’t see reinfected patients end up on a ventilator or die from Covid, with rare exceptions who almost always have immune disorders. Meanwhile, public-health officials recklessly destroyed the careers of everyday Americans, rallying to fire pilots, truck drivers and others in the supply-chain workforce who didn’t get vaccinated. And in the early months of the vaccine rollout, when supplies were limited, we could have saved many more lives by giving priority to those who didn’t have recorded natural immunity.
The failure to recognize the data on natural immunity is hurting U.S. hospitals, especially in rural areas. MultiCare, a hospital system in Washington state, fired 55 staff members on Oct. 18 for being out of compliance with Gov. Jay Inslee’s vaccine mandate—and that was in addition to an undisclosed number of staffers who quit ahead of the vaccination deadline. The loss of workers contributed to a full-blown staffing crisis.
It got so bad that the hospital summoned staff who were Covid-positive to return to work even if they were sick, according to an internal memo obtained (https://mynorthwest.com/3309765/rantz-multicare-hospitals-forcing-symptomatic-covid-positive-staff-work/) by Jason Rantz of KTTH radio. The memo stated that “positive staff with mild to moderate illness” could work, so long as they wear appropriate personal protective equipment, don’t take breaks with others, and agree to stay home “if symptoms worsen.” Managers were recommended to assign Covid-positive staff to Covid-positive patients and vaccinated patients, but not immunosuppressed patients.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services took the hospital mandate national by decreeing that all medical facilities under its jurisdiction require vaccination for employees, including those with natural immunity. The Supreme Court upheld the rule on Jan. 13, the same day it issued a stay against a similar mandate from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which OSHA formally withdrew Tuesday.
Connecticut has suspended its vaccine mandate for state employees, and Starbucks (https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/SBUX) is rehiring employees fired for being unvaccinated. Other states and businesses should follow their lead. Politicians and public-health officials owe an apology to Americans who lost their jobs on the false premises that only unvaccinated people could spread the virus and only vaccination could prevent its spread. Soldiers who have been dishonorably discharged should be restored their rank. Teachers, first responders, and others who have been denied their livelihood should be reinstated. Everyone is essential.
Dr. Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and author of “The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care and How to Fix It.”
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10454959/Washington-State-Patrol-officer-defied-statewide-vaccine-mandate-dies-COVID-19.html
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10454959/Washington-State-Patrol-officer-defied-statewide-vaccine-mandate-dies-COVID-19.html
How do we know he actually died from the ChiCom lung AIDS?
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10454959/Washington-State-Patrol-officer-defied-statewide-vaccine-mandate-dies-COVID-19.html
How do we know he actually died from the ChiCom lung AIDS?
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/and-prize-worst-journalism-year-goes
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/evidence-on-natural-immunity-versus-covid-19-vaccine-induced-immunity_4244570.html?utm_source=Health&utm_campaign=health-2022-01-30&utm_medium=email&est=aM8B3m2AXwvlwbIUtv05wcBI1nuo96wFjL0cygpBwPkb%2Bbo1vvgpUxJW70wSSwkye5KQ
146 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to COVID-19
Paul E. Alexander
Paul E. Alexander
January 29, 2022 Updated: January 29, 2022biggersmaller Print
Commentary
We should not force COVID vaccines on anyone when the evidence shows that naturally acquired immunity is equal to or more robust and superior to existing vaccines. Instead, we should respect the right of the bodily integrity of individuals to decide for themselves.
Public health officials and the medical establishment with the help of the politicized media are misleading the public with assertions that the COVID-19 shots provide greater protection than natural immunity. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, for example, was deceptive in her October 2020 published LANCET statement that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection” and that “the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.”
Immunology and virology 101 have taught us over a century that natural immunity confers protection against a respiratory virus’s outer coat proteins, and not just one, e.g. the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. There is even strong evidence for the persistence of antibodies. Even the CDC recognizes natural immunity for chicken-pox and measles, mumps, and rubella, but not for COVID-19.
The vaccinated are showing viral loads (very high) similar to the unvaccinated (Acharya et al. and Riemersma et al.), and the vaccinated are as infectious. Riemersma et al. also report Wisconsin data that corroborate how the vaccinated individuals who get infected with the Delta variant can potentially (and are) transmit(ting) SARS-CoV-2 to others (potentially to the vaccinated and unvaccinated).
This troubling situation of the vaccinated being infectious and transmitting the virus emerged in seminal nosocomial outbreak papers by Chau et al. (HCWs in Vietnam), the Finland hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients), and the Israel hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients). These studies also revealed that the PPE and masks were essentially ineffective in the healthcare setting. Again, the Marek’s disease in chickens and the vaccination situation explains what we are potentially facing with these leaky vaccines (increased transmission, faster transmission, and more ‘hotter’ variants).
Moreover, existing immunity should be assessed before any vaccination, via an accurate, dependable, and reliable antibody test (or T cell immunity test) or be based on documentation of prior infection (a previous positive PCR or antigen test). Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. This will function to mitigate the societal anxiety with these forced vaccine mandates and societal upheaval due to job loss, denial of societal privileges etc. Tearing apart the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in a society, separating them, is not medically or scientifically supportable.
The Brownstone Institute previously documented 30 studies on natural immunity as it relates to Covid-19.
This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 146 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow you to draw your own conclusion.
This represents the judged trustworthy ‘body of evidence’ that includes peer-reviewed studies and high-quality literature and reporting that contributes to that body of evidence. The aim here is to share and inform for your own decision-making.
I’ve benefited from the input of many to put this together, especially my co-authors:
Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD (Yale School of Public Health)
Dr. Howard Tenenbaum, PhD ( Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto)
Dr. Ramin Oskoui, MD (Foxhall Cardiology, Washington)
Dr. Peter McCullough, MD (Truth for Health Foundation (TFH)), Texas
Dr. Parvez Dara, MD (consultant, Medical Hematologist and Oncologist)
Evidence on Natural Immunity Versus COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Immunity:
Study/report title and the predominant finding on natural immunity
1) Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals, Shrestha, 2021
“Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52,238 employees in an American healthcare system. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study. Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination…”
2) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls, Le Bert, 2020
“Studied T cell responses against the structural (nucleocapsid (N) protein) and non-structural (NSP7 and NSP13 of ORF1) regions of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals convalescing from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (n = 36). In all of these individuals, we found CD4 and CD8 T cells that recognized multiple regions of the N protein…showed that patients (n = 23) who recovered from SARS possess long-lasting memory T cells that are reactive to the N protein of SARS-CoV 17 years after the outbreak of SARS in 2003; these T cells displayed robust cross-reactivity to the N protein of SARS-CoV-2.”
3) Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections,Gazit, 2021
“A retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1) SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2) previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3) previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals found para a 13 fold increased risk of breakthrough Delta infections in double vaccinated persons, and a 27 fold increased risk for symptomatic breakthrough infection in the double vaccinated relative to the natural immunity recovered persons…the risk of hospitalization was 8 times higher in the double vaccinated (para)…this analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”
4) Highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, Le Bert, 2021
“Studied SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells in a cohort of asymptomatic (n = 85) and symptomatic (n = 75) COVID-19 patients after seroconversion…thus, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals are not characterized by weak antiviral immunity; on the contrary, they mount a highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response.”
5) Large-scale study of antibody titer decay following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection, Israel, 2021
“A total of 2,653 individuals fully vaccinated by two doses of vaccine during the study period and 4,361 convalescent patients were included. Higher SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titers were observed in vaccinated individuals (median 1581 AU/mL IQR [533.8-5644.6]) after the second vaccination, than in convalescent individuals (median 355.3 AU/mL IQR [141.2-998.7]; p<0.001). In vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month…this study demonstrates individuals who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine have different kinetics of antibody levels compared to patients who had been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with higher initial levels but a much faster exponential decrease in the first group”.
6) SARS-CoV-2 re-infection risk in Austria, Pilz, 2021
Researchers recorded “40 tentative re-infections in 14, 840 COVID-19 survivors of the first wave (0.27%) and 253 581 infections in 8, 885, 640 individuals of the remaining general population (2.85%) translating into an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.09 (0.07 to 0.13)…relatively low re-infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria. Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies.” Additionally, hospitalization in only five out of 14,840 (0.03%) people and death in one out of 14,840 (0.01%) (tentative re-infection).
7) mRNA vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells recognize B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants but differ in longevity and homing properties depending on prior infection status, Neidleman, 2021
“Spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees differed strikingly from those of infection-naïve vaccinees, with phenotypic features suggesting superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx. These results provide reassurance that vaccine-elicited T cells respond robustly to the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants, confirm that convalescents may not need a second vaccine dose.”
8) Good news: Mild COVID-19 induces lasting antibody protection, Bhandari, 2021
“Months after recovering from mild cases of COVID-19, people still have immune cells in their body pumping out antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19, according to a study from researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Such cells could persist for a lifetime, churning out antibodies all the while. The findings, published May 24 in the journal Nature, suggest that mild cases of COVID-19 leave those infected with lasting antibody protection and that repeated bouts of illness are likely to be uncommon.”
9) Robust neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection persist for months, Wajnberg, 2021
“Neutralizing antibody titers against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein persisted for at least 5 months after infection. Although continued monitoring of this cohort will be needed to confirm the longevity and potency of this response, these preliminary results suggest that the chance of reinfection may be lower than is currently feared.”
10) Evolution of Antibody Immunity to SARS-CoV-2, Gaebler, 2020
“Concurrently, neutralizing activity in plasma decreases by five-fold in pseudo-type virus assays. In contrast, the number of RBD-specific memory B cells is unchanged. Memory B cells display clonal turnover after 6.2 months, and the antibodies they express have greater somatic hypermutation, increased potency and resistance to RBD mutations, indicative of continued evolution of the humoral response…we conclude that the memory B cell response to SARS-CoV-2 evolves between 1.3 and 6.2 months after infection in a manner that is consistent with antigen persistence.”
11) Persistence of neutralizing antibodies a year after SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans, Haveri, 2021
“Assessed the persistence of serum antibodies following WT SARS-CoV-2 infection at 8 and 13 months after diagnosis in 367 individuals…found that NAb against the WT virus persisted in 89% and S-IgG in 97% of subjects for at least 13 months after infection.”
12) Quantifying the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 reinfection over time, Murchu, 2021
“Eleven large cohort studies were identified that estimated the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 reinfection over time, including three that enrolled healthcare workers and two that enrolled residents and staff of elderly care homes. Across studies, the total number of PCR‐positive or antibody‐positive participants at baseline was 615,777, and the maximum duration of follow‐up was more than 10 months in three studies. Reinfection was an uncommon event (absolute rate 0%–1.1%), with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time.”
13) Natural immunity to covid is powerful. Policymakers seem afraid to say so, Makary, 2021
The Western Journal-Makary
Makary writes “it’s okay to have an incorrect scientific hypothesis. But when new data proves it wrong, you have to adapt. Unfortunately, many elected leaders and public health officials have held on far too long to the hypothesis that natural immunity offers unreliable protection against covid-19 — a contention that is being rapidly debunked by science. More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated. This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which none who had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected. The study authors concluded that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.” And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.”
“The data on natural immunity are now overwhelming,” Makary told the Morning Wire. “It turns out the hypothesis that our public health leaders had that vaccinated immunity is better and stronger than natural immunity was wrong. They got it backwards. And now we’ve got data from Israel showing that natural immunity is 27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity.”
14) SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity, Nielsen, 2021
“203 recovered SARS-CoV-2 infected patients in Denmark between April 3rd and July 9th 2020, at least 14 days after COVID-19 symptom recovery… report broad serological profiles within the cohort, detecting antibody binding to other human coronaviruses… the viral surface spike protein was identified as the dominant target for both neutralizing antibodies and CD8+ T-cell responses. Overall, the majority of patients had robust adaptive immune responses, regardless of their disease severity.”
15) Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel, Goldberg, 2021
“Analyze an updated individual-level database of the entire population of Israel to assess the protection efficacy of both prior infection and vaccination in preventing subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization with COVID-19, severe disease, and death due to COVID-19… vaccination was highly effective with overall estimated efficacy for documented infection of 92·8% (CI:[92·6, 93·0]); hospitalization 94·2% (CI:[93·6, 94·7]); severe illness 94·4% (CI:[93·6, 95·0]); and death 93·7% (CI:[92·5, 94·7]). Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94·8% (CI: [94·4, 95·1]); hospitalization 94·1% (CI: [91·9, 95·7]); and severe illness 96·4% (CI: [92·5, 98·3])…results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.”
16) Incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection among previously infected or vaccinated employees, Kojima, 2021
“Employees were divided into three groups: (1) SARS-CoV-2 naïve and unvaccinated, (2) previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and (3) vaccinated. Person-days were measured from the date of the employee first test and truncated at the end of the observation period. SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as two positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests in a 30-day period… 4313, 254 and 739 employee records for groups 1, 2, and 3…previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 were associated with decreased risk for infection or re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a routinely screened workforce. The was no difference in the infection incidence between vaccinated individuals and individuals with previous infection.”
17) Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but vaccination remains vital, Wadman, 2021
“Israelis who had an infection were more protected against the Delta coronavirus variant than those who had an already highly effective COVID-19 vaccine…the newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.”
18) One-year sustained cellular and humoral immunities of COVID-19 convalescents, Zhang, 2021
“A systematic antigen-specific immune evaluation in 101 COVID-19 convalescents; SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies, and also NAb can persist among over 95% COVID-19 convalescents from 6 months to 12 months after disease onset. At least 19/71 (26%) of COVID-19 convalescents (double positive in ELISA and MCLIA) had detectable circulating IgM antibody against SARS-CoV-2 at 12m post-disease onset. Notably, the percentages of convalescents with positive SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses (at least one of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen S1, S2, M and N protein) were 71/76 (93%) and 67/73 (92%) at 6m and 12m, respectively.”
19) Functional SARS-CoV-2-Specific Immune Memory Persists after Mild COVID-19, Rodda, 2021
“Recovered individuals developed SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulin (IgG) antibodies, neutralizing plasma, and memory B and memory T cells that persisted for at least 3 months. Our data further reveal that SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG memory B cells increased over time. Additionally, SARS-CoV-2-specific memory lymphocytes exhibited characteristics associated with potent antiviral function: memory T cells secreted cytokines and expanded upon antigen re-encounter, whereas memory B cells expressed receptors capable of neutralizing virus when expressed as monoclonal antibodies. Therefore, mild COVID-19 elicits memory lymphocytes that persist and display functional hallmarks of antiviral immunity.”
20) Discrete Immune Response Signature to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination Versus Infection, Ivanova, 2021
“Performed multimodal single-cell sequencing on peripheral blood of patients with acute COVID-19 and healthy volunteers before and after receiving the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine to compare the immune responses elicited by the virus and by this vaccine…both infection and vaccination induced robust innate and adaptive immune responses, our analysis revealed significant qualitative differences between the two types of immune challenges. In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients. Increased interferon signaling likely contributed to the observed dramatic upregulation of cytotoxic genes in the peripheral T cells and innate-like lymphocytes in patients but not in immunized subjects. Analysis of B and T cell receptor repertoires revealed that while the majority of clonal B and T cells in COVID-19 patients were effector cells, in vaccine recipients clonally expanded cells were primarily circulating memory cells…we observed the presence of cytotoxic CD4 T cells in COVID-19 patients that were largely absent in healthy volunteers following immunization. While hyper-activation of inflammatory responses and cytotoxic cells may contribute to immunopathology in severe illness, in mild and moderate disease, these features are indicative of protective immune responses and resolution of infection.”
21) SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans, Turner, 2021
“Bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) are a persistent and essential source of protective antibodies… durable serum antibody titres are maintained by long-lived plasma cells—non-replicating, antigen-specific plasma cells that are detected in the bone marrow long after the clearance of the antigen … S-binding BMPCs are quiescent, which suggests that they are part of a stable compartment. Consistently, circulating resting memory B cells directed against SARS-CoV-2 S were detected in the convalescent individuals. Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans…overall, our data provide strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans robustly establishes the two arms of humoral immune memory: long-lived bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) and memory B-cells.”
22) SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN), Jane Hall, 2021
“The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study… 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study… a previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals.”
23) Pandemic peak SARS-CoV-2 infection and seroconversion rates in London frontline health-care workers, Houlihan, 2020
“Enrolled 200 patient-facing HCWs between March 26 and April 8, 2020…represents a 13% infection rate (i.e. 14 of 112 HCWs) within the 1 month of follow-up in those with no evidence of antibodies or viral shedding at enrolment. By contrast, of 33 HCWs who tested positive by serology but tested negative by RT-PCR at enrolment, 32 remained negative by RT-PCR through follow-up, and one tested positive by RT-PCR on days 8 and 13 after enrolment.”
24) Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are associated with protection against reinfection, Lumley, 2021
“Critical to understand whether infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) protects from subsequent reinfection… 12219 HCWs participated…prior SARS-CoV-2 infection that generated antibody responses offered protection from reinfection for most people in the six months following infection.”
25) Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells, Cohen, 2021
“Evaluate 254 COVID-19 patients longitudinally up to 8 months and find durable broad-based immune responses. SARS-CoV-2 spike binding and neutralizing antibodies exhibit a bi-phasic decay with an extended half-life of >200 days suggesting the generation of longer-lived plasma cells… most recovered COVID-19 patients mount broad, durable immunity after infection, spike IgG+ memory B cells increase and persist post-infection, durable polyfunctional CD4 and CD8 T cells recognize distinct viral epitope regions.”
26) Single cell profiling of T and B cell repertoires following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, Sureshchandra, 2021
“Used single-cell RNA sequencing and functional assays to compare humoral and cellular responses to two doses of mRNA vaccine with responses observed in convalescent individuals with asymptomatic disease… natural infection induced expansion of larger CD8 T cell clones occupied distinct clusters, likely due to the recognition of a broader set of viral epitopes presented by the virus not seen in the mRNA vaccine.”
27) SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy, Abu-Raddad, 2021
“SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive persons from April 16 to December 31, 2020 with a PCR-positive swab ≥14 days after the first-positive antibody test were investigated for evidence of reinfection, 43,044 antibody-positive persons who were followed for a median of 16.3 weeks…reinfection is rare in the young and international population of Qatar. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months.”
28) Orthogonal SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays Enable Surveillance of Low-Prevalence Communities and Reveal Durable Humoral Immunity, Ripperger, 2020
“Conducted a serological study to define correlates of immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Compared to those with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, individuals with severe disease exhibited elevated virus-neutralizing titers and antibodies against the nucleocapsid (N) and the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein…neutralizing and spike-specific antibody production persists for at least 5–7 months… nucleocapsid antibodies frequently become undetectable by 5–7 months.”
29) Anti-spike antibody response to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population, Wei, 2021
“In the general population using representative data from 7,256 United Kingdom COVID-19 infection survey participants who had positive swab SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from 26-April-2020 to 14-June-2021…we estimated antibody levels associated with protection against reinfection likely last 1.5-2 years on average, with levels associated with protection from severe infection present for several years. These estimates could inform planning for vaccination booster strategies.”
30) Researchers find long-lived immunity to 1918 pandemic virus, CIDRAP, 2008
and the actual 2008 NATURE journal publication by Yu
“A study of the blood of older people who survived the 1918 influenza pandemic reveals that antibodies to the strain have lasted a lifetime and can perhaps be engineered to protect future generations against similar strains…the group collected blood samples from 32 pandemic survivors aged 91 to 101..the people recruited for the study were 2 to 12 years old in 1918 and many recalled sick family members in their households, which suggests they were directly exposed to the virus, the authors report. The group found that 100% of the subjects had serum-neutralizing activity against the 1918 virus and 94% showed serologic reactivity to the 1918 hemagglutinin. The investigators generated B lymphoblastic cell lines from the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of eight subjects. Transformed cells from the blood of 7 of the 8 donors yielded secreting antibodies that bound the 1918 hemagglutinin.” Yu: “here we show that of the 32 individuals tested that were born in or before 1915, each showed sero-reactivity with the 1918 virus, nearly 90 years after the pandemic. Seven of the eight donor samples tested had circulating B cells that secreted antibodies that bound the 1918 HA. We isolated B cells from subjects and generated five monoclonal antibodies that showed potent neutralizing activity against 1918 virus from three separate donors. These antibodies also cross-reacted with the genetically similar HA of a 1930 swine H1N1 influenza strain.”
31) Live virus neutralisation testing in convalescent patients and subjects vaccinated against 19A, 20B, 20I/501Y.V1 and 20H/501Y.V2 isolates of SARS-CoV-2, Gonzalez, 2021
“No significant difference was observed between the 20B and 19A isolates for HCWs with mild COVID-19 and critical patients. However, a significant decrease in neutralisation ability was found for 20I/501Y.V1 in comparison with 19A isolate for critical patients and HCWs 6-months post infection. Concerning 20H/501Y.V2, all populations had a significant reduction in neutralising antibody titres in comparison with the 19A isolate. Interestingly, a significant difference in neutralisation capacity was observed for vaccinated HCWs between the two variants whereas it was not significant for the convalescent groups…the reduced neutralising response observed towards the 20H/501Y.V2 in comparison with the 19A and 20I/501Y.V1 isolates in fully immunized subjects with the BNT162b2 vaccine is a striking finding of the study.”
32) Differential effects of the second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose on T cell immunity in naïve and COVID-19 recovered individuals, Camara, 2021
“Characterized SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific humoral and cellular immunity in naïve and previously infected individuals during full BNT162b2 vaccination…results demonstrate that the second dose increases both the humoral and cellular immunity in naïve individuals. On the contrary, the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose results in a reduction of cellular immunity in COVID-19 recovered individuals.”
33) Op-Ed: Quit Ignoring Natural COVID Immunity, Klausner, 2021
“Epidemiologists estimate over 160 million people worldwide have recovered from COVID-19. Those who have recovered have an astonishingly low frequency of repeat infection, disease, or death.”
34) Association of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositive Antibody Test With Risk of Future Infection, Harvey, 2021
“To evaluate evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on diagnostic nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) among patients with positive vs negative test results for antibodies in an observational descriptive cohort study of clinical laboratory and linked claims data…the cohort included 3 257 478 unique patients with an index antibody test…patients with positive antibody test results were initially more likely to have positive NAAT results, consistent with prolonged RNA shedding, but became markedly less likely to have positive NAAT results over time, suggesting that seropositivity is associated with protection from infection.”
35) SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and subsequent infection risk in healthy young adults: a prospective cohort study, Letizia, 2021
“Investigated the risk of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection among young adults (CHARM marine study) seropositive for a previous infection…enrolled 3249 participants, of whom 3168 (98%) continued into the 2-week quarantine period. 3076 (95%) participants…Among 189 seropositive participants, 19 (10%) had at least one positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 during the 6-week follow-up (1·1 cases per person-year). In contrast, 1079 (48%) of 2247 seronegative participants tested positive (6·2 cases per person-year). The incidence rate ratio was 0·18 (95% CI 0·11–0·28; p<0·001)…infected seropositive participants had viral loads that were about 10-times lower than those of infected seronegative participants (ORF1ab gene cycle threshold difference 3·95 [95% CI 1·23–6·67]; p=0·004).”
36) Associations of Vaccination and of Prior Infection With Positive PCR Test Results for SARS-CoV-2 in Airline Passengers Arriving in Qatar, Bertollini, 2021
“Of 9,180 individuals with no record of vaccination but with a record of prior infection at least 90 days before the PCR test (group 3), 7694 could be matched to individuals with no record of vaccination or prior infection (group 2), among whom PCR positivity was 1.01% (95% CI, 0.80%-1.26%) and 3.81% (95% CI, 3.39%-4.26%), respectively. The relative risk for PCR positivity was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.28) for vaccinated individuals and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.21-0.34) for individuals with prior infection compared with no record of vaccination or prior infection.”
37) Natural immunity against COVID-19 significantly reduces the risk of reinfection: findings from a cohort of sero-survey participants, Mishra, 2021
“Followed up with a subsample of our previous sero-survey participants to assess whether natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 was associated with a reduced risk of re-infection (India)… out of the 2238 participants, 1170 were sero-positive and 1068 were sero-negative for antibody against COVID-19. Our survey found that only 3 individuals in the sero-positive group got infected with COVID-19 whereas 127 individuals reported contracting the infection the sero-negative group…from the 3 sero-positives re-infected with COVID-19, one had hospitalization, but did not require oxygen support or critical care…development of antibody following natural infection not only protects against re-infection by the virus to a great extent, but also safeguards against progression to severe COVID-19 disease.”
38) Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19, NIH, 2021
“The researchers found durable immune responses in the majority of people studied. Antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which the virus uses to get inside cells, were found in 98% of participants one month after symptom onset. As seen in previous studies, the number of antibodies ranged widely between individuals. But, promisingly, their levels remained fairly stable over time, declining only modestly at 6 to 8 months after infection… virus-specific B cells increased over time. People had more memory B cells six months after symptom onset than at one month afterwards… levels of T cells for the virus also remained high after infection. Six months after symptom onset, 92% of participants had CD4+ T cells that recognized the virus… 95% of the people had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection.”
39) SARS-CoV-2 Natural Antibody Response Persists for at Least 12 Months in a Nationwide Study From the Faroe Islands, Petersen, 2021
“The seropositive rate in the convalescent individuals was above 95% at all sampling time points for both assays and remained stable over time; that is, almost all convalescent individuals developed antibodies… results show that SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persisted at least 12 months after symptom onset and maybe even longer, indicating that COVID-19-convalescent individuals may be protected from reinfection.”
40) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell memory is sustained in COVID-19 convalescent patients for 10 months with successful development of stem cell-like memory T cells, Jung, 2021
“ex vivo assays to evaluate SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses in COVID-19 convalescent patients up to 317 days post-symptom onset (DPSO), and find that memory T cell responses are maintained during the study period regardless of the severity of COVID-19. In particular, we observe sustained polyfunctionality and proliferation capacity of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells. Among SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells detected by activation-induced markers, the proportion of stem cell-like memory T (TSCM) cells is increased, peaking at approximately 120 DPSO.”
41) Immune Memory in Mild COVID-19 Patients and Unexposed Donors Reveals Persistent T Cell Responses After SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Ansari, 2021
“Analyzed 42 unexposed healthy donors and 28 mild COVID-19 subjects up to 5 months from the recovery for SARS-CoV-2 specific immunological memory. Using HLA class II predicted peptide megapools, we identified SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive CD4+ T cells in around 66% of the unexposed individuals. Moreover, we found detectable immune memory in mild COVID-19 patients several months after recovery in the crucial arms of protective adaptive immunity; CD4+ T cells and B cells, with a minimal contribution from CD8+ T cells. Interestingly, the persistent immune memory in COVID-19 patients is predominantly targeted towards the Spike glycoprotein of the SARS-CoV-2. This study provides the evidence of both high magnitude pre-existing and persistent immune memory in Indian population.”
42) COVID-19 natural immunity, WHO, 2021
“Current evidence points to most individuals developing strong protective immune responses following natural infection with SARSCoV-2. Within 4 weeks following infection, 90-99% of individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop detectable neutralizing antibodies. The strength and duration of the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are not completely understood and currently available data suggests that it varies by age and the severity of symptoms. Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months).”
43) Antibody Evolution after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination, Cho, 2021
“We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination…boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.”
44) Humoral Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland, Gudbjartsson, 2020
“Measured antibodies in serum samples from 30,576 persons in Iceland…of the 1797 persons who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1107 of the 1215 who were tested (91.1%) were seropositive…results indicate risk of death from infection was 0.3% and that antiviral antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 did not decline within 4 months after diagnosis (para).”
45) Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection, Dan, 2021
“Analyzed multiple compartments of circulating immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 in 254 samples from 188 COVID-19 cases, including 43 samples at ≥ 6 months post-infection…IgG to the Spike protein was relatively stable over 6+ months. Spike-specific memory B cells were more abundant at 6 months than at 1 month post symptom onset.”
46) The prevalence of adaptive immunity to COVID-19 and reinfection after recovery – a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 011 447 individuals, Chivese, 2021
“Fifty-four studies, from 18 countries, with a total of 12 011 447 individuals, followed up to 8 months after recovery, were included. At 6-8 months after recovery, the prevalence of detectable SARS-CoV-2 specific immunological memory remained high; IgG – 90.4%… pooled prevalence of reinfection was 0.2% (95%CI 0.0 – 0.7, I2 = 98.8, 9 studies). Individuals who recovered from COVID-19 had an 81% reduction in odds of a reinfection (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.1 – 0.3, I2 = 90.5%, 5 studies).”
47) Reinfection Rates among Patients who Previously Tested Positive for COVID-19: a Retrospective Cohort Study, Sheehan, 2021
“Retrospective cohort study of one multi-hospital health system included 150,325 patients tested for COVID-19 infection…prior infection in patients with COVID-19 was highly protective against reinfection and symptomatic disease. This protection increased over time, suggesting that viral shedding or ongoing immune response may persist beyond 90 days and may not represent true reinfection.”
48) Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection 1 Year After Primary Infection in a Population in Lombardy, Italy, Vitale, 2020
“The study results suggest that reinfections are rare events and patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have a lower risk of reinfection. Natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 appears to confer a protective effect for at least a year, which is similar to the protection reported in recent vaccine studies.”
49) Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with protection against symptomatic reinfection, Hanrath, 2021
“We observed no symptomatic reinfections in a cohort of healthcare workers…this apparent immunity to re-infection was maintained for at least 6 months…test positivity rates were 0% (0/128 [95% CI: 0–2.9]) in those with previous infection compared to 13.7% (290/2115 [95% CI: 12.3–15.2]) in those without (P<0.0001 χ2 test).”
50) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals, Grifoni, 2020
“Using HLA class I and II predicted peptide “megapools,” circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were identified in ∼70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively. CD4+ T cell responses to spike, the main target of most vaccine efforts, were robust and correlated with the magnitude of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA titers. The M, spike, and N proteins each accounted for 11%–27% of the total CD4+ response, with additional responses commonly targeting nsp3, nsp4, ORF3a, and ORF8, among others. For CD8+ T cells, spike and M were recognized, with at least eight SARS-CoV-2 ORFs targeted.”
51) NIH Director’s Blog: Immune T Cells May Offer Lasting Protection Against COVID-19, Collins, 2021
“Much of the study on the immune response to SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, has focused on the production of antibodies. But, in fact, immune cells known as memory T cells also play an important role in the ability of our immune systems to protect us against many viral infections, including—it now appears—COVID-19.An intriguing new study of these memory T cells suggests they might protect some people newly infected with SARS-CoV-2 by remembering past encounters with other human coronaviruses. This might potentially explain why some people seem to fend off the virus and may be less susceptible to becoming severely ill with COVID-19.”
52) Ultrapotent antibodies against diverse and highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants, Wang, 2021
“Our study demonstrates that convalescent subjects previously infected with ancestral variant SARS-CoV-2 produce antibodies that cross-neutralize emerging VOCs with high potency…potent against 23 variants, including variants of concern.”
53) Why COVID-19 Vaccines Should Not Be Required for All Americans, Makary, 2021
“Requiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support. While vaccinating those people may be beneficial – and it’s a reasonable hypothesis that vaccination may bolster the longevity of their immunity – to argue dogmatically that they must get vaccinated has zero clinical outcome data to back it. As a matter of fact, we have data to the contrary: A Cleveland Clinic study found that vaccinating people with natural immunity did not add to their level of protection.”
54) Protracted yet coordinated differentiation of long-lived SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells during COVID-19 convalescence, Ma, 2021
“Screened 21 well-characterized, longitudinally-sampled convalescent donors that recovered from mild COVID-19…following a typical case of mild COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells not only persist but continuously differentiate in a coordinated fashion well into convalescence, into a state characteristic of long-lived, self-renewing memory.”
55) Decrease in Measles Virus-Specific CD4 T Cell Memory in Vaccinated Subjects, Naniche, 2004
“Characterized the profiles of measles vaccine (MV) vaccine-induced antigen-specific T cells over time since vaccination. In a cross-sectional study of healthy subjects with a history of MV vaccination, we found that MV-specific CD4 and CD8 T cells could be detected up to 34 years after vaccination. The levels of MV-specific CD8 T cells and MV-specific IgG remained stable, whereas the level of MV-specific CD4 T cells decreased significantly in subjects who had been vaccinated >21 years earlier.”
56) Remembrance of Things Past: Long-Term B Cell Memory After Infection and Vaccination, Palm, 2019
“The success of vaccines is dependent on the generation and maintenance of immunological memory. The immune system can remember previously encountered pathogens, and memory B and T cells are critical in secondary responses to infection. Studies in mice have helped to understand how different memory B cell populations are generated following antigen exposure and how affinity for the antigen is determinant to B cell fate… upon re-exposure to an antigen the memory recall response will be faster, stronger, and more specific than a naïve response. Protective memory depends first on circulating antibodies secreted by LLPCs. When these are not sufficient for immediate pathogen neutralization and elimination, memory B cells are recalled.”
57) SARS-CoV-2 specific memory B-cells from individuals with diverse disease severities recognize SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, Lyski, 2021
“Examined the magnitude, breadth, and durability of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies in two distinct B-cell compartments: long-lived plasma cell-derived antibodies in the plasma, and peripheral memory B-cells along with their associated antibody profiles elicited after in vitro stimulation. We found that magnitude varied amongst individuals, but was the highest in hospitalized subjects. Variants of concern (VoC) -RBD-reactive antibodies were found in the plasma of 72% of samples in this investigation, and VoC-RBD-reactive memory B-cells were found in all but 1 subject at a single time-point. This finding, that VoC-RBD-reactive MBCs are present in the peripheral blood of all subjects including those that experienced asymptomatic or mild disease, provides a reason for optimism regarding the capacity of vaccination, prior infection, and/or both, to limit disease severity and transmission of variants of concern as they continue to arise and circulate.”
58) Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 generates T-cell memory in the absence of a detectable viral infection, Wang, 2021
“T-cell immunity is important for recovery from COVID-19 and provides heightened immunity for re-infection. However, little is known about the SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell immunity in virus-exposed individuals…report virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell memory in recovered COVID-19 patients and close contacts…close contacts are able to gain T-cell immunity against SARS-CoV-2 despite lacking a detectable infection.”
59) CD8+ T-Cell Responses in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals Target Conserved Epitopes From Multiple Prominent SARS-CoV-2 Circulating Variants, Redd, 2021and Lee, 2021
“The CD4 and CD8 responses generated after natural infection are equally robust, showing activity against multiple “epitopes” (little segments) of the spike protein of the virus. For instance, CD8 cells responds to 52 epitopes and CD4 cells respond to 57 epitopes across the spike protein, so that a few mutations in the variants cannot knock out such a robust and in-breadth T cell response…only 1 mutation found in Beta variant-spike overlapped with a previously identified epitope (1/52), suggesting that virtually all anti-SARS-CoV-2 CD8+ T-cell responses should recognize these newly described variants.”
60) Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2,La Jolla, Crotty and Sette, 2020
“Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2”
61) Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans, Mateus, 2020
“Found that the pre-existing reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 comes from memory T cells and that cross-reactive T cells can specifically recognize a SARS-CoV-2 epitope as well as the homologous epitope from a common cold coronavirus. These findings underline the importance of determining the impacts of pre-existing immune memory in COVID-19 disease severity.”
62) Longitudinal observation of antibody responses for 14 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, Dehgani-Mobaraki, 2021
“Better understanding of antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection might provide valuable insights into the future implementation of vaccination policies. Longitudinal analysis of IgG antibody titers was carried out in 32 recovered COVID-19 patients based in the Umbria region of Italy for 14 months after Mild and Moderately-Severe infection…study findings are consistent with recent studies reporting antibody persistency suggesting that induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity through natural infection, might be very efficacious against re-infection (>90%) and could persist for more than six months. Our study followed up patients up to 14 months demonstrating the presence of anti-S-RBD IgG in 96.8% of recovered COVID-19 subjects.”
63) Humoral and circulating follicular helper T cell responses in recovered patients with COVID-19, Juno, 2020
“Characterized humoral and circulating follicular helper T cell (cTFH) immunity against spike in recovered patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We found that S-specific antibodies, memory B cells and cTFH are consistently elicited after SARS-CoV-2 infection, demarking robust humoral immunity and positively associated with plasma neutralizing activity.”
64) Convergent antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in convalescent individuals, Robbiani, 2020
“149 COVID-19-convalescent individuals…antibody sequencing revealed the expansion of clones of RBD-specific memory B cells that expressed closely related antibodies in different individuals. Despite low plasma titres, antibodies to three distinct epitopes on the RBD neutralized the virus with half-maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50 values) as low as 2 ng ml−1.”
65) Rapid generation of durable B cell memory to SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins in COVID-19 and convalescence, Hartley, 2020
“COVID-19 patients rapidly generate B cell memory to both the spike and nucleocapsid antigens following SARS-CoV-2 infection…RBD- and NCP-specific IgG and Bmem cells were detected in all 25 patients with a history of COVID-19.”
66) Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime, Callaway, 2021
“People who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades…the study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting.”
67) A majority of uninfected adults show preexisting antibody reactivity against SARS-CoV-2, Majdoubi, 2021
In greater Vancouver Canada, “using a highly sensitive multiplex assay and positive/negative thresholds established in infants in whom maternal antibodies have waned, we determined that more than 90% of uninfected adults showed antibody reactivity against the spike protein, receptor-binding domain (RBD), N-terminal domain (NTD), or the nucleocapsid (N) protein from SARS-CoV-2.”
68) SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells in healthy donors and patients with COVID-19, Braun, 2020
Presence of SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells in COVID-19 patients and healthy donors, Braun, 2020
“The results indicate that spike-protein cross-reactive T cells are present, which were probably generated during previous encounters with endemic coronaviruses.”
“The presence of pre-existing SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells in a subset of SARS-CoV-2 naïve HD is of high interest.”
69) Naturally enhanced neutralizing breadth against SARS-CoV-2 one year after infection, Wang, 2021
“A cohort of 63 individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 assessed at 1.3, 6.2 and 12 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection…the data suggest that immunity in convalescent individuals will be very long lasting.”
70) One Year after Mild COVID-19: The Majority of Patients Maintain Specific Immunity, But One in Four Still Suffer from Long-Term Symptoms, Rank, 2021
“Long-lasting immunological memory against SARS-CoV-2 after mild COVID-19… activation-induced marker assays identified specific T-helper cells and central memory T-cells in 80% of participants at a 12-month follow-up.”
71) IDSA, 2021
“Immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection can persist for at least 11 months… natural infection (as determined by a prior positive antibody or PCR-test result) can confer protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
72) Assessment of protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 among 4 million PCR-tested individuals in Denmark in 2020: a population-level observational study, Holm Hansen, 2021
Denmark, “during the first surge (ie, before June, 2020), 533 381 people were tested, of whom 11 727 (2·20%) were PCR positive, and 525 339 were eligible for follow-up in the second surge, of whom 11 068 (2·11%) had tested positive during the first surge. Among eligible PCR-positive individuals from the first surge of the epidemic, 72 (0·65% [95% CI 0·51–0·82]) tested positive again during the second surge compared with 16 819 (3·27% [3·22–3·32]) of 514 271 who tested negative during the first surge (adjusted RR 0·195 [95% CI 0·155–0·246]).”
73) Antigen-Specific Adaptive Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in Acute COVID-19 and Associations with Age and Disease Severity, Moderbacher, 2020
“Adaptive immune responses limit COVID-19 disease severity…multiple coordinated arms of adaptive immunity control better than partial responses…completed a combined examination of all three branches of adaptive immunity at the level of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell and neutralizing antibody responses in acute and convalescent subjects. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were each associated with milder disease. Coordinated SARS-CoV-2-specific adaptive immune responses were associated with milder disease, suggesting roles for both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in protective immunity in COVID-19.”
74) Detection of SARS-CoV-2-Specific Humoral and Cellular Immunity in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals, Ni, 2020
“Collected blood from COVID-19 patients who have recently become virus-free, and therefore were discharged, and detected SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cellular immunity in eight newly discharged patients. Follow-up analysis on another cohort of six patients 2 weeks post discharge also revealed high titers of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. In all 14 patients tested, 13 displayed serum-neutralizing activities in a pseudotype entry assay. Notably, there was a strong correlation between neutralization antibody titers and the numbers of virus-specific T cells.”
75) Robust SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell immunity is maintained at 6 months following primary infection, Zuo, 2020
“Analysed the magnitude and phenotype of the SARS-CoV-2 cellular immune response in 100 donors at six months following primary infection and related this to the profile of antibody level against spike, nucleoprotein and RBD over the previous six months. T-cell immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 were present by ELISPOT and/or ICS analysis in all donors and are characterised by predominant CD4+ T cell responses with strong IL-2 cytokine expression… functional SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses are retained at six months following infection.”
76) Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees, Tarke, 2021
“Performed a comprehensive analysis of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses from COVID-19 convalescent subjects recognizing the ancestral strain, compared to variant lineages B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, and CAL.20C as well as recipients of the Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccines… the sequences of the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes are not affected by the mutations found in the variants analyzed. Overall, the results demonstrate that CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses in convalescent COVID-19 subjects or COVID-19 mRNA vaccinees are not substantially affected by mutations.”
77) A 1 to 1000 SARS-CoV-2 reinfection proportion in members of a large healthcare provider in Israel: a preliminary report, Perez, 2021 Israel,
“out of 149,735 individuals with a documented positive PCR test between March 2020 and January 2021, 154 had two positive PCR tests at least 100 days apart, reflecting a reinfection proportion of 1 per 1000.”
78) Persistence and decay of human antibody responses to the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in COVID-19 patients, Iyer, 2020
“Measured plasma and/or serum antibody responses to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 in 343 North American patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 (of which 93% required hospitalization) up to 122 days after symptom onset and compared them to responses in 1548 individuals whose blood samples were obtained prior to the pandemic…IgG antibodies persisted at detectable levels in patients beyond 90 days after symptom onset, and seroreversion was only observed in a small percentage of individuals. The concentration of these anti-RBD IgG antibodies was also highly correlated with pseudovirus NAb titers, which also demonstrated minimal decay. The observation that IgG and neutralizing antibody responses persist is encouraging, and suggests the development of robust systemic immune memory in individuals with severe infection.”
79) A population-based analysis of the longevity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity in the United States, Alfego, 2021
“To track population-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity duration across the United States using observational data from a national clinical laboratory registry of patients tested by nucleic acid amplification (NAAT) and serologic assays… specimens from 39,086 individuals with confirmed positive COVID-19…both S and N SARS-CoV-2 antibody results offer an encouraging view of how long humans may have protective antibodies against COVID-19, with curve smoothing showing population seropositivity reaching 90% within three weeks, regardless of whether the assay detects N or S-antibodies. Most importantly, this level of seropositivity was sustained with little decay through ten months after initial positive PCR.”
80) What are the roles of antibodies versus a durable, high- quality T-cell response in protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2? Hellerstein, 2020
“Progress in laboratory markers for SARS-CoV2 has been made with identification of epitopes on CD4 and CD8 T-cells in convalescent blood. These are much less dominated by spike protein than in previous coronavirus infections. Although most vaccine candidates are focusing on spike protein as antigen, natural infection by SARS-CoV-2 induces broad epitope coverage, cross-reactive with other betacoronviruses.”
81) Broad and strong memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells induced by SARS-CoV-2 in UK convalescent COVID-19 patients, Peng, 2020
“Study of 42 patients following recovery from COVID-19, including 28 mild and 14 severe cases, comparing their T cell responses to those of 16 control donors…found the breadth, magnitude and frequency of memory T cell responses from COVID-19 were significantly higher in severe compared to mild COVID-19 cases, and this effect was most marked in response to spike, membrane, and ORF3a proteins…total and spike-specific T cell responses correlated with the anti-Spike, anti-Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) as well as anti-Nucleoprotein (NP) endpoint antibody titre…furthermore showed a higher ratio of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ to CD4+ T cell responses…immunodominant epitope clusters and peptides containing T cell epitopes identified in this study will provide critical tools to study the role of virus-specific T cells in control and resolution of SARS-CoV-2 infections.”
82) Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19, Sekine, 2020
“SARS-CoV-2-specific memory T cells will likely prove critical for long-term immune protection against COVID-19…mapped the functional and phenotypic landscape of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses in unexposed individuals, exposed family members, and individuals with acute or convalescent COVID-19…collective dataset shows that SARS-CoV-2 elicits broadly directed and functionally replete memory T cell responses, suggesting that natural exposure or infection may prevent recurrent episodes of severe COVID-19.”
83) Potent SARS-CoV-2-Specific T Cell Immunity and Low Anaphylatoxin Levels Correlate With Mild Disease Progression in COVID-19 Patients, Lafron, 2021
“Provide a full picture of cellular and humoral immune responses of COVID-19 patients and prove that robust polyfunctional CD8+ T cell responses concomitant with low anaphylatoxin levels correlate with mild infections.”
84) SARS-CoV-2 T-cell epitopes define heterologous and COVID-19 induced T-cell recognition, Nelde, 2020
“The first work identifying and characterizing SARS-CoV-2-specific and cross-reactive HLA class I and HLA-DR T-cell epitopes in SARS-CoV-2 convalescents (n = 180) as well as unexposed individuals (n = 185) and confirming their relevance for immunity and COVID-19 disease course…cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell epitopes revealed pre-existing T-cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals, and validation of similarity to common cold human coronaviruses provided a functional basis for postulated heterologous immunity in SARS-CoV-2 infection…intensity of T-cell responses and recognition rate of T-cell epitopes was significantly higher in the convalescent donors compared to unexposed individuals, suggesting that not only expansion, but also diversity spread of SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses occur upon active infection.”
85) Karl Friston: up to 80% not even susceptible to Covid-19, Sayers, 2020
“Results have just been published of a study suggesting that 40%-60% of people who have not been exposed to coronavirus have resistance at the T-cell level from other similar coronaviruses like the common cold…the true portion of people who are not even susceptible to Covid-19 may be as high as 80%.”
86) CD8+ T cells specific for an immunodominant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid epitope cross-react with selective seasonal coronaviruses, Lineburg, 2021
“Screening of SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools revealed that the nucleocapsid (N) protein induced an immunodominant response in HLA-B7+ COVID-19-recovered individuals that was also detectable in unexposed donors…the basis of selective T cell cross-reactivity for an immunodominant SARS-CoV-2 epitope and its homologs from seasonal coronaviruses, suggesting long-lasting protective immunity.”
87) SARS-CoV-2 genome-wide mapping of CD8 T cell recognition reveals strong immunodominance and substantial CD8 T cell activation in COVID-19 patients, Saini, 2020
“COVID-19 patients showed strong T cell responses, with up to 25% of all CD8+ lymphocytes specific to SARS-CoV-2-derived immunodominant epitopes, derived from ORF1 (open reading frame 1), ORF3, and Nucleocapsid (N) protein. A strong signature of T cell activation was observed in COVID-19 patients, while no T cell activation was seen in the ‘non-exposed’ and ‘high exposure risk’ healthy donors.”
88) Equivalency of Protection from Natural Immunity in COVID-19 Recovered Versus Fully Vaccinated Persons: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis, Shenai, 2021
“Systematic review and pooled analysis of clinical studies to date, that (1) specifically compare the protection of natural immunity in the COVID-recovered versus the efficacy of full vaccination in the COVID-naive, and (2) the added benefit of vaccination in the COVID-recovered, for prevention of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection…review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by full vaccination of COVID-naïve populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis.”
89) ChAdOx1nCoV-19 effectiveness during an unprecedented surge in SARS CoV-2 infections, Satwik, 2021
“The third key finding is that previous infections with SARS-CoV-2 were significantly protective against all studied outcomes, with an effectiveness of 93% (87 to 96%) seen against symptomatic infections, 89% (57 to 97%) against moderate to severe disease and 85% (-9 to 98%) against supplemental oxygen therapy. All deaths occurred in previously uninfected individuals. This was higher protection than that offered by single or double dose vaccine.”
-
continued
===================
90) SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells and antibodies in COVID-19 protection: a prospective study, Molodtsov, 2021
“Explore the impact of T cells and to quantify the protective levels of the immune responses…5,340 Moscow residents were evaluated for the antibody and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 and monitored for COVID-19 up to 300 days. The antibody and cellular responses were tightly interconnected, their magnitude inversely correlated with infection probability. Similar maximal level of protection was reached by individuals positive for both types of responses and by individuals with antibodies alone…T cells in the absence of antibodies provided an intermediate level of protection.”
91) Anti- SARS-CoV-2 Receptor Binding Domain Antibody Evolution after mRNA Vaccination, Cho, 2021
“SARS-CoV-2 infection produces B-cell responses that continue to evolve for at least one year. During that time, memory B cells express increasingly broad and potent antibodies that are resistant to mutations found in variants of concern.”
92) Seven-month kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and role of pre-existing antibodies to human coronaviruses, Ortega, 2021
“Impact of pre-existing antibodies to human coronaviruses causing common cold (HCoVs), is essential to understand protective immunity to COVID-19 and devise effective surveillance strategies…after the peak response, anti-spike antibody levels increase from ~150 days post-symptom onset in all individuals (73% for IgG), in the absence of any evidence of re-exposure. IgG and IgA to HCoV are significantly higher in asymptomatic than symptomatic seropositive individuals. Thus, pre-existing cross-reactive HCoVs antibodies could have a protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease.”
93) Immunodominant T-cell epitopes from the SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen reveal robust pre-existing T-cell immunity in unexposed individuals, Mahajan, 2021
“Findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 reactive T-cells are likely to be present in many individuals because of prior exposure to flu and CMV viruses.”
94) Neutralizing Antibody Responses to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Inpatients and Convalescent Patients, Wang, 2020
“117 blood samples were collected from 70 COVID-19 inpatients and convalescent patients…the neutralizing antibodies were detected even at the early stage of disease, and a significant response was shown in convalescent patients.”
95) Not just antibodies: B cells and T cells mediate immunity to COVID-19, Cox, 2020
“Reports that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are not maintained in the serum following recovery from the virus have caused alarm…the absence of specific antibodies in the serum does not necessarily mean an absence of immune memory.”
96) T cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection and vaccination, DiPiazza, 2020
“Although T cell durability to SARS-CoV-2 remains to be determined, current data and past experience from human infection with other CoVs demonstrate the potential for persistence and the capacity to control viral replication and host disease, and importance in vaccine-induced protection.”
97) Durable SARS-CoV-2 B cell immunity after mild or severe disease, Ogega, 2021
“Multiple studies have shown loss of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-specific (SARS-CoV-2-specific) antibodies over time after infection, raising concern that humoral immunity against the virus is not durable. If immunity wanes quickly, millions of people may be at risk for reinfection after recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, memory B cells (MBCs) could provide durable humoral immunity even if serum neutralizing antibody titers decline… data indicate that most SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals develop S-RBD-specific, class-switched rMBCs that resemble germinal center-derived B cells induced by effective vaccination against other pathogens, providing evidence for durable B cell-mediated immunity against SARS-CoV-2 after mild or severe disease.”
98) Memory T cell responses targeting the SARS coronavirus persist up to 11 years post-infection., Ng, 2016
“All memory T cell responses detected target the SARS-Co-V structural proteins… these responses were found to persist up to 11 years post-infection… knowledge of the persistence of SARS-specific cellular immunity targeting the viral structural proteins in SARS-recovered individuals is important.”
99) Adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, Sette, 2021
“The adaptive immune system is important for control of most viral infections. The three fundamental components of the adaptive immune system are B cells (the source of antibodies), CD4+ T cells, and CD8+ T cells…a picture has begun to emerge that reveals that CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and neutralizing antibodies all contribute to control of SARS-CoV-2 in both non-hospitalized and hospitalized cases of COVID-19.”
100) Early induction of functional SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells associates with rapid viral clearance and mild disease in COVID-19 patients, Tan, 2021
“These findings provide support for the prognostic value of early functional SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells with important implications in vaccine design and immune monitoring.”
101) SARS-CoV-2–specific CD8+ T cell responses in convalescent COVID-19 individuals, Kared, 2021
“A multiplexed peptide-MHC tetramer approach was used to screen 408 SARS-CoV-2 candidate epitopes for CD8+ T cell recognition in a cross-sectional sample of 30 coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent individuals…Modelling demonstrated a coordinated and dynamic immune response characterized by a decrease in inflammation, increase in neutralizing antibody titer, and differentiation of a specific CD8+ T cell response. Overall, T cells exhibited distinct differentiation into stem cell and transitional memory states (subsets), which may be key to developing durable protection.”
102) S Protein-Reactive IgG and Memory B Cell Production after Human SARS-CoV-2 Infection Includes Broad Reactivity to the S2 Subunit, Nguyen-Contant, 2021
“Most importantly, we demonstrate that infection generates both IgG and IgG MBCs against the novel receptor binding domain and the conserved S2 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Thus, even if antibody levels wane, long-lived MBCs remain to mediate rapid antibody production. Our study results also suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection strengthens pre-existing broad coronavirus protection through S2-reactive antibody and MBC formation.”
103) Persistence of Antibody and Cellular Immune Responses in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients Over Nine Months After Infection, Yao, 2021
“A cross-sectional study to assess the virus-specific antibody and memory T and B cell responses in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients up to 343 days after infection…found that approximately 90% of patients still have detectable immunoglobulin (Ig)G antibodies against spike and nucleocapsid proteins and neutralizing antibodies against pseudovirus, whereas ~60% of patients had detectable IgG antibodies against receptor-binding domain and surrogate virus-neutralizing antibodies…SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG+ memory B cell and interferon-γ-secreting T cell responses were detectable in more than 70% of patients…coronavirus 2-specific immune memory response persists in most patients approximately 1 year after infection, which provides a promising sign for prevention from reinfection and vaccination strategy.”
104) Naturally Acquired SARS-CoV-2 Immunity Persists for Up to 11 Months Following Infection, De Giorgi, 2021
“A prospective, longitudinal analysis of COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors at multiple time points over an 11-month period to determine how circulating antibody levels change over time following natural infection… data suggest that immunological memory is acquired in most individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 and is sustained in a majority of patients.”
105) Decreasing Seroprevalence of Measles Antibodies after Vaccination – Possible Gap in Measles Protection in Adults in the Czech Republic, Smetana, 2017
“A long-term high rate of seropositivity persists after natural measles infection. By contrast, it decreases over time after vaccination. Similarly, the concentrations of antibodies in persons with measles history persist for a longer time at a higher level than in vaccinated persons.”
106) Broadly cross-reactive antibodies dominate the human B cell response against 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza virus infection, Wrammert, 2011
“The expansion of these rare types of memory B cells may explain why most people did not become severely ill, even in the absence of pre-existing protective antibody titers”…found “extraordinarily” powerful antibodies in the blood of nine people who caught the swine flu naturally and recovered from it.”…unlike antibodies elicited by annual influenza vaccinations, most neutralizing antibodies induced by pandemic H1N1 infection were broadly cross-reactive against epitopes in the hemagglutinin (HA) stalk and head domain of multiple influenza strains. The antibodies were from cells that had undergone extensive affinity maturation.”
107) Reinfection With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Patients Undergoing Serial Laboratory Testing, Qureshi, 2021
“Reinfection was identified in 0.7% (n = 63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .5%–.9%) during follow-up of 9119 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
108) Distinct antibody and memory B cell responses in SARS-CoV-2 naïve and recovered individuals following mRNA vaccination, Goel, 2021
“Interrogated antibody and antigen-specific memory B cells over time in 33 SARS-CoV-2 naïve and 11 SARS-CoV-2 recovered subjects… In SARS-CoV-2 recovered individuals, antibody and memory B cell responses were significantly boosted after the first vaccine dose; however, there was no increase in circulating antibodies, neutralizing titers, or antigen-specific memory B cells after the second dose. This robust boosting after the first vaccine dose strongly correlated with levels of pre-existing memory B cells in recovered individuals, identifying a key role for memory B cells in mounting recall responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigens.”
109) Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity? Doshi, 2020
“Six studies have reported T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 in 20% to 50% of people with no known exposure to the virus… in a study of donor blood specimens obtained in the US between 2015 and 2018, 50% displayed various forms of T cell reactivity to SARS-CoV-2… Researchers are also confident that they have made solid inroads into ascertaining the origins of the immune responses. “Our hypothesis, of course, was that it’s so called ‘common cold’ coronaviruses, because they’re closely related…we have really shown that this is a true immune memory and it is derived in part from common cold viruses.”
110) Pre-existing and de novo humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in humans, Ng, 2020
“We demonstrate the presence of pre-existing humoral immunity in uninfected and unexposed humans to the new coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2 S-reactive antibodies were readily detectable by a sensitive flow cytometry-based method in SARS-CoV-2-uninfected individuals and were particularly prevalent in children and adolescents.”
111) Phenotype of SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cells in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, Weiskopf, 2020
“We detected SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in 100% and 80% of COVID-19 patients, respectively. We also detected low levels of SARS-CoV-2-reactive T-cells in 20% of the healthy controls, not previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and indicative of cross-reactivity due to infection with ‘common cold’ coronaviruses.”
112) Pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2: the knowns and unknowns, Sette, 2020
“T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 was observed in unexposed people…it is speculated that this reflects T cell memory to circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses.”
113) Pre-existing immunity against swine-origin H1N1 influenza viruses in the general human population, Greenbaum, 2009
“Memory T-cell immunity against S-OIV is present in the adult population and that such memory is of similar magnitude as the pre-existing memory against seasonal H1N1 influenza…the conservation of a large fraction of T-cell epitopes suggests that the severity of an S-OIV infection, as far as it is determined by susceptibility of the virus to immune attack, would not differ much from that of seasonal flu.”
114) Cellular immune correlates of protection against symptomatic pandemic influenza, Sridhar, 2013
“The 2009 H1N1 pandemic (pH1N1) provided a unique natural experiment to determine whether cross-reactive cellular immunity limits symptomatic illness in antibody-naive individuals… Higher frequencies of pre-existing T cells to conserved CD8 epitopes were found in individuals who developed less severe illness, with total symptom score having the strongest inverse correlation with the frequency of interferon-γ (IFN-γ)(+) interleukin-2 (IL-2)(-) CD8(+) T cells (r = -0.6, P = 0.004)… CD8(+) T cells specific to conserved viral epitopes correlated with cross-protection against symptomatic influenza.”
115) Preexisting influenza-specific CD4+ T cells correlate with disease protection against influenza challenge in humans, Wilkinson, 2012
“Precise role of T cells in human influenza immunity is uncertain. We conducted influenza infection studies in healthy volunteers with no detectable antibodies to the challenge viruses H3N2 or H1N1…mapped T cell responses to influenza before and during infection…found a large increase in influenza-specific T cell responses by day 7, when virus was completely cleared from nasal samples and serum antibodies were still undetectable. Pre-existing CD4+, but not CD8+, T cells responding to influenza internal proteins were associated with lower virus shedding and less severe illness. These CD4+ cells also responded to pandemic H1N1 (A/CA/07/2009) peptides and showed evidence of cytotoxic activity.”
116) Serum cross-reactive antibody response to a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus after vaccination with seasonal influenza vaccine, CDC, MMWR, 2009
“No increase in cross-reactive antibody response to the novel influenza A (H1N1) virus was observed among adults aged >60 years. These data suggest that receipt of recent (2005–2009) seasonal influenza vaccines is unlikely to elicit a protective antibody response to the novel influenza A (H1N1) virus.”
117) No one is naive: the significance of heterologous T-cell immunity, Welsh, 2002
“Memory T cells that are specific for one virus can become activated during infection with an unrelated heterologous virus, and might have roles in protective immunity and immunopathology. The course of each infection is influenced by the T-cell memory pool that has been laid down by a host’s history of previous infections, and with each successive infection, T-cell memory to previously encountered agents is modified.”
118) Intrafamilial Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Induces Cellular Immune Response without Seroconversion, Gallais, 2020
“Individuals belonging to households with an index COVID-19 patient, reported symptoms of COVID-19 but discrepant serology results… All index patients recovered from a mild COVID-19. They all developed anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and a significant T cell response detectable up to 69 days after symptom onset. Six of the eight contacts reported COVID-19 symptoms within 1 to 7 days after the index patients but all were SARS-CoV-2 seronegative… exposure to SARS-CoV-2 can induce virus-specific T cell responses without seroconversion. T cell responses may be more sensitive indicators of SARS-Co-V-2 exposure than antibodies…results indicate that epidemiological data relying only on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may lead to a substantial underestimation of prior exposure to the virus.”
119) Protective immunity after recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection, Kojima, 2021
“It important to note that antibodies are incomplete predictors of protection. After vaccination or infection, many mechanisms of immunity exist within an individual not only at the antibody level, but also at the level of cellular immunity. It is known that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces specific and durable T-cell immunity, which has multiple SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targets (or epitopes) as well as other SARS-CoV-2 protein targets. The broad diversity of T-cell viral recognition serves to enhance protection to SARS-CoV-2 variants, with recognition of at least the alpha (B.1.1.7), beta (B.1.351), and gamma (P.1) variants of SARS-CoV-2. Researchers have also found that people who recovered from SARS-CoV infection in 2002–03 continue to have memory T cells that are reactive to SARS-CoV proteins 17 years after that outbreak. Additionally, a memory B-cell response to SARS-CoV-2 evolves between 1·3 and 6·2 months after infection, which is consistent with longer-term protection.”
120) This ‘super antibody’ for COVID fights off multiple coronaviruses, Kwon, 2021
“This ‘super antibody’ for COVID fights off multiple coronaviruses…12 antibodies…that was involved in the study, isolated from people who had been infected with either SARS-CoV-2 or its close relative SARS-CoV.”
121) SARS-CoV-2 infection induces sustained humoral immune responses in convalescent patients following symptomatic COVID-19, Wu, 2020
“Taken together, our data indicate sustained humoral immunity in recovered patients who suffer from symptomatic COVID-19, suggesting prolonged immunity.”
122) Evidence for sustained mucosal and systemic antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigens in COVID-19 patients, Isho, 2020
“Whereas anti-CoV-2 IgA antibodies rapidly decayed, IgG antibodies remained relatively stable up to 115 days PSO in both biofluids. Importantly, IgG responses in saliva and serum were correlated, suggesting that antibodies in the saliva may serve as a surrogate measure of systemic immunity.”
123) The T-cell response to SARS-CoV-2: kinetic and quantitative aspects and the case for their protective role, Bertoletti, 2021
“Early appearance, multi-specificity and functionality of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells are associated with accelerated viral clearance and with protection from severe COVID-19.”
124) The longitudinal kinetics of antibodies in COVID-19 recovered patients over 14 months, Eyran, 2020
“Found a significantly faster decay in naïve vaccinees compared to recovered patients suggesting that the serological memory following natural infection is more robust compared to vaccination. Our data highlights the differences between serological memory induced by natural infection vs. vaccination.”
125) Continued Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination among Urban Healthcare Workers during Delta Variant Predominance, Lan, 2021
“Followed a population of urban Massachusetts HCWs…we found no re-infection among those with prior COVID-19, contributing to 74,557 re-infection-free person-days, adding to the evidence base for the robustness of naturally acquired immunity.”
126) Immunity to COVID-19 in India through vaccination and natural infection, Sarraf, 2021
“Compared the vaccination induced immune response profile with that of natural infection, evaluating thereby if individuals infected during the first wave retained virus specific immunity…the overall immune response resulting from natural infection in and around Kolkata is not only to a certain degree better than that generated by vaccination, especially in the case of the Delta variant, but cell mediated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 also lasts for at least ten months after the viral infection.”
127) Asymptomatic or mild symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection elicits durable neutralizing antibody responses in children and adolescents, Garrido, 2021
“Evaluated humoral immune responses in 69 children and adolescents with asymptomatic or mild symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. We detected robust IgM, IgG, and IgA antibody responses to a broad array of SARS-CoV-2 antigens at the time of acute infection and 2 and 4 months after acute infection in all participants. Notably, these antibody responses were associated with virus-neutralizing activity that was still detectable 4 months after acute infection in 94% of children. Moreover, antibody responses and neutralizing activity in sera from children and adolescents were comparable or superior to those observed in sera from 24 adults with mild symptomatic infection. Taken together, these findings indicate that children and adolescents with mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection generate robust and durable humoral immune responses that can likely contribute to protection from reinfection.”
128) T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review, Shrotri, 2021
“Symptomatic adult COVID-19 cases consistently show peripheral T cell lymphopenia, which positively correlates with increased disease severity, duration of RNA positivity, and non-survival; while asymptomatic and paediatric cases display preserved counts. People with severe or critical disease generally develop more robust, virus-specific T cell responses. T cell memory and effector function has been demonstrated against multiple viral epitopes, and, cross-reactive T cell responses have been demonstrated in unexposed and uninfected adults, but the significance for protection and susceptibility, respectively, remains unclear.”
129) Severity of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfections as Compared with Primary Infections, Abu-Raddad, 2021
“Reinfections had 90% lower odds of resulting in hospitalization or death than primary infections. Four reinfections were severe enough to lead to acute care hospitalization. None led to hospitalization in an ICU, and none ended in death. Reinfections were rare and were generally mild, perhaps because of the primed immune system after primary infection.”
130) Assessment of the Risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Reinfection in an Intense Re-exposure Setting, Abu-Raddad, 2021
“SARS-CoV-2 reinfection can occur but is a rare phenomenon suggestive of protective immunity against reinfection that lasts for at least a few months post primary infection.”
131) Increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 Beta, Gamma, and Delta variant compared to Alpha variant in vaccinated individuals, Andeweg, 2021
“Analyzed 28,578 sequenced SARS-CoV-2 samples from individuals with known immune status obtained through national community testing in the Netherlands from March to August 2021. They found evidence for an “increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination. No clear differences were found between vaccines. However, the effect was larger in the first 14-59 days after complete vaccination compared to 60 days and longer. In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity.”
132) Prior COVID-19 protects against reinfection, even in the absence of detectable antibodies, Breathnach, 2021
“Studies did not address whether prior infection is protective in the absence of a detectable humoral immune response. Patients with primary or secondary antibody deficiency syndrome and reduced or absent B cells can recover from COVID-19…Although there have been few mechanistic studies, preliminary data show that such individuals generate striking T-cell immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools…SARS-CoV-2 specific T cell immune responses but not neutralising antibodies are associated with reduced disease severity suggesting the immune system may have considerable redundancy or compensation following COVID-19…our results add to the emerging evidence that detectable serum antibody may be an incomplete marker of protection against reinfection. This could have implications for public health and policy-making, for example if using seroprevalence data to assess population immunity, or if serum antibody levels were to be taken as official evidence of immunity – a minority of truly immune patients have no detectable antibody and could be disadvantaged as a result. Our findings highlight the need for further studies of immune correlates of protection from infection with SARS-CoV-2, which may in turn enhance development of effective vaccines and treatments.”
133) Natural infection vs vaccination: Which gives more protection?, Rosenberg, 2021
“With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID…By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.”
134) Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study, Singanayagam, 2021
“Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts.”
135) Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection, Greaney, 2021
“The neutralizing activity of vaccine-elicited antibodies was more targeted to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared to antibodies elicited by natural infection. However, within the RBD, binding of vaccine-elicited antibodies was more broadly distributed across epitopes compared to infection-elicited antibodies. This greater binding breadth means that single RBD mutations have less impact on neutralization by vaccine sera compared to convalescent sera. Therefore, antibody immunity acquired by natural infection or different modes of vaccination may have a differing susceptibility to erosion by SARS-CoV-2 evolution.”
136) Antigen-Specific Adaptive Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in Acute COVID-19 and Associations with Age and Disease Severity, Moderbacker, 2020
“Limited knowledge is available on the relationship between antigen-specific immune responses and COVID-19 disease severity. We completed a combined examination of all three branches of adaptive immunity at the level of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell and neutralizing antibody responses in acute and convalescent subjects. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were each associated with milder disease. Coordinated SARS-CoV-2-specific adaptive immune responses were associated with milder disease, suggesting roles for both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in protective immunity in COVID-19. Notably, coordination of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-specific responses was disrupted in individuals ≥ 65 years old. Scarcity of naive T cells was also associated with aging and poor disease outcomes. A parsimonious explanation is that coordinated CD4+ T cell, CD8+ T cell, and antibody responses are protective, but uncoordinated responses frequently fail to control disease, with a connection between aging and impaired adaptive immune responses to SARS-CoV-2.”
137) Protection and waning of natural and hybrid COVID-19 immunity, Goldberg, 2021
“Protection from reinfection decreases with time since previous infection, but is, nevertheless, higher than that conferred by vaccination with two doses at a similar time since the last immunity-conferring event.”
138) A Systematic Review of the Protective Effect of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Repeat Infection, Kojima, 2021
“The protective effect of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on re-infection is high and similar to the protective effect of vaccination.”
139) High-affinity memory B cells induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection produce more plasmablasts and atypical memory B cells than those primed by mRNA vaccines, Pape, 2021
“Compare SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain (S1-RBD)-specific primary MBCs that form in response to infection or a single mRNA vaccination. Both primary MBC populations have similar frequencies in the blood and respond to a second S1-RBD exposure by rapidly producing plasmablasts with an abundant immunoglobulin (Ig)A+ subset and secondary MBCs that are mostly IgG+ and cross-react with the B.1.351 variant. However, infection-induced primary MBCs have better antigen-binding capacity and generate more plasmablasts and secondary MBCs of the classical and atypical subsets than do vaccine-induced primary MBCs. Our results suggest that infection-induced primary MBCs have undergone more affinity maturation than vaccine-induced primary MBCs and produce more robust secondary responses.”
140) Differential antibody dynamics to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, Chen, 2021
“Optimal immune responses furnish long-lasting (durable) antibodies protective across dynamically mutating viral variants (broad). To assess robustness of mRNA vaccine-induced immunity…compared antibody durability and breadth after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination…While vaccination delivered robust initial virus-specific antibodies with some cross-variant coverage, pre-variant SARS-CoV-2 infection-induced antibodies, while modest in magnitude, showed highly stable long-term antibody dynamics…Differential antibody durability trajectories favored COVID-19-recovered subjects with dual memory B cell features of greater early antibody somatic mutation and cross-coronavirus reactivity…illuminating an infection-mediated antibody breadth advantage and an anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody durability-enhancing function conferred by recalled immunity.”
141) Children develop robust and sustained cross-reactive spike-specific immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, Dowell, 2022
“Compare antibody and cellular immunity in children (aged 3-11 years) and adults. Antibody responses against spike protein were high in children and seroconversion boosted responses against seasonal Beta-coronaviruses through cross-recognition of the S2 domain. Neutralization of viral variants was comparable between children and adults. Spike-specific T cell responses were more than twice as high in children and were also detected in many seronegative children, indicating pre-existing cross-reactive responses to seasonal coronaviruses. Importantly, children retained antibody and cellular responses 6 months after infection, whereas relative waning occurred in adults. Spike-specific responses were also broadly stable beyond 12 months. Therefore, children generate robust, cross-reactive and sustained immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 with focused specificity for the spike protein. These findings provide insight into the relative clinical protection that occurs in most children and might help to guide the design of pediatric vaccination regimens.”
142) Severity of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfections as Compared with Primary Infections, Abu-Raddad, 2021
Abu-Raddad et al. has recently published on the severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections as compared with primary infections. They reported that in earlier studies, they assessed the efficacy of previous natural infection “as protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 as being 85% or greater. Accordingly, for a person who has already had a primary infection, the risk of having a severe reinfection is only approximately 1% of the risk of a previously uninfected person having a severe primary infection…Reinfections had 90% lower odds of resulting in hospitalization or death than primary infections. Four reinfections were severe enough to lead to acute care hospitalization. None led to hospitalization in an ICU, and none ended in death. Reinfections were rare and were generally mild, perhaps because of the primed immune system after primary infection.”
143) SARS-CoV-2 spike T cell responses induced upon vaccination or infection remain robust against Omicron, Keeton, 2021
“Assessed the ability of T cells to react with Omicron spike in participants who were vaccinated with Ad26.CoV2.S or BNT162b2, and in unvaccinated convalescent COVID-19 patients (n = 70). We found that 70-80% of the CD4 and CD8 T cell response to spike was maintained across study groups. Moreover, the magnitude of Omicron cross-reactive T cells was similar to that of the Beta and Delta variants, despite Omicron harbouring considerably more mutations. Additionally, in Omicron-infected hospitalized patients (n = 19), there were comparable T cell responses to ancestral spike, nucleocapsid and membrane proteins to those found in patients hospitalized in previous waves dominated by the ancestral, Beta or Delta variants (n = 49). These results demonstrate that despite Omicron’s extensive mutations and reduced susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies, the majority of T cell response, induced by vaccination or natural infection, cross-recognises the variant. Well-preserved T cell immunity to Omicron is likely to contribute to protection from severe COVID-19, supporting early clinical observations from South Africa.”
144) Pre-existing immunity against swine-origin H1N1 influenza viruses in the general human population, Greenbaum,2009
“69% (54/78) of the epitopes recognized by CD8+ T cells are completely invariant. We further demonstrate experimentally that some memory T-cell immunity against S-OIV is present in the adult population and that such memory is of similar magnitude as the pre-existing memory against seasonal H1N1 influenza. Because protection from infection is antibody mediated, a new vaccine based on the specific S-OIV HA and NA proteins is likely to be required to prevent infection. However, T cells are known to blunt disease severity. Therefore, the conservation of a large fraction of T-cell epitopes suggests that the severity of an S-OIV infection, as far as it is determined by susceptibility of the virus to immune attack, would not differ much from that of seasonal flu. These results are consistent with reports about disease incidence, severity, and mortality rates associated with human S-OIV…overall, 49% of the epitopes reported in the literature and present in recently circulating seasonal H1N1 are also found totally conserved in S-OIV. Interestingly, the number of conserved epitopes varied greatly as a function of the class of epitopes considered. Although only 31% of the B-cell epitopes were conserved, 41% of the CD4+ and 69% of the CD8+ T-cell epitopes were conserved. It is known that cross-reactive T-cell immune responses can exist even between serologically distinct influenza A strains (14, 15). Based on this observation and the data presented above, we hypothesized that it is possible that immune memory responses against S-OIV exist in the adult population, at the level of both B and T cells.”
145) Protection afforded by prior infection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection with the Omicron, variant, Altarawneh, 2021
“PES against symptomatic reinfection was estimated at 90.2% (95% CI: 60.2-97.6) for Alpha, 84.8% (95% CI: 74.5-91.0) for Beta, 92.0% (95% CI: 87.9-94.7) for Delta, and 56.0% (95% CI: 50.6-60.9) for Omicron. Only 1 Alpha, 2 Beta, 0 Delta, and 2 Omicron reinfections progressed to severe COVID-19. None progressed to critical or fatal COVID-19. PES against hospitalization or death due to reinfection was estimated at 69.4% (95% CI: −143.6-96.2) for Alpha, 88.0% (95% CI: 50.7-97.1) for Beta, 100% (95% CI: 43.3-99.8) for Delta, and 87.8% (95% CI: 47.5-97.1) for Omicron.”
146) Cross-reactive memory T cells associate with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in COVID-19 contacts, Kundu, 2022
“Observe higher frequencies of cross-reactive (p = 0.0139), and nucleocapsid-specific (p = 0.0355) IL-2-secreting memory T cells in contacts who remained PCR-negative despite exposure (n = 26), when compared with those who convert to PCR-positive (n = 26); no significant difference in the frequency of responses to spike is observed, hinting at a limited protective function of spike-cross-reactive T cells. Our results are thus consistent with pre-existing non-spike cross-reactive memory T cells protecting SARS-CoV-2-naïve contacts from infection, thereby supporting the inclusion of non-spike antigens in second-generation vaccines.”
From the Brownstone Institute
-
Operation Warp Speed Slowly Gets Its Due
The program’s premature abandonment left the country unprepared for the Delta and Omicron Covid waves.
By Allysia Finley
Follow
Jan. 31, 2022 1:37 pm ET
The Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed delivered three Covid-19 vaccines in record time. Yet liberals are giving the program its due only now, amid President Biden’s Covid-19 stumbles. Some, including former Biden adviser Ezekiel Emanuel, are even calling for another Operation Warp Speed to boost therapies. Operation Warp Speed also delivered the two monoclonal antibody treatments. More such treatments would have been available this winter had the Biden team not abandoned the program.
Early in the pandemic, the government struggled to persuade drugmakers to invest in vaccines and therapies. Many companies lost money during previous public-health emergencies when treatments they developed turned out not to be needed. “I’m not like a drug company fan, but there’s no question that a lot of them lost a lot of money trying to produce an Ebola vaccine,” said Ron Klain, now White House chief of staff, in February 2020.
Operation Warp Speed shifted the financial risk to government by placing orders for vaccines and therapies before they were authorized by the Food and Drug Administration or even shown to be effective. This encouraged pharmaceutical companies to expand manufacturing capacity so vaccines and therapies were ready to be distributed once they had the FDA’s green light.
Three Operation Warp Speed leaders explained the strategy in a September 2020 commentary for the New England Journal of Medicine. “Predicting drug performance in a new disease is difficult,” Moncef Slaoui, Shannon E. Greene and Janet Woodcock wrote. “Many candidates may fail to demonstrate efficacy or have safety problems. It’s necessary, however, to take a financial risk early to scale up manufacturing in order to have drug supplies on hand if the results are positive. If we wait for clinical trial readouts before initiating large-scale manufacturing, developing an adequate supply could take months or years.”
In July 2020, Operation Warp Speed announced a $450 million manufacturing and supply agreement with Regeneron for up to 300,000 doses of its experimental monoclonal antibody. A few months later, it ordered 300,000 doses of Eli Lilly’s experimental antibody. The FDA granted emergency-use authorization to both treatments in November 2020.
Supply of both monoclonals exceeded demand last winter because many people were unaware of the treatments. Still, during the final two months of the Trump presidency, Operation Warp Speed ordered another 1.25 million doses of Regeneron’s and 650,000 of Eli Lilly’s antibody treatments, leaving the Biden administration well supplied.
When the Biden team took over, they dismissed Mr. Slaoui, announced they were “phasing in a new structure,” and retired the Operation Warp Speed name. Cases and hospitalizations fell as vaccines rolled out. President Biden prematurely declared success last Fourth of July and failed to prepare for another wave by stockpiling treatments and investing in new ones.
The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or Barda, did announce in June 2021 that it would pay $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of Merck’s investigational antiviral pill molnupiravir, but only if the FDA granted emergency-use authorization. That meant Merck had to put its own money at risk to expand manufacturing in advance, which may have reduced the supply that was available once the drug was authorized in December.
When the Delta variant slammed the South in July, GOP governors promoted the Regeneron and Eli Lilly monoclonal treatments. Supplies had to be rationed as demand surged. As the Delta wave crested in mid-September, the Pentagon and the Health and Human Services Department ordered 1.4 million more doses of Regeneron’s antibody and 388,000 doses of Eli Lilly’s.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sought to circumvent the feds by ordering a monoclonal antibody treatment from GlaxoSmithKline and Vir. The antibody binds to a target on Covid-19 that is shared with the SARS virus, making it more difficult for variants to evade. It was authorized by the FDA in May, but the Biden administration then declined to add it to its meager treatment arsenal. This was a colossal mistake, since it was the only monoclonal treatment for infected patients that turned out to be effective against the Omicron variant.
The administration couldn’t have anticipated that, but Operation Warp Speed’s strategy was to diversify its bets expecting some to fail. The Biden team relied almost exclusively on Regeneron and Eli Lilly antibodies, even though scientists had warned that new variants might be able to evade them. The additional doses that Barda ordered in September were helpful for a couple of months until Omicron arrived.
Only in November did GSK and Vir announce a $1 billion contract with Barda. Around the same time Barda reached a $5.3 billion agreement with Pfizer for 10 million courses of its oral antiviral Paxlovid. Had it ordered these treatments earlier, much more supply would have been available this winter.
Why did the new administration abandon the successful Operation Warp Speed playbook? Most likely because progressives loathe pharmaceutical companies. Recall how congressional Democrats attacked Mr. Slaoui, a former GSK executive, without evidence, accusing him of profiting off his public service. Or maybe the Biden team believed their own cynical 2020 campaign line that Operation Warp Speed “lacks sound leadership, global vision, or a strategy.”
Asked by New York Times columnist Ezra Klein last week whether the government should adopt OWS’s strategy for other technologies, Mr. Klain replied: “I think we have to be careful about the level of government intervention in the economy and make sure that we’re not putting our judgment in the place of private-sector thoughts and consumer demand and whatnot. I think vaccines are a very, very special case, a public good we wanted everyone to get.”
He’s right, but life-saving Covid-19 therapies are also a special case. At the same time, the Biden administration wants to spend hundreds of billions of dollars intervening in the economy to support green energy technologies that consumers largely don’t want and are unlikely to do much public good.
Ms. Finley is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.
-
COVID-19 Counter Measures Should be Age Specific
Martin KulldorffClick here to view Martin Kulldorff’s profile
Martin Kulldorff
Biostatistician and epidemiologist. Author of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Published Apr 10, 2020
Among COVID-19 exposed individuals, people in their 70s have roughly twice the mortality of those in their 60s, 10 times the mortality of those in their 50s, 40 times that of those in their 40s, 100 times that of those in their 30s, 300 times that of those in their 20s, and a mortality that is more than 3000 times higher than for children. Since COVID-19 operates in a highly age specific manner, mandated counter measures must also be age specific. If not, lives will be unnecessarily lost.
To determine effective public health counter measures against COVID-19, it is important to know the population characteristics of the epidemic [1]. It has been widely reported that mortality rates among those diagnosed and hospitalized are higher in older age groups [2, 3], but to determine public health action, it is the mortality among those exposed or infected that is of primary importance. Absolute risk estimates are uncertain at this stage of the epidemic, due to asymptomatic infected individuals [4] and limited population based testing [1], but with reasonable assumptions about exposure, it is possible to obtain rough estimates of the relative risks in different age groups, as well as upper bounds for the absolute risks.
We consider two alternative exposure scenarios at the early stages of the outbreak in Wuhan, before any social distancing was in place. In Scenario A, the likelihood of being exposed was equal in all age groups. In Scenario B, those <70 had twice the exposure compared to ages 70-79, who in turn had twice the exposure of those 80 and older. The truth probably lies somewhere in between these two scenarios.
Using Wuhan data for the relative risk of a COVID-19 diagnosis after exposure (RRC|E) and national Chinese data for the relative risk of death after a diagnosis (RRD|C) [2], the estimated relative risk of death among those exposed is RR = RRC|E x RRD|C. The Wuhan data better reflect the pre-social distancing phase of the epidemic while the Chinese mortality data increase the sample size of diagnosed individuals, generating more reliable estimates.
With age 70-79 as baseline, relative mortality risks are shown in Table 1. For COVID-19 exposed individuals, people in their 70s have roughly twice the mortality of those in their 60s, 10 times the mortality of those in their 50s, 40 times that of those in their 40s, 100 times that of those in their 30s, 300 times that of those in their 20s, and a mortality that is more than 3000 times higher than for children. Under Scenario B, with higher exposure among the young, the age differences are even larger.
In the United States, social distancing was in place early on, and since it is easier for retired people to stay home, it is likely that there was much less exposure among older people. Despite this, there is a higher proportion of diagnosed cases among the older population [5]. This means that the U.S. numbers are consistent with those from China.
No alt text provided for this image
Table 1: Relative risks (RR) for COVID-19 mortality by age group. In scenario A, pre-social distancing probability of exposure is assumed to be equal across all ages. In scenario B, it is assumed to be twice as high for those <70 and half as much for those >80, compared to age 70-79.
Since 1/RR is approximately 100 for age 30-39, exposure of only 1,000 people in their 70s would lead to the same number of deaths as the exposure of 100,000 persons in their 30s. In other words, in order to avoid the same fixed number of deaths, one must prevent COVID-19 exposure to 1,000 people in their 70s, or 10,000 people in their 50s, or 40,000 in their 40s, or 100,000 in their 30s, or 300,000 in their 20s, or 3.5 million children. Preventing exposure of 3.5 million children or 100,000 people in their 30s is practically, logistically, and financially more challenging than preventing exposure of 1,000 people aged 70-79.
Government officials would be wise to take advantage of these widely different mortality rates by age in devising their COVID-19 counter measures, while still maintaining essential societal services. Whether mandated counter measures are intensified, recalibrated, or gradually relaxed sometime in the future, age specific measures should be part of the strategy. If not, there will be unnecessary mortality, burden on hospitals and economic disruption. Counter measures directed specifically at older people will not only protect them, it will also free up health care resources for those younger people that do need hospital care.
To date, most government mandated mitigation measures have either been age neutral, such as restaurant closures, or targeted at young and middle-aged people, such as school and office closures. A more appropriate age targeted approach is needed. Just as some pubs ban customers under the age of 21, government officials could set temporary upper age limits of say 50, 60, or 65 for visiting or working at restaurants, stores, offices, airports, and other public places. So, for example, while all 60-plus-year-old supermarket cashiers, gas station attendants, police officers, postal workers, garbage collectors and bus drivers should stay home, their younger colleagues should keep working, taking extra shifts as needed.
Counter measures must consider not only relative risks but also absolute risks. Among diagnosed cases age 70-79, the mortality rate in China was 1 in 25. [2] Their absolute mortality risk when simply exposed is then less than that, although we do not know how much less. Transformed to other age groups, using the data from Table 1, the absolute risk-of-death point estimates among those exposed is less than 1 in 25x3560=89,000 for children, less than 1 in 7,500 for age 20-29, less than 1 in 2,500 for age 30-39, less than 1 in 1,000 for age 40-49, less than 1 in 230 for age 50-59, less than 1 in 58 for age 60-69, less than 1 in 25 for age 70-79 and less than 1 in 17 for those in the 80+ age group. These numbers for exposed individuals are more favorable but similar to recent mortality estimates for infected individuals [3]. To put these upper bounds in context, the upper bounds for children and young adults are lower than the U.S. infant mortality rate of 1 in 170 or the annual child mortality rate of around 1 in 6,000 [6]. For the older age groups, on the other hand, the upper bounds on the mortality rates are staggeringly high.
Infectious disease outbreaks have occurred throughout history and will continue to do so, aided by urbanization and long-distance travel. COVID-19’s ability to kill and its rapid spread make it a formidable enemy that is impossible to stop until herd immunity is reached. Just as in war, we must exploit the characteristics of the enemy in order to defeat it with the minimum number of casualties. Since COVID-19 operates in a highly age specific manner, mandated counter measures must also be age specific. If not, lives will be unnecessarily lost.
Martin Kulldorff, Biostatistician, Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston
References
[1] M. Lipsitch, D. L. Swerdlow och L. Finelli, ”Defining the Epidemiology of Covid-19 — Studies Needed,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 382, pp. 1194-1196, 2020.
[2] J. T. Wu, K. Leung, M. Bushman, N. Kishore, R. Niehus, P. M. d. Salazar, B. J. Cowling, M. Lipsitch och G. M. Leung, ”Estimating clinical severity of COVID-19 from the transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China,” Nature Medicine, pp. 1-5, 2020.
[3] R. Verity, L. C. Okell, I. Dorigatti, P. Winskill, C. Whittaker, N. Imai, G. Cuomo-Dannenburg och etal, ”Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis,” The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 2020.
[4] R. Li, S. Pei, B. Chen, Y. Song, T. Zhang, W. Yang och J. Shaman, ”Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2),” Science, nr March 16, 2020.
[5] CDC COVID-19 Response Team, ”Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 69, nr 12, pp. 343-346, 2020.
[6] S. L. Murphy, J. Xu, K. D. Kochanek och E. Arias, ”Mortality in the United States, 2017,” National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, USA., 2018.
-
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/just-another-healthy-49-year-old/comments?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDgxMDQwMTksIl8iOiJCdFEyQyIsImlhdCI6MTY0MzgyNzU4OCwiZXhwIjoxNjQzODMxMTg4LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.XTqsBcRq7rTVU3lFEO9ZsFyyfsl1ZJVmcKcN0mYj1F0
-
https://i.imgur.com/VTim9hT.png
(https://i.imgur.com/VTim9hT.png)
-
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/covid-deaths-in-israel-have-hit-an/comments?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDgyMzI5NzIsIl8iOiJCdFEyQyIsImlhdCI6MTY0NDAxMTE3MSwiZXhwIjoxNjQ0MDE0NzcxLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.9iB8uQau-tZohy3YH7D81HuXJtmsINhdLtTVXDw14zs
-
https://rumble.com/vtztbk-the-covid-vaccine-side-effects-are-worse-than-expected.html
-
second
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/six-critical-questions-about-the/comments?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDgyNjcxMDQsIl8iOiJCdFEyQyIsImlhdCI6MTY0NDA4NTc4MSwiZXhwIjoxNjQ0MDg5MzgxLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.eLkxlh_9Dcxlv-zRugh8zrz0jWur2Q_lqxyDp0xsFYk
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the-cdc-is-finally-recognizing-natural-immunity-%E2%80%94-legislators-should-follow-suit/ar-AATqW9y?fbclid=IwAR2AxS5xd1CNOkD-OtP8_YSM5hjdYvRsA2XjwLypvIFGuQkYhY4b2ocwJCU
-
https://amgreatness.com/2022/02/08/biden-administration-reversing-course-redefining-covid-hospitalizations/?fbclid=IwAR1x0T-7fMtT1AnxApWKN9wz8p2wAWOfV5BKiTLmWwtk13WZ3K3JFqv57kQ
-
https://www.educationviews.org/exclusive-former-pfizer-vp-your-government-is-lying-to-you-in-a-way-that-could-lead-to-your-death/
EXCLUSIVE – Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.
Apr 8, 2021 by LifeSite News
4.7.21 — LifeSiteNews
“EXCLUSIVE – Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.’”
By Patrick Delaney
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-former-pfizer-vp-your-government-is-lying-to-you-in-a-way-that-could-lead-to-your-death
Excerpts from this article:
Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews.
He addressed the “demonstrably false” propaganda from governments in response to COVID-19, including the “lie” of dangerous variants, the totalitarian potential for “vaccine passports,” and the strong possibility we are dealing with a “conspiracy” which could lead to something far beyond the carnage experienced in the wars and massacres of the 20th century.
His main points included:
There is “no possibility” current variants of COVID-19 will escape immunity. It is “just a lie.”
Yet, governments around the world are repeating this lie, indicating that we are witnessing not just “convergent opportunism,” but a “conspiracy.” Meanwhile media outlets and Big Tech platforms are committed to the same propaganda and the censorship of the truth.
Pharmaceutical companies have already begun to develop unneeded “top-up” (“booster”) vaccines for the “variants.” The companies are planning to manufacture billions of vials, in addition to the current experimental COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign.
Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have announced that since these “top-up” vaccines will be so similar to the prior injections which were approved for emergency use authorization, drug companies will not be required to “perform any clinical safety studies.”
Thus, this virtually means that design and implementation of repeated and coerced mRNA vaccines “go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, [injecting] some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.”
Why are they doing this? Since no benign reason is apparent, the use of vaccine passports along with a “banking reset” could issue in a totalitarianism unlike the world has ever seen. Recalling the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, “mass depopulation” remains a logical outcome.
The fact that this at least could be true means everyone must “fight like crazy to make sure that system never forms.”
Dr. Yeadon began identifying himself as merely a “boring guy” who went “to work for a big drug company … listening to the main national broadcast and reading the broad sheet newspapers.”
Continuing, he said: “But in the last year I have realized that my government and its advisers are lying in the faces of the British people about everything to do with this coronavirus. Absolutely everything. It’s a fallacy this idea of asymptomatic transmission and that you don’t have symptoms, but you are a source of a virus. That lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value obviously for you or someone else, and that variants are scary things and we even need to close international borders in case some of these nasty foreign variants get in.
“… on top of the current list of gene-based vaccines that we have miraculously made, there will be some ‘top-up’ vaccines to cope with the immune escape variants.
“…every single one of those things is demonstrably false…”
“…There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives.
“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky varmints, these “variants”’— which I call ‘samiants’ by the way, because they are pretty much the same — but they’re all saying this and they are all saying ‘don’t worry, there will be “top-up” vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.”
…“I think the end game is going to be, ‘everyone receives a vaccine’… Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab.
“When they do that every single individual on the planet will have a name, or unique digital ID and a health status flag which will be ‘vaccinated,’ or not … and whoever possesses that, sort of single database, operable centrally, applicable everywhere to control, to provide as it were, a privilege, you can either cross this particular threshold or conduct this particular transaction or not depending on [what] the controllers of that one human population database decide. And I think that’s what this is all about because once you’ve got that, we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it.
“For example, you might find that after a banking reset that you can only spend through using an app that actually feeds off this [database], your ID, your name, [and] your health status flag.”
“And, yes, certainly crossing an international border is the most obvious use for these vaccine passports, as they are called, but I’ve heard talk of them already that they could be necessary for you to get into public spaces, enclosed public spaces. I expect that if they wanted to, you would not be able to leave your house in the future without the appropriate privilege on your app.
“But even if that’s not [the] true [intent of the vaccine campaign], it doesn’t matter, the fact that it could be true means everyone [reading] this should fight like crazy to make sure that [vaccine passport] system never forms.”
“[With such a system]…You could invent a story that is about a virus and its variations, its mutations over time…make sure you embed it through the captive media, make sure that no one can counter it by censoring alternative sources…and that it produces variants…which could escape your immune system, and that’s a lie.
“…then when we tell you that it’s true and we say ‘but we’ve got the cure, here’s a top-up vaccine,’ you’ll get a message, based on this one global, this one ID system: …But if you don’t get your top-up vaccine in that time, you will unfortunately detrimentally be an “out person,” and you don’t want that, do you?’ So, that’s how it’ll work, and people will just walk up and they’ll get their top-up vaccine.”
“…There was no possibility at all, based on all of the variants that are in the public domain, 4000 or so of them, none of them are going to escape immunity [i.e. become more dangerous].
…“pharmaceutical companies have said, several of them, it will be quite easy for us to adjust our gene-based vaccines, and we can hasten them through development, and we can help you.
“And here’s the real scary part, global medicines regulators like [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration] FDA, the Japanese medicines agency, the European Medicines Agency, have gotten together and announced … since top-up vaccines will be considered so similar to the ones that we have already approved for emergency use authorization, we are not going to require the drug companies to perform any clinical safety studies.
“So…why is the drug company making the top-up vaccines?— you go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.
“And if you wanted to introduce a characteristic which could be harmful and could even be lethal, and you can even tune it to say ‘let’s put it in some gene that will cause liver injury over a nine-month period,’ or, cause your kidneys to fail but not until you encounter this kind of organism [that would be quite possible]. Biotechnology provides you with limitless ways, frankly, to injure or kill billions of people.
“…unknown, and unnecessary gene sequences injected into the arms of potentially billions of people for no reason.
“I’m very worried … that pathway will be used for mass depopulation, because I can’t think of any benign explanation.”
…“The most different variant is only 0.3% different from the original sequence as emailed out of Wuhan in … January 2020. 0.3% [is] the one [variant] that is the most different on the planet so far…all of the variants are not less than 99.7% identical to each other.’
“The human immune system is a thing of wonder. What it does is when it faces a new pathogen like this, you’ve got professional cells, they’re called professional antigen-presenting cells —their kind of rough tough things that tend not to succumb to viruses. And their job is to grab foreign things in the near environment and tear them limb from limb [inside the cell]. They really cut them up into hundreds of pieces. And then they present these pieces on the surfaces of their cell to other bits of your immune system, and amazingly, because of the variability that God and nature gave you, huge variability to recognize foreign things, and your body ends up using 15 to 20 different specific motifs that it spots about this virus. Their called epitopes, basically they’re just like little photographs of the details about this virus. That’s what they do. And that is what is called your repertoire, your immune repertoire is like 20 different accurate photographs, close-ups, of different bits of this virus.
“Now, if a tiny piece of the virus changes, like the .3% I’ve just described, if you are reinfected by that variant, your professional cells tear into that virus and cut it into pieces, present them again, and lo and behold, most of the pieces that you have already seen and recognized, are still there in the variants.
“There is absolutely no chance that all of them will fail to be recognized and that is what is required for immune escape, to escape your immunity…
“You can go and check that by looking at papers by a person called Alison Tarke. There is also Shane Crotty, and all of the other co-authors.
“… If your [immune system] is presented with something that contains even half of those similar pieces, there is no way your body will say, ‘that’s a new pathogen.’
“And, so, the idea that 0.3% could even have a chance of getting around immunity is just a lie…”
“I don’t think 3% would be enough…That’s 10 times more variation than has occurred in 16 months [with this virus]. I don’t even think 30% difference would be enough. So, I’m saying that 100 times more variation than has actually happened, would still leave me putting a big bet on the human immune system not being fooled that these are new pathogens.
…“So, they’re lying about variants, and then, of course, since [the variants] are not really different, you do not need a ‘top-up’ vaccine. Now you should be getting the hairs on the back of your neck up, because they are making them right now!”
“They are making billions of vials of it. And they will be available by the end of the year.
…“So, that’s why I’m frightened.
“The variants aren’t different. I call them ‘samiants’… they’re pretty much the same. They’re not different. Therefore, you don’t need a top-up vaccine, so don’t go near any of them.”
…“[And if you recognize that our governments are involved in a major verifiable lie], don’t just turn your computer off and go to supper. Stop. Look out the window, and think, ‘why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?’ Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family.
…“Now I don’t know [for certain] that they’re going to use that [system] to kill you, but I can’t think of a benign reason, and with that power they certainly could harm you, or control you, so you should object [and strenuously oppose it].”
“It’s become absolutely clear to me, even when I talk to intelligent people, friends, acquaintances … and they can tell I’m telling them something important, but they get to the point [where I say] ‘your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death and that of your children,’ and they can’t begin to engage with it. And I think maybe 10% of them understand what I said, and 90% of those blank their understanding of it because it is too difficult. And my concern is, we are going to lose this, because people will not deal with the possibility that anyone is so evil…
“But I remind you of what happened in Russia in the 20th Century, what happened in 1933 to 1945, what happened in, you know, Southeast Asia in some of the most awful times in the post-war era. And, what happened in China with Mao and so on.
“We’ve only got to look back two or three generations. All around us there are people who are as bad as the people doing this. They’re all around us. So, I say to folks, the only thing that really marks this one out, is its scale.
“…They don’t have to shoot anyone in the face. They don’t have to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or freeze them, starve them, make them work until they die. All of those things did happen two or three generations back and our grandparents or great grandparents were either victims of this, or they were actually members of it, or at least they witnessed it from overseas. That’s how close we are…
“I’m a scientist, and I can tell you, talking to non-scientists, using science as a tool, will not work. It will fail.
Finally, in an email correspondence, Dr. Yeadon concluded, “I have latest taken to signing off with ‘May God save us’, because I think we need God now more than at any time since WW2.”
Donna Garner
-
Dr. Pierre Kory: ‘Covid-19 Is Highly Treatable’
Joseph Mercola
Joseph Mercola
February 9, 2022 Updated: February 9, 2022biggersmaller Print
Commentary
Dr. Pierre Kory, a New York pulmonologist, talked about his experience in treating patients using a protocol that those in power tried to censor.
New York pulmonologist Dr. Pierre Kory, an unapologetic champion of evidence-based medicine, has had remarkable success treating patients with ivermectin and other therapies during the pandemic. His efforts to get the word out on this treatment protocol as part of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC) have largely been stifled by censorship, ridicule and colleagues — brainwashed by the official narrative — unwilling to accept the science.
Kory spoke with Dr. Chris Martenson, host of the Peak Prosperity podcast, about his incredible experiences over the last nearly two years. On December 8, 2020, Kory testified to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which held a hearing on “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution.”
He called on the NIH, CDC and FDA to review the expansive data on ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, keep those with early symptoms from progressing and help critically ill patients recover. As he told Martenson, due to their promising results, he believed early on that “the pandemic has been solved,” until he realized that those in power weren’t open to hearing what he had to say.
Despite his impassioned pleas and astonishing science to back them up, the treatment not only was ignored by the Senate committee but promptly eviscerated. Now, he feels his colleagues in the health care field are living in one of two worlds — by either not following the data or putting patients first because they’re afraid of losing their job or status, or by risking everything to put patients first. He’s become estranged from many colleagues who he says “don’t get it.”
There Is Treatment Available for Viruses
Kory’s eyes have been opened to the reality that many people only hear or believe what public health officials tell them, whether it’s because they’re overworked and don’t have time to delve into the real data or because they’re following with blind trust. Many of Kory’s colleagues have gone along with those they believe to be authoritative experts, even when their guidance defies logic and commonsense. Kory’s trust in the “experts,” however, started to erode the more that he learned.
One of Kory’s role models is Dr. Paul Marik, a critical care doctor at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in East Virginia, who is renowned for his work in creating the “Marik Cocktail,” which significantly reduces death rates from sepsis using inexpensive, safe, generic medications.
Marik was one of a small group of critical care physicians who formed FLCCC, which developed a highly effective COVID-19 treatment protocol known as MATH+. Marik is so in tune with science that if he reads a new study and has questions, he’ll contact the first author on the paper to get direct answers.
Right off the bat, the MATH+ protocol led to high survival rates. Out of more than 100 hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with the MATH+ protocol by mid-April 2020, only two died. Both were in their 80s and had advanced chronic medical conditions.
After several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+ while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+, due to the addition of ivermectin.
Kory is now a public face of FLCCC, and he’s forged a global network of colleagues who are willing to adapt to new information in any way they can to help patients. One of Kory’s biggest revelations involved the treatment of viruses — specifically, the fact that there are dozens of treatment options available, about 90% of which are repurposed, cost pennies and are readily available:
“I went into this pandemic believing what I’ve been taught my whole career, which is that there is no specific antiviral therapy … I mean, you get a cold, you just rest … and now here I am 18 months later — oh my gosh — there are literally two dozen compounds and now we have trial evidence showing pretty profound large magnitude benefits, either in the duration of symptoms, the duration of viral transmission, hospitalization and death.
We have a number of molecules that actually reduce mortality in what’s turned out to be a deadly viral disease. This isn’t the common cold, we’re clear on that.
I went from, there’s nothing to do for a virus to now, anytime I have a cold going forward, or any of my children, or any other virus that comes at us, we already have a whole armory of stuff that we can employ. And that data for those — which are best, which should be employed — is only going to increase.”
Giving Patients Agency Over Their Own Health
Marteson said that, since learning about accessible treatment options, “I feel like I have agency in my own health that I didn’t have before.” Kory mentions natural options like curcumin and nigella sativa, or black cumin, which he would have laughed off years ago, but now realizes they have multiple mechanisms by which they fight viruses:
“Reading about something like curcumin or nigella sativa, which if someone told me a year ago to take something like nigella sativa — black cumin seed — it would save your life in a viral disease, I would have literally burst out laughing … but when you look, there’s literally 10 years of lots of little trials and studies that have evaluated and defined multiple mechanisms of black cumin seed — immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, antiviral.
So you have all of these building blocks, and then you have this trial from Pakistan — large randomized controlled trial with really large magnitude benefits — of literally nigella sativa and honey. And then you find out about honey. Honey also has pleotropic properties.”
Kory is driven to share what he’s learned with as many people as possible, because he believes that everyone should feel empowered to stay healthy, similar to what I have long advised — to take control of your health. He told Marteson:
“It’s so satisfying because now we have agency, and so many people have agency by learning this knowledge of things that are readily available, cheap, don’t need a prescription, that you can actually treat yourself with very safe compounds. Not only is that agency so satisfying, but boy does it seem critical for the future. Is this going to be the last viral pandemic?”
His index case with ivermectin — the first person with COVID-19 whom he treated with the drug — is also etched in his memory. The patient — a “slightly older, slightly overweight” woman — was two weeks into COVID-19 and still having fevers and night sweats, so still quite sick. He treated her with ivermectin and she woke up in the morning feeling great:
“Literally I saw what could only be described as a phenomenal response to a medication. So when we talk about data that we use, I’m sorry but I was sold right there on the first dose. First patient, first dose. And then I had repeated experiences.”
COVID-19 Is Highly Treatable
Fear has dominated the pandemic, but both Martenson and Kory say there’s no need to walk around in fear. As a lung and ICU expert, Kory is a master at treating acute illnesses which, he says, “is all about trajectories.” “When we make rounds on patients, we see them every day, we’re following their course … in an ICU, I have to be very knowledgeable about their minute-to-minute, or sometimes hour-to-hour trajectory,” he said.
He teaches medicine also, and he teaches his trainees to study trajectories in their patients. When the trajectory worsens, especially in critical illness, therapies must be instituted but, he says, when “I see a trajectory on the improvement, I always say just stand back. They’re getting better, they’re going to continue to get better …”
In the case of his index patient with ivermectin, she was on a steady trajectory, but it rapidly improved upon administration of ivermectin — a pattern he sees regularly with the drug. The ability to get a sense of this pattern recognition is what makes the difference between an expert and nonexpert in critical care medicine, Kory says.
“The longer you’re in medicine, the better you get at that and you can see which medicines are working.” In this case, ivermectin is one that quickly stood out from the rest. Especially if you’re an expert at trajectories, patterns and diseases, as Kory is, “you can figure things out much quicker than a massive, multicentered, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial.”
If there were one thing that Kory could share, it’s that he wants everyone to know that COVID-19 is a highly treatable disease:
“I want everybody to know how treatable this is … I’m not that worried about it for me, my friends, my family, my colleagues. I’m not worried about it for those who follow the FLCCC and our protocols because we know that they’re effective.
And I just hope that umbrella of reassurance and protection, which is to say there are effective treatments which will save your life and prevent the need for hospitalization, I just hope that number grows. But me personally, I’m not that bothered by COVID. As you know, I actually got COVID. It was a relatively mild case and so I also have natural immunity in my camp.”
Early treatment, however, is essential. One of his friends became ill with COVID-19 and made the mistake of thinking he had a cold. He didn’t contact Kory until he’d been sick for seven or eight days and by that time, he said, “I had to pull out all the stops for him. I really had to use every tool in my arsenal to keep him out of the hospital.” So if you have COVID-19, the sooner you implement the treatment protocol, the better.
There’s a War Against Truth
The successful treatment of COVID-19 using ivermectin and other therapies is being actively suppressed. Few, for instance, have heard about the astonishing success in Uttar Pradesh, India, which embraced large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients, close contacts of patients and health care workers.
They’ve since had a COVID-19 positivity rate of almost zero, marking a major public health achievement that Kory believes should be a model for the world. Even the World Health Organization praised Uttar Pradesh for their excellent public health measures, which included sending people out to villages to conduct rapid COVID-19 tests and, if positive, treat patients and close contacts with ivermectin.
WHO, however, did not mention ivermectin as part of Uttar Pradesh’s success story. Kory now calls the FLCCC an “army,” because “they’re actively fighting a war”:
“They’re challenging the pharmacists. They’re talking to their doctors. They’re writing to pharmacy boards … I don’t think war is an overstatement here. There’s a war on truth. There’s a war on free discourse and sharing of opinions. One of the catastrophic things is the way they branded misinformation on the level of a felony. Someone who has an opinion that differs from the agency’s is automatically medical misinformation.
It’s treated as though it’s a scourge of society that needs to be extinguished. I think people are fighting back against that. It’s nice to hear the army and the tribe is growing and most important is, I think we’re helping people. We’re arming people with agency and the ability to navigate a pretty confusing world.”
FLCCC’s I-MASK+ protocol can be downloaded in full, giving you step-by-step instructions on how to prevent and treat the early symptoms of COVID-19. FLCCC also has protocols for at-home prevention and early treatment, called I-MASS, which involves ivermectin, vitamin D3, a multivitamin and a digital thermometer to watch your body temperature in the prevention phase and ivermectin, melatonin, aspirin and antiseptic mouthwash for early at-home treatment.
Household or close contacts of COVID-19 patients may take ivermectin (18 milligrams, then repeat the dose in 48 hours) for post-exposure prevention. FLCCC also has a management protocol — I-RECOVER — for long-haul COVID-19 syndrome. The protocols are translated into 23 different languages to provide widespread, free access to this lifesaving information, including how to get ivermectin.
FLCCC remains hopeful that ivermectin will be formally adopted into national or international COVID-19 treatment guidelines in the near future.
References
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021
FLCCC Alliance, Ivermectin & COVID-19
Mountain Home May 1, 2021
FLCCC Alliance, Math+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19
Dr. Pierre Kory Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)
FLCCC Alliance I-MASK+ Protocol
FLCCC MATH+ Hospital Protocol
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 24:30
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 26:41
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 28:30
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 28:58
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 32:04
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 34:30
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 34:30
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 38:33
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 40:00
Indian Express May 12, 2021
World Health Organization May 7, 2021
Odysee, Peak Prosperity October 15, 2021, 1:04
FLCCC Alliance, I-Mask+
FLCCC Alliance, I-MASS
FLCCC Alliance, I-RECOVER
FLCCC, How to Get Ivermectin
-
Second
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/pfizer-quietly-adds-language-warning-unfavorable-pre-clinical-clinical-or-safety-data-may?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=476
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
Toronto Sun - "A Shocking Admission of Failure"
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/cdc-casually-admits-covid-nose-swabs-ended-lab-genomic-sequencing-analysis/
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/gop-congresswoman-wants-to-know-why-feds-have-not-promoted-nasal-spray-to-treat-covid-19_4292281.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-02-22-1&utm_medium=email&est=vhzHtNMxWMa8xArPDamEScCK0z%2BqmC2iPfp2knZlnwkudweO2BDRSFbfxllUvrxgQysr
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/gop-congresswoman-wants-to-know-why-feds-have-not-promoted-nasal-spray-to-treat-covid-19_4292281.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-02-22-1&utm_medium=email&est=vhzHtNMxWMa8xArPDamEScCK0z%2BqmC2iPfp2knZlnwkudweO2BDRSFbfxllUvrxgQysr
If you have effective treatments for Sino lung AIDS, then you remove the figleaf for pushing the ClotShot.
How are you going to kill off the excess population if people won't take the ClotShot?
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/100/268/358/original/13335ea7c2bea918.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/100/268/358/original/13335ea7c2bea918.png)
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-truth-is-coming-out-about-covid-deaths_4309806.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-03-03&utm_medium=email&est=6ZUnsnXtIxVvSFkhw1ZIsmGmZVVv3prBspdcYCxThMxSU2%2FPwxhQrEDBPrtqCg7K%2BoMt
The Truth Is Coming Out About COVID Deaths
By Joseph Mercola March 1, 2022 Updated: March 2, 2022biggersmaller Print
Hospitals receive payments for testing every patient for COVID, every COVID diagnosis and every ‘COVID death,’ as well as any time they use remdesivir and mechanical ventilation.
Early on in the COVID pandemic, people suspected that the deaths attributed to the infection were exaggerated. There was plenty of evidence for this. For starters, hospitals were instructed and incentivized to mark any patient who had a positive COVID test and subsequently died within a certain time period as a COVID death.
At the same time, we knew that the PCR test was unreliable, producing inordinate amounts of false positives. Now, the truth is finally starting to come out and, as suspected, the actual death toll is vastly lower than we were led to believe.
COVID Deaths Have Been Vastly Overcounted
In the video above, Dr. John Campbell reviews recent data released by the U.K. government in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. They show that the number of deaths during 2020 in England and Wales, where COVID-19 was the sole cause of death, was 9,400. Of those, 7,851 were aged 65 and older. The median age of death was 81.5 years.
During the first quarter of 2021, there were 6,483 deaths where COVID-19 was the sole cause of death, again with the vast majority, 4,923, occurring in seniors over 65.
A total of 346 died from COVID-19 alone during the second quarter of 2021, and in the third quarter, the COVID death toll was 1,142. Again, these are people with no other underlying conditions that might have caused their death.
So, in all, for the 21 months covering January 2020 through September 2021, the total COVID-19 death toll in England and Wales was 17,371 — a far cry from what’s been reported. As of the end of September 2021, the U.K. government reported there were 137,133 deaths within 28 days of a positive test, and these deaths were therefore all counted as “COVID deaths.”
In a January 19, 2022, press conference, U.K. health secretary Sajid Javid admitted that the daily government figures are unreliable as people have been and continue to die from conditions unrelated to COVID-19, but are included in the count due to a positive test.
He also admitted that about 40% of patients presently counted as hospitalized COVID patients were not admitted due to COVID symptoms. They were admitted for other conditions and simply tested positive.
COVID Has Primarily Killed Those Close to Death Anyway
Campbell also points out that of the 17,371 people who had COVID-19 as the sole cause of death, 13,597 were 65 or older. The average age of death in the U.K. from COVID in 2021 was 82.5 years. Compare that to the projected life expectancy in the U.K., which is 79 for men and 82.9 for women. This hardly constitutes an emergency, least of all for healthy school- and working-age individuals.
Campbell then goes on to review data on excess deaths from cancer. Estimates suggest there have been an extra 50,000 cancer deaths over the past 18 months — deaths that normally would not have occurred. Delayed diagnosis and inability to receive proper treatment due to COVID restrictions are thought to be primary reasons for this.
As noted by Campbell, when we’re looking at excess deaths, we really need to take things like age of death into account. COVID-19, apparently, killed mostly people who were close to the end of life expectancy anyway, so the loss of quality life years isn’t particularly significant.
That needs to be weighed against the deaths of people in their 30s, 40s and 50s who have died from untreated cancer and other chronic diseases, thanks to COVID restrictions.
CDC Highlights Role of Comorbidities in Vaxxed COVID Deaths
In the U.S., data suggest a similar pattern of exaggerated COVID death statistics. Most recently, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky cited research showing that 77.8% of people who had received the COVID jab yet died from/with COVID also had, on average, four comorbidities.
“So, really, these are people who were unwell to begin with,” Walensky said. But while Walensky points to this study as evidence that the COVID shot works wonders to reduce the risk of death, the exact same pattern has been shown in the unvaccinated. People without comorbidities have very little to worry about when it comes to COVID.
“COVID is a lethal risk only for the sickest among us, and that’s true whether you’re ‘vaccinated’ or not.”
For example, a 2020 study found 88% of hospitalized COVID patients in New York City had two or more comorbidities, 6.3% had one underlying health condition and 6.1% had none. At that time, there were no COVID jabs available.
Similarly, in late August 2020, the CDC published data showing only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths. So, yes, COVID is a lethal risk only for the sickest among us, just as Walensky said, but that’s true whether you’re “vaccinated” or not.
Most COVID Deaths Likely Due to Ventilator Malpractice
In addition to the issue of whether people die “from” COVID or “with” a SARS-CoV-2 positive test, there’s the issue of whether incorrect treatment is killing COVID patients. By early April 2020, doctors warned that putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation increased their risk of death.
One investigation showed a staggering 80% of COVID-19 patients in New York City who were placed on ventilators died, causing some doctors to question their use. U.K. data put that figure at 66% and a small study in Wuhan found 86% of ventilated patients died. In an April 8, 2020, article, STAT News reported:
“Many patients have blood oxygen levels so low they should be dead. But they’re not gasping for air, their hearts aren’t racing, and their brains show no signs of blinking off from lack of oxygen.
That is making critical care physicians suspect that blood levels of oxygen, which for decades have driven decisions about breathing support for patients with pneumonia and acute respiratory distress, might be misleading them about how to care for those with COVID-19.
In particular, more and more are concerned about the use of intubation and mechanical ventilators. They argue that more patients could receive simpler, noninvasive respiratory support, such as the breathing masks used in sleep apnea, at least to start with and maybe for the duration of the illness.”
At the time, emergency room physician Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell argued that patients’ symptoms had more in common with altitude sickness than pneumonia. Similarly, a paper by critical care Drs. Luciano Gattinoni and John J. Marini described two different types of COVID-19 presentations, which they refer to as Type L and Type H. While one benefited from mechanical ventilation, the other did not.
Despite that, putting COVID patients on mechanical ventilation is “standard of care” for COVID across the U.S. to this day. Without doubt, most of the early COVID patients were killed from ventilator malpractice, and patients continue to be killed — not from COVID but from harmful treatments.
Better Alternatives to Ventilation Exist
Mechanical ventilation can easily damage the lungs as it’s pushing air into the lungs with force. Hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) would likely be a better alternative, as it allows your body to absorb a higher percentage of oxygen without forcing air into the lungs. HBOT also improves mitochondrial function, helps with detoxification, inhibits and controls inflammation and optimizes your body’s innate healing capacity.
Doctors have also had excellent results using high-flow nasal cannulas in lieu of ventilators. As noted in an April 2020 press release from doctors at UChicago Medicine:
“High-flow nasal cannulas, or HFNCs, are non-invasive nasal prongs that sit below the nostrils and blow large volumes of warm, humidified oxygen into the nose and lungs.
A team from UChicago Medicine’s emergency room took 24 COVID-19 patients who were in respiratory distress and gave them HFNCs instead of putting them on ventilators. The patients all fared extremely well, and only one of them required intubation after 10 days …
The HFNCs are often combined with prone positioning, a technique where patients lay on their stomachs to aid breathing. Together, they’ve helped UChicago Medicine doctors avoid dozens of intubations and have decreased the chances of bad outcomes for COVID-19 patients, said Thomas Spiegel, MD, Medical Director of University of Chicago Medicine’s Emergency Department. The proning and the high-flow nasal cannulas combined have brought patient oxygen levels from around 40% to 80% and 90% …”
How to Use Prone Positioning at Home
You can also use prone positioning at home if you struggle with a cough or have trouble breathing. If you’re struggling to breathe, you should seek emergency medical care. However, in cases of cough or mild shortness of breath being treated at home, try to avoid spending a lot of time lying flat on your back.
Guidelines from Elmhurst Hospital suggest “laying [sic] on your stomach and in different positions will help your body to get air into all areas of your lung.” The guidelines recommend changing your position every 30 minutes to two hours, including:
Lying on your belly
Lying on your right side
Sitting up
Lying on your left side
This is a simple way to potentially help ease breathing difficulties at home. If you or a loved one is hospitalized, this technique can be used there too.
Hospital Incentives Are Driving Up COVID Deaths
You might wonder why doctors and hospital administrators insist on using treatments known to be ineffective at best and deadly at worst, while stubbornly refusing to administer anything that has been shown to work, be it intravenous vitamin C, hydroxychloroquine and zinc, ivermectin or corticosteroids.
The most likely answer is because they’re protecting their bottom line. In the U.S., hospitals not only risk losing federal funding if they administer these treatments, but they also get a variety of incentives for doing all the wrong things. Hospitals receive payments for:
COVID testing for all patients
COVID diagnoses
Admitting a “COVID patient”
Use of remdesivir
Use of mechanical ventilation
COVID deaths
What’s worse, there’s evidence that certain hospital systems, and perhaps all of them, have waived patients’ rights, making anyone diagnosed with COVID a virtual prisoner of the hospital, with no ability to exercise informed consent. In short, hospitals are doing whatever they want with patients, and they have every incentive to maltreat them, and no incentive to give them treatments other than that dictated to them by the National Institutes of Health.
As reported by Citizens Journal, the U.S. government actually pays hospitals a “bonus” on the entire hospital bill if they use remdesivir, a drug shown to cause severe organ damage. Even coroners are given bonuses for every COVID-19 death.
A Bounty Has Been Placed on Your Life
“What does this mean for your health and safety as a patient in the hospital?” Citizens Journal asks. Without mincing words, it means your health is in severe jeopardy. Citizen Journal likens government-directed COVID treatments to a bounty placed on your life, where payouts are tied to your decline, not your recovery.
“For Remdesivir, studies show that 71–75% of patients suffer an adverse effect, and the drug often had to be stopped after five to 10 days because of these effects, such as kidney and liver damage, and death,” Citizen Journal writes.
“Remdesivir trials during the 2018 West African Ebola outbreak had to be discontinued because death rate exceeded 50%. Yet, in 2020, Anthony Fauci directed that Remdesivir was to be the drug hospitals use to treat COVID-19, even when the COVID clinical trials of Remdesivir showed similar adverse effects.
In ventilated patients, the death toll is staggering … [attorney Thomas] Renz announced at a Truth for Health Foundation Press Conference that CMS data showed that in Texas hospitals, 84.9% percent of all patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.
Then there are deaths from restrictions on effective treatments for hospitalized patients. Renz and a team of data analysts have estimated that more than 800,000 deaths in America’s hospitals, in COVID-19 and other patients, have been caused by approaches restricting fluids, nutrition, antibiotics, effective antivirals, anti-inflammatories, and therapeutic doses of anti-coagulants.
We now see government-dictated medical care at its worst in our history since the federal government mandated these ineffective and dangerous treatments for COVID-19, and then created financial incentives for hospitals and doctors to use only those ‘approved’ (and paid for) approaches.
Our formerly trusted medical community of hospitals and hospital-employed medical staff have effectively become ‘bounty hunters’ for your life.
Patients need to now take unprecedented steps to avoid going into the hospital for COVID-19. Patients need to take active steps to plan before getting sick to use early home-based treatment of COVID-19 that can help you save your life.”
Treat COVID Symptoms Immediately and Aggressively
Considering the uncertainties around diagnosis, it’s best to treat any cold or flu-like symptoms early. At first signs of symptoms, start treatment. Perhaps it’s the common cold or a regular influenza, maybe it’s the much milder Omicron, but since it’s hard to tell, your best bet is to treat symptoms as you would treat earlier forms of COVID.
Considering how contagious Omicron is, chances are you’re going to get it, so buy what you’ll need now, so you have it on hand if/when symptoms arise. And, remember, this applies for those who have gotten the jab as well, since you’re just as likely to get infected — and perhaps even more so. Early treatment protocols with demonstrated effectiveness include:
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s (FLCCC’s) prevention and early at-home treatment protocol. They also have an in-hospital protocol and long-term management guidance for long-haul COVID-19 syndrome. You can find a listing of doctors who can prescribe ivermectin and other necessary medicines on the FLCCC website
The AAPS protocol
Tess Laurie’s World Council for Health protocol
America’s Frontline Doctors
Based on my review of these protocols, I’ve developed the following summary of the treatment specifics I believe are the easiest and most effective.
dr mercola covid treatment protocol
References
The Telegraph January 19, 2022 (Archived)
Gov.UK National Life Tables 2018-2020
CDC MMWR January 7, 2022; 71(1): 19-25
Delta News January 10, 2022
Washington Examiner January 10, 2022
JAMA April 22, 2020 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.6775 [Epub ahead of print]
CDC.gov August 26, 2020, Comorbidities Table 3, updated October 14, 2020
Medscape April 6, 2020
Daily Mail April 9, 2020
Business Insider April 9, 2020
The Associated Press April 8, 2020
STAT News April 8, 2020
JAMA Insights April 24, 2020 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.6825
Newswise April 23, 2020
Elmhurst Hospital Self-Proning Positioning Guide
Citizens Journal December 20, 2021
The Daily Jot November 2, 2021
-
second
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/02/18/evil-cdc-quietly-lowers-standards-for-speech-in-early-development-to-avoid-admitting-damage-lockdowns-and-masks-have-done-to-children/?bcid=3cbca753ac94759b3147755f15cf83ef8ddcdc42b399dbf776d69a07c94810d6&utm_campaign=nl&utm_medium=email&utm_source=twtydaily
-
https://bittercenturion.blogspot.com/2022/03/cant-say-i-did-nazi-that-coming.html?m=1
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-cdc-got-caught-hiding-data-vaccination-might-increase-risk-of-omicron-infection-dr-robert-malone_4318005.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-03-05&utm_medium=email&est=lfbHJFKTCr6K8p0QvnDKkhFNHBwCP7T3LqqE4lff3SET%2F7%2BdZQ4gJ1WU9rTFZqHjDtEC
-
second
https://www.theepochtimes.com/naturally-acquired-immunity-versus-vaccine-acquired-immunity_4082499.html?utm_source=Health&utm_campaign=health-2022-03-05&utm_medium=email&est=CezJHNyF%2FgqXcA62Id8YpJkWLg1F7CsMrIvkNgavbex12TbHOyQkhOnbgLowLAqZVbEe
Naturally Acquired Immunity Versus Vaccine Acquired Immunity
Science and public policy seem to disagree over which one is better
BY Jennifer Margulis TIMENovember 9, 2021
“He’s got a pass!” said the dad sitting across from me at the airport in Bismarck, North Dakota, where we were both stranded due to flight delays. He gestured to his 5-year-old son.
“Had a slight fever and tested positive for COVID. We had to keep him home from school for a couple weeks. Then, he tested negative and was good to go. I got the vaccine. My wife did, too. But he can travel anywhere without any testing, and there’s no vaccine for his age anyway.”
In Germany Natural Immunity Counts
Since the beginning of July in Germany, where that family lives, if you can demonstrate proof of being COVID-recovered and then have a subsequent negative COVID test, you are considered immune. For six months anyway, according to the German government.
But in the United States, where my family lives, even those who are COVID-recovered (and show high protection via either antibody or T-cell testing) are being told they also must get vaccinated. Indeed, the CDC has been actively urging Americans who have already had COVID to get the vaccine.
America’s federal and state health officials, via the mainstream media and social media, as well as on their official channels, insist that COVID vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone.
CDC Urges Vaccination for COVID-Recovered
A CDC statement from August sums up the official position nicely: “New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection Than Previous COVID-19 Infection.”
“If you have had COVID-19 before please still get vaccinated,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky urged the public in that release. “Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”
But is it really?
Natural Immunity Versus Vaccine Immunity
Despite sensationalist headlines, reinfection with COVID-19 appears to be exceedingly rare. If you are unvaccinated and have had COVID, the chances of you getting it again are slim. A preliminary report from Israeli scientists shows that out of 149,735 people in Israel with confirmed COVID-19 cases (documented via positive PCR tests) only 154 people had evidence of reinfection, which is about 1 in 1,000.
Another study, however, suggests that the chances of reinfection are even lower than 1 in 1,000. Cleveland Clinic scientists who examined a cohort of 52,238 employees found no cases of reinfection among unvaccinated people with evidence of prior SARS-Co-V-2 infections.
The same study showed that vaccinated people who hadn’t had COVID-19 had a lower risk of infection than unvaccinated people. Still, the researchers concluded that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.”
Sarbecovirus Infections Protect Against Future Disease
The benefits of naturally acquired immunity may go beyond protection against COVID. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is part of a family of viruses known as sarbecoviruses. Symptoms vary widely in different people, but these viruses can create severe acute respiratory syndromes that usually begin with a fever and body aches, according to the CDC.
There have been two previous SARS outbreaks. A 2003 outbreak thought to have originated in China in 2002 infected about 8,098 people and led to about 774 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. Another smaller SARS outbreak occurred in 2004.
Both of these outbreaks were self-limiting: humans managed to overcome the illnesses naturally without mass vaccination campaigns. Research on these other sarbecovirus infections is limited, but it seems that when we acquire natural immunity to these viruses, it helps protect us against future disease.
To study this, scientists in San Francisco took blood from people who had had previous COVID infections (SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-Co-V) and assessed 12 antibodies in the blood. As reported in Nature, the California researchers found that one antibody in particular (S2H97) was able to bind to a range of sarbecovirus infections and keep the viruses from spreading in lab experiments. When they tested the antibody in hamsters, it kept the rodents from getting sick.
This “super antibody,” which was acquired naturally, essentially blocked SARS viruses from spreading to other cells. While the research is being used to promote the idea of developing a broad-ranging vaccine, it also shows that there may be long-lasting benefits to natural infection.
Viral Illness: Natural Immunity Provides Long-Lasting Protection
With other infectious diseases caused by viruses, we have seen that natural infection provides longer-lasting protection than vaccine immunity. For example, a 2017 study of adults in the Czech Republic published in the scientific journal PLOS One showed that the highest protection against the measles, as measured by antibody levels in people’s blood, was in people over 50 years of age who were naturally infected before the implementation of a measles vaccine.
Other research on swine flu (H1N1) published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine in 2011, found “extraordinarily” powerful antibodies in the blood of nine people who caught the swine flu naturally and recovered from it.
Though, again, this research was showcased by news reports as evidence that it may be possible to develop a one-size-fits-all vaccine against different strains of flu viruses, what it actually demonstrates is that recovering from naturally acquired viral infections not only gives people short-term immunity against other viruses but may also be of lasting benefit in fighting off other viral infections as well.
Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus and the vaccines to protect against it only became available in January, it isn’t scientifically possible to know the long-term protection offered by either the infection or the vaccines.
As more data comes in, however, it appears that even mild infection can provide robust protection from COVID-19 infection. A study from July evaluated 254 COVID-19 patients for up to eight months and found “durable broad-based immune responses,” even among COVID-recovered patients who had only mild symptoms.
Other recent data also suggests that natural immunity is long-lasting. A study from Finland published in September in the European Journal of Immunology found that in COVID-recovered patients protection against reinfection persisted for over a year.
Immunologist: Natural Immunity Better Than Vaccination
Yet another large study from August looked at a database of 2.5 million Israelis and found that “natural immunity confers longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”
This Israeli study found that people who were vaccinated who hadn’t been previously infected were 6 to 13 times more likely to get infected with COVID-19 than unvaccinated people who had already had the illness.
“It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” Charlotte Thalin, an immunology researcher and specialist in internal medicine who is based in Stockholm, Sweden, told Science.org.
Given the natural protection provided to people who recover from COVID, why is the CDC so eager to get every eligible American vaccinated, even those who have recovered and have naturally acquired immunity?
The CDC press release references only two reports. The first report showed that people in Kentucky who recovered from COVID who did not subsequently get vaccinated were nearly 2 1/2 times more likely to get re-infected with COVID compared to people who had recovered from COVID who were subsequently vaccinated.
The second CDC report, co-authored by more than 40 medical doctors and public health officials (several of whom disclose direct ties to the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing and profiting from these vaccines), looked at hospitalization rates of adults aged 65 and older. It concluded that “among adults aged 65-74 years, effectiveness of full vaccination for preventing hospitalization was 96 percent for Pfizer-BioNTech, 96 percent for Moderna, and 84 percent for Janssen COVID-19.”
The second report cited by the CDC excluded hospitalized patients who had only one dose of any COVID vaccine less than 14 days prior. It also didn’t specify if those who were vaccinated or those who were unvaccinated had a history of prior infection.
So that report sheds no light on whether vaccine immunity is more long-lasting than immunity from infection and offers no evidence to justify the idea that COVID-recovered patients should get vaccinated.
The CDC didn’t mention other studies that showed findings contrary to the Kentucky study. It’s unclear whether the agency reviewed those studies and found the Kentucky study to be stronger or only considered the Kentucky study in making their policy to recommend and require that the previously infected get the vaccine.
Meanwhile, much of the established science supports the superiority of acquired immunity. That fact has put some people, such as Laurie Lentz-Marino, in a difficult position as they try to balance the consequences of not complying with vaccine mandates against their understanding of what’s in the best interest of their health.
“Vaccine-induced immunity can never be as long-lasting and robust as naturally acquired immunity,” said Lentz-Marino, who taught chemistry and biology classes at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts, for more than 20 years. “The human immune system knows what it’s doing. We are an incredibly successful species. There would not be close to 8 billion people on the planet otherwise.”
Lentz-Marino, 61, recently resigned from her teaching position over vaccine and mask mandates at the college.
“It’s a sad joke to think that we know better than Mother Nature. We’re going in the wrong direction. It’s really arrogant to think that we can re-design our immune systems.”
Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is an award-winning science writer and book author. A Fulbright grantee, she is also a frequent contributor to The Epoch Times. Learn more and subscribe to her free weekly newsletter at her website JenniferMargulis.net.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-goes-liver-cells-and-converted-dna-study
-
https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/14/analyses-of-cdc-data-show-massive-spike-in-excess-mortality-in-millennials-after-vaccine-mandates/?fbclid=IwAR2BScvkdVS8_1NGvyNfgqmdP-DQMW0SOJJNWJqW8nRjC5YKD4eZxbKDwMM
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/9-in-10-covid-deaths-are-in-vaccinated-people-report_4339503.html?utm_source=Opinion&utm_campaign=opinion-2022-03-16&utm_medium=email&est=U6hAvnv6tcEKqKwCvBgbPljNAnudTAIqRXTtZ72YlobnR3ZLeSPSWxx2gaNpyQRxgk%2FN
9 in 10 COVID Deaths Are in Vaccinated People: Report
Joseph Mercola
Joseph Mercola
March 15, 2022 Updated: March 16, 2022biggersmaller Print
A report released by the UK government has confirmed that 9 out of every 10 deaths related to COVID-19 are found in those who are fully vaccinated. Although the virus variant is the same and the UK approved only one different vaccine (AstraZeneca) from the United States, the data in the U.S. are different. This may be due in large part to the CDC definition used to identify who is “vaccinated.”
U.S. data are also likely to become even more sparse in the coming weeks and months. In addition to the CDC hiding data, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) quietly decided in early February to stop recording deaths attributed to COVID-19.
Data Is Essential
Yet, data is the foundation of scientific analysis. Without it, researchers are unable to analyze statistics and draw conclusions, which leaves public health experts unable to make accurate recommendations. Knowledge gives you the power to make informed decisions based on evidence.
Six months into the pandemic, a report revealed that most Americans had significant misconceptions of the COVID-19 risks. Months later, a second survey demonstrated that not much had changed. While analysts blamed “ignorance of fundamental, undisputed facts on who is at risk” for the so-called misconceptions, others said the politicization of the pandemic was also at fault. But there were other factors at play that skewed the data scientists thought they had.
According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID injection clinical trials, data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections and follow up on reported side effects lagged way behind. Her testimony was published November 2, 2021, in the British Medical Journal by investigative journalist Paul Thacker.
This is yet another indication that the true number of adverse events and deaths from the shots currently identified as COVID vaccines may never be known. The only logical conclusion to draw is that the data don’t support the Warp Speed production and mass vaccination program initiated in early 2020.
In fact, the shot program not only is ineffective, but also has likely damaged and killed far more people than any health agency will ever publicly admit. It is essential to share this information to help prevent more deaths and damaged lives.
UK Government Report: 90 Percent of Deaths Are in Fully Vaccinated
A reporter from The Exposé points out that while the world has been distracted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the UK government quietly released a report that confirmed 9 in every 10 deaths from COVID-19 in England were in people who were fully vaccinated.
The February 2022 report was from the UK Health Security Agency, which publishes weekly surveillance. The report contains several tables of raw data showing that the vast majority of people who were infected, hospitalized or died from COVID-19 were fully vaccinated.
The Exposé, demonstrated step by step how the data, gathered from Jan. 24, 2022, through February 28, 2022, supported this assertion. In the UK, health authorities differentiate between those who have never received a shot and those who received one, two or three doses. All told, there were 1,086,434 cases of COVID in vaccinated individuals that accounted for 73 percent of all cases during that period.
When children were removed from the equation, vaccinated individuals accounted for 91 percent of all cases. The reporter also compared data taken in 2021 when Delta was the dominant variant against the current report when Omicron is the dominant variant in England. It showed a higher number of children hospitalized for Omicron than for Delta.
Since children have never been at high risk for severe disease from any COVID variant, it begs the question if the current number of children hospitalized with COVID-19 may be due to increased PCR testing—known to have a high false-positive rate—in children hospitalized for other reasons, such as a broken leg or appendicitis.
When children were included in the figures for hospitalization, the data showed 75 percent of those hospitalized with COVID in the current period were vaccinated. But, when children were removed from the equation, 85 percent of the hospitalized individuals were vaccinated. Similar results were found when the data were analyzed for COVID deaths.
During the four-week period in the current report, vaccinated individuals accounted for 89 percent of deaths. Most interestingly, not only are the deaths in vaccinated individuals rising precipitously, but the number of deaths in those who are not vaccinated is dropping.
Vaccinated Deaths Rising in California
Headlines in the March 7, 2022, Mercury News read, “COVID-19 Deaths in California Among Vaccinated Rose Sharply With Omicron.” The corresponding story added that 10 deaths recorded in Santa Cruz County, California, and nine of those were vaccinated. On the surface, this is similar to findings reported from the UK. Yet, the raw numbers in the United States are different.
This is likely because U.S. data do not differentiate between individuals who have had one, two or three shots. In fact, the U.S. CDC clearly states that you can only be considered fully vaccinated two weeks after receiving the final dose in the primary two-shot series from Pfizer and Moderna or the one shot from Johnson & Johnson.
Therefore, as the UK analyzes data that identify individuals on the spectrum of having received one of three shots, the United States only counts vaccination if you’re two weeks after your last dose. Since not all patients who are fully vaccinated are identified on admission, analyzing U.S. numbers is difficult, if not impossible. You must ask yourself if this is intentional.
It probably is safe to assume that if a person in the United States is identified as being vaccinated, they are likely fully vaccinated by CDC standards. However, there are also likely individuals lumped into the unvaccinated group who have had one or two shots or may even be fully vaccinated by CDC standards but were not counted as such on admission.
The Mercury News justified the vaccinated deaths, writing: “Of the vaccinated patients who died, one was in his early 100s, three were in their 90s, two were in their 80s, three were in their 70s and most had underlying health problems. The unvaccinated man who died was in his 50s.”
While age is certainly a significant factor in any infectious disease including COVID, the article did not mention any of the other CDC-identified comorbidities that contribute to COVID deaths. To add to the misinformation, the article quoted Dr. Errol Ozdalga, a hospitalist at Stanford, who told the Mercury News that patients admitted during the Delta wave and earlier infections were otherwise healthy.
The implication is that those with comorbidities the CDC identified as increasing the risk of severe illness, such as heart disease, diabetes, obesity, chronic kidney disease and immunocompromised, were not hospitalized with COVID before Omicron.
““That went away with Omicron,” Ozdalga said. The variant has afflicted those with weakened immune systems, those who were “predisposed in some way” to severe illness, he said.” Additionally, without supporting information, the news report included a simple statement:
“Dr. George Rutherford, an infectious disease expert at UC-San Francisco, said the raw numbers make the deaths among the vaccinated look worse than they are — their rates of dying remain far less than the unvaccinated.”
Economist Survey Reveals Significant Vaccine Injury Rate
Economist Mark Skidmore executed a critical online survey using the U.S. population to estimate damage from the COVID-19 shots. He presented the most recent and significant data20 from the ongoing study at the Doctors for COVID Ethics Symposium 3.
His paper seeks to understand the number of people who have died from the COVID shots that he estimates based on the survey. He used the survey to triangulate information from the general population and what they are experiencing.
The participants were asked to report on the adverse events of people they knew best in their social circle — in other words, good friends or family members. The surveys were close to representative of the general population in age, income and gender in December 2021.
Skidmore first presented a list of adverse events the FDA acknowledged could be possible and compared it against the documented data of injury and deaths from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) published in OpenVAERS.
Some of the most common events on the list were stroke, heart attack, myocarditis, death, thrombocytopenia and venous thromboembolism (blood clots). According to Skidmore, everyone agrees that adverse events can and do occur — the main difference in opinion is how often and how many.
Skidmore then looked at the ratio between COVID illness fatalities and COVID shot fatalities. The ratio in OpenVAERS is 2.6 percent and in VAERS (the number reported by the CDC that doesn’t contain all data originally substantiated) it’s 0.9 percent.
If these numbers reflect reality, the number of people who report injury or death in the survey should be close to zero since the cohort is small enough that it may not capture such a small percentage. Skidmore then asks, if we assume that the survey is a reflection of the true ratio in the population, what is the true population ratio for injury or death after receiving the COVID-19 shot?
From the data collected the ratio reveals there have been 307,997 deaths from the shot. The method used gives a 95 percent confidence interval between 215,018 and 391,410 deaths. Using the same mathematical approach to identify the number of severe adverse events to the general population, the data show there were roughly 1.1 million severe events and 2.3 million less severe events from the shot.
He acknowledges that much of what people see and report is through the lens of their biases. One of those is political affiliation. He showed that people who identified as Democrats reported far fewer shot-related deaths than did Republicans or independents. This likely also affects the number of deaths and adverse events reported to VAERS.
Using the fatality counts by party affiliation, he found that if the Democrat perception was correct, there were 119,000 fatalities compared to 487,000 fatalities if the Republican perception was correct. This gives a potential range of deaths and illustrates the differences in perceptions of people based on how they see the world. However, no matter which number is used, it is still far more than the number of fatalities reported in the VAERS system.
Unprecedented US Death Toll Keeps Rising
While the data from Skidmore and the UK reflect the death rate from COVID-19, it is also important to track the number of all-cause mortality as it’s one of the most reliable data points we have. This statistic is clear-cut. Either a person is dead or they’re not. It does not rely on the reason for death.
In early 2022, mutual insurance holding company OneAmerica announced an increase in the death rate of working Americans, aged 18 to 64, in the third quarter of 2021. Their data show it was 40 percent higher than prepandemic levels.
Other insurance companies have also cited higher mortality rates, including the Hartford Insurance Group that announced mortality increased 32 percent from 2019 and 20 percent from 2020 before the shots. Lincoln National reported death claims have increased 13.7 percent year over year and 54 percent in quarter four of 2021 compared to 2019.
Funeral homes are also posting an increase in burials and cremations in 2021 over 2020. One large German health insurance company reported their company data were nearly 14 times greater than the number of deaths reported by the German government. This data were gathered directly from doctors applying for payment from a sample of 10.9 million people.
The rising death toll that can be linked to the COVID shots is an inconvenient truth for the health agencies that have promoted mass vaccinations with a genetic therapy experiment. In what appears to be a response to this data, Health and Human Services (HHS) have decided to stop the reporting requirements for hospitals and acute care facilities on COVID-19 deaths.
Although the information is published on the HHS website, fact-checkers have claimed the viral social media posts are “false” by simply changing the headline.29 So, while the HHS publicly announced they would no longer require hospitals to report deaths from COVID-19, fact-checkers erroneously report the U.S. government is not ending daily COVID death reporting.
If it helps to sort all this out, an unnamed federal health official actually acknowledged the move to stop reporting COVID-19 hospital deaths when they spoke with a reporter from WSWS, calling the move “incomprehensible.” The official added, “It is the only consistent, reliable and actionable dataset at the federal level. Ninety-nine percent of hospitals report 100% of the data every day. I don’t know any scientists who want to have less data.”
CDC Withholds Data, Fearing Hesitancy and Misinterpretation
When data from multiple sources all reveal the same trends and values, it’s easy to see how the CDC would be unwilling to acknowledge the information or want to release their data for fear it would have a negative impact on the mass vaccination campaign. February 20, 2022, The New York Times reported the CDC still had not published large parts of the data they collected during the pandemic.
While they have published data on the effectiveness of boosters in some individuals, data from people 18 to 49 years were left out. Interestingly, this is also the group who are the least likely to benefit from the shot, since they have some of the lowest rates of severe disease and death as reported by the CDC.
In comments to The New York Times, a CDC spokesperson attempted to justify why the organization had withheld large portions of data since the beginning of the pandemic. She said the data were “not yet ready for prime time,” that the information may be misinterpreted to mean the vaccines are ineffective and that the data they have is based on 10 percent of the U.S. population, which the Times pointed out is the same sample size used to track influenza each year.
Without raw data from the United States, scientists have relied on Israeli data. One study gathered information from 4.6 million people ages 16 and older who had received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. They compared severe illness and death between those who had the booster and those who did not. The data showed the group from 16 to 29 years had zero deaths whether they were boosted or not.
Likewise, the group from 30 to 39 years had one death whether they were boosted or not. In fact, the difference in death rate did not rise until the participants were 60 to 69 years, at which point the non-boosted group had 44 deaths and the boosted group had 32 deaths.
In an opinion piece, Staten Island Advance’s Tom Wrobleski characterizes the CDC’s decision, writing about what has happened to most people who have been willing to publish data and opinions that go against a national or international health agency’s narrative:
“We’re told to have faith in the CDC, in Dr. Anthony Fauci, in all the experts who are trained to handle public health crises.
But we can’t have trust if vital information is withheld from us. Because then it becomes a case of, “Shut up and do what we say. We’re the experts. You don’t need to know how we come to our decisions. We know what’s best.”
And if you question the received wisdom, you’re suddenly a dangerous person. You’re likened to a terrorist. You’re told you want people to die. You get banned from social media.
If you dare protest, you can have your bank account frozen and your vehicle insurance suspended, as we saw during the Freedom Convoy protest in Canada. You can get trampled by police on horseback.
Withholding information only makes people more skeptical. It breeds suspicion. Or mere doubt. The CDC needs to do better if it wants our trust.”
Originally published March 15, 2022 on Mercola.com
Sources and References
The Exposé, March 1, 2022
NHS, Feb. 24, 2022
Food and Drug Administration, March 8, 2022
Mercury News, March 6, 2022
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jan. 16, 2022
The New York Times, Feb. 20, 2022
Health Data.gov, Jan. 6, 2022
Wirepoints, Aug. 19, 2020
CNN, Feb. 10, 2021
The BMJ 2021; 375:n2635
UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report, Feb. 24, 2022
Mercury News, March 7, 2022
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jan. 16, 2022, When are you up to date, chart 3 lines down
Bitchute, Sept. 18, 2021, Min 1:01:30
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Feb. 25, 2022
Mark Skidmore, How Many People Died from the Covid-19 Inoculations?
Rumble, Feb. 18, 2022, Minute 3:38:00 starts
Open VAERS, COVID Data
The Center Square, Jan. 1, 2022
Zero Hedge, Feb. 5, 2022
Health Impact News, Feb. 23, 2022
Greater Mountain Publishing, Feb. 27, 2022
MSN, Jan. 28, 2022, Headline and What We Found
WSWS, Feb. 3, 2022
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jan. 31, 2022
NEJM, 2021; 385:2421
SI Live, Feb. 27, 2022
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10629055/NYC-health-commissioner-sparks-fury-says-kids-five-remain-masked-INDEFINITELY.html
-
second
https://www.theepochtimes.com/cdc-removes-24-percent-of-child-covid-19-deaths-thousands-of-others_4345083.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-03-19&utm_medium=email&est=fFnDkGds2KZDoW00rcQVGeEKGYtBDwvvhClWq2%2FWMLo2Gyu%2F5JADHSkuNvYH5WSHFvYC
-
cdc removing 24 %
of childhood deaths
not suspicious to me
This is opposite conspiracy logic
I would think
if mo of CDC is for child vaccination then removing deaths originally "coded " as corona
would make make vaccination less urgent
no I don't think it has anything to do with corona vaccinations
and they are covering it up
-
in conjunction with above post
what does account for the higher # of childhood "corona" deaths
mistake in coding?
purposeful coding from hospitals to get more more money
or children who had coincidental corona that had nothing to do with death?
that would be question
-
China’s Covid-19 Outbreak: Hugely Consequential, Barely Discussed
On the menu today: It’s understandable if you never want to read another word about Covid-19 again, but while the U.S. has the pandemic in its rear-view mirror, the Omicron variant has arrived in China and Hong Kong, and the Chinese government, following its “zero Covid” philosophy, is trying to deal with a super-contagious variant by locking down anyplace it appears. As you can imagine, it’s not going well — and perhaps illustrating that as frustrating and flawed as the U.S. response to Covid-19 was, a “zero covid” approach just delays the problem instead of stopping it.
Covid-19, Now an Afterthought in America, Is Shutting Down China
It is arguably the biggest story in the world that you’re hearing very little about: China, which for much of the past two years held itself up as a Covid-19 success story for enacting a “zero Covid” policy, is now dealing with an explosion of cases and is trying to stop a virus as contagious as the common cold through lockdowns — with predictably bad results.
Shanghai:
There is growing concern in Shanghai, where health officials in the city of about 25 million people reported 1,609 cases on Friday. Just over 1,500 cases were asymptomatic, marking a sharp increase from the previous day’s 979.
Shanghai’s authorities have resisted going into city-wide lockdown, a harsh measure still being used in other provinces, and are instead closing individual buildings and communities for testing. But some residents have claimed they’ve been locked down for far longer than warned, and others reported issues in securing fresh food and other deliveries. . . .
On Wednesday a nurse in Shanghai died after she was denied entry to hospitals after suffering an asthma attack, echoing the cases of people who died during a lockdown in Xi’an last year after they were denied medical care because of overly strict Covid policies.
It takes a particular kind of genius to respond to a public-health crisis by denying people access to hospitals. This is like fighting arsonists by shutting down firehouses.
Hong Kong:
From overwhelmed hospitals to overflowing morgues, the scenes from Hong Kong’s COVID-19 crisis were strikingly similar to those that unfolded around the world in the early months of the pandemic.
Except that for the wealthy city of 7.5 million people, the sight of bodies piling up in hallways and around patients in hospitals emerged only this month, a year after vaccines against the virus became widely and freely available in the territory. . . .
In a matter of weeks, the contagious Omicron variant of the virus has infected more than 1 million people and caused more than 5,000 deaths, mostly among unvaccinated, elderly people.
This detail is just jaw-dropping: “More than 70 percent of Hong Kong’s COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 80 and older, many of whom lived in elderly care homes. The same age group was the least vaccinated at the outset of the current wave of infections, with less than one in five people fully vaccinated.”
Somehow, Hong Kong authorities failed to vaccinate the demographic that is most likely to succumb to Covid-19:
At the time of writing, 78 percent of people aged 12 years and older in Hong Kong had received both doses of the vaccine. But less than a third of those over the age of 80 years had been fully vaccinated. When omicron hit Hong Kong, the proportion of fully vaccinated residents of care homes was under 20 percent.
“I am very disappointed that despite having early, privileged, and sustained access to the COVID-19 vaccines, we still have this large vulnerable group that remains sub-optimally covered”, commented Gabriel Leung, dean of medicine at the University of Hong Kong. The fifth wave of COVID-19 has already killed more than 2000 people in Hong Kong. An analysis of the first 1153 deaths revealed that 92 percent of the deceased had not received both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.”
Elsewhere in Shenyang, China:
Shenyang — an industrial base home to factories, including car-maker BMW — reported 47 new cases on Tuesday as authorities put all housing compounds under “closed management” and barred residents from leaving without a 48-hour negative test result.
During the worst months of the pandemic, many U.S. health-care and hospital workers felt like they were being worked to death. In Shandong, it is apparently literally true:
On Tuesday, a state-media report said the state-sponsored All-China Women’s Federation had posthumously awarded a badge of honor to a woman who died after working for 11 days straight at a hospital in Shandong province, including seven night shifts. The woman, 42-year-old Bai Xiaohui, who led a Covid-testing team, collapsed Sunday as she came off a shift, the federation said, describing her as a model worker. After the state-media report was posted on social media, one commenter said, “Please give medical workers more time to rest while they are alive.”
And the Chinese government is expecting similar waves of cases nationwide:
China’s provinces should set up at least two to three temporary hospitals each to treat Covid-19 patients, Beijing said on Tuesday (March 22), a potential sign the country is anticipating an increase in cases as it battles an Omicron outbreak and ponders how to exit its isolationist virus strategy.
As usual, it is exceptionally difficult for outsiders to get a clear picture of how bad the outbreak is. The official Chinese statistics would have you believe that only two people died of Covid-19 in that country in the entire year of 2021 — in a country with 1.4 billion people. Since the start of the pandemic, China’s official statistics suggest that “when adjusted for population size, China has reported fewer deaths than any other country in the world except Burundi.”
Entirely coincidentally, the Chinese mortality rate of deaths per 1,000 inhabitants jumped from 7.07 in 2020 to 7.18 in 2021, and an analysis by The Economist calculates that since the start of the pandemic, China has had 280,000 to 430,000 more deaths than they would expect to have.
As we’ve all learned during the past two years, it is really tough to “stop the spread” of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. Human beings want and need to interact with other human beings, and it’s unrealistic to expect people to stay in their homes and minimize their interactions with others for months at a time. And once a virus gets as contagious as the Omicron variant, it’s just about impossible to stop. A new study determined that Omicron patients can shed the virus from six to eight days. In this case, the mildness of many Omicron infections may work against preventing the spread; people walk around and interact with each other longer before realizing they feel sick. Back in December, CDC director Rochelle Walensky said, “Early in the course of illness, in the one to two days prior to the onset of symptoms and in the two to three days after the prior onset of symptoms is really when the vast majority of transmission occurs.”
For a while, people pointed to Taiwan, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand as Covid success stories — and some of us observed that those countries had mostly taught us that it is easier to quarantine an island than a country with land borders.
“Zero Covid” policies can delay a country’s encounter with the virus, but they can’t stop it. As frustrating, flawed, and stumbling as the U.S. response to Covid-19 was, the strategy was sound: Minimize your risk of exposure until a vaccine is developed, particularly if you’re old, immunocompromised, or have comorbidities; once a vaccine is available, get your shots and get your immune system primed and trained for a run-in with SARS-CoV-2; get additional boosters as needed. Once you’ve got the shots, your run-in with Covid-19 is likely to feel like a winter cold, and then you’ll have natural immunity on top of your vaccine immunity.
Unsurprisingly, the Chinese people are noticing that two years after the pandemic started, they’re still getting their cities shut down, while the rest of the world — having endured two years of fits and starts and several waves — is generally moving on and returning to normal:
In the tech hub of Shenzhen on Sunday, videos shared online showed residents protesting in a locked-down district, after restrictions lasted for several days longer than scheduled, according to social media posts.
“You can’t do this — we need to eat and pay the rent,” a man among a crowd of protesters is heard yelling in anguish at health care workers, who stood behind high plastic barriers, according to a video shared online.
“Unlock! We demand lifting the lockdown!” others shouted in a second clip.
In another instance, in the neighboring city of Guangzhou earlier this month, thousands of people were seen in video footage trying to escape being caught up in a snap lockdown at a trade fair. Some hopped fences to avoid being locked inside the venue after a single positive case was found.
The other complication for China is that Chinese-manufactured vaccines didn’t seem as effective against the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 as other countries’ vaccines; the early evidence suggests that the Chinese vaccines are even less against effective against Omicron.
A Yale study concluded that: “An analysis of blood serum from 101 individuals from the Dominican Republic showed that omicron infection produced no neutralizing antibodies among those who received the standard two-shot regimen of the Sinovac vaccine. Antibody levels against omicron rose among those who had also received a booster shot of the mRNA vaccine made by Pfizer-BioNTech.” And a study “by Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine found that a booster shot of Sinopharm produced significantly lower antibodies against omicron, compared with the protection it provided for the variant discovered in Wuhan in early 2020.”
Then again, from the holiday season until a few weeks ago, lots of Americans learned that being fully vaccinated and boosted didn’t prevent you from having symptomatic Covid-19 when you encountered the Omicron variant; the vaccines just made the effects milder.
Thankfully, this doesn’t mean that China will experience an overwhelming number of deaths; Omicron is still milder than other strains. British researchers have calculated that “after adjusting for a number of factors, the risk of hospital admission for Omicron cases was found to be less than half (59 percent lower) compared to the risk for Delta cases. The risk of dying was 69 percent lower for those with Omicron compared to those with Delta infections.” China is “lucky” in the sense that this outbreak is Omicron, not Delta, and if the Chinese circumstances are like those in the U.S., they’re all Omicron; the last significant recording of Delta variant cases was back on January 29.
But the experience of China in recent weeks should pour even more cold water on the “China showed the world how to respond to the pandemic” narrative.
-
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/592457-the-cdc-is-finally-recognizing-natural-immunity-legislators-should-follow
-
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/in-australia-doctors-are-now-being?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTE0OTIzMjUsIl8iOiI5UmZmVCIsImlhdCI6MTY0ODkxODk1OSwiZXhwIjoxNjQ4OTIyNTU5LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.v17IJ2suTqj--kVDOe6yQpsValQfGP8e5HBpsueYkno&s=r
-
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/in-australia-doctors-are-now-being?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTE0OTIzMjUsIl8iOiI5UmZmVCIsImlhdCI6MTY0ODkxODk1OSwiZXhwIjoxNjQ4OTIyNTU5LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.v17IJ2suTqj--kVDOe6yQpsValQfGP8e5HBpsueYkno&s=r
“Free world”
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/nih-admits-it-suppressed...
NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins holds up a model of the coronavirus as he testifies before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee looking into the budget estimates for National Institute of Health (NIH) and the state of medical research, on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 26, 2021. (Sarah Silbiger/Pool via AP)
US NEWS
NIH Admits it ‘Suppressed’ Wuhan Lab Genetic Data, but Disputes Watchdog’s ‘Deleted’ Label
Sequence data was removed from public access
By Mark Tapscott April 2, 2022 Updated: April 2, 2022biggersmaller Print
A National Institutes for Health (NIH) spokesperson is disputing a non-profit watchdog group’s claim that the agency “deleted” genetic sequencing data on the CCP virus from a Chinese lab, but the same official acknowledged the data was “suppressed.”
“The headline says the sequences were deleted which is inaccurate. They were not deleted. This is a really important point, and I’ve highlighted what did happen from what we provided to you earlier this week,” NIH Media Branch Chief Amanda Fine told The Epoch Times in a March 31 email.
Fine was referring to a March 29 Epoch Times story headlined “NIH Deleted Info Received From Wuhan Lab on CCP Virus Genetic Sequencing, Watchdog’s FOIA Finds.” The information Fine referenced as having been provided to The Epoch Times by NIH earlier in the week was included in the published story:
“’In June 2020, in response to a request by the same [Wuhan] researcher, National Center for Biotechnology [NCBI] gave the sequence data the status of ‘withdrawn,’ which removes sequencing data from all public means of access but does not delete them.
“NCBI subsequently reassigned the status of the sequence data to ‘suppressed,’ which means that sequence data are removed from the search process but can be directly found by accession number. This action to reassign the data was identified as part of NLM’s ongoing review into the matter. We are working to make more information available,” the spokesperson said.
The biotechnology center, which is part of the institute’s National Library of Medicine (NLM), is the U.S. component of the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration.
The Epoch Times story was prompted by a report published on March 29 by Empower Oversight Whistleblowers and Research (EO) that was based on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses the group received from the institute.
The non-profit reported that “on June 5, 2020, a Wuhan University researcher requested that NIH retract the researcher’s submission of BioProject ID PRJNA637497 because of error. The Wuhan researcher explained ‘I’m sorry for my wrong submitting,'” Empower Oversight said in a statement (pdf) on March 29.
“BioProject ID PRJNA637497 is also referred to as Submission-ID SUB7554642. Three days later, on June 8th, the NIH declined the researcher’s request, advising that it prefers to edit or replace, as opposed to delete, sequences submitted to the SRA,” EO reported. SRA refers to the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) data resource made available by NCBI, and it “stores raw sequencing data.”
“But then, on June 16, 2020, NIH officials reversed themselves and deleted the genetic sequencing data, as requested by the Wuhan researcher. That researcher was quoted by EO as explaining to NIH: ‘Recently, I found that it’s hard to visit my submitted SRA data, and it would also be very difficult for me to update the data. I have submitted an updated version of this SRA data to another website, so I want to withdraw the old one at NCBI in order to avoid the data version issue.’
“After some discussion about what would be deleted, the NIH concluded the discussion by reassuring the Wuhan researcher that it ‘had withdrawn everything.’”
Asked for a response to Fine’s claim the information was not deleted, EO Founder and President Jason Foster told The Epoch Times that NIH’s actions ensure the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus genetic sequencing info is only available to the few individuals possessing its “accession number,” which effectively deletes the data from open access and research.
“NIH documents released with Empower Oversight’s report demonstrate that the sequencing data was deleted from public view by the NIH at the request of the Wuhan researcher,” Foster said.
“Our report also details emails between Professor Jesse Bloom and the NIH’s Steve Sherry from October 2021 that clearly indicate NIH retained copies ‘for archival purposes.’ Yet, the emails demonstrate that NIH refused to share that data in an open, transparent scientific process sought by Professor Bloom,” Foster continued.
“The NIH should make more information available about each and every time it reassigned the status of sequence data and any information potentially relevant to the origins of COVID-19 should be made available for scientific inquiry,” he said.
Fine did not respond when The Epoch Times asked who “has access to all of the genetic sequencing information provided by the Wuhan researcher and which was requested by that researcher to be removed.”
The Epoch Times also asked that because “NIH must know who in fact has accessed the data … who did so and when since the Wuhan researcher requested the information’s removal?”
-
Hiding data from the taxpayers that paid for it is totally legitimate! Why do you rethuglians hate science?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/nih-admits-it-suppressed...
NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins holds up a model of the coronavirus as he testifies before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee looking into the budget estimates for National Institute of Health (NIH) and the state of medical research, on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 26, 2021. (Sarah Silbiger/Pool via AP)
US NEWS
NIH Admits it ‘Suppressed’ Wuhan Lab Genetic Data, but Disputes Watchdog’s ‘Deleted’ Label
Sequence data was removed from public access
By Mark Tapscott April 2, 2022 Updated: April 2, 2022biggersmaller Print
A National Institutes for Health (NIH) spokesperson is disputing a non-profit watchdog group’s claim that the agency “deleted” genetic sequencing data on the CCP virus from a Chinese lab, but the same official acknowledged the data was “suppressed.”
“The headline says the sequences were deleted which is inaccurate. They were not deleted. This is a really important point, and I’ve highlighted what did happen from what we provided to you earlier this week,” NIH Media Branch Chief Amanda Fine told The Epoch Times in a March 31 email.
Fine was referring to a March 29 Epoch Times story headlined “NIH Deleted Info Received From Wuhan Lab on CCP Virus Genetic Sequencing, Watchdog’s FOIA Finds.” The information Fine referenced as having been provided to The Epoch Times by NIH earlier in the week was included in the published story:
“’In June 2020, in response to a request by the same [Wuhan] researcher, National Center for Biotechnology [NCBI] gave the sequence data the status of ‘withdrawn,’ which removes sequencing data from all public means of access but does not delete them.
“NCBI subsequently reassigned the status of the sequence data to ‘suppressed,’ which means that sequence data are removed from the search process but can be directly found by accession number. This action to reassign the data was identified as part of NLM’s ongoing review into the matter. We are working to make more information available,” the spokesperson said.
The biotechnology center, which is part of the institute’s National Library of Medicine (NLM), is the U.S. component of the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration.
The Epoch Times story was prompted by a report published on March 29 by Empower Oversight Whistleblowers and Research (EO) that was based on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses the group received from the institute.
The non-profit reported that “on June 5, 2020, a Wuhan University researcher requested that NIH retract the researcher’s submission of BioProject ID PRJNA637497 because of error. The Wuhan researcher explained ‘I’m sorry for my wrong submitting,'” Empower Oversight said in a statement (pdf) on March 29.
“BioProject ID PRJNA637497 is also referred to as Submission-ID SUB7554642. Three days later, on June 8th, the NIH declined the researcher’s request, advising that it prefers to edit or replace, as opposed to delete, sequences submitted to the SRA,” EO reported. SRA refers to the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) data resource made available by NCBI, and it “stores raw sequencing data.”
“But then, on June 16, 2020, NIH officials reversed themselves and deleted the genetic sequencing data, as requested by the Wuhan researcher. That researcher was quoted by EO as explaining to NIH: ‘Recently, I found that it’s hard to visit my submitted SRA data, and it would also be very difficult for me to update the data. I have submitted an updated version of this SRA data to another website, so I want to withdraw the old one at NCBI in order to avoid the data version issue.’
“After some discussion about what would be deleted, the NIH concluded the discussion by reassuring the Wuhan researcher that it ‘had withdrawn everything.’”
Asked for a response to Fine’s claim the information was not deleted, EO Founder and President Jason Foster told The Epoch Times that NIH’s actions ensure the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus genetic sequencing info is only available to the few individuals possessing its “accession number,” which effectively deletes the data from open access and research.
“NIH documents released with Empower Oversight’s report demonstrate that the sequencing data was deleted from public view by the NIH at the request of the Wuhan researcher,” Foster said.
“Our report also details emails between Professor Jesse Bloom and the NIH’s Steve Sherry from October 2021 that clearly indicate NIH retained copies ‘for archival purposes.’ Yet, the emails demonstrate that NIH refused to share that data in an open, transparent scientific process sought by Professor Bloom,” Foster continued.
“The NIH should make more information available about each and every time it reassigned the status of sequence data and any information potentially relevant to the origins of COVID-19 should be made available for scientific inquiry,” he said.
Fine did not respond when The Epoch Times asked who “has access to all of the genetic sequencing information provided by the Wuhan researcher and which was requested by that researcher to be removed.”
The Epoch Times also asked that because “NIH must know who in fact has accessed the data … who did so and when since the Wuhan researcher requested the information’s removal?”
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10685869/Angry-mom-confronts-Eric-Adams-refusal-lift-mask-mandate-kids.html
-
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-british-are-now-officially-hiding?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTE3OTg2NTgsIl8iOiI5UmZmVCIsImlhdCI6MTY0OTM1ODM1OSwiZXhwIjoxNjQ5MzYxOTU5LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9._DuakDoK4MrFvdt4pAdrBUagSlmy3_6OcwmxTaKFlQ8&s=r
-
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-british-are-now-officially-hiding?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTE3OTg2NTgsIl8iOiI5UmZmVCIsImlhdCI6MTY0OTM1ODM1OSwiZXhwIjoxNjQ5MzYxOTU5LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9._DuakDoK4MrFvdt4pAdrBUagSlmy3_6OcwmxTaKFlQ8&s=r
Hiding data and lying to the public is the best science!
-
FDA and Pfizer Knew COVID Shot Caused Immunosuppression
BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIMEAPRIL 14, 2022
April 1, 2022, another batch of 11,000 Pfizer documents were released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Pfizer trial data reveal natural immunity was as effective as the jab, and that shot side effects were more severe in those under 55.
With another batch of 11,000 Pfizer documents, released April 1, 2022, old suspicions have gained fresh support. As reported by “Rising” cohost Kim Iversen (video above), the first bombshell revelation is that natural immunity works, and Pfizer has known it all along.
The clinical trial data showed there was no difference in outcomes between those with previous COVID infection and those who got the shot. Neither group experienced severe infection. Natural immunity was also statistically identical to the shot in terms of the risk of infection.
Younger Adults More Likely to Experience Side Effects
The second revelation is that side effects from the shots were more severe in younger people, aged 18 to 55, than those aged 55 and older. (The risk of side effects also increased with additional doses, so the risk was higher after the second dose than the first.)
As many of us have said all along, the risk of severe COVID is dramatically lower in younger people than those over 60, which makes an elevated risk of side effects unacceptable.
As noted by The Naked Emperor on Substack,[1] “with a vaccine that is producing more frequent and more severe reactions and adverse events in younger individuals, the vaccine should have been restricted to those who were actually at risk of severe COVID-19.”
Pfizer Documents Show High Rate of Myocarditis
Interestingly, Pfizer’s documentation also includes medical information that mainstream media and fact checkers have labeled as misinformation or disinformation. A pediatric consent form lists several possible side effects, including a myocarditis rate of 10 in 100,000 — far greater than the 1 in 50,000 (i.e., 2 in 100,000) rate previously reported.
We also know that myocarditis is far more frequent in young males, so for them, the risk is significantly higher than 10 in 100,000, as they make up the bulk of these injuries.
Antibody-Dependent Enhancement Has Not Been Ruled Out
Many who have warned about the possibility of mRNA shots causing antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) — a situation in which you end up being more susceptible to serious infection than you would have been otherwise — have been smeared and demonized by media and labeled as disinformation spreaders.
Yet Pfizer’s own consent form clearly states: “Although not seen to date, it cannot yet be ruled out that the studied vaccine can make a later COVID-19 illness more severe.” As noted by Iversen, if ADE truly was of no concern at all, the consent form would not include it. Yet there it is.
Vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) is also listed as an “Important Potential Risk” in Table 5 on page 11 of a document called “5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.”[2]
As of February 28, 2021, Pfizer had 138 cases of suspected VAED, 75 of which were severe, resulting in hospitalization, disability, life-threatening consequences or death; a total of 38 cases turned out to be lethal and 65 remained unresolved.[3][4]
Moreover, as noted by the Daily Expose,[5] “Phase 3 clinical trials are designed to uncover frequent or severe side effects before a vaccine is approved for use, including ADE. But herein lies the problem, [because] none of the COVID-19 vaccines have completed Phase 3 trials.”
Pfizer’s Phase 3 trial is due to be completed February 8, 2024[6]— nearly two years from now! Despite that, Pfizer concluded in its FDA submission that “None of the 75 cases could be definitively considered as VAED.”
“[H]ow on earth could they not definitively conclude that VAED was to blame when 75% of the confirmed ‘break-through’ cases reported to them were severe disease resulting in hospitalization, disability, life-threatening consequences of death?” The Daily Expose asks.[7]
Pfizer Knew About Immunosuppression
Another revealing statement found in the documents is this:
“Clinical laboratory evaluation showed a transient decrease in lymphocytes that was observed in all age and dose groups after Dose 1, which resolved within approximately one week …”
In other words, Pfizer knew that, in the first week after the shot, people of all ages experienced transient immunosuppression, or put another way, a temporary weakening of the immune system, after the first dose.
As noted by Iversen, this may have skewed infection rates, as people were not considered partially vaccinated until 14 days after their first shot,11 and officially fully vaccinated two weeks after the second dose.
If people are susceptible to infection during that first week, yet are counted as unvaccinated during that time, this makes it appear as though the unvaccinated are more prone to infection when that’s simply not true. Pfizer’s own trial showed infection was significantly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group — 409 versus 287 — within the first seven days of the jab.
Fully Vaxxed Are More Likely to Die From COVID
The fact that Pfizer and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration were aware the shot caused immunosuppression is incriminating, now that U.K. government data show that, compared to the unvaccinated, those who have received two doses are:[8]
Up to three times more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19
Twice more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19
Three times more likely to die of COVID-19
The Pfizer documents admit there was a temporary drop in immune function after the first dose, but the real-world data showing an increased risk of severe infection and death due to COVID among the double jabbed suggest ADE may indeed be at play later on as well.
The chart below, created by the Daily Expose,[9] using data from the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 13, 2022[10] (pages 40 and 45), reveals who’s more likely to get COVID. And the infection rate for triple-vaxxed is even higher than the double vaxxed.
covid-19 case rate
The next chart was created by the Daily Expose[11] using data from pages 41 and 45, comparing COVID hospitalization rates.
covid-19 hospitalization rate
And, finally, there is a comparison of the death rates, based on pages 44 and 45 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 13, 2022.[12] Anyone over the age of 40 who has been double jabbed is now more likely to die of COVID than an unvaccinated person of the same age.
covid-19 death rate
Negative Vaccine Effectiveness in the Real World
The Daily Expose goes on to calculate and graph the real-world effectiveness rate of the COVID jab, and it’s dire news:[13]
“If the rates per 100,000 are higher among the vaccinated, which they are, then this means the COVID-19 injections are proving to have a negative effectiveness in the real-world. And by using Pfizer’s vaccine effectiveness formula we can accurately decipher what the real-world effectiveness among each age group actually is.
Pfizer’s vaccine formula: Unvaccinated Rate per 100k – Vaccinated Rate per 100k / Unvaccinated Rate per 100k x 100 = Vaccine Effectiveness …
This data shows that all double vaccinated people over age 18 are between 2 and 3 times more likely to be infected, with a minus-87% vaccine effectiveness among 18 to 29 year olds, and a minus-178% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.
[A]ll double vaccinated people over age 30 are between 0.2 and 2 times more likely to be hospitalized, with a minus-1% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-76% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.
The following chart shows the real world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against death among the double vaccinated population in England, based on the death rates provided above …
[A]ll double vaccinated people over age 40 are between 2 and 3 times more likely to die of COVID-19, with a minus-90% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-156% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.”
covid-19 vaccine effectiveness
Pfizer Hired 600 to Process Unprecedented Report Load
For the last two years, we’ve been keeping an eye on the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), shaking our heads in disbelief as the numbers shot up by the hundreds every single week, rapidly outpacing injuries for every other vaccine combined over the past 32 years.[14]
As of March 25, 2022, there were 1,205,753 COVID jab-related reports, including 145,781 hospitalizations and 26,396 deaths.[15] There has never been a medical product in modern history that can compare. Nothing has been as injurious and lethal as these experimental injections.
Between December 2020 and the end of February 2021, Pfizer shipped out 126,212,580 doses of its mRNA jab worldwide. Divided by 158,000 side effects, we get an adverse event rate per dose of nearly 1:800.
In an earlier batch of documents, we learned Pfizer received 42,086 case reports containing a total of 158,893 events in the first three months of the rollout. In that release, the number of doses shipped was redacted, but in the April 1, 2022, release, it was left unredacted, which means we can now calculate the rate of adverse events reported to Pfizer in those first three months.
Between December 2020 and the end of February 2021, Pfizer shipped out 126,212,580 doses of its mRNA jab worldwide. Divided by 158,000 side effects, we get an adverse event rate per dose of nearly 1 in 800,[16] which is just crazy irresponsible.
We now also have documentation showing Pfizer, by the end of February 2021, had hired 600 additional full-time employees to process the unprecedented influx of adverse event reports, and they predicted that by the end of June 2021, they’d end up hiring more than 1,800.[17]
In the end, the COVID jab will go down in history as the biggest medical malfeasance ever to occur with the willing participation of both drug companies and regulatory agencies. And there’s no end in sight.
In March 2022, the FDA went ahead and authorized doses 4 and 5, based on a preprint study[18][19] that found a fourth Moderna shot was 11% effective and caused side effects in 40% of recipients, and a fourth Pfizer shot was 30% effective and caused side effects in 80% of people.
I’m not sure what it’ll take for this public health nightmare to end and for the responsible parties to be held to account for their criminal negligence, but apparently, we’ve not hit critical mass outrage yet.
Originally published April 14, 2022 on Mercola.com
Sources and References
[1] The Naked Emperor Substack March 29, 2022
[2],[3] The Defender March 15, 2022
[5],[3],[6] Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports, Page 11, Table 5
[4], [5], [7], [8], [9], [11], [13] Daily Expose April 3, 2022
[6] Clinical Trials NCT04368728
[11] MMWR March 19, 2021; 70(11): 396-401
[10],[12] UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 13, 2022
[14], [16], [17] The Defender April 5, 2022
[15] OpenVAERS As of March 25, 2022
[18] MedRxiv February 15, 2022, DOI: 10.1101/2022.02.15.22270948
[19] NEJM Correspondence March 16, 2022 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2202542
-
This is why the PTB are so desperate to start WWIII.
FDA and Pfizer Knew COVID Shot Caused Immunosuppression
BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIMEAPRIL 14, 2022
April 1, 2022, another batch of 11,000 Pfizer documents were released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Pfizer trial data reveal natural immunity was as effective as the jab, and that shot side effects were more severe in those under 55.
With another batch of 11,000 Pfizer documents, released April 1, 2022, old suspicions have gained fresh support. As reported by “Rising” cohost Kim Iversen (video above), the first bombshell revelation is that natural immunity works, and Pfizer has known it all along.
The clinical trial data showed there was no difference in outcomes between those with previous COVID infection and those who got the shot. Neither group experienced severe infection. Natural immunity was also statistically identical to the shot in terms of the risk of infection.
Younger Adults More Likely to Experience Side Effects
The second revelation is that side effects from the shots were more severe in younger people, aged 18 to 55, than those aged 55 and older. (The risk of side effects also increased with additional doses, so the risk was higher after the second dose than the first.)
As many of us have said all along, the risk of severe COVID is dramatically lower in younger people than those over 60, which makes an elevated risk of side effects unacceptable.
As noted by The Naked Emperor on Substack,[1] “with a vaccine that is producing more frequent and more severe reactions and adverse events in younger individuals, the vaccine should have been restricted to those who were actually at risk of severe COVID-19.”
Pfizer Documents Show High Rate of Myocarditis
Interestingly, Pfizer’s documentation also includes medical information that mainstream media and fact checkers have labeled as misinformation or disinformation. A pediatric consent form lists several possible side effects, including a myocarditis rate of 10 in 100,000 — far greater than the 1 in 50,000 (i.e., 2 in 100,000) rate previously reported.
We also know that myocarditis is far more frequent in young males, so for them, the risk is significantly higher than 10 in 100,000, as they make up the bulk of these injuries.
Antibody-Dependent Enhancement Has Not Been Ruled Out
Many who have warned about the possibility of mRNA shots causing antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) — a situation in which you end up being more susceptible to serious infection than you would have been otherwise — have been smeared and demonized by media and labeled as disinformation spreaders.
Yet Pfizer’s own consent form clearly states: “Although not seen to date, it cannot yet be ruled out that the studied vaccine can make a later COVID-19 illness more severe.” As noted by Iversen, if ADE truly was of no concern at all, the consent form would not include it. Yet there it is.
Vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) is also listed as an “Important Potential Risk” in Table 5 on page 11 of a document called “5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.”[2]
As of February 28, 2021, Pfizer had 138 cases of suspected VAED, 75 of which were severe, resulting in hospitalization, disability, life-threatening consequences or death; a total of 38 cases turned out to be lethal and 65 remained unresolved.[3][4]
Moreover, as noted by the Daily Expose,[5] “Phase 3 clinical trials are designed to uncover frequent or severe side effects before a vaccine is approved for use, including ADE. But herein lies the problem, [because] none of the COVID-19 vaccines have completed Phase 3 trials.”
Pfizer’s Phase 3 trial is due to be completed February 8, 2024[6]— nearly two years from now! Despite that, Pfizer concluded in its FDA submission that “None of the 75 cases could be definitively considered as VAED.”
“[H]ow on earth could they not definitively conclude that VAED was to blame when 75% of the confirmed ‘break-through’ cases reported to them were severe disease resulting in hospitalization, disability, life-threatening consequences of death?” The Daily Expose asks.[7]
Pfizer Knew About Immunosuppression
Another revealing statement found in the documents is this:
“Clinical laboratory evaluation showed a transient decrease in lymphocytes that was observed in all age and dose groups after Dose 1, which resolved within approximately one week …”
In other words, Pfizer knew that, in the first week after the shot, people of all ages experienced transient immunosuppression, or put another way, a temporary weakening of the immune system, after the first dose.
As noted by Iversen, this may have skewed infection rates, as people were not considered partially vaccinated until 14 days after their first shot,11 and officially fully vaccinated two weeks after the second dose.
If people are susceptible to infection during that first week, yet are counted as unvaccinated during that time, this makes it appear as though the unvaccinated are more prone to infection when that’s simply not true. Pfizer’s own trial showed infection was significantly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group — 409 versus 287 — within the first seven days of the jab.
Fully Vaxxed Are More Likely to Die From COVID
The fact that Pfizer and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration were aware the shot caused immunosuppression is incriminating, now that U.K. government data show that, compared to the unvaccinated, those who have received two doses are:[8]
Up to three times more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19
Twice more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19
Three times more likely to die of COVID-19
The Pfizer documents admit there was a temporary drop in immune function after the first dose, but the real-world data showing an increased risk of severe infection and death due to COVID among the double jabbed suggest ADE may indeed be at play later on as well.
The chart below, created by the Daily Expose,[9] using data from the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 13, 2022[10] (pages 40 and 45), reveals who’s more likely to get COVID. And the infection rate for triple-vaxxed is even higher than the double vaxxed.
covid-19 case rate
The next chart was created by the Daily Expose[11] using data from pages 41 and 45, comparing COVID hospitalization rates.
covid-19 hospitalization rate
And, finally, there is a comparison of the death rates, based on pages 44 and 45 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 13, 2022.[12] Anyone over the age of 40 who has been double jabbed is now more likely to die of COVID than an unvaccinated person of the same age.
covid-19 death rate
Negative Vaccine Effectiveness in the Real World
The Daily Expose goes on to calculate and graph the real-world effectiveness rate of the COVID jab, and it’s dire news:[13]
“If the rates per 100,000 are higher among the vaccinated, which they are, then this means the COVID-19 injections are proving to have a negative effectiveness in the real-world. And by using Pfizer’s vaccine effectiveness formula we can accurately decipher what the real-world effectiveness among each age group actually is.
Pfizer’s vaccine formula: Unvaccinated Rate per 100k – Vaccinated Rate per 100k / Unvaccinated Rate per 100k x 100 = Vaccine Effectiveness …
This data shows that all double vaccinated people over age 18 are between 2 and 3 times more likely to be infected, with a minus-87% vaccine effectiveness among 18 to 29 year olds, and a minus-178% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.
[A]ll double vaccinated people over age 30 are between 0.2 and 2 times more likely to be hospitalized, with a minus-1% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-76% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.
The following chart shows the real world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against death among the double vaccinated population in England, based on the death rates provided above …
[A]ll double vaccinated people over age 40 are between 2 and 3 times more likely to die of COVID-19, with a minus-90% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-156% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.”
covid-19 vaccine effectiveness
Pfizer Hired 600 to Process Unprecedented Report Load
For the last two years, we’ve been keeping an eye on the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), shaking our heads in disbelief as the numbers shot up by the hundreds every single week, rapidly outpacing injuries for every other vaccine combined over the past 32 years.[14]
As of March 25, 2022, there were 1,205,753 COVID jab-related reports, including 145,781 hospitalizations and 26,396 deaths.[15] There has never been a medical product in modern history that can compare. Nothing has been as injurious and lethal as these experimental injections.
Between December 2020 and the end of February 2021, Pfizer shipped out 126,212,580 doses of its mRNA jab worldwide. Divided by 158,000 side effects, we get an adverse event rate per dose of nearly 1:800.
In an earlier batch of documents, we learned Pfizer received 42,086 case reports containing a total of 158,893 events in the first three months of the rollout. In that release, the number of doses shipped was redacted, but in the April 1, 2022, release, it was left unredacted, which means we can now calculate the rate of adverse events reported to Pfizer in those first three months.
Between December 2020 and the end of February 2021, Pfizer shipped out 126,212,580 doses of its mRNA jab worldwide. Divided by 158,000 side effects, we get an adverse event rate per dose of nearly 1 in 800,[16] which is just crazy irresponsible.
We now also have documentation showing Pfizer, by the end of February 2021, had hired 600 additional full-time employees to process the unprecedented influx of adverse event reports, and they predicted that by the end of June 2021, they’d end up hiring more than 1,800.[17]
In the end, the COVID jab will go down in history as the biggest medical malfeasance ever to occur with the willing participation of both drug companies and regulatory agencies. And there’s no end in sight.
In March 2022, the FDA went ahead and authorized doses 4 and 5, based on a preprint study[18][19] that found a fourth Moderna shot was 11% effective and caused side effects in 40% of recipients, and a fourth Pfizer shot was 30% effective and caused side effects in 80% of people.
I’m not sure what it’ll take for this public health nightmare to end and for the responsible parties to be held to account for their criminal negligence, but apparently, we’ve not hit critical mass outrage yet.
Originally published April 14, 2022 on Mercola.com
Sources and References
[1] The Naked Emperor Substack March 29, 2022
[2],[3] The Defender March 15, 2022
[5],[3],[6] Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports, Page 11, Table 5
[4], [5], [7], [8], [9], [11], [13] Daily Expose April 3, 2022
[6] Clinical Trials NCT04368728
[11] MMWR March 19, 2021; 70(11): 396-401
[10],[12] UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 13, 2022
[14], [16], [17] The Defender April 5, 2022
[15] OpenVAERS As of March 25, 2022
[18] MedRxiv February 15, 2022, DOI: 10.1101/2022.02.15.22270948
[19] NEJM Correspondence March 16, 2022 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2202542
-
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/california-gives-up-on-trying-to?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTI0MTQ1ODksIl8iOiI5UmZmVCIsImlhdCI6MTY1MDMxMjQ4MCwiZXhwIjoxNjUwMzE2MDgwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.c9k2GAIXtbfRABC_82yM2RqHutM-8kvHcHxf99nL2EE&s=r
-
Second
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/federal-judge-overturns-biden-administrations-transportation-mask-mandate/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=27408013
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/heres-why-no-one-wants-to-talk-about-sweden_4412070.html?utm_source=Opinion&utm_campaign=opinion-2022-04-18&utm_medium=email&est=ShYlUERR3wKNuwwSwdFA8jbBFLQZMBj26RluoHeYO47IwM4V8arChhsjDSEjpF7tGXAs
-
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/398757.php
Obey them!
-
Wuhan Lab Allowed to Destroy ‘Secret Files’ Under Its Partnership with US National Lab, Agreement Shows
By Eva Fu April 20, 2022 Updated: April 21, 2022biggersmaller Print
e
The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) has the right to make a partnering U.S. lab wipe all data arising from their collaborative work, a legal document reveals.
A memorandum of understanding (MOU) of cooperation, signed between the Wuhan lab and the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch, makes it obligatory for each of the two labs to delete “secret files” or materials upon the request of the other party.
“The party is entitled to ask the other to destroy and/or return the secret files, materials, and equipment without any backups,” states the MOU obtained by U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit investigative research group focused on public health, through a freedom of information request.
The MOU focused on promoting research and training cooperation between the two labs. It was signed in 2017 and stays in effect through this October. But the confidentiality terms would remain binding even after the agreement’s five-year-duration expires, the agreement states.
The document goes on to broadly define what materials are to be treated as “confidential,” opening the door to potentially all documents and data from any collaboration being subject to a deletion request.
“All cooperation and exchange documents, details and materials shall be treated as confidential info by the parties,” the MOU states.
The WIV has been at the center of the controversy due to growing speculation that the virus that causes COVID-19, which has now killed millions around the globe, may have leaked from the facility. The lab has denied these allegations but Beijing has blocked international investigators to data and records from the facility thus preventing any meaningful probe into the hypothesis.
WIV and the the Galveston National Laboratory formally declared their partnership the following year to “streamline future scientific and operational collaborations on dangerous pathogens,” according to a joint announcement in the journal Science.
Experts said the MOU terms about data removal raise alarm bells and can potentially constitute a breach of the law.
“The clause is quite frankly explosive,” Reuben Guttman, a partner at Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC who focuses on ensuring the integrity of government programs, told Right to Know. “Anytime I see a public entity, I would be very concerned about destroying records.”
“You can’t just willy nilly say, ‘well, you know, the Chinese can tell us when to destroy a document.’ It doesn’t work like that,” he added. “There has to be a whole protocol.”
Christopher Smith, a spokesperson for University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), told the Right to Know that the lab was “built by the National Institutes of Health to help combat global health threats.”
“As a government-funded entity, UTMB is required to comply with applicable public information law obligations, including the preservation of all documentation of its research and findings.”
The Epoch Times has contacted the UTMB and the lab.
Under Scrutiny
The Galveston National Laboratory is one of two federally-funded university-based highest-level biosecurity labs in the United States. It began collaborating with the WIV in 2013, a cooperation that entails training WIV scientists and conducting joint research programs. The then-Galveston lab director James Le Duc, who retired last year, made multiple trips over the years to WIV.
The Galveston lab was also among the first in the world to receive samples of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly three weeks after Le Duc urged his Chinese counterparts to share the material.
The revelations contained in the 2017 MOU appear to contradict claims from WIV scientists that they would never scrub critical research information.
Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli, who heads the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the WIV, had characterized allegations that her lab would delete such data as “baseless and appalling.”
“Even if we gave them all the records, they would still say we have hidden something or we have destroyed the evidence,” she said in a February interview with MIT Technology Review.
In September 2019, months before several of its researchers allegedly fell ill with COVID-like symptoms, the facility took its main database of virus samples offline.
The Wuhan lab’s safety standards have also attracted scrutiny since the pandemic broke out from the city. Footage from 2017 showed that some researchers from the facility were feeding a bat while wearing only surgical gloves, and at least one researcher wore only a pair of regular glasses and a surgical mask when out collecting bat samples.
Related Coverage
Wuhan Lab Allowed to Destroy ‘Secret Files’ Under Its Partnership with US National Lab, Agreement ShowsFootage of Bats Kept in Wuhan Lab Fuels Scrutiny Over Its Research
In April 2020, the Department of Education launched a probe into Galveston National Laboratory’s ties with the Wuhan lab. The Epoch Times has contacted the department for comment.
That same month, Le Duc had asked Shi to review a draft briefing he prepared for the university and the Congressional staff investigating the issue.
“Please review carefully and make any changes that you would like. I want this to be as accurate as possible and I certainly do not want to misrepresent any of your valuable contributions,” he wrote in an email to Shi that Right to Know obtained. Shi one day earlier declined to talk with Le Duc over the phone “[d]ue to the complicated situation,” but insisted that the virus “is not a leaky [sic] from our lab or any other labs.”
Smith, UTMB’s director of media relations, had told the investigative group that “the information Dr. Le Duc wanted Dr. Shi to review was a description of her research on coronaviruses as he understood it.”
In corresponding with others, Le Duc nonetheless acknowledged that he considered a lab accident a possible source of the pandemic.
“It is certainly possible that a lab accident was the source of the epidemic and I also agree that we can’t trust the Chinese government,” he wrote on April 10, 2020, according to another email obtained by the group.
Eva Fu
Eva Fu
CHINA REPORTER
Follow
Eva Fu is a New York-based writer for The Epoch Times focusing on U.S.-China relations, religious freedom, and human rights. Contact Eva at eva.fu@epochtimes.com
-
https://summit.news/2022/04/22/video-fauci-decrees-that-cdc-should-be-above-authority-of-courts/
-
All Hail, Anthony Fauci
The doctor says courts should defer to public-health experts like him.
By The Editorial Board
April 22, 2022 6:34 pm ET
Public-health officials have often wielded power during the pandemic as if the law and Constitution don’t matter, even if they haven’t said so explicitly. Anthony Fauci is finally telling it in the raw.
“The principle of a court overruling a public health judgment by a qualified organization like the CDC is disturbing in the precedent that it might send,” the National Institutes of Health official told CBS on Thursday.
Democrats are lambasting Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle’s well-reasoned ruling this week striking down the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's mask mandate on public transportation. But few, if any, have argued like Dr. Fauci that federal courts shouldn’t be allowed to review CDC diktats. Mull over the implications of this one.
The mask mandate “is a CDC issue. It should not have been a court issue,” Dr. Fauci told CNN, adding that “we are concerned” about “courts getting involved in things that are unequivocally public-health decisions.” Ah, yes, the royal “we.” Does the Covid czar think the Supreme Court should have been precluded from reviewing the CDC’s rental eviction moratorium too?
Governments at all levels have abused their emergency powers during the pandemic. Some deference to public-health officials might have been warranted amid the uncertainty early in the pandemic. But as Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in November 2020, “even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.”
The emergency has now stretched more than two years. While the Covid virus is becoming endemic, and vaccines and therapies have greatly reduced deaths, the Administration continues to assert that government officials should have sweeping power to take emergency actions in the name of protecting people even if there’s little evidence that they actually do.
The transportation mask mandate is a case in point. Science shows that the cloth masks that most people don make little difference in preventing transmission and illness. So why is the Administration appealing Judge Mizelle’s mask-mandate ruling?
Probably to preserve the CDC’s expansive interpretation of the law that gives it power to impose virtually whatever it wants. Don’t be surprised if the CDC decides not to extend its vacated mask mandate beyond May 3, and then argues that the issue is moot and prevents appellate review.
Under the Supreme Court’s Munsingwear doctrine, it will then argue that Judge Mizelle’s opinion is vacated. The CDC will live to rule again over everyone during the next public-health emergency.
-
https://emeralddb3.substack.com/p/yuval-hariri-tells-you-what-the-vaccines?s=r
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/how-rhode-island-stopped-a-wrongheaded-universal-vaccine-mandate/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Saturday%20New%202022-04-30&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart
-
second
https://www.theepochtimes.com/american-families-concerned-about-vaccine-safety_4424576.html?utm_source=Health&utm_campaign=health-2022-04-30&utm_medium=email&est=daWv0pmkVyZGmwfZHl496sC2S174gebzjXunl%2FxKSqMjJ8ADku%2BX%2BPZV%2FHeSPjKbnfti
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-covid-bill-fines-parents-unvaxxed-kids-and-doubles-income-taxes
It would be tragic if someone ambushed this politician in his driveway and crushed his face with a lead pipe.
That would be wrong!
-
https://emeralddb3.substack.com/p/yuval-hariri-tells-you-what-the-vaccines?s=r
Evil incarnate.
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/105/531/546/original/7a5e6eb5f83edb2d.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/105/531/546/original/7a5e6eb5f83edb2d.jpg)
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-covid-bill-fines-parents-unvaxxed-kids-and-doubles-income-taxes
It would be tragic if someone ambushed this politician in his driveway and crushed his face with a lead pipe.
That would be wrong!
-
In their own words, , ,
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/why-is-us-national-data-so-terrible?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTMxMDg3NjAsIl8iOiI5UmZmVCIsImlhdCI6MTY1MTcwNTEzNSwiZXhwIjoxNjUxNzA4NzM1LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjgxMjE5Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.h3wVuU_fp9P_gT9kcKU1y1EOHiurPzGqV2MdYiGSHjs&s=r
-
In their own words, , ,
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/why-is-us-national-data-so-terrible?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTMxMDg3NjAsIl8iOiI5UmZmVCIsImlhdCI6MTY1MTcwNTEzNSwiZXhwIjoxNjUxNzA4NzM1LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjgxMjE5Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.h3wVuU_fp9P_gT9kcKU1y1EOHiurPzGqV2MdYiGSHjs&s=r
Lying bureaucrats lying.
-
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vymn/cdc-tracked-phones-location-data-curfews
They just need more money and power!
-
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vymn/cdc-tracked-phones-location-data-curfews
They just need more money and power!
G M sarcasm alert.
Either they fire everyone involved or we defund and close the agency. Anything short of that and we are becoming communist China.
-
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2022/05/07/the-battle-for-control-of-your-mind/#more-267562
-
https://brownstone.org/articles/its-not-over-its-just-begun/
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/106/057/469/original/a119782bcbba8175.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/106/057/469/original/a119782bcbba8175.jpg)
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/05/07/vaccinated-hospitalised-for-non-covid-reasons-at-five-times-the-rate-of-the-unvaccinated-u-k-government-data-show/
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/cardiologist-estimates-30-percent-of-u-s-pilots-may-have-covid-jab-induced-heart-conditions_4441548.html?utm_source=Health&utm_campaign=health-2022-05-06&utm_medium=email&est=V1qF0vQPkiNjX9OJGYk5ETLluy3AdOjv3tu%2BAOfc44VLQIaKd%2F%2BaWnwkrj%2FtxAMaPg54
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nonprofit-watchdog-uncovers-350-million-secret-payments-fauci-collins-others-nih?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=655
-
NIH workers get royalty payments from big pharma into their personal pockets ?
WHILE WORKING as "PULBIC SERVANT" for federal government?
I never heard of this
this is apart from the money for grants ?
:-o
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/2122500/must-see-video-will-the-unvaxxed-inherit-darien-gap
-
second
https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-pilots-injured-by-covid-vaccines-speak-out-i-will-probably-never-fly-again_4452922.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-11-2&utm_medium=email&est=BnCw23ciwC%2Fj4htWORkzLzHE3t2HBD55L%2B0QDgrLqWLJSSYM5O1QIsel2u4e7w%2FfjX8n
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/dems-silent-as-republicans-rip-into-secret-royalty-checks-to-fauci-hundreds-of-nih-scientists_4459722.html?utm_source=Morningbrief-ai&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2022-05-12-ai&est=0VAF6bU50N6OMEkylFHXyAm5F0xM3SDsb9NLREX92fI6JGVUlO2aViaiCUJdY99Hdh4Q
https://www.theepochtimes.com/acting-nih-director-admits-appearance-of-conflict-of-interest-in-secret-royalty-payments-to-fauci-scientists_4460259.html?utm_source=Morningbrief-ai&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2022-05-12-ai&est=WNTPW8iFMj1YXPhHB0xVYoaW1Hst1oWnC5%2BmNCoQMUrrSuV8KuIWGSEAcgPxV3hmt8Zo
-
If I accepted a donut and coffee from a drug salesperson
that would be frowned on
and more than trivial "gifts" would be illegal
I am shocked to hear about this.
I notice there is no disclosure on the size of the payments to the government "servants of the people"
If these are not kickbacks I don't know what is.
How do we have an agency spending 30+ billion a yr
be able to do so without transparency
Congress has to get to the bottom of this.
-
DANGER: The WHO's Death Trap for the US
Act Fast: They Vote Next Week
by Pete Hoekstra • May 15, 2022 at 5:00 am
Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Telegram Send Print
This is a plan that Congress and the public need to fight vigorously.
The Biden administration, it appears, unless stopped immediately, is tee-ing up America to make it easy for the Chinese Communist Party to defeat it, and other nations, through biological warfare.
"On May 22-28, 2022, ultimate control over America's healthcare system, and hence its national sovereignty, will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization's governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA)." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
"This threat is contained in new amendments to WHO's International Health Regulations, proposed by the Biden administration, that are scheduled as 'Provisional agenda item 16.2' at the upcoming conference on May 22-28, 2022." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
"These amendments will empower WHO's Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
"The targeted nation is also required to send WHO any relevant genetic sequence data." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
"Under the new regulations, WHO will not be required to consult with the identified nation beforehand to "verify" the event before taking action." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
Unfortunately, this "next pandemic" is neither far off nor a hypothetical "conspiracy theory." According to multiple credible reports from the U.S. Department of State, to the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Peter Jennings, China has been preparing for bio-warfare using pathogens for more than six years.
A WHO with expanded authority is a terrifying concept. Can you envision providing an international organization with the power to dictate how the U.S. should respond to a future pandemic? Perhaps by forcing the U.S. to turn over supplies and equipment to China because of its larger population? How about an international organization that would have the power to mandate whether we should be required to be vaccinated with a particular vaccine, say China's inferior SINOVAC vaccine? Or imagine a WHO that has the power to impose what mandates or lockdowns a country would be required to impose, say like China's current lockdown of Shanghai? Unfortunately, the WHO already has proven itself to be a willing organ of China's Communist leaders. Providing it with international, legal binding authority over global pandemic response must never be allowed to happen.
A World Health Organization with expanded authority is a terrifying concept. Can you envision providing an international organization with the power to dictate how the U.S. should respond to a future pandemic? The WHO already has proven itself to be a willing organ of China's Communist leaders. Providing it with international, legal binding authority over global pandemic response must never be allowed to happen. Pictured: WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pays a visit to Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on January 28, 2020. (Photo by Naohiko Hatta/AFP via Getty Images)
The Biden administration, it appears, unless stopped immediately, is tee-ing up America to make it easy for the Chinese Communist Party to defeat it, and other nations, through biological warfare.
The World Health Organization (WHO), the organization that has unhesitatingly been doing China's bidding during the COVID pandemic, is reportedly now planning to orchestrate a massive new power grab to internationally control the response to any future global pandemic. The plan is apparently to make the health of Americans dependent on the whims of China -- which is both actively seeking to displace the US as the world's leading superpower and has for years been working on new means of bio-warfare.
It is a plan that is being voted on next week: Congress and the American public need to fight vigorously -- and FAST.
-
People Who Pushed Idea of Universal Vaccination Are ‘Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity’: Former Pfizer VP
By Enrico Trigoso May 14, 2022 Updated: May 14, 2022
Former Pfizer VP Michael Yeadon maintains that since the infection fatality ratio of COVID-19 has not been high, the vaccines should not have been mandated.
Moreover, he heavily blasted the corporate media mantras that designate these as safe, effective, and necessary to end the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic.
Yeadon is a big pharma veteran with 32 years in the industry. He worked as the head of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer from 1995 to 2011 and is the former founder and CEO of Ziarco, a biotech company acquired by Novartis. Furthermore, he has a doctorate in respiratory pharmacology and holds a Double First Class Honors degree in biochemistry and toxicology.
A shocking 1,223 deaths and 42,086 adverse events were reported to Pfizer from the first day of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine rollout on Dec. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021.
“The worst flu season over the last decade is worse than [the threat] posed by this new virus,” Yeadon told The Epoch Times via email.
“And what do we do in response to seasonal influenza? Well, nothing really, beyond offering—and not mandating—vaccines which aren’t much use.”
Of important note is that the exact number of fatalities in China, where the virus originated, has been suppressed by the communist regime and could be 366 times the official figure.
Yeadon said that being sure the vaccines would cause no harm in the long run should have been imperative.
“It was never appropriate to attempt to ‘end the pandemic’ with a novel technology vaccine. In a public health mass intervention, safety is the top priority, more so even than effectiveness, because so many people will receive it,” Yeadon states in a document he sent to The Epoch Times.
“It’s simply not possible to obtain data demonstrating adequate longitudinal safety in the time period any pandemic can last. Those who pushed this line of argument and enabled the gene-based agents to be injected needlessly into billions of innocent people are guilty of crimes against humanity.”
Yeadon argues that natural immunity was obviously stronger than any protection from the jabs, and cited an article by Dr. Paul Alexander that has over 150 studies attesting to naturally acquired immunity to COVID-19.
Yeadon feels that the novel vaccines should have not been given emergency use authorization (EUA) and that if he were directing the pandemic response, children, pregnant women, and people who already had contracted the virus would have been given a red light on the jabs.
“I would have outright denied their use in children, in pregnancy, and in the infected/recovered. Point blank. I’d need years of safe use before contemplating an alteration of this stance.”
He further argues that the vaccines were sure to be toxic and it was only a matter of degree of toxicity.
“Having selected spike protein to be expressed, a protein which causes blood clotting to be initiated, a risk of thromboembolic adverse events was burned into the design. Nothing at all limits the amount of spike protein to be made in response to a given dose. Some individuals make a little and only briefly. The other end of a normal range results in synthesis of copious amounts of spike protein for a prolonged period. The locations in which this pathological event occurred, as well as where on the spectrum, in my view played a pivotal role in whether the victim experienced adverse events including death,” Yeadon said.
“There are many other pathologies flowing from the design of these agents, including for the mRNA ‘vaccines’ that lipid nanoparticle formulations leave the injection site and home to liver and ovaries, among other organs, but this evidence is enough to get started.”
Earlier this month, a physician said that he has been seeing an unusual amount of fetal death and miscarriages linked to the COVID-19 vaccines—according to his observations—and noted that mRNA products, contained in nanoparticles, accumulate in the ovaries.
“From data that we have, there appears to be a concentration of the lipid nanoparticles, which are very, very small particles, which are in the vaccine that are injected into the arm,” Dr. James Thorp told The Epoch Times, “and then the vast majority of those are dispersed throughout the entire body.”
A lipid nanoparticle is a fat-soluble membrane that is the cargo of the messenger RNA.
“They appear to concentrate in the ovaries, and they appear to cross all God-made barriers in the human body, the blood-brain barrier, the placental barrier during pregnancy, into the fetal bloodstream, and all the fetal tissues inside the womb, crossing the blood-brain barrier in the fetus, the baby in the womb, which is very concerning,” he noted, since the eggs produced by women are limited in number, and they would be “exposed to a potentially disastrous toxic lipid nanoparticle.”
Another concern that Yeadon had not noticed during his initial study was that “the mRNA products (Pfizer & Moderna) would accumulate in ovaries.”
“An FOI request to the Japanese Medicines Agency revealed that product accumulation in ovaries occurred in experiments in rodents,” Yeadon said. “I searched the literature based on these specific concerns and found a 2012 review, explicitly drawing attention to the evidence that the lipid nanoparticle formulations as a class do, in fact, accumulate in ovaries and may represent an unappreciated reproductive risk to humans. This was ‘a well known problem’ to experts in that field.”
A 2012 study says that after testing with different mouse species and Wistar rats, “a high local accumulation of nanoparticles, nanocapsules, and nanoemulsions in specific locations of the ovaries was found in all animals.”
Referring to the study, Yeadon told The Epoch Times that “the authors tell untruths. They say something like ‘there was no increase in anti-syncytin-1 antibodies.’”
“No, that’s wrong. Their data is clearly 2.5X increased after vaccination and obviously statistically significant (functional significance is looking confirmed by the miscarriage rate),” Yeadon noted.
“What they’ve done is cute. They’ve chosen a completely arbitrary level they scribed on the figure below which they claim nothing matters. No evidence whatsoever for that claim. In fact, in the discussion, they confess we don’t know the relationship between antibodies and the impact on function.”
Yeadon believes that the pharmaceutical industry “definitely knew,” since 2012, that the lipid nanoparticles would accumulate in the ovaries of women that took the vaccines.
“No one in the industry or in leading media could claim ‘they didn’t know about these risks to successful pregnancy.’”
Another recent study found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine goes into liver cells and is converted to DNA, a process called reverse-transcription.
-
Something ‘Rotten’ With NIH Funding CCP-Controlled Labs: Natalie Winters
By Masooma Haq and Jan Jekielek May 15, 2022 Updated: May 15, 2022biggersmaller Print
Natalie Winters, an investigative reporter at the National Pulse, said the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) willingness to enter into agreements with Chinese labs shows a level of corruption because it is clear that these labs are limbs of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
“I think that just kind of shows you how deep the rot goes, right. Something is very rotten at the NIH in terms of their ‘okayness’ with sending taxpayer funds to fund Chinese Communist Party research,” Winters said during an interview with The Epoch Times’ American Thought Leaders show.
“And you can see that a lot of the groups that they’re funding are branches of the People’s Liberation Army. I’m not even saying military-linked entities, I’m saying explicitly military entities,” she said.
Winters has researched the relationship between the NIH and CCP-linked labs like the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). One of the relationships she finds most alarming is the Chinese lab’s contract with the University of Texas, Galveston, which was made possible with NIH funding.
Epoch Times Photo
The P4 laboratory on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on May 13, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
Even if there was some opposition, “The fact that Galveston contract got through with that confidentiality clause on there, and there was not a single person in that entire agency who raised any red flags about that … I think it just really makes you you wonder that it’s both a personnel problem and a policy problem,” she said of the memorandums of understanding (MOU) and agreements with China.
Galveston National Laboratory (GNL) at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) entered into a MOU with the WIV, which made it obligatory for each of the two labs to delete “secret files” or materials upon request of the other party.
“The party is entitled to ask the other to destroy and/or return the secret files, materials, and equipment without any backups,” states the MOU obtained by U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit investigative research group focused on public health, through a Freedom of Information Act request.
GNL is one of two national biocontainment laboratories constructed under grants awarded by the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Five years after the GNL agreement was first made with China’s WIV, Fauci’s deputy director broadened the agreement, signing off on clauses that would allow the Wuhan lab to request the GNL delete files, pathogens, materials, and backups of collaborative research, Winters said, “giving [the CCP] essentially a free for all and allowing them to dictate what’s going on at American laboratories.”
In response to an email from The Epoch Times seeking comment, UTMB replied: “Although MOUs are nonbinding and do not serve in any way as contractual agreements, upon learning of the error, the University of Texas System immediately directed UTMB to terminate any MOU that contained language that conflicts with law and policy.
“The University of Texas System recently launched a review of processes and practices at UTMB and is putting into place new levels of oversight for procedures. UTMB confirms no documents or confidential information has been destroyed, nor have requests been received to do so,” it added.
Epoch Times Photo
Dr. Francis Collins speaks in Washington on Sept. 9, 2020. (Michael Reynolds/Pool/Getty Images)
In addition to the NIH’s partnering with WIV, Francis Collins, the recently retired director of the NIH, was on the advisory board of a conference called the International Conference on Genomics, which was sponsored by the China-based company BGI Genomics.
Winters said that while BGI Genomics has been flagged by the FBI “as trying to steal Americans’ genetic information, harvest their DNA,” with the agency recommending state governments against using BGI’s products for COVID-19 tests, there has been a disconnect in the government on recognizing the national security risk, given that Collins had served “essentially on their advisory board.”
Related Coverage
Something ‘Rotten’ With NIH Funding CCP-Controlled Labs: Natalie WintersNatalie Winters: Texas Lab Agreed to Destroy Records If Asked by Wuhan Institute of Virology
Something ‘Rotten’ With NIH Funding CCP-Controlled Labs: Natalie WintersFacts Matter (April 13): New Documents Show NIH Funded ‘Gain-of-Function’ Research in China: Expert’s Analysis
Winters posed the question: are these partnerships with CCP-backed science organizations just out of ignorance on the part of the NIH or “is there something more dangerous going on?”
“Are we now getting into the territory of compromise and collusion [with] foreign influence groups that come out of China targeting some of the most powerful voices in the United States?” she asked.
Science Organizations Aligned With CCP
In February 2020, one of the world’s leading medical journals, The Lancet, published an official statement about the origin of the COVID-19 virus, the content of which mimicked the CCP’s talking points and had the “most influence” in squelching the origin debate, Winters said.
The Lancet’s statement “basically dismissed [the lab leak] … if you dared to say the word lab, you [were labeled] a conspiracy theorist,” Winters said.
Some of the signatories of the Feb. 19 Lancet statement include Charles Calisher, Dennis Carroll, Rita Colwell, Ronald B Corley, Peter Daszak, and Christian Drosten, some of whom had professional ties to the CCP. Peter Daszak initially said he did not have a conflict of interest but later corrected that to say he did have ties to the Wuhan lab and was removed from the U.N. World Health Organization’s origins investigative committee.
Daszak heads the EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based nonprofit company that worked with WIV and was heavily funded by the NIH.
Epoch Times Photo
Peter Daszak (R) and other members of the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus, arrive at the Wuhan Institute of Virology on Feb. 3, 2021. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
The Lancet paper should have been impartial, Winters said. “But instead, it was premature judgment, premature dismissal of the lab leak theory.
“[E]very major mainstream media outlet sort of uses this document. They predicated their coverage of COVID-19, they used it as an excuse to censor people who supported the COVID-19 lab leak theory,” she said.
“So, I think it’s really interesting when you see both Big Tech having ties to a lot of the people who had signed that statement, but also the CCP having ties to people who had signed that statement.”
Winters said it is important to ask why U.S. organizations would put so much effort into squelching the origin debate and amplifying the CCP’s narrative “if these ideas had no merit, if they were so bogus, so ridiculous … why would you have to work so hard to suppress them?”
Related Coverage
Something ‘Rotten’ With NIH Funding CCP-Controlled Labs: Natalie WintersWuhan Lab Leak Theory Is Finally Gaining Traction After a Year of Cover-Ups
Legacy Media Reporting Swayed By CCP
Winters believes that the bulk of evidence now points to the pandemic being caused by a lab leak, but that the origin debate was, in large part, shut down by the legacy media.
“It makes you wonder, it’s probably more likely that a pathogen escaped [from a lab] either intentionally or by accident, [rather] than [from] a wet market where they weren’t even selling these alleged pangolins or bats or whatever animal that the Chinese Communist Party wants us to believe it was.”
The wet market origin theory is preposterous, Winters continued. The CCP puts out that theory with no outside corroboration, and instead of trying to dig out the truth about the origin of the virus, mainstream media outlets copied the CCP-approved narrative and labeled anyone who suggests that the virus could have come from a lab leak as a conspiracy theorist.
The CCP’s official narrative was backed by claims from CCP-run scientific organizations and then “mainstream media outlets in the West totally picked up that narrative, uncritically, and shared it,” Winters said.
She said that instead of helping the Chinese citizens get to the truth, Western mainstream media companies further victimized the Chinese people by amplifying the CCP’s faulty narratives.
“You know, the fact that these mainstream media outlets just ran with the line of the Chinese Communist Party, you know, unwaveringly at that and actually dismissed people who were criticizing them for doing so, as conspiracy theorists, I think really should make us wonder, where exactly do the allegiances of the mainstream media lie?”
Fact-Checker Conflicts of Interest
Many of the organizations or individuals providing fact-checking didn’t help ward off the pro-CCP bias pushed in early reports about the origins of the virus. According to Winters, these entities have shown themselves to be heavily partisan, often with ties to either Big Tech or the CCP.
“I think social media fact-checkers really are the next front in terms of the information warfare that we see going on right now in this country and frankly, the entire world,“ she said.
In her own independent reporting, Winters uncovered the fact that pharmaceutical company Pfizer was funding Facebook’s fact-checking partner—a clear conflict of interest. In addition, one of the fact-checkers included a company called Lead Stories, which is run by a former CNN employee and funded by companies like Facebook, Google, and China-owned TikTok.
“No company that’s receiving funding from TikTok could be a neutral arbiter in terms of the origins of COVID-19 … So I think people really need to understand that these fact checkers are not fact checkers—they’re the antithesis of fact-checkers,” she said. “They’re narrative enforcers, and I think the most prime example that we saw of that was throughout the origins of COVID-19, and the sort of evidence that they were using to suppress a lot of these stories.”
The Epoch Times has reached out to Lead Stories for comment.
-
Executive Received 70 Secret Royalty Payments; Colleague Got 7
By Mark Tapscott May 16, 2022 Updated: May 16, 2022biggersmaller Print
Two key National Institutes for Health (NIH) executives in positions of influence on decisions about who gets grants from the agency received a total of 77 previously undisclosed royalty payments from outside firms between 2010 and 2014.
The secret royalty payments, which were first reported by The Epoch Times, are among thousands estimated to total at least $350 million paid between 2010 and 2020. Long-time NIH Director Francis Collins received 14 payments, Anthony Fauci, who heads NIH’s National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), received 23, and Clifford Lane, Fauci’s chief deputy, got eight payments.
Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak conceded during questioning last week by Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) that the undisclosed royalties have the “appearance of a conflict of interest,” but he insisted that the agency has sufficient internal safeguards to prevent such problems. Federal law and ethics regulations bar federal employees from activities that present either the appearance or an actual conflict of interest.
Dr. Michael Gottesman has been the NIH’s deputy director for intramural research (DDIR) since 1994. According to his official resume on the NIH website, Gottesman “coordinates activities and facilitates cooperation among the 24 Institute- and Center-based Scientific Directors to achieve the scientific, training, and public health missions of the NIH Intramural Research Program.
“He provides guidance for the entire intramural program and reports to [Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak]. He oversees and ultimately approves the hiring of all NIH principal investigators, and he is the institutional official responsible for human subjects research protections, research integrity, technology transfer, and animal care and use at the NIH.
“During his tenure as DDIR, Dr. Gottesman has created the post-baccalaureate training program, the Graduate Partnerships Program (which permits graduate students to conduct thesis research at NIH); implemented loan repayment programs; institutionalized an intramural tenure track and new career tracks for clinical investigators; created the NIH Intramural Database (providing online information about all researchers and research at NIH); and spearheaded multiple other programs in the realm of diversity, equity, research integrity, and leadership.”
Gottesman announced in July 2021 his resignation from the DDIR position, pending the selection of his successor. He plans to remain as Chief of the Laboratory of Cell Biology in the NIH’s National Cancer Institute after his DDIR successor is chosen.
Gottesman received 70 royalty payments during the five-year period from 2010 to 2014, according to documents recently obtained by the non-profit government watchdog Open the Books (OTB) as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for extensive data on all payments from 2o10 to the present.
Open the Books is a Chicago-based nonprofit government watchdog that uses the federal and state freedom of information laws to obtain and then post on the internet trillions of dollars in spending at all levels of government.
The NIH initially ignored the OTB request until the non-profit filed a FOIA lawsuit in federal court. At that point, the NIH agreed to begin producing the requested documents in a series of monthly tranches.
But who paid the 70 royalties to Gottesman, the amounts of the payments, and for what purpose the payments were made cannot be known as the NIH is redacting payment amounts and the identities of the payers from the documents the agency is providing to OTB as a result of the FOIA.
The Epoch Times has requested from NIH the names of the payers of the 70 payments to Gottesman, the amounts of each payment, and the purpose for which the payment was made. No response has been received from NIH.
An additional seven royalty payments of unknown amounts and identities were made to Roger Glass, the NIH’s Associate Director for International Research. Glass was appointed to the post in 2006.
Congressional Democrats, including Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), were silent when asked last week by The Epoch Times about the secret royalty payments.
Republicans on Capitol Hill, however, ripped the payments as an obvious conflict of interest and called for full disclosure of all the facts.
“NIH receives tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and is entrusted with making unbiased scientific assessments and recommendations,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told The Epoch Times. “Their top officials, like any public officials, need to be held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure the American people’s health and safety remains the agency’s top priority. The NIH must be held accountable to the American people.”
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) called the NIH “a dark money pit. They covered up grants for gain-of-function research in Wuhan, so it is no surprise that they are now refusing to release critical data regarding allegations of millions in royalty fees paid to in-house scientists like Fauci. If the NIH wants to keep spending taxpayer dollars, they have a responsibility to provide transparency.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, “This report is disturbing and if it is true that some of our country’s top scientists have conflict of interest problems, the American people deserve to have all the answers.”
Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) called for an investigation, noting, “Of course it’s a direct conflict of interest for scientists like Anthony Fauci to rake in $350 million in royalties from third parties who benefit from federal taxpayer-funded grants.
“Anthony Fauci is a millionaire that has gotten rich off taxpayer dollars. He is a prime example of the bloated federal bureaucracy. This royalty system should be examined to ensure it isn’t making matters worse.”
-
second post
Higher COVID-19 Infection Rates Among Vaccinated Children Than Unvaccinated, CDC Data Show
By Harry Lee May 16, 2022 Updated: May 17, 2022biggersmaller Print
According to data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), higher COVID-19 case rates have been recorded among fully vaccinated children than unvaccinated in the age group 5-11 since February.
On Feb. 12, CDC reported a weekly case rate of 250.02 per 100,000 population in fully vaccinated children aged 5-11, compared to 245.82 for unvaccinated children in the same age group.
That’s the first time CDC recorded a higher case rate among fully vaccinated young children since data was first collected in December 2021. It remains for the following weeks till the third week of March, the latest week with available data.
Epoch Times Photo
COVID-19 case rates between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children aged 5-11. (CDC/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
Epoch Times Photo
Data about COVID-19 cases between vaccinated and unvaccinated children aged 5-11. “Crude vax/unvax IR” means the unadjusted incidence rate of the corresponding outcome among the population vaccinated/unvaccinated (per 100,000 population). “Crude IRR” means unadjusted incidence rate ratio (unvaccinated : vaccinated). (Data from CDC. Highlights made by The Epoch Times)
Children aged 5–11 years became eligible for COVID-19 vaccination on Nov. 2, 2021. There are about 28 million children in this age group in the nation.
Currently, about 28.8 percent of children in this age group have been fully vaccinated, according to Mayo Clinic.
CDC’s data also show the gap in rates of cases between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated has become increasingly smaller among other age groups. The death rates show the same trend between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated for people above 50. For people under 50 years old, the death rates have not much difference since the rollout of the vaccine.
Epoch Times Photo
Rates of COVID-19 cases by vaccination status, booster dose, and age group. (CDC/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
Epoch Times Photo
Rates of COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status and age group. (CDC/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
The data show that the COVID-19 vaccines have a “negligible effect” on people, said Dr. Peter McCullough, a renowned cardiologist and epidemiologist.
“With these results in hand, it is clear the vaccines are having a negligible effect in populations,” McCullough told The Epoch Times via email. “Given the overall poor safety profile and lack of any assurances on long-term safety, Americans should be cautious in considering additional injections of these products.”
Epoch Times Photo
Dr. Peter McCullough in New York on Dec. 24, 2021. (Jack Wang/The Epoch Times)
CDC responded that several factors contribute to this phenomenon in the age group 5-11.
“Several factors likely affect crude case rates by vaccination and booster dose status, making interpretation of recent trends difficult,” Jasmine Reed, a CDC spokesperson, told The Epoch Times via email.
“Limitations include higher prevalence of previous infection among the unvaccinated and un-boosted groups; difficulty in accounting for time since vaccination and waning protection; and possible differences in testing practices (such as at-home tests) and prevention behaviors by age and vaccination status. These limitations appear to have less impact on the death rates presented here.”
Reed also directed The Epoch Times to a study published by CDC in March, showing Pfizer’s vaccine reduced the Omicron infection among children and adolescents aged 5-15.
Pfizer’s vaccine is the only COVID-19 vaccine that can be administered to the age group 5-17. Pfizer hasn’t responded to a request for comment.
“CDC is assessing whether to continue using these case rate data to provide preliminary information on vaccine impact,” Reed added.
On May 13, a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine turned negatively effective after five months.
The protection also waned considerably against hospitalization over time, the study found. The authors said one way to combat the negative effectiveness was to get a booster dose.
McCullough said most non-randomized studies attempting to estimate vaccine efficacy (VE) had some “common flaws”, including no accounting for baseline prior COVID-19 infection; no reporting for currently boostered within a 6-month time window; and no adjudication of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19 or other conditions.
“As a result, most studies of COVID-19 VE have biases towards overestimating any clinical benefit of vaccination,” said McCullough.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to authorize a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine for children 5-11 as early as Tuesday, The New York Times reported.
Last month, Moderna requested an emergency use authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months to 6 years of age. As the FDA postponed its decision in February on whether to authorize its COVID-19 vaccine for children six months to four years old, Pfizer is now working on data for a three-dose regimen.
Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/us-confirms-monkeypox-virus-massachusetts-after-uk-spain-portugal-cases-men
"Men who have sex with men"
I was assured that male/female was a cultural construct. How do they know how the infected self-identify?
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/us-confirms-monkeypox-virus-massachusetts-after-uk-spain-portugal-cases-men
"Men who have sex with men"
I was assured that male/female was a cultural construct. How do they know how the infected self-identify?
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/106/937/749/original/8d950bcef4035944.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/106/937/749/original/8d950bcef4035944.jpg)
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/107/080/174/original/f7a7d4d3948a4e85.jpeg
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/107/080/174/original/f7a7d4d3948a4e85.jpeg)
Treated differently.
Prove me wrong.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-sounds-alarm-on-monkeypox-as-cdc-alerts-american-doctors_4482481.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-22-2&utm_medium=email&est=q28jMgW0Bt1bQ%2FJ%2Foh%2FGi2cnq33IqDX5dFieGdm6k8kbK7vHtMWF8n12chMnaLihCyr%2F
-
https://www.oann.com/sen-scott-biden-must-not-give-chinese-puppet-who-sovereignty-over-americans-lives/
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/weird-globalist-group-nti-predicted-likelihood-monkeypox-outbreak-november-2021-report/
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/stunning-wuhan-lab-experimenting-monkeypox-last-year-published-research-report-international-journal-february/
Did we pay for this one as well?
-
https://www.westernjournal.com/pfizer-ceo-intros-horrifying-wireless-compliance-device/
funny
he goes to Davos to present this.......
who is a bigger threat to the US?
Davos people
or proud boys :wink:
-
https://www.westernjournal.com/pfizer-ceo-intros-horrifying-wireless-compliance-device/
funny
he goes to Davos to present this.......
who is a bigger threat to the US?
Davos people
or proud boys :wink:
Everyone knows.
-
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63108
Unexpectedly!
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/107/080/174/original/f7a7d4d3948a4e85.jpeg
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/107/080/174/original/f7a7d4d3948a4e85.jpeg)
Treated differently.
Prove me wrong.
-
https://www.aier.org/article/new-study-challenges-cdc-evidence-on-school-masking/
-
CDC Wants Its COVID Regime Made Permanent
Jeffrey A. Tucker
Jeffrey A. Tucker
June 10, 2022 Updated: June 11, 2022biggersmaller Print
There is no remorse at the CDC. Far from it. The model of virus control deployed over the last 27 months is now part of normal operations. It wants it institutionalized.
The bureaucracy has now codified this into a new online tool that instructs cities and states precisely of what they are supposed to do given a certain level of community spread. The new tool doesn’t say lockdowns as such but the entire model of containment via masks and distancing is baked in, and it can be easily expanded at will.
To understand how absurd this is, consider that as of this writing, major parts of Southern Florida are supposed to be masked up, according to the map provided by the CDC, because COVID testing reveals high community spread.
Hardly anyone in Florida has worn a mask since 2020. The very notion is a joke there. However, what happens to the other states and what happens when or if political control of Florida changes to a pro-lockdown party?
Epoch Times Photo
Under the orange label (high), the following pertains:
Some standout points here. Masks have nowhere controlled the spread of COVID. We know this from countless examples all over the world. They have been a spectacular failure except as signals to others to feel a sense of alarm at the presence of disease. Neither have vaccinations achieved the stopping or even slowing of infection or spread. Note the new language too: “Stay up to date.” Vaccinations are headed toward the WEF ideal of subscription plans.
As for “additional precautions” we know what that means: lockdowns. Even now, the suggestions are to
Follow CDC recommendations for isolation and quarantine, including getting tested if you are exposed to COVID-19 or have symptoms of COVID-19
Implementing screening testing or other testing strategies for people who are exposed to COVID-19 in workplaces, schools, or other community settings as appropriate
Implement enhanced prevention measures in high-risk congregate settings
Consider setting-specific recommendations for prevention strategies based on local factors
We’ve seen this movie before. It’s a recipe for full government control of life.
In addition, this new tool can easily move to a next iteration by the addition of a red color: it could mean shelter in place, close the schools, don’t go to church, don’t see friends, and so on. I’ll say it again, there is no remorse, no regret, no rethinking at all. No admission of error. On the contrary, it is all part of the plan to do it over again.
In fact, a different version of the chart above, updated as of this posting, already has a code red, and it pertains to the entire country (one version measures “levels” and the other measures “transmission”).
Epoch Times Photo
Now, you might say that these are just recommendations, and the CDC makes such goofy recommendations all the time (cook your beef well done). The trouble is that it puts the burden to reject the recommendations on politicians at the state and local level. For that matter, there is nothing really in place that would stop a public health department anywhere in the country from implementing them on their own.
Anyone objecting is immediately on the back foott, attempting to justify the refusal to obey the CDC and thereby opening themselves up to the accusation that they are killing grandma and so on.
It truly boggles the mind that the CDC has rethought nothing given the carnage we face in the country today. They talk about “the data” and the science but pay attention to almost none of it. They forever fall back on their new doctrines and, mostly, their power.
This is about much more than lockdowns. It’s about life itself, particularly as it affects economics.
A new poll from the Wall Street Journal reveals that the percent of Americans who think the economy is poor or not so good is an incredible 83 percent. Maybe that doesn’t surprise you and gives rise to the question of what demographic constitutes the 17 percent who think things are just fine. Maybe employees at the NIH, CDC, DHS, Pfizer, and Moderna?
Ok, I take it back: too cynical. The truth is that economic prospects now are just awful. And it’s not just inflation. It’s class mobility, demoralization, goods availability, and a general sense that hope in the future isn’t what it used to be just a few years ago. That will surely have a big effect on November’s midterm elections. The winning candidates will make elaborate promises to fix the problems but how many among them will be openly critical of COVID mandates? Not many.
This matters because the connection is direct. My personal frustration is that massive failure on the part of the media, intellectuals, and average people to make the connection between the hell of the last 27 months—in the name of disease control—and these economic, cultural, educational, and social outcomes.
For some odd reason I cannot fathom, there is a general impression out there that economic life exists in some insulated machine that is somehow detached from life experience. Therefore it can be turned on and off. We turned it back on, so why aren’t things going back to normal?
Well, most all the suffering people are experiencing today traces to catastrophic policy pushed by the CDC with White House deference, thereby prompting the entire public-health machinery around the country to swing into action, closing schools, businesses, churches, and giving Congress an excuse to spending some $6T (at least) through debt finance that was quickly added to the Fed’s balance sheet via money printing. The closures interrupted supply chains and shattered economic and social functioning. The fallout is what we see all around us.
We’ve just experienced years in which it was demonstrated to the United States and the entire world how pandemic control can be deployed to utterly crush rights, freedoms, constitutional limits on states, and even everything we call civilization itself.
What the CDC pushed on the country, even the world, was without precedent. The resulting disasters are everywhere present. At minimum we should expect the CDC to cease and desist, and certainly not entrench and codify. That the latter is taking place reveals what a long struggle lies ahead.
From the Brownstone Institute
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
Mercola publishes regularly in ET. Sometimes not reliable, best to consider but look for confirmation.
========================================
Is Push to Vaccinate Young Kids a Ploy by Pharma to Get COVID Shot on Pediatric Immunization Schedule?
BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIMEJUNE 14, 2022 PRINT
The FDA announced they were reviewing data for a COVID vaccine for children ages 6 months to under 5 years. But the data are based on just 10 children.
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Pfizer announced preliminary data from Phase 2/3 trials in children 6 months to under 5 years would be submitted to the FDA for emergency use authorization; the data are based on 1,678 children and 10 who got sick, which Pfizer claims is an 80.3% effectiveness rate
Even vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit is dismayed at the number from which Pfizer is drawing conclusions. Just days before, New York announced the vaccine efficacy in children 5 to 11 years fell to 12% within two months after vaccination
Despite 48,833 records in VAERS of adverse events in children under 18 from the vaccine, Pfizer says the shot for 6 months to under 5 years old has “a safety profile similar to placebo”
Moderna announced their submission to the FDA for children younger than 5 years has a 37% to 51% effectiveness, which is close to the effectiveness of the flu vaccine
Data from the CDC show that as the months roll by, more Americans are not taking or completing the shots to meet CDC criteria to be fully vaccinated. The push to vaccinate children may likely be related to the pharmaceutical industry’s goal to mandate the vaccine under full legal immunity from damages
May 23, 2022, Pfizer-BioNTech1 announced preliminary results from their Phase 2/3 trial evaluating a three-dose vaccine schedule for children 6 months to under 5 years of age would be submitted to the FDA for emergency use authorization (EUA).
Many in mainstream media are hailing this development as important to children’s health, writing, “many parents of these very young children have been really anxious to get their kids vaccinated”2 and “Parents hoping to get their youngest children vaccinated against COVID-19 got some encouraging news Monday.”3
Yet, despite the continued push by mainstream media to encourage parents to vaccinate the very young, the Vaccine Monitor Survey from KFF4 found only 18% of parents with children under age 5 are planning to get their child vaccinated immediately.
Parents Expressing Concern for Children’s Safety
KFF reports that a larger number — 38% — are planning to wait to see the side effects the vaccine may have in younger children before making a decision and 27% have indicated they will definitely not have their child injected. Importantly, the survey also found that “Just over half of parents of children in this age range say they do not have enough information about the vaccines’ safety and effectiveness for children under age 5.”5
While information about vaccine injuries from the COVID-19 jab has been difficult to find on mainstream media, it is apparent from these numbers that many parents are concerned about their children’s safety and want more information before they’re willing to risk their health.
A paper published December 15, 2021, in JAMA6 referenced the previous survey by KFF,7 which found 27% of parents of children 5 to 11 years old were interested in giving their children the jab, which is a 9% drop from the survey in 2022. The paper8 sought to smooth the waters with parents who were hesitant to vaccinate their children by attributing fear to misinformation and a misunderstanding of what “EUA” means.
It is interesting to note that the author of the paper has received research grants from Pfizer and Moderna, and also serves on the advisory boards for Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and Merck.
The JAMA paper states the KFF survey found the primary reason parents were concerned were reasonably the “long-term and serious adverse effects, including future fertility issues.”9 According to the author, these concerns were addressed and disproven based on just one year’s worth of data.
Pfizer’s 80.3% Effectiveness Is Based on 10 Children
Pfizer’s announcement that they were seeking an EUA from the FDA for children 6 months to under 5 years is “based on 10 symptomatic COVID-19 cases identified from seven days after the third dose and accrued as of April 29, 2022.”10
While the study included 1,678 children who received three doses of the formulation, the stated 80.3% efficacy in children is based on just 10 cases. The number is so low that even outspoken vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit — co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine11 — expressed dismay at the number, saying:12
“I mean, 10 children — you’re talking about 10 children. It’s a small number, so it’s really hard to comment or this as something more general since you don’t know because the numbers are so small.”
Pfizer announced these results after delaying the EUA application process to gather more data.13 Initially, children in the study did not produce a significant immune response after two doses, so the company delayed the request until they could give the children a third dose.
The trial reportedly was evaluating “the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of three doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.”14 Curiously, Pfizer’s claim of 80.3% effectiveness in children comes on the heels of a New York state Department of Health study that showed vaccine efficacy in children ages 5 to 11 years old fell to 12% in two months after vaccination.15
In other words, 7 out of 8 kids who were vaccinated had no benefit from the vaccine two months after receiving the jab. The data taken from 365,502 children showed a striking difference between children ages 11 and 12. The effectiveness against infection in 12 year olds was 67%, but in 11-year-old children, it dropped to 11%.16
The data from the U.S. were consistent with a report from Britain17 that showed effectiveness against symptomatic infection dropped 22.6% after two months in adolescents aged 16 to 17 years.
Interestingly, the Pfizer press release published May 23, 2022, mentioned the word “safety” 22 times while discussing the COVID-19 vaccine for children, and wrote the shot was “well-tolerated among 1,678 children under 5 years of age with a safety profile similar to placebo.”18 The vaccine being used on the younger children is one-tenth the strength given to adults.19
Yet, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)20 recorded 1,878 adverse events in children aged 5 and 10,029 in children aged 6 to 11 from data published as of May 13, 2022.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics,21 as of May 2022, 35% of 5- to 11-year-olds received one dose and only 28% received both doses of the vaccine. If you extrapolate the adverse event numbers using 35% of the pediatric population that received at least one dose, there would have been 34,020 adverse events if 100% of children in the U.S. aged 5 to 11 years had been given the shot.
It seems highly unlikely that 11,907 adverse events in children 5 to 11 reported to VAERS after at least one injection would have resulted in only “mild or moderate”22 events in children aged 6 months to under 5 years, or that the shot could have “a safety profile similar to placebo.”
Moderna Is Also Requesting an EUA for Children Under 5
Moderna is also stepping up to the plate and requesting an EUA for a low dose shot in children younger than age 5. The data they have submitted show the vaccine is effective 37% to 51% of the time against the COVID variant omicron.23
Paul Burton, chief medical officer for Moderna, spoke with ABC News, saying,24 “I think for these little children, they really represent an unmet medical need. I would be hopeful that the review will go on quickly and rigorously — but if it’s approvable, this will be made available to these little children as quickly as possible.”
It’s more likely that young children represent an untapped financial windfall for the company, since the vaccine has proven to have dangerous side effects,25 while the death rate in children from the infection itself is far below any other age group.26 But, if the vaccine is added to the pediatric vaccine schedule, and if it’s mandated like other childhood vaccines, it will become an evergreen market representing billions of dollars to the drug companies.
Each year the CDC records vaccine effectiveness for flu shots for all vaccine types in all age groups. The FDA may find the COVID jab’s 37% effectiveness rate acceptable since the flu vaccine’s adjusted effectiveness is similar, ranging from 34% to 68% in children ages 6 months to 8 years during the 2015-2016 through the 2019-2020 flu seasons.27
While the flu shot is a one-jab, annual event, thus far, the CDC recommends multiple jabs with the COVID vaccine.28 This means an adult may receive up to five injections of an mRNA shot with unknown long-term effects, which has not proven to effectively protect people against an infection.29
Since the effectiveness of the COVID jab in adults and children drops in just weeks, it’s highly likely the same will happen in children 6 months to under 5 years. Again, the combination of a mutating virus, waning immunity and federal approval for a vaccine is a prime example of an evergreen business model.
More Americans Are Turning Away From the Jab
According to data released by the CDC,30 82.7% of the U.S. population over age 5 have received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine. According to the CDC, this is 258,133,282 people as of May 24, 2022. This is the sound bite you’ve likely been hearing in the news. But there’s something else that’s worthy of noting.
While the data show that 70.8% of the population are fully vaccinated by CDC criteria, 11.9% of the population who initially received the first vaccine have not gone back for the second dose.
The CDC also keeps data on the number of people who have had their first booster or second booster, and as of May 24, 2022, 48.4% of eligible people 12 years or older have received their first booster and just 20.5% of eligible people 50 years or older have received their second booster.
It is important to note that the CDC recommends boosters for people 5 and older31 but they are not currently publicly tracking that data. This means roughly 17.3% of the population eligible for the vaccine did not receive any doses. When you add that together with the 11.9% who did not go back for their second dose, it appears that 29.2% of the population have now decided they either will not take the vaccine at all or will not take another.32
Why They Are Pushing Children’s Vaccine Approval
Download Interview Transcript
In this fascinating interview with Alix Mayer, we discuss the nefarious reasons why our children are being aggressively targeted for the COVID-19 injection, even though CDC data show they are not a serious risk. Mayer is board president of the Children’s Health defense California chapter and is herself vaccine injured from a series of vaccines she received 20 years ago, before traveling out of the country.
She’s a graduate of Duke University and Northwestern University with an MBA in finance and management strategy. Historically, VAERS has shown that many vaccines have a questionable safety profile, especially when they’re combined. Yet data from 2021 and 2022 have suggested there’s never been a vaccine as dangerous as the experimental mRNA gene transfer injections for COVID.33
The lack of transparency and accountability has been a chronic problem within the industry, but the hazards associated with the COVID jabs have really highlighted this issue. Because the injections are still under EUA, they have legal immunity against liability for vaccine injury.34
As Mayer points out, what you may not realize is that although the FDA appeared to approve and license BioNTech’s Comirnaty,35 the shot continues to be administered under the EUA. One reason for this is that once a product is fully licensed, the company also becomes liable for injuries.36
And, since the pharmaceutical companies understand how dangerous the shots are, they don’t want to be financially liable for injuries. So, to get immunity for a vaccine not administered under an EUA, they must have the product placed on the childhood vaccination schedule, under which they’re not personally liable if their vaccines injure someone.37,38
Once on the children’s schedule, it also allows the government to mandate the shot. As noted by Mayer: “This is the holy grail if you’re a vaccine manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put it on the market until you get it on the children’s schedule.”39
The reason the pharmaceutical industry is pushing for vaccines in young children is clearly based on financial interests. VAERS records show 117 children under 18 have died because of the vaccine and 48,833 have reported adverse events and injuries as of May 13, 2022.40
It is crucial to share this information with parents who are making lifelong decisions for their children and to support your local politicians whose stated goals are to protect your freedoms.
Originally published June 14, 2022 on Mercola.com
Sources and References
1, 10, 14 Pfizer, May 23, 2022
2, 12, 23 NPR, May 23, 2022
3 AP, May 23, 2022
4, 5 KFF, May 4, 2022
6, 8, 9 JAMA, 2022;327(1)
7 KFF, October, 28, 2021
11 Regis College March 10, 2021
13 CIDRAP, February 11, 2022
15 The New York Times, February 28, 2022, para 11
16 The New York Times, February 28, 2022
17 The Lancet, 2022;22(5) para 1under Figure A/B
18 Pfizer, May 23, 2022, bullets #2
19 CIDRAP, May 23, 2022
20, 40 OpenVAERS, COVID data
21 American Academy of Pediatrics, May 18, 2022
22 Pfizer, May 23, 2022, para 6 under the bullets
24 ABC News, May 4, 2022
25, 33 OpenVAERS
26 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts by Age in Years, 2020-2022, last table on the page
27 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness, 2015-2016 through 2019-2020
28 MayoClinic, May 21, 2022
29 New England Journal of Medicine, 2022;386
30 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, COVID-19 Vaccinations in the U.S.
31, 32 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 24, 2022
34 CNBC, December 17, 2020
35 FDA, May 20, 2022
36 BitChute, December 22, 2021, Minute 21:50
37 History of Vaccines, Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs Subhead 3
38 Legal Information Institute
39 BitChute, December 22, 2021, Minute 22:55
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/2324418/publix-refuses-to-vaccinate-american-slave-children
https://www.theepochtimes.com/reactivation-of-chickenpox-virus-following-covid-19-injections-on-the-rise_4549574.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-23-3&utm_medium=email&est=65amPuE5jGhSnKLV9BdLBAACXYgzmo1AglWuh%2BPV3O%2FHqc9CcdwdCl5YXgzqwStqqqSu
https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-suspends-doctor-who-shared-study-showing-pfizer-vaccine-impacts-semen_4553511.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-23-3&utm_medium=email&est=ce0nVTk%2Fd%2BHJYns41M3imgN%2Fa2h5UtHFN0I4SdXKadKHEzhtXpuRoL3fKb%2FnUeQtS2XW
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/2334926/crimes-against-humanity
-
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-fdas-future-framework-for-covid-vaccines-is-reckless-plan/?fbclid=IwAR0MgjYqzVETeUA2tFGtAsoJ8TLU1c3rj-vNrpdwGsXFC4DQK5Dzfe6gJmk
-
https://swprs.org/covid-vaccines-and-fertility/
-
Contagious Vaccines: A Warning
BY AARON KHERIATY TIMEJUNE 17, 2022 PRINT
0:00
2:45
1
Commentary
For two decades, scientists have been quietly developing self-spreading contagious vaccines. The National Institutes of Health funded this research, in which either DNA from a deadly pathogen is packaged in a contagious but less harmful virus, or the deadly virus’s lethality is weakened by engineering it in a lab.
The resultant “vaccines” spread from one person to the next just like a contagious respiratory virus. Only 5 percent of regional populations would need to be immunized; the other 95 percent would “catch” the vaccine as it spreads person-to-person through community transmission.
This technology bypasses the inconvenience of recalcitrant citizens who may refuse to give consent. Its advocates highlight that a mass vaccination campaign that would ordinarily take months of expensive effort to immunize everyone could be shortened to only a few weeks.
Scientists have already shown proof of concept in animal populations: In 2000, Spanish researchers injected 70 rabbits with a transmissible vaccine and returned them to the wild where they quickly passed the vaccine on to hundreds more, reportedly stopping a viral outbreak. European countries are now testing the technology on pigs.
In the wake of the COVID pandemic, about a dozen research institutions in the United States, Europe, and Australia are investigating the potential human uses for self-spreading vaccines. The federal Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, for example, is examining this technology for the U.S. military to protect against the West African Lassa fever, a virus spread by rats to humans. This project, it should be noted, doesn’t require the consent of our military service men and women.
In 2019, the UK government began exploring this technology to address the seasonal flu. A research paper from its Department of Health and Social Care advised that university students could be an obvious target group:
“They do not work so [vaccinating them] will not cause much economic disruption and most have second homes to go to, thereby spreading the vaccine.”
Researchers admitted a contagious vaccine for an attenuated flu virus would cause some deaths but estimated these would be less than the original influenza virus. As the UK government report described:
“Self-spreading vaccines are less lethal but not non-lethal: they can still kill. Some people will die who would otherwise have lived, though fewer people die overall.”
As the saying goes, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Or, in Lenin’s formulation, if you’re going to chop down a forest, then wood chips will fly. Contagious vaccines are in our future, their champions claim, and are no different from putting fluoride in drinking water. Plus, for those who find jabs unpleasant, there are fewer needles required.
Government-funded research of lab-engineered viruses to create contagious, self-spreading vaccines that bypass the consent of citizens. What could go wrong?
From the Brownstone Institute
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-022-01831-0
Abstract
Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. According to European Medicines Agency recommendations, frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. The decrease in immunity can be caused by several factors such as N1-methylpseudouridine, the spike protein, lipid nanoparticles, antibody-dependent enhancement, and the original antigenic stimulus. These clinical alterations may explain the association reported between COVID-19 vaccination and shingles. As a safety measure, further booster vaccinations should be discontinued. In addition, the date of vaccination should be recorded in the medical record of patients. Several practical measures to prevent a decrease in immunity have been reported. These include limiting the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including acetaminophen to maintain deep body temperature, appropriate use of antibiotics, smoking cessation, stress control, and limiting the use of lipid emulsions, including propofol, which may cause perioperative immunosuppression. In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination is a major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients.
-
Third
COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy
BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIMEJUNE 26, 2022 PRINT
Not a vaccine in the medical definition, the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is really an experimental gene therapy that does not render immunity or prevent infection or transmission of the disease.
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
mRNA “vaccines” created by Moderna and Pfizer are gene therapies. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine. This matters because you cannot mandate a gene therapy against COVID-19 any more than you can force entire populations to undergo gene therapy for a cancer they do not have and may never be at risk for
mRNA contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies
The only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the vaccinated individual, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit, it makes no sense to demand you accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community
Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine — at least not until the CDC redefined “vaccine” — marketing them as such is a deceptive practice that violates the law that governs advertising of medical practices
SARS-CoV-2 has not even been proven to be the cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot be said to be preventive against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked
mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Fulfill None of the Criteria for a Vaccine
To start, let’s take a look at some basic definitions of words. When these gene therapies were introduced, the definition of vaccine according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was:[1]
“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
Immunity, in turn, was defined as:
“Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”
That’s the CDC’s medical definition, which was effective until September 1, 2021 — a detail I’ll go into in the next section. The legal definition, in the few cases where it has been detailed, is equally unequivocal:
Iowa code[2] — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.”
Washington state code[3][4] — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” The statute also specifies that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease …”
These definitions, both medical and legal, present problems for mRNA “vaccines,” since:
mRNA injections do not impart immunity. Moderna and Pfizer both admit that their clinical trials aren’t even looking at immunity. As such they did not fulfill the CDC’s medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.
They do not inhibit transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such they do not fulfill the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine — that is, until the CDC changed its definition of vaccine.
Dictionaries and the CDC Attempt to Rewrite Medical Terms
We should not be fooled by attempts to condition the public to accept redefined terms. As of February 2019, Merriam-Webster defined[5] “vaccine” as “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.” By February 26, 2021, they had updated the definition of “vaccine” to:[6]
“A preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious disease:
a: an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated … pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)”
Let’s be clear. Merriam-Webster does not dictate medical terminology. It can be used, however, to confuse people. For now, all medical dictionaries still show the traditional definition of vaccine,[7] as Merriam-Webster did up until this year. That said, I would not be surprised if changes are made there as well, eventually, if the misrepresentation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is allowed to stand.
On the other hand, months after Merriam-Webster’s change, the CDC decided to change its definition of vaccine[8] in such a way that it better matches what mRNA gene therapies do. Coincidentally, the CDC made that revision just a week after the FDA gave full approval for Pfizer’s gene therapy, now called Comirnaty.[9]
Now the CDC’s definition of a vaccine is a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
The differences in the definitions are subtle but distinct: The first one defined a vaccine as something that will “produce immunity.” But, since the COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to stop infection but, rather, to only lessen the degree of infection, it becomes obvious that the new definition was created specifically to cover the COVID gene therapies.
mRNA Therapy Doesn’t Satisfy Public Health Measure Directive
There’s also the issue of whether a gene therapy can be mandated, and this may hinge on it being accepted as a vaccine. The 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts[10] essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit.
“Since mRNA therapies do not render person immune, and do not inhibit transmission of the virus, they cannot qualify as a public health measure capable of providing collective benefit that supersedes individual risk, and therefore cannot be mandated.”
Put another way, the ruling argues (although legal experts diverge on some of the finer details of its interpretation) that it’s acceptable for some individuals to be harmed by a public health directive as long as it benefits the collective. However, if vaccination is a public health measure meant to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to accomplish two things:
Ensure that the vaccinated person is rendered immune from the disease.
Inhibit transmission of the disease from the vaccinated person to other individuals.
We’re now back to the original problem that mRNA therapies for COVID-19 do not accomplish either of these things. Since these gene therapies do not render the person immune, and do not inhibit transmission of the virus, they cannot qualify as a public health measure capable of providing collective benefit that supersedes individual risk.
On the contrary, the only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the individual receiving the gene therapy, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein.
In other words, they won’t keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they are only supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected. So, getting vaccinated protects no one but yourself. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit (less severe COVID-19 symptoms upon infection), the justification to accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community is blatantly irrational.
Marketing mRNA Therapy as Vaccine Violates Federal Law
Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine that imparts immunity, referring to them as vaccines, and marketing them as such, is a deceptive practice that violates[11] 15 U.S. Code Section 41 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,[12] the law that governs advertising of medical practices.
The lack of completed human trials also puts these mRNA products at odds with 15 U.S. Code Section 41. Per this law,[13][14] it is unlawful to advertise “that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”
Here’s the problem: The primary end point in the COVID-19 “vaccine” trials is not an actual vaccine trial end point because, again, vaccine trial end points have to do with immunity and transmission reduction. Neither of those was measured.
What’s more, key secondary end points in Moderna’s trial include prevention of severe COVID-19 disease (defined as need for hospitalization) and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms.[15[16] However, Moderna did not actually measure rate of infection, stating that it was too “impractical” to do so.
That means there’s no evidence of this gene therapy having an impact on infection, for better or worse. And, if you have no evidence, you cannot fulfill the U.S. Code requirement that states you must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence … substantiating that the claims are true.”
Making matters worse, both Pfizer and Moderna eliminated their control groups by offering the real vaccine to any and all placebo recipients who want it.[17] The studies are supposed to go on for a full two years, but by eliminating the control group, determining effectiveness and risks is going to be near impossible.
What Makes COVID Vaccines Gene Therapy?
Alright. Let’s move on to the definition of “gene therapy.” As detailed on MedlinePlus.gov’s “What Is Gene Therapy” page:[18]
“Gene therapy is an experimental technique that uses genes to treat or prevent disease … Researchers are testing several approaches to gene therapy, including: … Introducing a new gene into the body to help fight a disease …
Although gene therapy is a promising treatment option for a number of diseases (including inherited disorders, some types of cancer, and certain viral infections), the technique remains risky and is still under study to make sure that it will be safe and effective. Gene therapy is currently being tested only for diseases that have no other cures.”
Here, it’s worth noting that there are many different treatments that have been shown to be very effective against COVID-19, so it certainly does not qualify as a disease that has no cure. For example, research shows the antiparasitic ivermectin impairs the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein’s ability to attach to the ACE2 receptor on human cell membranes.[19]
It also can help prevent blood clots by binding to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This prevents the spike protein from binding to CD147 on red blood cells and triggering clumping.[20]
It makes sense, then, that gene therapy should be restricted to incurable diseases, as this is the only time that taking drastic risks might be warranted. That said, here’s how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines gene therapy:[21]
“Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:
Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease”
November 17, 2020, the American Society of Gene + Cell Therapy (ASGCT) announced “COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Show Gene Therapy Is a Viable Strategy,” noting that:[22]
“Two COVID-19 vaccine trials, both of which use messenger RNA (or mRNA) technology to teach the body to fight the virus, have reported efficacy over 90 percent.
These findings, announced by Moderna on Nov. 16 and by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 … demonstrate that gene therapy is a viable strategy for developing vaccines to combat COVID-19.
Both vaccine candidates use mRNA to program a person’s cells to produce many copies of a fragment of the virus. The fragment then stimulates the immune system to attack if the real virus tries to invade the body.”
mRNA Deliver New Genetic Instructions
As explained in the ASGCT’s video above, mRNA are molecules that contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies. Then there’s Moderna’s trial website,[23] where they describe their technology thus:
“Typical vaccines for viruses are made from a weakened or inactive virus, but mRNA-1273 is not made from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is made from messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), a genetic code that tells cells how to make protein, which help the body’s immune system make antibodies to fight the virus.”
November 18, 2020, Wired magazine made a big deal about COVID-19 vaccines being “genetic vaccines,” noting:[24]
“The active ingredient inside their shot is mRNA — mobile strings of genetic code that contain the blueprints for proteins. Cells use mRNA to get those specs out of hard DNA storage and into their protein-making factories. The mRNA inside Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine directs any cells it reaches to run a coronavirus spike-building program.”
Importantly, as reported by David Martin, Ph.D.,[25][26] “Moderna … describes its product not as a vaccine, but as ‘gene therapy technology’ in SEC filings. This is because neither Moderna nor Pfizer … make any claims about their products creating immunity or preventing transmission.” Additionally, Moderna’s SEC filings specifically state that “Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA,” as well.[27]
mRNA Is ‘Proven Form of Gene Therapy’
In a February 2021 article, MIT Technology Review reviewed the history of mRNA technology in general, and Moderna’s in particular, stating:[28]
“Vaccines were not their focus. At the company’s founding in 2010, its leaders imagined they might be able to use RNA to replace the injected proteins that make up most of the biotech pharmacopoeia, essentially producing drugs inside the patient’s own cells from an RNA blueprint. ‘We were asking, could we turn a human into a bioreactor?’ says Noubar Afeyan, the company’s cofounder …”
Bloomberg, in August 2020, reported[29] that the Moderna vaccine would seek to transform your body into “a vaccine-making machine.” The New York Times was more to the point. In May 2020, they reported[30] that “Researchers at two Harvard-affiliated hospitals are adapting a proven form of gene therapy to develop a coronavirus vaccine.” Read it again — A proven form of gene therapy.
So, to summarize: The definition of “genetic” is something relating to genes, and the definition of “therapy” is the medical treatment of a disease. The definition of “gene therapy” is the process of modifying or manipulating the expression of a gene, or altering the biological properties of living cells.
mRNA are snippets of genetic code that instruct cells to produce proteins. mRNA COVID-19 therapies “deliver genetic instructions into your cells,” thereby triggering your body to produce a fragment of the virus (the spike protein). So, mRNA vaccines ARE gene therapy. There’s simply no way around this. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine.
Defining ‘COVID-19’
There’s yet one more potential problem with the “COVID-19 vaccine” narrative as a whole, which Martin unpacked in a January 25, 2021, interview on the Wise Traditions podcast (above).[31] In it, he explains:
“COVID-19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases.
The problem that we have is that in February [2020], the World Health Organization was clear in stating that there should not be a conflation between [SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19]. One is a virus, in their definition, and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19.
The problem with that definition, and with the expectation, is that the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2, are not ill at all. The illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart. That’s the reason why they invented the term asymptomatic carrier.”
In short, SARS-CoV-2 has yet to be definitively proven to be the actual cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot even be touted as a preventative against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked.
“They have been willfully lying since the inception of this,” Martin says in the interview. “There is not a causal link between these things … It has never even been close to established.
We have a situation where the illusion of the problem is that people say, ‘I don’t want to get COVID-19.’ What they mean is they don’t want to get infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are not related to each other. A viral infection hasn’t been documented in the majority of what is called cases.
There is no basis for that conflation other than the manipulation of the public. That’s the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is that what is being touted as a vaccination … is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy …
What is this doing? It’s sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being, the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen … A vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It’s not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin …
It’s not somewhat different. It’s not the same at all … It’s not a prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then, allegedly, your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine — which is to trigger the immune response — this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.”
Why the Misrepresentation?
As for why drug companies are misrepresenting this technology, Martin suspects “it’s done exclusively so that they can get themselves under the umbrella of public health laws that exploit vaccination.”
Experimental gene therapies do not have financial liability shielding from the government, but pandemic vaccines do, even in the experimental stage, as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect. This is indeed a major incentive to make sure this technology is perceived as a vaccine and nothing else, particularly after the FDA grants final approval.
So, by maintaining the illusion that COVID-19 is a state of emergency, when in reality it is not, government leaders are providing cover for these gene therapy companies so that they are insulated from any liability until that final approval is made.
Experimental Gene Therapy Is a Bad Idea
I’ve written many articles detailing the potential and expected side effects of these gene therapy “vaccines.”
The take-home message here is that these injections are not vaccines. They do not prevent infection, they do not render you immune and they do not prevent transmission of the disease. Instead, they alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch. What’s happening here is a medical fraud of unprecedented magnitude, and it really needs to be stopped before it’s too late for a majority of people.
If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. And, last but not least, if you got the vaccine and are having side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:[32]
If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
Report the injury on the CHD website
Originally published Sep 13, 2021 on Mercola.com
References
[1] CDC Web Archive August 26, 2021
[2] Rules.iowa.gov ARC 4096C
[3] SOS.wa.gov Initiative No. 1300 October 29, 2020 (PDF)
[4] SOS.wa.gov Initiative No. 1234 August 17, 2020 (PDF)
[5] Merriam-Webster Definition of Vaccine Archived February 6, 2019
[6] Merriam-Webster Definition of Vaccine Archived February 26, 2021
[7] The Free Dictionary, Listing of medical dictionary definitions of vaccine
[8] CDC September 1, 2021
[9] FDA August 23, 2021
[10] Justia Jacobson v. Massachusetts 1905
[11] G. Edward Griffin’s Need To Know January 19, 2021
[12] Cornell University 15 US Code Subchapter 1: Federal Trade Commission
[13] FTC.gov Warning Letter
[14] FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 e
[15] Moderna Clinical Study Protocol (PDF)
[16] CIDRAP July 27, 2020
[17] NPR February 21, 2021
[18] Medline Plus What Is Gene Therapy?
[19] In Vivo September-October 2020; 34(5): 3023-3026
[20] The Journal of Antibiotics June 15, 2021 DOI: 10.1038/s41429-021-00430-5
[21] FDA.gov What Is Gene Therapy?
[22] ASGCT.org November 17, 2020
[23] Moderna COVE Study
[24] Wired November 18, 2020
[25] G. Edward Griffin’s Need To Know January 19, 2021
[26] David Martin Transcript (PDF)
[27] US SEC Moderna June 30, 2020
[28] MIT Technology Review February 5, 2021
[29] Bloomberg August 11, 2020
[30] New York Times May 4, 2020, updated May 7, 2020 (Archived)
[31] Weston Price January 25, 2021
[32] The Defender January 25, 2021
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
I would like ccp to respond to this.
Third
COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy
BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIMEJUNE 26, 2022 PRINT
Not a vaccine in the medical definition, the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is really an experimental gene therapy that does not render immunity or prevent infection or transmission of the disease.
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
mRNA “vaccines” created by Moderna and Pfizer are gene therapies. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine. This matters because you cannot mandate a gene therapy against COVID-19 any more than you can force entire populations to undergo gene therapy for a cancer they do not have and may never be at risk for
mRNA contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies
The only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the vaccinated individual, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit, it makes no sense to demand you accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community
Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine — at least not until the CDC redefined “vaccine” — marketing them as such is a deceptive practice that violates the law that governs advertising of medical practices
SARS-CoV-2 has not even been proven to be the cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot be said to be preventive against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked
mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Fulfill None of the Criteria for a Vaccine
To start, let’s take a look at some basic definitions of words. When these gene therapies were introduced, the definition of vaccine according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was:[1]
“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
Immunity, in turn, was defined as:
“Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”
That’s the CDC’s medical definition, which was effective until September 1, 2021 — a detail I’ll go into in the next section. The legal definition, in the few cases where it has been detailed, is equally unequivocal:
Iowa code[2] — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.”
Washington state code[3][4] — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” The statute also specifies that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease …”
These definitions, both medical and legal, present problems for mRNA “vaccines,” since:
mRNA injections do not impart immunity. Moderna and Pfizer both admit that their clinical trials aren’t even looking at immunity. As such they did not fulfill the CDC’s medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.
They do not inhibit transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such they do not fulfill the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine — that is, until the CDC changed its definition of vaccine.
Dictionaries and the CDC Attempt to Rewrite Medical Terms
We should not be fooled by attempts to condition the public to accept redefined terms. As of February 2019, Merriam-Webster defined[5] “vaccine” as “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.” By February 26, 2021, they had updated the definition of “vaccine” to:[6]
“A preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious disease:
a: an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated … pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)”
Let’s be clear. Merriam-Webster does not dictate medical terminology. It can be used, however, to confuse people. For now, all medical dictionaries still show the traditional definition of vaccine,[7] as Merriam-Webster did up until this year. That said, I would not be surprised if changes are made there as well, eventually, if the misrepresentation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is allowed to stand.
On the other hand, months after Merriam-Webster’s change, the CDC decided to change its definition of vaccine[8] in such a way that it better matches what mRNA gene therapies do. Coincidentally, the CDC made that revision just a week after the FDA gave full approval for Pfizer’s gene therapy, now called Comirnaty.[9]
Now the CDC’s definition of a vaccine is a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
The differences in the definitions are subtle but distinct: The first one defined a vaccine as something that will “produce immunity.” But, since the COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to stop infection but, rather, to only lessen the degree of infection, it becomes obvious that the new definition was created specifically to cover the COVID gene therapies.
mRNA Therapy Doesn’t Satisfy Public Health Measure Directive
There’s also the issue of whether a gene therapy can be mandated, and this may hinge on it being accepted as a vaccine. The 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts[10] essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit.
“Since mRNA therapies do not render person immune, and do not inhibit transmission of the virus, they cannot qualify as a public health measure capable of providing collective benefit that supersedes individual risk, and therefore cannot be mandated.”
Put another way, the ruling argues (although legal experts diverge on some of the finer details of its interpretation) that it’s acceptable for some individuals to be harmed by a public health directive as long as it benefits the collective. However, if vaccination is a public health measure meant to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to accomplish two things:
Ensure that the vaccinated person is rendered immune from the disease.
Inhibit transmission of the disease from the vaccinated person to other individuals.
We’re now back to the original problem that mRNA therapies for COVID-19 do not accomplish either of these things. Since these gene therapies do not render the person immune, and do not inhibit transmission of the virus, they cannot qualify as a public health measure capable of providing collective benefit that supersedes individual risk.
On the contrary, the only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the individual receiving the gene therapy, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein.
In other words, they won’t keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they are only supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected. So, getting vaccinated protects no one but yourself. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit (less severe COVID-19 symptoms upon infection), the justification to accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community is blatantly irrational.
Marketing mRNA Therapy as Vaccine Violates Federal Law
Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine that imparts immunity, referring to them as vaccines, and marketing them as such, is a deceptive practice that violates[11] 15 U.S. Code Section 41 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,[12] the law that governs advertising of medical practices.
The lack of completed human trials also puts these mRNA products at odds with 15 U.S. Code Section 41. Per this law,[13][14] it is unlawful to advertise “that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”
Here’s the problem: The primary end point in the COVID-19 “vaccine” trials is not an actual vaccine trial end point because, again, vaccine trial end points have to do with immunity and transmission reduction. Neither of those was measured.
What’s more, key secondary end points in Moderna’s trial include prevention of severe COVID-19 disease (defined as need for hospitalization) and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms.[15[16] However, Moderna did not actually measure rate of infection, stating that it was too “impractical” to do so.
That means there’s no evidence of this gene therapy having an impact on infection, for better or worse. And, if you have no evidence, you cannot fulfill the U.S. Code requirement that states you must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence … substantiating that the claims are true.”
Making matters worse, both Pfizer and Moderna eliminated their control groups by offering the real vaccine to any and all placebo recipients who want it.[17] The studies are supposed to go on for a full two years, but by eliminating the control group, determining effectiveness and risks is going to be near impossible.
What Makes COVID Vaccines Gene Therapy?
Alright. Let’s move on to the definition of “gene therapy.” As detailed on MedlinePlus.gov’s “What Is Gene Therapy” page:[18]
“Gene therapy is an experimental technique that uses genes to treat or prevent disease … Researchers are testing several approaches to gene therapy, including: … Introducing a new gene into the body to help fight a disease …
Although gene therapy is a promising treatment option for a number of diseases (including inherited disorders, some types of cancer, and certain viral infections), the technique remains risky and is still under study to make sure that it will be safe and effective. Gene therapy is currently being tested only for diseases that have no other cures.”
Here, it’s worth noting that there are many different treatments that have been shown to be very effective against COVID-19, so it certainly does not qualify as a disease that has no cure. For example, research shows the antiparasitic ivermectin impairs the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein’s ability to attach to the ACE2 receptor on human cell membranes.[19]
It also can help prevent blood clots by binding to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This prevents the spike protein from binding to CD147 on red blood cells and triggering clumping.[20]
It makes sense, then, that gene therapy should be restricted to incurable diseases, as this is the only time that taking drastic risks might be warranted. That said, here’s how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines gene therapy:[21]
“Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:
Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease”
November 17, 2020, the American Society of Gene + Cell Therapy (ASGCT) announced “COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Show Gene Therapy Is a Viable Strategy,” noting that:[22]
“Two COVID-19 vaccine trials, both of which use messenger RNA (or mRNA) technology to teach the body to fight the virus, have reported efficacy over 90 percent.
These findings, announced by Moderna on Nov. 16 and by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 … demonstrate that gene therapy is a viable strategy for developing vaccines to combat COVID-19.
Both vaccine candidates use mRNA to program a person’s cells to produce many copies of a fragment of the virus. The fragment then stimulates the immune system to attack if the real virus tries to invade the body.”
mRNA Deliver New Genetic Instructions
As explained in the ASGCT’s video above, mRNA are molecules that contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies. Then there’s Moderna’s trial website,[23] where they describe their technology thus:
“Typical vaccines for viruses are made from a weakened or inactive virus, but mRNA-1273 is not made from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is made from messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), a genetic code that tells cells how to make protein, which help the body’s immune system make antibodies to fight the virus.”
November 18, 2020, Wired magazine made a big deal about COVID-19 vaccines being “genetic vaccines,” noting:[24]
“The active ingredient inside their shot is mRNA — mobile strings of genetic code that contain the blueprints for proteins. Cells use mRNA to get those specs out of hard DNA storage and into their protein-making factories. The mRNA inside Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine directs any cells it reaches to run a coronavirus spike-building program.”
Importantly, as reported by David Martin, Ph.D.,[25][26] “Moderna … describes its product not as a vaccine, but as ‘gene therapy technology’ in SEC filings. This is because neither Moderna nor Pfizer … make any claims about their products creating immunity or preventing transmission.” Additionally, Moderna’s SEC filings specifically state that “Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA,” as well.[27]
mRNA Is ‘Proven Form of Gene Therapy’
In a February 2021 article, MIT Technology Review reviewed the history of mRNA technology in general, and Moderna’s in particular, stating:[28]
“Vaccines were not their focus. At the company’s founding in 2010, its leaders imagined they might be able to use RNA to replace the injected proteins that make up most of the biotech pharmacopoeia, essentially producing drugs inside the patient’s own cells from an RNA blueprint. ‘We were asking, could we turn a human into a bioreactor?’ says Noubar Afeyan, the company’s cofounder …”
Bloomberg, in August 2020, reported[29] that the Moderna vaccine would seek to transform your body into “a vaccine-making machine.” The New York Times was more to the point. In May 2020, they reported[30] that “Researchers at two Harvard-affiliated hospitals are adapting a proven form of gene therapy to develop a coronavirus vaccine.” Read it again — A proven form of gene therapy.
So, to summarize: The definition of “genetic” is something relating to genes, and the definition of “therapy” is the medical treatment of a disease. The definition of “gene therapy” is the process of modifying or manipulating the expression of a gene, or altering the biological properties of living cells.
mRNA are snippets of genetic code that instruct cells to produce proteins. mRNA COVID-19 therapies “deliver genetic instructions into your cells,” thereby triggering your body to produce a fragment of the virus (the spike protein). So, mRNA vaccines ARE gene therapy. There’s simply no way around this. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine.
Defining ‘COVID-19’
There’s yet one more potential problem with the “COVID-19 vaccine” narrative as a whole, which Martin unpacked in a January 25, 2021, interview on the Wise Traditions podcast (above).[31] In it, he explains:
“COVID-19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases.
The problem that we have is that in February [2020], the World Health Organization was clear in stating that there should not be a conflation between [SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19]. One is a virus, in their definition, and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19.
The problem with that definition, and with the expectation, is that the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2, are not ill at all. The illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart. That’s the reason why they invented the term asymptomatic carrier.”
In short, SARS-CoV-2 has yet to be definitively proven to be the actual cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot even be touted as a preventative against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked.
“They have been willfully lying since the inception of this,” Martin says in the interview. “There is not a causal link between these things … It has never even been close to established.
We have a situation where the illusion of the problem is that people say, ‘I don’t want to get COVID-19.’ What they mean is they don’t want to get infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are not related to each other. A viral infection hasn’t been documented in the majority of what is called cases.
There is no basis for that conflation other than the manipulation of the public. That’s the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is that what is being touted as a vaccination … is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy …
What is this doing? It’s sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being, the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen … A vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It’s not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin …
It’s not somewhat different. It’s not the same at all … It’s not a prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then, allegedly, your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine — which is to trigger the immune response — this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.”
Why the Misrepresentation?
As for why drug companies are misrepresenting this technology, Martin suspects “it’s done exclusively so that they can get themselves under the umbrella of public health laws that exploit vaccination.”
Experimental gene therapies do not have financial liability shielding from the government, but pandemic vaccines do, even in the experimental stage, as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect. This is indeed a major incentive to make sure this technology is perceived as a vaccine and nothing else, particularly after the FDA grants final approval.
So, by maintaining the illusion that COVID-19 is a state of emergency, when in reality it is not, government leaders are providing cover for these gene therapy companies so that they are insulated from any liability until that final approval is made.
Experimental Gene Therapy Is a Bad Idea
I’ve written many articles detailing the potential and expected side effects of these gene therapy “vaccines.”
The take-home message here is that these injections are not vaccines. They do not prevent infection, they do not render you immune and they do not prevent transmission of the disease. Instead, they alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch. What’s happening here is a medical fraud of unprecedented magnitude, and it really needs to be stopped before it’s too late for a majority of people.
If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. And, last but not least, if you got the vaccine and are having side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:[32]
If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
Report the injury on the CHD website
Originally published Sep 13, 2021 on Mercola.com
References
[1] CDC Web Archive August 26, 2021
[2] Rules.iowa.gov ARC 4096C
[3] SOS.wa.gov Initiative No. 1300 October 29, 2020 (PDF)
[4] SOS.wa.gov Initiative No. 1234 August 17, 2020 (PDF)
[5] Merriam-Webster Definition of Vaccine Archived February 6, 2019
[6] Merriam-Webster Definition of Vaccine Archived February 26, 2021
[7] The Free Dictionary, Listing of medical dictionary definitions of vaccine
[8] CDC September 1, 2021
[9] FDA August 23, 2021
[10] Justia Jacobson v. Massachusetts 1905
[11] G. Edward Griffin’s Need To Know January 19, 2021
[12] Cornell University 15 US Code Subchapter 1: Federal Trade Commission
[13] FTC.gov Warning Letter
[14] FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 e
[15] Moderna Clinical Study Protocol (PDF)
[16] CIDRAP July 27, 2020
[17] NPR February 21, 2021
[18] Medline Plus What Is Gene Therapy?
[19] In Vivo September-October 2020; 34(5): 3023-3026
[20] The Journal of Antibiotics June 15, 2021 DOI: 10.1038/s41429-021-00430-5
[21] FDA.gov What Is Gene Therapy?
[22] ASGCT.org November 17, 2020
[23] Moderna COVE Study
[24] Wired November 18, 2020
[25] G. Edward Griffin’s Need To Know January 19, 2021
[26] David Martin Transcript (PDF)
[27] US SEC Moderna June 30, 2020
[28] MIT Technology Review February 5, 2021
[29] Bloomberg August 11, 2020
[30] New York Times May 4, 2020, updated May 7, 2020 (Archived)
[31] Weston Price January 25, 2021
[32] The Defender January 25, 2021
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
Why Officials Are Desperate to Get COVID Shots on Childhood Schedule Before ‘Emergency’ Ends
BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIMEJUNE 28, 2022 PRINT
https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-big-pharma-is-desperate-to-get-covid-jab-into-babies_4564872.html?utm_source=Health&utm_campaign=health-2022-07-02&utm_medium=email&est=mkFgtjQfgRNIbymjifp%2BZZlrTZ5o%2BMWhW%2BEVTO3IZshmdCuaaNAGNWPLQc%2Fit3nVG1lc
The rate of hospitalization for COVID among children is so low, it’s basically zero. Then why is it so important to jab babies and toddlers two or three times, even though side effects of the injection could harm them for life – or kill them?
Statistics show the rate of COVID-19 associated hospitalization among children aged 5 to 11 is 0.0008%.1 In real-world terms, that’s so close to zero you basically cannot lower it any further. Yet, despite such reassuring data, children in this age group are urged to get two to three doses of the COVID jab, even though side effects of the injection could harm them for life, or kill them.
As noted by the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation in the video below, myocarditis — one of the recognized effects of the COVID jab — “has a mortality rate of 25% to 56% within three to 10 years, owing to progressive heart failure and sudden cardiac death.”
Sudden cardiac death is what the media and public health agencies are now glibly referring to as “sudden adult death syndrome” or SADS. The older and more appropriate description for SADS is “sudden arrhythmic death syndrome,” but they don’t even want to use the word “arrhythmic” anymore, as that tells you what the death is really caused by, and many are now aware that the jab can cause heart inflammation.
By avoiding the word “arrhythmic,” it’s easier for them to pretend as though people are dying for no apparent reason, and certainly not because of the COVID shots. Still, real-world facts tell us that SADS didn’t take off until after the shots were rolled out, and the vast majority of young healthy people who suddenly die for no apparent reason have been jabbed.2
Also, understand that if your child or you are injured by the shot, you cannot sue the drug company for damages and, so far, the U.S. government has rejected all but one of the claims filed with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).3 At the current pace of about 18 claims a month, it would take 38 years just to get through the current backlog, Reuters has noted.4 Basically, many may die before their case even gets through review.
COVID Jab Authorization Granted for Babies
As if the situation were not bad enough already, June 15, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory panel — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) — unanimously approved (21-0) to grant Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID shots for infants and young children.5
Pfizer’s EUA is for a three-dose regimen (3-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 5 years old, while Moderna’s EUA is for a two-dose regimen (25-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 6 years.
In the video at the top of the page, Steve Kirsch, president of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, interviews reporter Toby Rogers, who endured the entire nine-hour day of the recent VRBPAC meeting.
The day before that meeting, June 14, Rogers published6 a written summary of Pfizer’s trial on young children, which he referred to as “an embarrassment.” “Any VRBPAC member who votes Aye on this junk science application should be removed from his/her job,” he wrote. Apparently, they all need to go.
In the interview, Rogers laments the fact that the VRBPAC members remain “locked in their information bubble” and won’t allow any conflicting data to influence their preconceived biases.
As noted by Rogers, they have a sacred duty to protect public health, and they’re being flippant about it. They’re ignoring data, they’re ignoring the pleas of the vaccine injured, they’re ignoring serious questions, they’re ignoring everything except the flimsiest bits and pieces upon which their narrative is built. Rogers called the experience “heartbreaking.”
VRBPAC Refuses to Answer Lawmakers’ Questions
The VRBPAC members aren’t even swayed by concerns from lawmakers. They simply ignore their questions too. As reported by The Defender:7
“The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) ignored pleas from experts, the vaccine injured and a congressman representing 17 other lawmakers to halt authorization until questions about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for the nation’s youngest children could be properly addressed …
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said there are many unanswered questions … ‘I’m deeply concerned that the push to vaccinate these children is nothing more than a dystopian experiment with unknown consequences,’ Gohmert told the committee. ‘Some of us have outlined these questions in a letter8 to VRBPAC but have not received any answers, and I pose some of them here.’ Gohmert said:
‘Number 1, why has the FDA refused to release the hundreds of thousands of pages of data from preapproval manufacturer studies, post-approval adverse events data and other post-approval manufacturer data?
Number 2, what is the cardiac risk factor in administrating these COVID vaccines to children?
Number 3, world-renowned immunologists have raised concerns about potential antibody-dependent enhancement, or ADE, resulting from COVID vaccines, and since ADE was a problem in prior unrelated respiratory vaccine trials, we need to know what studies, if any, the FDA has that it’s used regarding ADE from COVID vaccines in children 5 and under or any age group. Can the FDA affirm there’s no risk of ADE for vaccinated children?
Number 4, if widely approved among children 5 and under, how many lives, if any, does FDA estimate will be saved next year? Given the injuries reported in the FDA’s VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] system, how will FDA evaluate serious vaccine injuries versus serious COVID outcomes?
Number 5, is it possible the proposed COVID vaccines in young children could create increased risk in future novel COVID variants?
Number 6, why has the FDA recently lowered the efficacy bar for COVID vaccines for youngest children? This change significantly lowers the expected benefits from any COVID vaccination for young children and it’s of particular concern given that over 70% of that age cohort already is seropositive.’
Gohmert said these questions and 13 other questions posed by lawmakers are critical and deserve answers from the FDA and VRBPAC prior to any EUA with the ‘accompanied protection for liability for all harm done.'”
Trial Showed COVID Jab Increases Infection Risk in Babies
In the video above, you can see Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, with a forced grin on her face, claiming “rigorous scientific review” has proven the shots to be safe and effective in infants and young children.
The video also features excerpts from a video in which Dr. Clare Craig, a diagnostic pathologist and “lover of data,”9 reviews what this “rigorous scientific review” actually found and what the FDA and CDC aren’t telling you. To hear Craig’s full summary of how Pfizer twisted its clinical data for young children, check out the video below.
Craig points out that of the 4,526 children, aged 6 months to 4 years, who participated in Pfizer’s trial, 3,000 didn’t make it to the end of the trial. Why did two-thirds of the children drop out? Oftentimes, this happens when side effects are too severe for the participant to continue. Here, we don’t know why two-thirds of the participants were eliminated, and “on that basis alone, this trial should be deemed null and void,” Craig says. Moreover:
•Six of the children, aged 2 to 4 years, in the vaccinated group were diagnosed with “severe COVID,” compared to just one in the placebo group. So, what this actually shows is that the likelihood the shot is causing severe COVID is higher than the likelihood that it’s preventing it.
•The only child who required hospitalization for COVID was also in the “vaccinated” group.
•In the three weeks following the first dose, 34 of the children in the vaccinated group and 13 of the unvaccinated children were diagnosed with COVID. That means the children’s risk of developing symptoms of COVID within the first three weeks of the first dose actually increased by 30%. These data were ignored.
Between doses two and three, there was an eight-week gap, and the vaccinated arm again experienced higher rates of COVID. This too was ignored. After the third dose, incidence of COVID was again raised in the vaccine group, and this was ignored as well.
In the end, they only counted three cases of COVID in the vaccine arm and seven cases in the placebo group. They literally ignored 97% of all the COVID cases that occurred during the trial to conclude that the shots were “effective” in preventing COVID.
•While they claim the triple-dose regimen reduced COVID, 12 of the children actually caught COVID twice in the two-month follow-up, and 11 of them were vaccinated.
•The confidence interval for Pfizer’s jab is -370% at the lower end of the 95%, which suggests children who get the jab are nearly four times more likely of getting sick with COVID than their unvaccinated peers.10
Unscientific and Unethical Behavior
As reported by The Defender:11
“Combining all ages together, Pfizer said its three-dose regimen for children 6 months to 5 years old was 80% effective at preventing illness from the Omicron variant based on preliminary data from its clinical trial.
The 80% number was calculated 30 days after the third dose. As noted by committee members, the efficacy number is likely to go down after 30 days and post-approval monitoring was suggested.
Moderna said its two-shot vaccine was about 51% effective against infection from Omicron in children under 2, and about 37% among kids 2 to 5 years old, citing different efficacy numbers than what was reported by the company in March.
In a March 23 press release, Moderna said its vaccine in the 6-month to 2-year age group was only 43.7% effective. In the older age group, the company said its vaccine was 37.5% effective. A top official at Moderna has already said a booster will be necessary.”
As noted by the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, vaccinating infants and children who have no need for the shots and don’t benefit from them, just to “protect” adults, violates medical ethics. And since those who are jabbed still readily transmit the virus, the children are actually put at risk for no reason at all.
It’s All About Securing Indemnification
So, how can we explain the irrational behavior of the FDA and CDC? Why don’t any of the data matter? Why doesn’t the science matter? Why don’t any of the red flags matter? And why are they handing out EUAs when the criteria for EUA are satisfied? Products must satisfy four criteria in order to get EUA:
There must be an emergency
A vaccine must be at least 30% to 50% effective
The known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product
There can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines)
Unless all four criteria are met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained, yet here we are. COVID, by any reasonable measurement, is no longer an emergency, there are plenty of adequate alternative treatments, and the potential benefits in no way, shape or form outweigh the potential risks — especially not in infants and children under 5. That’s three out of four criteria that, clearly, are not met.
The short answer to the question, “Why are the CDC and FDA acting so irrationally?” is that both agencies are corrupt to the core and are no longer in the business of protecting public health. They are securing profits for the drug industry, and getting EUA for infants and young children is a crucial step toward securing permanent legal indemnity for the drugmakers.
They need this last remaining age group to be included under the EUA, because once the emergency is finally declared ‘over,’ the next phase of liability shielding requires that the shots receive approval by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).Once the vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, the vaccine makers are permanently shielded from liability for injuries and deaths that occur in ANY age group, including adults.
As explained by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in the short video clip above, they need this last remaining age group to be included under the EUA, because once the emergency is finally declared “over,” the next phase of liability shielding requires that the shots receive approval by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
This is the group that decides which vaccines are to be added to the childhood vaccination schedule. Once the vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, the vaccine makers are permanently shielded from liability for injuries and deaths that occur in ANY age group, including adults.
The only way to break that indemnity is by proving the vaccine maker knew about the safety issues and withheld that information. You can learn more about this indemnification process in “The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids.”
So, the end goal is permanent immunity against liability for injury and death from the COVID shots in all age groups, and to get there, they first need the EUA to cover all children. After that, the ACIP approval becomes more or less a matter of rubber stamping. This is why they’re playing Russian roulette with the health of infants and young children.
Murder Has No Statute of Limitation
That said, if fraud can be proven, all indemnity falls by the wayside, and there’s no statute of limitation when it comes to murder, which some insist is what’s happening here.
The video above features “To The Lifeboats” podcaster Sam Dodson’s comments to the FDA VRBPAC during its open public hearing session to approve the COVID jabs for children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years. In a rapid-fire manner, he reviews several data points that ought to have put a halt to these injections, but didn’t; several instances where the FDA knew harm was occurring from these shots, or would occur, and they did nothing.
Another public comment was submitted by an as-yet unidentified individual. The submitted comment was provided to and reposted on Coquin de Chien’s Substack. Here are some select pieces:12
“This comment is NOTICE of possible criminal liability to Lauren K. Roth and members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee who owe duties of care, diligence, good faith, and loyalty in recommending ‘for’ or ‘against’ the EUA amendment for COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in children 6 months through 4 years of age.
Only two deaths are listed herein to establish knowledge. If the amendment is approved, it will have been done by committee members ‘knowing’ of felony crimes in context. Your investigation of these deaths should include death certificates, autopsy records, witness interviews, and immunization records.
Massachusetts Death Certificate 2022 SFN 5980 is a 7yo girl died January 18, 2022 listed as died from U071 ‘COVID-19,’ B49 ‘unspecified mycosis,’ J450 ‘predominantly allergic asthma,’ and R091 ‘pleurisy.’
VAERS_ID 2038120 is a 7yo girl in Massachusetts, who received her 2nd dose 1/13/2022 and was reported to VAERS 1/15/2022. PRIOR_VAX states, ‘Severe nausea and vomiting from 5 min post vaccination and for the next 8-10 hours.’
SYMPTOM_TEXT states, ‘Spiked a 103 fever, severe stomachache, has not had a bowel movement since the day before vaccination, which makes today 3 days without one. First vaccine caused severe nausea and vomiting from 5 minutes post injection and for the next 8-10 hours.’ This little girl suffered immeasurably 4 to 5 days as her intestines shut down due likely to impeded blood vessels servicing intestines.
Massachusetts Death Certificate 2021 SFN 56611 is a 48yo man died 11/16/2021 listed as died from U071 ‘COVID-19’ and E669 ‘OBESITY.’ SFN 56611 is known to have died less than 24 hours after inoculation.
In both cases, the Medical Examiners listed the cause of death as ‘COVID-19,’ when it was clearly not COVID-19. And in both cases, the Medical Examiners omitted listing causes Y590 ‘Viral vaccines’ and T881 ‘Other complications following immunization, not elsewhere classified,’ when these clearly were proximate and actual causes.
Death certificates from the state of Massachusetts are sent to the CDC, a federal entity. Thus, fraud on a state death certificate is a federal crime as it affects federal death records. Several federal felony crimes apply in this instance and are listed below.
If you dismiss this NOTICE and recommend the EUA amendment without first investigating these two deaths, you become liable for inchoate crimes and the felony crime of ‘misprision of felony.’ If a single person subsequently dies as a result of the amendment, all the elements will have been satisfied for you to face felony murder charges or involuntary manslaughter. Qualified immunity is not a valid defense …
There were found sixty likely C19 vaccine deaths in a 25-minute perusal of the 2021 and 2022 death certificates, which extrapolates to hundreds, probably thousands of C19 vaccine deaths in Massachusetts.
Refusal to investigate these fraudulent records is a crime that, because of the felony murder aspect, has no statute of limitations. Five, ten, or twenty years from now, if a federal prosecutor were to learn of this NOTICE, he or she would have significant evidence to bring charges for felony murder.
In summary, this NOTICE places you in a position requiring you to investigate these deaths prior to recommending the amendment. If you dismiss this NOTICE, you may be criminally liable for involuntary manslaughter, felony murder, and a list of federal crimes and inchoate crimes … Comment Tracking Number l4d-m52d-ge4m.”
Florida Bucks the Trend
My home state of Florida now stands out as the only U.S. state that is recommending AGAINST the COVID jab for 6-month-olds to 5-year-olds. Parents can still get their infants jabbed if they want, but the official state recommendation is not to do it, as there’s simply no scientific or logical rationale for doing so.
Florida also did not preorder any extra doses for this age group.13 In a June 18, 2022, Substack article, Dr. Robert Malone addressed the latest EUA authorization for infants and young children, and applauded Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ decision to buck the trend. It’s hard to believe he is the only governor in the U.S. who resisted this murderous threat to the children:14
“Have you looked at the VAERS data lately? The CDC apparently has not. In the USA alone, there have been 831,801 adverse events, of which 12,776 are life threatening. There have been 63,978 hospitalizations. There have been 13,293 deaths and 14,232 permanent disabilities from these vaccines.
True, these are ‘unverified’ — but previous research has shown that the VAERS system under-reported adverse events associated with vaccines, not over-reported … Then there are the international post-vaccine adverse event summaries.15
The CDC, under Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) has now admitted16 that even though they had promised to analyze the VAERS data before advising about these vaccines for children, they did not.
The VAERS data were NOT taken into consideration before the authorization of these genetic agents for babies and young children. Frankly, this is shocking. So shocking, it is hard for me to even write about it.
Now, approximately 430 children with other severe illnesses have died with COVID in the last 2.5 years (that would be 172 per year). Plus there have been 2,600 hospitalizations of children, most with underlying conditions — over that 2.5 year period. These numbers show that even before Omicron, in the case of children, COVID is less severe than flu …
Omicron in children is much less severe. We know this. The scientific evidence is clear. Yet the FDA goes back to data from the DELTA variant when discussing the effects of this virus … Governor DeSantis again has it right. It is time to stop. Parents must stop. The time is now to just say no.”
Last but not least, if you’re still unsure whether the COVID shot is the “right” choice for your child, please read through Dr. Byram Bridle’s “COVID-19 Vaccines and Children: A Scientist’s Guide for Parents,”17 published by the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. It goes through how the shots work, what the known side effects are, results from the clinical trial, the effects of the spike protein and much more.
Originally published June 28, 2022 on Mercola.com
References
1 Rumble Vaccine Safety Research Foundation June 9, 2022
2 Steve Kirsch Substack June 21, 2022
3, 4 Reuters June 16, 2022
5, 7, 11 The Defender June 15, 2022
6 uTobian Substack June 14, 2022
8 Letter to VRBPAC June 7, 2022
9 Twitter Clare Craig
10 Twitter Ben@USMortality June 16, 2022
12 Coquin de Chien Substack June 13, 2022
13 New York Times June 16, 2022
14 Robert Malone Substack June 18, 2022
15 World Council for Health June 17, 2022
16 Jackanapes Junction Substack June 16, 2022
17 Canadian Covid Care Alliance, COVID-19 Vaccines and Children: A Scientist’s Guide for Parents
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
-
https://2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substack.com/p/boosters-every-nine-months-go-fuck
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/san-diego-loses-22-its-police-force-due-vax-mandates
-
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-safe-and-effective-narrative
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/must-watch-dr-peter-mccullough-discusses-new-study-shows-pfizers-covid-mrna-vaccines-can-modify-dna-human-genome-video/
I would like ccp to respond to this.
Third
COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy
BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIMEJUNE 26, 2022 PRINT
Not a vaccine in the medical definition, the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is really an experimental gene therapy that does not render immunity or prevent infection or transmission of the disease.
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
mRNA “vaccines” created by Moderna and Pfizer are gene therapies. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine. This matters because you cannot mandate a gene therapy against COVID-19 any more than you can force entire populations to undergo gene therapy for a cancer they do not have and may never be at risk for
mRNA contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies
The only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the vaccinated individual, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit, it makes no sense to demand you accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community
Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine — at least not until the CDC redefined “vaccine” — marketing them as such is a deceptive practice that violates the law that governs advertising of medical practices
SARS-CoV-2 has not even been proven to be the cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot be said to be preventive against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked
mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Fulfill None of the Criteria for a Vaccine
To start, let’s take a look at some basic definitions of words. When these gene therapies were introduced, the definition of vaccine according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was:[1]
“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
Immunity, in turn, was defined as:
“Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”
That’s the CDC’s medical definition, which was effective until September 1, 2021 — a detail I’ll go into in the next section. The legal definition, in the few cases where it has been detailed, is equally unequivocal:
Iowa code[2] — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.”
Washington state code[3][4] — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” The statute also specifies that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease …”
These definitions, both medical and legal, present problems for mRNA “vaccines,” since:
mRNA injections do not impart immunity. Moderna and Pfizer both admit that their clinical trials aren’t even looking at immunity. As such they did not fulfill the CDC’s medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.
They do not inhibit transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such they do not fulfill the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine — that is, until the CDC changed its definition of vaccine.
Dictionaries and the CDC Attempt to Rewrite Medical Terms
We should not be fooled by attempts to condition the public to accept redefined terms. As of February 2019, Merriam-Webster defined[5] “vaccine” as “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.” By February 26, 2021, they had updated the definition of “vaccine” to:[6]
“A preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious disease:
a: an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated … pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)”
Let’s be clear. Merriam-Webster does not dictate medical terminology. It can be used, however, to confuse people. For now, all medical dictionaries still show the traditional definition of vaccine,[7] as Merriam-Webster did up until this year. That said, I would not be surprised if changes are made there as well, eventually, if the misrepresentation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is allowed to stand.
On the other hand, months after Merriam-Webster’s change, the CDC decided to change its definition of vaccine[8] in such a way that it better matches what mRNA gene therapies do. Coincidentally, the CDC made that revision just a week after the FDA gave full approval for Pfizer’s gene therapy, now called Comirnaty.[9]
Now the CDC’s definition of a vaccine is a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
The differences in the definitions are subtle but distinct: The first one defined a vaccine as something that will “produce immunity.” But, since the COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to stop infection but, rather, to only lessen the degree of infection, it becomes obvious that the new definition was created specifically to cover the COVID gene therapies.
mRNA Therapy Doesn’t Satisfy Public Health Measure Directive
There’s also the issue of whether a gene therapy can be mandated, and this may hinge on it being accepted as a vaccine. The 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts[10] essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit.
“Since mRNA therapies do not render person immune, and do not inhibit transmission of the virus, they cannot qualify as a public health measure capable of providing collective benefit that supersedes individual risk, and therefore cannot be mandated.”
Put another way, the ruling argues (although legal experts diverge on some of the finer details of its interpretation) that it’s acceptable for some individuals to be harmed by a public health directive as long as it benefits the collective. However, if vaccination is a public health measure meant to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to accomplish two things:
Ensure that the vaccinated person is rendered immune from the disease.
Inhibit transmission of the disease from the vaccinated person to other individuals.
We’re now back to the original problem that mRNA therapies for COVID-19 do not accomplish either of these things. Since these gene therapies do not render the person immune, and do not inhibit transmission of the virus, they cannot qualify as a public health measure capable of providing collective benefit that supersedes individual risk.
On the contrary, the only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the individual receiving the gene therapy, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein.
In other words, they won’t keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they are only supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected. So, getting vaccinated protects no one but yourself. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit (less severe COVID-19 symptoms upon infection), the justification to accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community is blatantly irrational.
Marketing mRNA Therapy as Vaccine Violates Federal Law
Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine that imparts immunity, referring to them as vaccines, and marketing them as such, is a deceptive practice that violates[11] 15 U.S. Code Section 41 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,[12] the law that governs advertising of medical practices.
The lack of completed human trials also puts these mRNA products at odds with 15 U.S. Code Section 41. Per this law,[13][14] it is unlawful to advertise “that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”
Here’s the problem: The primary end point in the COVID-19 “vaccine” trials is not an actual vaccine trial end point because, again, vaccine trial end points have to do with immunity and transmission reduction. Neither of those was measured.
What’s more, key secondary end points in Moderna’s trial include prevention of severe COVID-19 disease (defined as need for hospitalization) and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms.[15[16] However, Moderna did not actually measure rate of infection, stating that it was too “impractical” to do so.
That means there’s no evidence of this gene therapy having an impact on infection, for better or worse. And, if you have no evidence, you cannot fulfill the U.S. Code requirement that states you must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence … substantiating that the claims are true.”
Making matters worse, both Pfizer and Moderna eliminated their control groups by offering the real vaccine to any and all placebo recipients who want it.[17] The studies are supposed to go on for a full two years, but by eliminating the control group, determining effectiveness and risks is going to be near impossible.
What Makes COVID Vaccines Gene Therapy?
Alright. Let’s move on to the definition of “gene therapy.” As detailed on MedlinePlus.gov’s “What Is Gene Therapy” page:[18]
“Gene therapy is an experimental technique that uses genes to treat or prevent disease … Researchers are testing several approaches to gene therapy, including: … Introducing a new gene into the body to help fight a disease …
Although gene therapy is a promising treatment option for a number of diseases (including inherited disorders, some types of cancer, and certain viral infections), the technique remains risky and is still under study to make sure that it will be safe and effective. Gene therapy is currently being tested only for diseases that have no other cures.”
Here, it’s worth noting that there are many different treatments that have been shown to be very effective against COVID-19, so it certainly does not qualify as a disease that has no cure. For example, research shows the antiparasitic ivermectin impairs the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein’s ability to attach to the ACE2 receptor on human cell membranes.[19]
It also can help prevent blood clots by binding to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This prevents the spike protein from binding to CD147 on red blood cells and triggering clumping.[20]
It makes sense, then, that gene therapy should be restricted to incurable diseases, as this is the only time that taking drastic risks might be warranted. That said, here’s how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines gene therapy:[21]
“Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:
Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease”
November 17, 2020, the American Society of Gene + Cell Therapy (ASGCT) announced “COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Show Gene Therapy Is a Viable Strategy,” noting that:[22]
“Two COVID-19 vaccine trials, both of which use messenger RNA (or mRNA) technology to teach the body to fight the virus, have reported efficacy over 90 percent.
These findings, announced by Moderna on Nov. 16 and by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 … demonstrate that gene therapy is a viable strategy for developing vaccines to combat COVID-19.
Both vaccine candidates use mRNA to program a person’s cells to produce many copies of a fragment of the virus. The fragment then stimulates the immune system to attack if the real virus tries to invade the body.”
mRNA Deliver New Genetic Instructions
As explained in the ASGCT’s video above, mRNA are molecules that contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies. Then there’s Moderna’s trial website,[23] where they describe their technology thus:
“Typical vaccines for viruses are made from a weakened or inactive virus, but mRNA-1273 is not made from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is made from messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), a genetic code that tells cells how to make protein, which help the body’s immune system make antibodies to fight the virus.”
November 18, 2020, Wired magazine made a big deal about COVID-19 vaccines being “genetic vaccines,” noting:[24]
“The active ingredient inside their shot is mRNA — mobile strings of genetic code that contain the blueprints for proteins. Cells use mRNA to get those specs out of hard DNA storage and into their protein-making factories. The mRNA inside Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine directs any cells it reaches to run a coronavirus spike-building program.”
Importantly, as reported by David Martin, Ph.D.,[25][26] “Moderna … describes its product not as a vaccine, but as ‘gene therapy technology’ in SEC filings. This is because neither Moderna nor Pfizer … make any claims about their products creating immunity or preventing transmission.” Additionally, Moderna’s SEC filings specifically state that “Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA,” as well.[27]
mRNA Is ‘Proven Form of Gene Therapy’
In a February 2021 article, MIT Technology Review reviewed the history of mRNA technology in general, and Moderna’s in particular, stating:[28]
“Vaccines were not their focus. At the company’s founding in 2010, its leaders imagined they might be able to use RNA to replace the injected proteins that make up most of the biotech pharmacopoeia, essentially producing drugs inside the patient’s own cells from an RNA blueprint. ‘We were asking, could we turn a human into a bioreactor?’ says Noubar Afeyan, the company’s cofounder …”
Bloomberg, in August 2020, reported[29] that the Moderna vaccine would seek to transform your body into “a vaccine-making machine.” The New York Times was more to the point. In May 2020, they reported[30] that “Researchers at two Harvard-affiliated hospitals are adapting a proven form of gene therapy to develop a coronavirus vaccine.” Read it again — A proven form of gene therapy.
So, to summarize: The definition of “genetic” is something relating to genes, and the definition of “therapy” is the medical treatment of a disease. The definition of “gene therapy” is the process of modifying or manipulating the expression of a gene, or altering the biological properties of living cells.
mRNA are snippets of genetic code that instruct cells to produce proteins. mRNA COVID-19 therapies “deliver genetic instructions into your cells,” thereby triggering your body to produce a fragment of the virus (the spike protein). So, mRNA vaccines ARE gene therapy. There’s simply no way around this. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine.
Defining ‘COVID-19’
There’s yet one more potential problem with the “COVID-19 vaccine” narrative as a whole, which Martin unpacked in a January 25, 2021, interview on the Wise Traditions podcast (above).[31] In it, he explains:
“COVID-19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases.
The problem that we have is that in February [2020], the World Health Organization was clear in stating that there should not be a conflation between [SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19]. One is a virus, in their definition, and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19.
The problem with that definition, and with the expectation, is that the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2, are not ill at all. The illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart. That’s the reason why they invented the term asymptomatic carrier.”
In short, SARS-CoV-2 has yet to be definitively proven to be the actual cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot even be touted as a preventative against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked.
“They have been willfully lying since the inception of this,” Martin says in the interview. “There is not a causal link between these things … It has never even been close to established.
We have a situation where the illusion of the problem is that people say, ‘I don’t want to get COVID-19.’ What they mean is they don’t want to get infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are not related to each other. A viral infection hasn’t been documented in the majority of what is called cases.
There is no basis for that conflation other than the manipulation of the public. That’s the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is that what is being touted as a vaccination … is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy …
What is this doing? It’s sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being, the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen … A vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It’s not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin …
It’s not somewhat different. It’s not the same at all … It’s not a prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then, allegedly, your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine — which is to trigger the immune response — this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.”
Why the Misrepresentation?
As for why drug companies are misrepresenting this technology, Martin suspects “it’s done exclusively so that they can get themselves under the umbrella of public health laws that exploit vaccination.”
Experimental gene therapies do not have financial liability shielding from the government, but pandemic vaccines do, even in the experimental stage, as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect. This is indeed a major incentive to make sure this technology is perceived as a vaccine and nothing else, particularly after the FDA grants final approval.
So, by maintaining the illusion that COVID-19 is a state of emergency, when in reality it is not, government leaders are providing cover for these gene therapy companies so that they are insulated from any liability until that final approval is made.
Experimental Gene Therapy Is a Bad Idea
I’ve written many articles detailing the potential and expected side effects of these gene therapy “vaccines.”
The take-home message here is that these injections are not vaccines. They do not prevent infection, they do not render you immune and they do not prevent transmission of the disease. Instead, they alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch. What’s happening here is a medical fraud of unprecedented magnitude, and it really needs to be stopped before it’s too late for a majority of people.
If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. And, last but not least, if you got the vaccine and are having side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:[32]
If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
Report the injury on the CHD website
Originally published Sep 13, 2021 on Mercola.com
References
[1] CDC Web Archive August 26, 2021
[2] Rules.iowa.gov ARC 4096C
[3] SOS.wa.gov Initiative No. 1300 October 29, 2020 (PDF)
[4] SOS.wa.gov Initiative No. 1234 August 17, 2020 (PDF)
[5] Merriam-Webster Definition of Vaccine Archived February 6, 2019
[6] Merriam-Webster Definition of Vaccine Archived February 26, 2021
[7] The Free Dictionary, Listing of medical dictionary definitions of vaccine
[8] CDC September 1, 2021
[9] FDA August 23, 2021
[10] Justia Jacobson v. Massachusetts 1905
[11] G. Edward Griffin’s Need To Know January 19, 2021
[12] Cornell University 15 US Code Subchapter 1: Federal Trade Commission
[13] FTC.gov Warning Letter
[14] FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 e
[15] Moderna Clinical Study Protocol (PDF)
[16] CIDRAP July 27, 2020
[17] NPR February 21, 2021
[18] Medline Plus What Is Gene Therapy?
[19] In Vivo September-October 2020; 34(5): 3023-3026
[20] The Journal of Antibiotics June 15, 2021 DOI: 10.1038/s41429-021-00430-5
[21] FDA.gov What Is Gene Therapy?
[22] ASGCT.org November 17, 2020
[23] Moderna COVE Study
[24] Wired November 18, 2020
[25] G. Edward Griffin’s Need To Know January 19, 2021
[26] David Martin Transcript (PDF)
[27] US SEC Moderna June 30, 2020
[28] MIT Technology Review February 5, 2021
[29] Bloomberg August 11, 2020
[30] New York Times May 4, 2020, updated May 7, 2020 (Archived)
[31] Weston Price January 25, 2021
[32] The Defender January 25, 2021
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/new-study-contradicts-experts-shows-unvaccinated-adults-found-no-increase-myocarditis-pericarditis-following-covid-infection/
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/haiti-not-vaccinate-citizens-current-vax-rate-1-4-yet-country-one-lowest-covid-death-rates-world-weird-huh/
-
New York COVID-19 Quarantine Rules Unconstitutional and Illegal: Judge
By Katabella Roberts July 14, 2022 Updated: July 14, 2022biggersmaller Print
0:00
3:57
1
A New York Supreme Court judge this month quietly ruled that regulations mandating that people infected with or exposed to highly contagious communicable diseases be quarantined are a violation of state law, declaring them null and void.
The Isolation and Quarantine procedures, known as Rule 2.13, were enacted in February.
Under the rule, “whenever appropriate to control the spread of a highly contagious communicable disease, the State Commissioner of Health may issue and/or may direct the local health authority to issue isolation and/or quarantine orders, consistent with due process of law, to all such persons as the State Commissioner of Health shall determine appropriate.”
Isolations may include those at home, or in residential or temporary housing, subject to what the public health authority issuing the order determines is “appropriate.”
However, the rule notes that “where symptoms or conditions indicate that medical care in a general hospital is expected to be required, the isolation location shall be a general hospital.”
Three Republican state legislators, Sen. George Borrello, assemblyman Chris Tague, and assemblyman Michael Lawler, along with Uniting NYS, filed a lawsuit against Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul, Commissioner of Health Mary Bassett, the state’s health department, and the Public Health and Health Planning Council.
Plaintiffs argued that the Isolation and Quarantine procedures were in violation of the New York State Constitution and a violation of the separation of powers.
“It’s unconstitutional in our eyes, and anything like that should go through the legislature,” Tague told local media. “It should have an opportunity to be debated. To be able to have facts brought forth by health professionals, and leaders within our communities before we just decide to put something into law.”
‘Lip Service’
In a July 8 ruling, Acting Justice of the Supreme Court of Cattaraugus County Ronald D. Ploetz sided with the plaintiffs, stating that the rule merely gives “lip service” to constitutional due process.
“Involuntary detention is a severe deprivation of individual liberty, far more egregious than other health safety measures, such as requiring mask wearing at certain venues. Involuntary quarantine may have far-reaching consequences such as loss of income (or employment) and isolation from family,” Ploetz wrote.
The judge added that there was “no scientific data or expert testimony” to back up the rule.
“Respondents offered no scientific data or expert testimony why Rule 2.13 was a necessary response to combat COVID-19, but instead contend only that it would provide a quick and nimble approach to combating the pandemic,” wrote the judge. “Nevertheless, during oral argument of this matter, at a time when we hope that the worst of the pandemic is behind us, counsel for the Respondents were unable to cite any instance where the procedure set forth in Rule 2.13 was actually utilized.”
However, the judge noted in his ruling that the rule is null and void “until the New York State Legislation acts otherwise,” potentially paving the way for future appeals.
On Tuesday, Hochul told local media that she would be appealing the court’s decision, stating, “We feel very confident that if we appeal this, we will be successful.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office on Wednesday formally appealed the state Supreme Court ruling, according to local reports.
The Epoch Times has contacted James’s office for comment.
The ruling comes as Hochul’s office on Wednesday reported that the seven-day average of COVID-19 cases in New York has risen from 30.53 per 100,000 people to 35.28, while hospitalizations have increased in recent days to 2,397 patients.
However, 57.5 percent of those people who were hospitalized were admitted for reasons that did not include COVID-19.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/vyw5hy/public_health_agencies_not_following_the_science/
-
FBI Launched Inquiry Into NIH Funding of Wuhan Lab, Emails Show
By Eva Fu July 15, 2022 Updated: July 16, 2022biggersmaller Print
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) launched an inquiry into the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of bat research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, newly released emails show.
The interest from the top U.S. intelligence agency adds to the international scrutiny on the Wuhan facility, which houses one of China’s highest-level biosecurity labs that has been considered a possible source of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“In preparation for our call on Tuesday, Erik [Stemmy] (cc’d) has provided responses to your initial questions below (also attached),” wrote Ashley Sanders, an investigation officer at the NIH’s division of program integriy, in an email (pdf) dated May 22, 2020 with the subject “Grant Questions – FBI Inquiry,” and directed to FBI agent David Miller.
The email was obtained by government transparency watchdog Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, which asked for records of communications, contracts, and agreements with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
The scope of the inquiry is unclear because the rest of the email correspondence, five pages in total, are entirely redacted. But the name of the email attachment “SF 424 AI110964-06 (received date 11/05/2018),” corresponds to the NIH grant “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”
The project in question is headed by Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, which then funnels money to the lab in Wuhan. From 2014 to 2019, the New York nonprofit received six yearly grants totaling $3,748,715 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases under the NIH to fund the project, which was expected to end in 2026.
The FBI inquiry had focused on at least two of the grants, in 2014 and 2019 respectively, the email subject line suggests.
The 2014 grant aimed to “understand what factors increase the risk of the next CoV emerging in people by studying CoV diversity in a critical zoonotic reservoir (bats), at sites of high risk for emergence (wildlife markets) in an emerging disease hotspot (China),” according to the project description. Specifically, the researchers would assess the coronavirus spillover potential, develop predictive models of bat coronavirus emergence risk, and use virus infection experiments as well as “reverse genetics” to test the virus’s transmission between species.
Peter Daszak
WHO team member Peter Daszak leaves his hotel after the World Health Organization (WHO) team wrapped up its investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus in Wuhan in China’s central Hubei province on February 10, 2021. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
In the project summary for the 2019 grant, EcoHealth stated that they had found that “bats in southern China harbor an extraordinary diversity of SARSr-CoVs,” and some of those viruses can “infect humanized mouse models causing SARS-like illness, and evade available therapies or vaccines.”
Recently disclosed documents show that, under one grant, the WIV had conducted an experiment that resulted in a more potent version of a bat coronavirus.
In the project that took place under the fifth grant, from June 2018 to May 2019, the researchers infected two groups of laboratory mice, one of which with a modified version of a bat coronavirus already existing in nature, and another with the original virus.
Those infected with the modified version became sicker, Lawrence Tabak, a principal deputy director at the NIH, wrote in a letter in response to a Congressional inquiry. (not sure if we need to specify who it’s from)
“As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research, as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do,” wrote Tabak. He acknowledged that EcoHealth had violated the grant terms by failing to notify the NIH “right away” about the finding.
wuhan lab
Security personnel keep watch outside the Wuhan Institute of Virology during the visit by the World Health Organization (WHO) team tasked with investigating the origins of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on Feb. 3, 2021. (Thomas Peter/Reuters)
The experiment appears to fit the definition of gain-of-function research regardless of its intentions, according to some experts.
“The genetic manipulation of both MERS and the SARS conducted in Wuhan clearly constituted gain-of-function experiments,” Jonathan Latham, executive director of The Bioscience Research Project, previously told The Epoch Times. He said the NIH’s wording choice “unexpected” was “absurd,” “when clearly these experiments were expressly designed to detect increased pathogenicity.”
An April 2020 memo (pdf) reveals that the State Department assessed lab leak as the most likely origin of COVID-19.
“The Wuhan labs remained the most likely yet least probed. All other possible places of virus’ origin have been proven false,” the memo stated, citing circumstantial evidence such as safety standard lapses, experiments on bats by WIV researchers, and the lab’s role in a “deliberate coverup, especially destruction of any evidence of leaks and disappearance of its employees as Patient Zero.”
The Epoch Times has reached out to the FBI for comments.
-
I'm sure we will see arrests any day now!
:roll:
FBI Launched Inquiry Into NIH Funding of Wuhan Lab, Emails Show
By Eva Fu July 15, 2022 Updated: July 16, 2022biggersmaller Print
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) launched an inquiry into the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of bat research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, newly released emails show.
The interest from the top U.S. intelligence agency adds to the international scrutiny on the Wuhan facility, which houses one of China’s highest-level biosecurity labs that has been considered a possible source of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“In preparation for our call on Tuesday, Erik [Stemmy] (cc’d) has provided responses to your initial questions below (also attached),” wrote Ashley Sanders, an investigation officer at the NIH’s division of program integriy, in an email (pdf) dated May 22, 2020 with the subject “Grant Questions – FBI Inquiry,” and directed to FBI agent David Miller.
The email was obtained by government transparency watchdog Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, which asked for records of communications, contracts, and agreements with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
The scope of the inquiry is unclear because the rest of the email correspondence, five pages in total, are entirely redacted. But the name of the email attachment “SF 424 AI110964-06 (received date 11/05/2018),” corresponds to the NIH grant “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”
The project in question is headed by Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, which then funnels money to the lab in Wuhan. From 2014 to 2019, the New York nonprofit received six yearly grants totaling $3,748,715 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases under the NIH to fund the project, which was expected to end in 2026.
The FBI inquiry had focused on at least two of the grants, in 2014 and 2019 respectively, the email subject line suggests.
The 2014 grant aimed to “understand what factors increase the risk of the next CoV emerging in people by studying CoV diversity in a critical zoonotic reservoir (bats), at sites of high risk for emergence (wildlife markets) in an emerging disease hotspot (China),” according to the project description. Specifically, the researchers would assess the coronavirus spillover potential, develop predictive models of bat coronavirus emergence risk, and use virus infection experiments as well as “reverse genetics” to test the virus’s transmission between species.
Peter Daszak
WHO team member Peter Daszak leaves his hotel after the World Health Organization (WHO) team wrapped up its investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus in Wuhan in China’s central Hubei province on February 10, 2021. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
In the project summary for the 2019 grant, EcoHealth stated that they had found that “bats in southern China harbor an extraordinary diversity of SARSr-CoVs,” and some of those viruses can “infect humanized mouse models causing SARS-like illness, and evade available therapies or vaccines.”
Recently disclosed documents show that, under one grant, the WIV had conducted an experiment that resulted in a more potent version of a bat coronavirus.
In the project that took place under the fifth grant, from June 2018 to May 2019, the researchers infected two groups of laboratory mice, one of which with a modified version of a bat coronavirus already existing in nature, and another with the original virus.
Those infected with the modified version became sicker, Lawrence Tabak, a principal deputy director at the NIH, wrote in a letter in response to a Congressional inquiry. (not sure if we need to specify who it’s from)
“As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research, as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do,” wrote Tabak. He acknowledged that EcoHealth had violated the grant terms by failing to notify the NIH “right away” about the finding.
wuhan lab
Security personnel keep watch outside the Wuhan Institute of Virology during the visit by the World Health Organization (WHO) team tasked with investigating the origins of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on Feb. 3, 2021. (Thomas Peter/Reuters)
The experiment appears to fit the definition of gain-of-function research regardless of its intentions, according to some experts.
“The genetic manipulation of both MERS and the SARS conducted in Wuhan clearly constituted gain-of-function experiments,” Jonathan Latham, executive director of The Bioscience Research Project, previously told The Epoch Times. He said the NIH’s wording choice “unexpected” was “absurd,” “when clearly these experiments were expressly designed to detect increased pathogenicity.”
An April 2020 memo (pdf) reveals that the State Department assessed lab leak as the most likely origin of COVID-19.
“The Wuhan labs remained the most likely yet least probed. All other possible places of virus’ origin have been proven false,” the memo stated, citing circumstantial evidence such as safety standard lapses, experiments on bats by WIV researchers, and the lab’s role in a “deliberate coverup, especially destruction of any evidence of leaks and disappearance of its employees as Patient Zero.”
The Epoch Times has reached out to the FBI for comments.
-
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ny-health-commissioner-says-she-blew-hospitalizations-out-of-proportion-to-push-covid-shot-for-kids/
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/county-leaders-sue-moms-fighting-for-transparency-in-school-reopening-fight/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=28412781
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/birx-admits-covid-19-vaccines-were-never-going-protect-against-infection
I am shocked to find out they knowingly lied to us!
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/birx-admits-covid-19-vaccines-were-never-going-protect-against-infection
I am shocked to find out they knowingly lied to us!
(Sarcasm detected) but I think the real shock is for her or any of them to admit truth now.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/covid-19-injections-may-damage-young-childrens-innate-immune-system-paul-alexander_4617221.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-07-25-1&utm_medium=email&est=%2FcYYopwuI0XplucBGpDN213onLsk%2FkkQjxLdIQbGLbqWvRBKYiOwtcBLcHVNThRy9F1F
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/birx-admits-covid-19-vaccines-were-never-going-protect-against-infection
I am shocked to find out they knowingly lied to us!
(Sarcasm detected) but I think the real shock is for her or any of them to admit truth now.
Why? It's not like they face any consequences.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/07/republicans-need-to-investigate-the-pandemic-response/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202022-07-27&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart
-
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/more-disappearing-covid-vaccine-data?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
-
Endless Boosting? Latest 2 Concerns About COVID Jabs
If we start children off with the shots at 6 months of age, how many more would they receive?
BY XIAOXU SEAN LIN AND HEALTH 1+1 TIMEJULY 22, 2022 PRINT
There are two recent concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines, including one that has not yet happened and one that already has.
I. Will the FDA Approve new COVID-19 Vaccines Based on ‘Preclinical Data’ and Allow the Vaccines to Become Similar to the Flu Vaccines?
The existing COVID-19 vaccines are based on the older virus that is more virulent than the current strains. And as the virus continues to evolve, the vaccines’ protection declines. Recently, Pfizer has begun developing its Omicron vaccines.
If You Have Toenail Fungus Try This Tonight (It's Genius!)
SPONSORED CONTENT
If You Have Toenail Fungus Try This Tonight (It's Genius!)
BY WELLNESSGUIDE101.COM
Pfizer is developing two types of Omicron vaccines, including one monovalent vaccine that directly replaces the original strain with the Omicron variant, and a bivalent vaccine that contains both original strain and an Omicron strain which would partially neutralize the challenging Omicron variant with the immunity triggered by the original strain.
Epoch Times Photo
There is no consensus as to which vaccine will be ideal for use so far.
Some researchers believe that as the bivalent vaccine contains the original strain, which is more pathogenic than the Omicron variant, it should be more effective in preventing severe disease.
However, there is not enough data from clinical studies to support this argument. Besides, it is also unclear how the ratios between the two strains of viruses should be deployed.
So far, Pfizer has tested the effectiveness of Omicron’s monovalent and bivalent vaccines with the BA.1 variant. These vaccines have not yet been tested clinically, but only in preclinical studies. The results showed that the neutralizing geometric titers against Omicron BA.1 increased 13.5 and 19.6-fold for the monovalent vaccine, and 9.1 and 10.9-fold for the bivalent vaccine at 30 μg and 60 μg dose levels, respectively.
However, both monovalent and bivalent vaccines have lower neutralization capacity against the currently prevalent BA.4 and BA.5 variants.
That is, despite Pfizer’s efforts to develop a vaccine against BA.1 during the recent past six months, the virus mutated again, creating further immune evasion against the vaccines. Today, over 70 percent of the newly confirmed COVID cases in the United States are brought by BA.4 and BA.5.
In any case, the new vaccines are more protective than the old ones, in terms of neutralizing antibodies. So, the question now is: Will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approve the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the new vaccines?
If it is approved, it means that there will be no need to do clinical trials for new vaccines in the future, as only pre-clinical data are needed (i.e. from in vitro experiments and animal trials) before a vaccine can be approved and used for large-scale administration. That will be a very large change.
It is almost impossible to ask vaccine companies to keep up with the speed of viral changes. At present, it is already impossible to keep up with the changes in the virus even just by doing preclinical studies. If clinical trials are also demanded and performed, the virus may have become “completely different” in its serotypes by the time the trials are completed.
Therefore, in the future, the COVID-19 vaccines could probably follow a similar path as the flu vaccines.
Is There The Possibility That Annual Vaccination May Reduce Protection?
This is related to the medical institutions’ perception of the development of the COVID-19 vaccines. If their perception is that the pandemic’s development will be closer to that of influenza, then it is likely that the COVID-19 vaccines will be developed in the same way as the influenza vaccines.
Influenza vaccines need to be updated annually, and their development time is very limited. There is no possibility to conduct clinical trials, and basically not even animal trials. So the companies can rely on only the results of in vitro sequencing and antigenic typing studies to determine the next round of vaccine ingredients.
Researchers need to collect sera from influenza-infected people around the world within six months to test whether there is an overall trend in their antigenicity, from which strains are selected as vaccine seed strains for the next influenza season. The prediction results are sometimes accurate and sometimes inaccurate.
For instance, in the 2014 to 2015 influenza season, there was an outbreak of the H3N2 strain of influenza A, and the vaccine prediction was off by a large margin, so the overall vaccine protection rate for that year was relatively poor.
Such an approach has both advantages and disadvantages. Since influenza viruses change from year to year, if a vaccine is designed with accurate predictions, its protection rate will be relatively high.
However, there is also a downside: the annual vaccination may also weaken the vaccine’s protection.
According to the Canadian Medical Association Journal, people who got the flu vaccines in both 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to 2015 flu seasons ended up with only 15 percent vaccine effectiveness, but the ones who got vaccinated only in the 2014 to 2015 flu season got 43 percent vaccine effectiveness.
Epoch Times Photo
This is a reminder that repeated frequent vaccinations may not be a good thing.
A more complete research report is available in the journal BMC Medicine. The researchers specifically compared the effectiveness of vaccines against three flu types in four different vaccination groups: current season only, prior season only, both seasons, and neither season.
They discovered that when comparing “both seasons” with “current season only”, the vaccine effectiveness against H3N2 and influenza B decreased by 20 percent and 11 percent, respectively.
Therefore, many experts are also questioning whether or not the COVID-19 vaccines should be implemented as regular injections with frequent updates
Frequent vaccination may have a negative impact on immunity: the body’s immune system will suffer from immune fatigue. Just like “crying wolf,” the immune system that has been repeatedly stimulated by the vaccines will not be able to perform at full strength in the face of a real virus attack. On the other hand, the risk of side effects may be greater with one or two booster shots.
Epoch Times Photo
According to Dr. Marco Cavaleri, head of the European Medicines Agency’s Biological Health Threats and Vaccines Strategy, frequent booster shots may have a negative impact on the body’s immunity to the SARS-COV-2 virus. People can get a booster shot once, maybe twice, but they shouldn’t keep receiving injections over and over again.
In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, we all hope that we can respond positively, for example, by using vaccines to boost our own immunity. However, we also need to calmly analyze how effective the vaccines will be against the current variants, and whether or not they will bring side effects. We can listen to all sides and consider comprehensive information to make a better decision for ourselves.
II. FDA Approved COVID-19 Vaccines for Children Over 6 Months of Age
Another worrying event is that the FDA has recently authorized COVID-19 vaccines for children over 6 months of age.
As we know, we should be more cautious in the use of medications and vaccines for children, weighing the vaccine effectiveness against the possible risks. So, how much protection does the COVID-19 vaccine provide to children?
The threshold for vaccine efficacy is 50 percent. According to the data published by the FDA for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, the effectiveness for children aged 6 months to 2 years with 2 doses of the Moderna vaccine was 50.6 percent; for children aged 2 to 5 years, the effectiveness was 36.6 percent, which didn’t meet the threshold.
The data for children aged 6 to 11 years are too little to be taken into account, which means that there is no valid effectiveness data for this group of children.
Pfizer’s study compared vaccine data on 80 children aged 6 months to 2 years, 140 children aged 2 to 4 years, and 170 children and young adults aged 6 to 25 years.
They recruited a very small number of subjects, with less than 100 subjects under the age of 2. This data, in itself, is already very weak.
Epoch Times Photo
Moreover, Pfizer did not provide specific data on vaccine effectiveness for children under the age of 4, but only concluded that the data on effectiveness were “similar” to those for children and young adults aged 6 to 25, according to a previous study that was not specifically done with the Omicron variant, either.
Epoch Times Photo
The probability of children contracting COVID-19 is very low in the first place. In this case, it is surprising that the FDA uses these poor experimental data as the basis for introducing the vaccine to children. Specifically, the Moderna vaccine’s efficacy failed to reach the 50 percent threshold and Pfizer did not provide effectiveness data at all.
The Side Effects of Vaccines on Infants and Children Are a Concern
Another issue of concern is what side effects the vaccines may cause to children.
The FDA mentioned that the Modena vaccine may cause irritability, crying, drowsiness, and loss of appetite in children under 3 years old; fatigue, headaches, muscle aches, nausea, vomiting, chills, and stiff joints in children 3 to 5 years old; and fever, swelling, and pain at the injection site, and swollen lymph nodes in all children 6 months to 5 years old.
Epoch Times Photo
We are already very familiar with the side effects of vaccination on adults, including fever and swollen lymph nodes. Nevertheless, these seemingly mild symptoms can signify more serious problems for children.
For instance, while adults may easily get over a fever, infants may be at a higher risk for serious problems. Headaches in children can be a dangerous symptom, and the severity of headaches is not clearly stated by the pharmaceutical companies.
Epoch Times Photo
In addition, we know that “crying” is not a medical diagnosis; it is not a clinically accurate representation of physical impairment, and it is difficult for infants and toddlers under 3 years old to express their discomfort. What are the causes of their crying, irritability, loss of appetite, and sleepiness? We need to be more careful and cautious in diagnosing children’s physical conditions.
Another question is, how long does it take for these side effects to resolve?
Will the infants’ loss of appetite last for 1 to 2 days or several months, and will it affect their nutrition intake and health? How long will the stiffness of the joints last, and will it affect the children’s growth and development and leave long-term damage? These are all issues of great concern.
The Pfizer side effect report is similarly vague. The cause of irritability in children is unknown, as is the duration of fever and decreased appetite.
From the existing reports, it appears that the FDA has been unbelievably weak in scientific judgment in its consideration of the vaccine effectiveness data for children and the possible adverse effects. This calls for a more comprehensive understanding and careful judgment by parents to take responsibility for the health of their children.
And it also calls for medical providers to use their common sense and medical knowledge and expertise in prescribing COVID vaccines for infants and toddlers, rather than blindly following a recommendation.
For the above situation, some independent media outlets’ views may be shielded from the public. I think that it’s a shame that the public is being deprived of their right to be informed to some extent. That is, the public needs to know the real, concrete facts about the COVID-19 vaccines, in order to make better decisions and protect their own health. To be more responsible in taking a vaccine is not anti-vaccine, and not anti-science at all.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/2538135/now-self-spreading-poisons-at-science-summit-in-netherlands
-
Vaccination Program Fallout: Immune Imprinting, All Cause Mortality Spikes
BY MERCURA WANG AND DR. ANN CORSON TIMEAUGUST 5, 2022 PRINT
The phenomenon of immune imprinting, as a manifestation of vaccine enhance disease after COVID injections, has been proven by many studies from top immunology groups around the world. Also, shedding of the spike protein from the vaccinated could be a reason why many unvaccinated people get repeat infections, but there’s no way to prove this as the FDA doesn’t require pharmaceutical companies to test for shedding by vaccines, only for gene therapies.
Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the core mRNA vaccine platform technology, based on which various COVID vaccines have been developed, was interviewed by Dr. Ann Corson regarding immune imprinting, shedding, and his own healing story after COVID-19 inoculation.
In his previous interview, Dr. Malone mentioned that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been ignoring the reality of immune imprinting. He explained that currently the highly vaccinated (i.e. people who have received several COVID-19 vaccine shots) are being driven into an immune compromised state. As a result, these people have become more susceptible to infection by the Omicron variant. Even worse, they tend to be chronically or multiply infected as well.
Immune Imprinting Is Occurring in Vaccine Enhanced Disease
Dr. Corson and Dr. Malone began discussing the immune imprinting talked about in previous interviews, as one reason the post-COVID-jab population is seeing repeat and increasingly frequent infections.
Dr. Malone explained the concept of “antibody dependent enhancement.”
“Antibody dependent enhancement is a process that requires the infection of monocytes due to the antibody coding and the presence of Fc (fragment crystallizable) receptors on monocytes facilitating uptake in productive infection into a population of cells that normally is not infected.”
“For the general readers, what we’re talking about are the white cells that move around in your body and are able to gobble up and really have the task in a significant way of cleaning up cellular debris and other things that are the consequence of various damage states and they get recruited based on signals that come from cells that are in some way damaged or infected. So these cells can be infected by a virus that otherwise could not get into them, because they don’t have the proper receptor. So for example, in the current case, since most of us now are SARS-COV-2 virologists, you’re all familiar with the ACE-2 receptor, which is considered to be the primary receptor by which the SARS-COV-2 virus gets into cells. Monocytes don’t seem to have significant levels of ACE-2, and so no surprise, they don’t normally get infected.”
“The logic with antibody dependent enhancement is that the virus gets coated with antibody, which is a little bit like a fork and the tines are the part that stick to cells. And the handle of the fork that you hold on to is a tail on the antibody. Technically, it’s called the FC region and at the end of that it has a domain which can interact with receptors that bind antibodies and take them up, such as the ones on macrophage.”
“So if you have antibodies coding a virus, then they kind of create a new pathway for infecting other cells. So that was the logic of antibody dependent enhancement. I have to say that in this case, we have not clearly ruled out an antibody dependent enhancement pathway.”
“But the data supporting that as a major mechanism of vaccine enhance disease is not overly strong. It may become stronger. It’s hard to do these studies. So it could well be that it’s happening. But it’s not just that it’s not being easily detected, because we don’t have good technology and assays for doing so.”
“In the case of the immune imprinting, or ‘original antigenic sin,’ there are very large groups who have done so and published in the top journals in the world [who have] focused on that as a key mechanism. Because it is not being recognized by the government, by the HHS [Health & Human Services], by the FDA, by the CDC, they’re just pretending like that literature doesn’t exist, they’re taking decisions that are inconsistent with the observations from that literature.”
“But clearly, immune imprinting is ongoing, and there are many studies from the top immunology groups and top journalists in the world. So we can say definitively that is absolutely a mechanism that’s occurring in vaccine enhanced disease.”
Patients Who Most Likely End Up Hospitalized or Dead Have Received Booster Shots
According to the CDC, as of July 28, 2022, 223.2 million Americans had been fully vaccinated by one dose of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine or two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines. These people are considered fully vaccinated. Among them, around 107.9 million people had received an additional vaccine dose (i.e. booster dose). Some people among them have received four vaccine doses in total.
However, Dr. Malone has observed an alarming phenomenon among the last group of people, whom he referred to as “highly inoculated.” That is, these people are more likely to end up hospitalized or even worse than the average population.
“The observation from all over the world now is that the patients who are most likely to end up in the hospital or dead, unfortunately, are the highly inoculated. I’m avoiding the term vaccine, because I suggest that these products are not really acting as a vaccine at this point and that’s worrisome. That should not be occurring.”
“Fortunately, it’s still a relatively small number. So when you do the analysis of bed occupancy, for instance, and COVID in intensive care units or other metrics you want to use for hospital bed occupancy in the United States, you’re not seeing a surge with Omicron. So what’s being observed is that a subset of patients that are infected, do end up hospitalized and a subset of those end up dead, unfortunately. For whatever reason, the vast majority, those have been highly inoculated, typically four doses, if you consider, in my opinion, all of these are the boosted. The immune responses suggest that a large part of what we’re getting with these inoculations is recall responses, plus a specific tuning on the Wuhan 1 strain of SARS-COV-2 spike proteins.”
How Dr. Corson’s Immunocompromised Patients Fared Better During COVID-19 Pandemic Than the General Population
Dr. Corson has four decades of clinical practice. Her patient population include people who are immunocompromised due to chronic vector borne diseases, such as Lyme disease and co-infections, primarily Bartonella, Babesia, Ehrlichia, Anaplasma, and Rickettsia. Most of Dr. Corson’s patients have also suffered from exposure to mold toxins which are also immunosuppressive and damaging to immune system function.
Dr. Corson has her patients optimize their vitamin D intake and she uses a substantial number of fibrinolytic and proteolytic enzymes in her treatment protocols. As a practitioner of integrative medicine, she also uses immune supportive therapies, herbal medicines, as well as lots of regulation and drainage medicines which clean up her patients’ organs and detoxification processes such as the kidney, liver, and lymphatic system. As a result, her patients are generally in a better physiologic state than they would be without these interventions.
When some of her patients were infected by COVID-19, she treated them aggressively and helped them through the illness quickly and easily. Only one of her patients had to be hospitalized, as he had an underlying hematologic malignancy. Dr. Corson advised him to decline the use of remdesivir, which he did, and he was released in just a couple of days. Among her patients, only a small number developed any kind of long COVID symptoms. Although Dr. Corson’s patients are people who are immunocompromised due to chronic toxicity and infection, they didn’t have the same problems that many within the general population did. Dr. Corson believes that this is due not only to her treatment but also to her educating them on nutrition, diet, and healthy lifestyle choices.
Suspicious-Looking ‘White Fibrous Stuff’ in Vaccinated Patients’ Blood
Dr. Corson mentioned a “horrible white fibrous stuff” that’s being found in both living and deceased bodies of people who have been inoculated. In her office, she draws blood from patients for some specialty labs and spins blood collected in serum separator tubes in a small centrifuge. To her dismay, she is finding a layer of a white, rubbery substance in the tubes when she draws blood from previously inoculated patients in her office. She wonders that as she’s discovering this substance in her patients, then all the commercial lab drawing stations should also be seeing it, yet we see scant media coverage of this worrying phenomenon.
This reminded Dr. Corson of several papers discussing the spike protein mis-folding into some sort of amyloid-like conglomerate. One paper was written by Seneff, McCullough, Nigh, and Kyriakopoulos; and another by Kell et al. A third group from Sweden has also detected amyloid-type clots in diabetes, as well as in COVID-19 plasma. Dr. Ryan Cole also discussed this phenomenon is a recent talk to the World Health Council. Therefore, many scientists have already been discussing this substance.
Dr. Malone also expressed his concern over this unidentified substance.
“Our regulatory authorities that should be looking into this are turning a blind eye, as they are to all of these things.”
Shedding of the Spike Protein
Another thing the regulators have turned a blind eye to is the possibility of “shedding.” People have been asking Dr. Malone, Dr. Corson, and other doctors whether vaccine “shedding” is occurring.
“In my opinion, what is very odd about the shedding question is that it could be readily addressed at the bench and has not been addressed. And this is another place where the FDA has fallen down and not done its job and not insisted that the pharmaceutical companies do their jobs. Because, and I know this is gonna shock you, but the general rule in pharmaceutical development is you don’t do anything that the FDA doesn’t force you to do. Because you might get an answer that you don’t like. And so you just don’t ever ask the question.”
“They [i.e. pharmaceutical companies] will never do it, unless the FDA does its job and forces them to do it. The assessment of whether or not there is shedding is something that is on the gene therapy regulatory checklist but it’s not on the vaccine regulatory checklist.”
“So any of these secretory glands that exist in our bodies that produce proteins or fluids or lipids or other things certainly could be shedding various body fluids that have a spike protein in them. Likewise, is it possible that semen might? Yes. Is it possible that vaginal secretions might have spike protein? Yes. Is it possible that sweat might have spike protein? Yes.”
“Exosomes are kind of like liposomes that your cells produce. And they actually produce quite a large amount of them in your respiratory tract and you breathe them out. They’re very, very small particles and they contain things that were in the cells from whence they derive, from whence they’re shed. Is it possible that exosomes in respiratory aerosols might have a spike protein? It’s absolutely possible. The thing that’s a little disconcerting is that any of these body fluids can be readily assessed for presence of spike protein, with some very simple well-developed assays like the ELISA.”
“The only way we’re gonna get to the bottom of it, is if somebody does the testing.”
COVID-19 Vaccination Might Influence Women’s Reproductive Health
Another issue related to shedding is the fact that women around the world have been reporting menstrual irregularities. Some medical professionals believe that among women in groups, the unvaccinated population can have coordinated menstrual cycle irregularities due to the influence of vaccinated women, who also have menstrual cycle irregularities.
Unfortunately, the CDC has been working with Facebook and Twitter to suppress discussion of the COVID-19 vaccines’ impact on people’s reproductive health.
“One of the things that is most prominent in the shedding story is the observation of women in groups that are having menstrual irregularities. There’s the thesis that those coordinated menstrual cycle irregularities that are being observed in groups of women are influenced by a subset of the women being vaccinated.”
“It was denied by the CDC that the vaccination could influence reproductive health, including women’s health and menstruation and yet, it was reported by women all over the world with high frequency that they were observing these alterations in their menstrual patterns, including heavy flow, which as you know, can be an indirect indicator of early spontaneous abortion.”
“In fact, one of the things that the CDC directly worked with Facebook and Twitter to suppress was any discussion of reproductive health impacts from the vaccine. Underlying all of this is an unfortunate truth. I’m not speaking about global warming, but rather, the observation in a key cell paper which has a title which focuses on immune imprinting, which came out in March.”
“This was a Stanford group study, in which there was fine needle aspiration [FNA] of draining lymph nodes, axillary lymph nodes after ipsilateral injection into the deltoid [of the COVID jab], and tracking the presence of the mRNA, which should only last for a couple of hours. In parallel, they did blood draws and they looked at plasma levels of spike [protein], and buried within that paper are data which demonstrate that the levels of spike protein produced from the inoculations are considerably higher in a large fraction of patients than the levels that are present after natural infection.”
“Another thread that relates to this is there was a study that you might have seen that categorize the adverse events associated with long COVID and the adverse events associated with the post vaccination syndrome. And they were unable to differentiate between those symptom profiles. So whatever is going on, we seem to have unusually high levels of spike [protein] in the circulation, rather than the gradually increasing levels of spike [protein] and other antigens present in mucosal tissues from natural infection. We have very high levels of spike [protein] every time we’re inoculated and that seems to be associated with a wide range of toxicities.”
All-cause Mortality Spiked in the Netherlands
When Dr. Malone was recently visiting Belgium, he saw some astonishing data regarding all-cause mortality in the Netherlands. The term “all-cause mortality” refers to death from any cause. Apparently, after the implementation of COVID-19 vaccination, the Netherlands has experienced spikes in the all-cause mortality.
“I saw data correlating the vaccine campaigns in the Netherlands with all-cause mortality spikes. Those data are not yet disclosed and I don’t want to mention the name of the scientists behind them. At this point, it will come out.”
“But it was shocking to me. There seems to be a one-week delay in these repeated vaccine inoculation campaigns that they’ve been doing in the Netherlands and then a wave immediately following with about a one-week offset of all excess all-cause mortality, and the numbers are striking.”
“I think that between that and the insurance actuarial data and all this global data on hospitalization and death in the highly inoculated, gently put, the Health and Human Services organization within the United States and its various teaming partners, Facebook, Twitter, and Google, are going to have to account for their behavior, because they appear to have suppressed informed consent by blocking patients’ ability to get access to information about all these risks.”
Dr. Malone’s Own Story after Inoculation
Dr. Malone developed long COVID symptoms in the spring of 2020, after having the Wuhan initial strain. Later he took COVID-19 mRNA injections because he thought that there was some evidence that the injections would help with long COVID symptoms. Unfortunately, immediately after his second inoculation, he developed really high blood pressure that needed to be treated.
Dr. Malone was willing to share his personal healing story as he thought that it gives some people who might have made a mistake [by taking the shots] some comfort, given that even he made a mistake in accepting the inoculations. At that time, no one knew the risks.
“I received my initial infection in late February 2020…At the time, there were no therapeutics, no treatments. And this is what ended up resulting in my discovering famotidine as one of the agents that has a value from whence I developed together with other colleagues, the mast cell hypothesis for some of the lung pathology observed. But I continue to have long COVID…But I’m a heck of a lot better now than I was.”
“People ask [me] the question: Why did you accept the vaccine with all that you know? It’s important to remember that the FDA and Pfizer hid all of these data from all of us. So at the time when I took my inoculation, which was the Moderna shots, with the initial campaign that was actually managed by the National Guard here in Virginia, there was a lot of discussion in the press that accepting the vaccine if you have long COVID. At that point, there was still a lot of controversy [regarding] whether long COVID existed. Accepting the vaccine was hypothesized by the press and many as something that could mitigate these effects of long COVID. The theory being, if you’ve got a big antigen boost, on top of what you’d have previously, it would really kick your immune system into high gear and they would be more able to clear the residual virus, which was believed to be driving a lot of the symptoms. All of that was naive.”
“But at the time, I had few options, and I needed to travel internationally and I knew that I wasn’t going to be able to travel if I had not accepted the vaccine. So we took them, both myself and my wife and I had a significant set of adverse events on my second inoculation.”
“My symptoms included hypertension, systolic to 230, which fortunately, my cardiologist picked up, this feeling of heart pounding in the chest that many report, restless leg syndrome, tinnitus, narcolepsy, and many others.”
“The criticism of why I did this when I knew all that I know. Remember, none of us knew what we know now [about the vaccination], including myself. And so I made a mistake and I think it’s important for all of us to recognize that even somebody aware of the issues with spike [protein], etc. as I was at the time, could make a mistake.”
Dr. Malone Recovered Thanks to Ivermectin
Dr. Meryl Nass of Children’s Health Defense came to visit Dr. Malone during the time he was suffering from the side effects of COVID-19 vaccination. She said, “Robert, why don’t you just try a course of ivermectin?” So he did, and afterwards, he flew to the West Coast on a business trip. And there, he discovered that ivermectin worked wonders. Although Dr. Corson has been using ivermectin for her patients for two decades and it is considered a safe and effective medicine, the authorities still took Dr. Nass’s license away for prescribing ivermectin.
“Now, what’s intriguing about that is that they took her license [away] for her prescribing ivermectin, late in her career, elderly even by our standards. They took her license because she prescribed ivermectin. In my case, I got the ivermectin at the time [as] Walmart was still dispensing it. They no longer are.
“I flew out [to the West Coast] to hike with my son who lives out there. We stayed in Monterey for a while and I was able to out hike my son, as we were hiking along the coast and Big Sur, which was a huge shock for me, just two days after I started taking ivermectin. The theory that many are floating is that ivermectin actually can displace spike protein from various binding targets.”
“All I can say is that in my personal case, I had a clear clinical response, unequivocal, to my long COVID by taking a relatively high dose of ivermectin for a series of five days, and many others have reported similar.
“So in my mind, ivermectin is clearly useful and I think that the underlying issue that is behind all of this anti-ivermectin talk, of course, [is] there’s the financial interest of the pharmaceutical industry, etc.”
“I think the observation that matters in all these things is: do we observe a clinical response and is there significant risk associated with the agent? In the case of ivermectin, the risk benefit ratio, in my opinion, is quite clearly positive for the use of this agent. Because the risks are so, so low, despite the propaganda put out by the FDA, about this being horse medicine, of course, we all know that that’s absurd.”
Integrative Medicine Has Been Giving People Hope
Dr. Corson and her colleagues in the integrative medicine community are working very hard to try to help patients whose health has been damaged by inoculation. During her conversation with Dr. Malone, she gave a shout-out to the integrative community which is small yet mighty and spans the globe. According to her, integrative medicine practitioners follow the truth; they have tremendous compassion for their patients; and they’re willing to forbear all of the tribulations that come with thinking outside the box while trying to really help people get at the root causes of their illnesses.
Dr. Malone expressed his appreciation of integrative medicine and its practitioners for giving people hope.
“I spoke recently to Dr. [Joseph] Mercola about this same kind of topic area and the growing recognition of the contributions of integrative medicine to modern medical practice. The discipline has been so thoroughly gaslighted and attacked in so many different ways. But one thing we’ve learned through all of this is that the practitioners of your sub-discipline are truly heroes and you’re out there at the forefront dealing with the same kind of flak I’m dealing with and so many of us, and yet you are saving lives and improving patient health.”
“Now we hear that the whole theory that medical students have been taught for decades about the biochemical basis of depression is seriously called into question and inconsistent with the actual data. Unspoken in those few press offerings that did cover that was that vitamin D supplementation is clinically proven to help with many depressive patients. So I think we have to really, not only do we have to revisit the literature [about depression and also] the logic underpinning the pediatric vaccine schedule. We really have to revisit a lot of our core assumptions about the practice of medicine, in my opinion.”
“I thank you and Dr. Mercola and the others in your discipline for your willingness to stand up to the outrageous attack that you’ve been subjected to for decades.”
-
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/400433.php
-
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-meaning-of-incredible/
The Meaning of Incredible
We’re witnessing the destruction of every institution in the land and nobody knows how to stop it….
Clusterfuck Nation
For your reading pleasure Mondays and Fridays
Support this blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page
And thanks to all my Patrons for your support
The CDC seems to think nobody will notice its crimes, and the crimes of its sister agencies, FDA, NIAID, NIH, (and the White House Task Force) if it strolls jauntily into the fall season whistling a happy a tune: Nevermind Covid anymore, la la la…. Did I say crimes? Yes, I did. As in gross violations of the law and the basic social contract.
They lied about their roles in the nefarious origins of SARS CoV-2. They conjured up — already had waiting, actually — dangerous genetic treatments masquerading as “vaccines” and then they faked the safety trials to rush them into use. They denied people proper, effective treatments with inexpensive drugs and killed them with ventilators and remdesivir — solely to maintain a fraudulent emergency use authorization (EUA) that shielded “vaccine” companies from lawsuits. Once the “vaccines’ were widely distributed — and forced upon many people with mandates — they confabulated and hid information about adverse reactions and deaths. They destroyed countless small businesses, livelihoods, households, and hindered children’s development with lockdowns. And they used both social and news media to censor their critics in direct violation of the first amendment. That’s all.
Oh, one more thing: they destroyed modern medicine. They will probably assist in the destruction of law, too, because the legal system will never be able to handle the volume of lawsuits against all parties involved in the Covid “vaccine” mass slaughter — including the corporations that forced their employees to get vaxxed and the pharma companies themselves, who will lose their EUA protections once their fraud is proven. And they will hasten the death of an already ailing financial system that can’t bear the wealth transfers implied in the foregoing (on top of the worst debt crisis in human history).
You think I exaggerate? We’re sailing into the flu season with millions of people whose immune systems are wrecked by multiple shots of mRNA novelty drugs. They are also susceptible to many viruses and bacteria which normally lurk in everybody’s bodily ecosystem, but would be controlled by otherwise healthy immune systems. Likewise, their hacked immune systems are no longer able to suppress cancers — many forms of which are already way up above normal statistical levels. Not to mention damage done to cardiovascular systems by spike proteins, which linger in human bodies for more than a year after “vaccine” shots, as well as neurological and brain damage.
Former Wall Street analyst Edward Dowd said yesterday (Aug 18) that a Society of Actuaries report just made public shows that a 20 percent uptick in excess deaths among working age people, which began with vaxx mandates in the fall of 2021, continued into the second quarter of 2022. Actuaries are the people who compile and analyze statistics for insurance companies.
So, all week the CDC has been walking-back one “guidance” after another. No more compulsory testing, no more contact-tracing, no more social distancing, no more treating the unvaxxed differently than the vaxxed (though the “Joe Biden” regime still won’t allow unvaxxed travelers into the USA), no more vaxx mandates (except, apparently, the US military). Oh, and they’ve conceded that their “vaccines” do not remain in the deltoid muscle, but actually leak all over the body. Note: whatever else the public health agencies are saying or doing right now, they are still promoting the mRNA vaccines, and lying about their safety and effectiveness — because if they told the truth, they would be completely discredited and surely subject to criminal prosecution. And they are still suppressing cheap and effective treatment protocols while promoting remdesivir and the useless (plus expensive) Paxlovid.
The CDC capped the week’s walk-back campaign by announcing a major overhaul of how the agency works. (The FDA and other public health entities made no such promises.) CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, fronting for other little-known federal bigwigs actually called in to clean-up after her, made the hilarious statement: “I look forward to working with the incredible people at CDC and our partners to realize the agency’s fullest potential to benefit the health and well-being of all Americans.” What a dim bulb. Does she know the definition of the word incredible? (Here it is: impossible to believe.)
Of course, the more sobering picture is that virtually all American institutions are now incredible, impossible to believe, starting from the top: “Joe Biden” as president. The executive branch of the government is being run by Barack Obama and a claque around him and is being run into the ground either on-purpose or out of astounding incompetence. Attorney General Merrick Garland flamboyantly disgraces the very idea of justice with Stalinesque political prosecutions. FBI Director Christopher Wray flouts every attempt to extract the truth about his agency’s operations, and at least half the country believes he’s turned it into a secret police operation like the Gestapo. The college presidents and deans have dishonored the idea of truth-seeking with their cowardly submission to Jacobin-Marxist maniacs and their program of anti-knowledge. And who, in America really trusts his doctor? (Not me. Mine is the “chief medical officer” of my network and he’s still pushing “vaccines.”)
We allowed this to happen. We tolerated this exorbitant abuse by runaway authorities-gone-criminal. We let them get away with their bullshit about “defending our democracy” when they are actively and visibly destroying it. Serious people must be seriously asking themselves: what will it take to stop them now?
-
CLUSTERFUCK NATION – BLOGAugust 22, 2022
Crazyland
Economic and cultural suicide is hardly the only option, and certainly not the best…
Clusterfuck Nation
For your reading pleasure Mondays and Fridays
Support this blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page
And thanks to all my Patrons for your support
In a confab of friends on a warm evening this weekend, someone asked: Do you think what’s going on is due to incompetence or malevolence? The USA is certainly skidding into a great and traumatic re-set featuring a much lower standard of living for most citizens amidst a junkyard of broken institutions. But so are all the other nations of Western Civ. If it’s not being managed by malign forces, such as der Schwabenklaus and his WEF myrmidons, then it sure looks like some sort of controlled demolition. The big question hanging over the 2022 election, then, is: Must America commit suicide?
What provoked the mental illness of the Left? What turned the Democratic Party into the Party of Chaos? It seemed pretty sane in 1996 when President Bill Clinton declared — to much surprise — in his State of the Union address that “the era of big government is over.” Of course, few understood back then how cravenly corrupt the Clintons were, even especially as Hillary launched her own political career once Bill’s turn was over. Few, I daresay, thought at the time that Hillary would come to eclipse Bill in influence — though more came to suspect that the first lady operated as the demented megalomaniac she has proved to be.
Gawd knows what went on in that Shakespearean marriage… but the Democratic Party in the post-2000 Hillary years discovered that its very existence required the government to get ever-bigger because the American economy — the real, on-the-ground economy outside Wall Street’s financialization hall of mirrors — was withering away with the off-shoring of industry and something was needed to replace it. And, by the way, let’s stipulate that the Republican Party mostly abetted all that, even despite transient rumblings from its Tea Party renegades.
Forgive me at this juncture for repeating my oft-stated theory of history: Things happen because they seem like a good idea at the time. Off-shoring seemed like a good idea at the time. Fob off all those filthy, polluting factories onto other countries, and pay the natives three bucks a day to make all the stuff we needed. Plus, pay for the stuff with US treasuries (IOUs). What a racket! But then every activity in America was turning into a racket — which is to say, making money dishonestly — until it became the immersive economic milieu of the land. Even the two most noble endeavors in our society, education and medicine, disgraced themselves with shameless moneygrubbing.
Something weird happened starting in 2004 when one Barack Obama came onstage at the Democratic convention that nominated the haircut-in-search-of-a-brain called John Kerry. The new star lit up the joint posing as a Great Uniter. And four years later he made a fool of Hillary, cutting her off at the pass from seizing her supposedly ineluctable turn — and supreme glass-ceiling-breakthrough triumph — as president. Where’d he come from? This pavement-pounding community organizer with the 1000-watt smile?
In retrospect, Barack Obama appears to have been manufactured out of some misty Marxist cabal of the Far Left that infested a sub-basement of the Democratic Party. He came on-board in 2009, just as all that skeezy financialization blew up the banks and launched the era of government rescue operations that heaped previously unimaginable quantities of debt on the USA’s already unmanageable burden. Republican George Bush II got the blame for all that and Mr. Obama proceeded to make it a lot worse.
Barack Obama served as liberalism’s bowling trophy, the capstone of the great civil rights crusade: a black president, proof of America’s moral uprightness. He managed to do next to nothing to change the conditions that had wrecked black America — namely, the paternalistic policies that shattered families — but he put up a good front while the country teetered economically. And notice that his DOJ, under Attorney General Eric Holder, managed to avoid prosecuting anyone but mortgage vampire Angelo Mozilo for all the banking crimes of the day. Meanwhile, President Obama took care of Hillary by anointing her Secretary of State, from which perch she grifted tens of millions of dollars into the coffers of the janky Clinton Foundation. Smooth moves there. In the end, Mr. Obama remained an enigma, passing the baton to Her Inevitableness in 2016 — which she commenced to blow utterly in overestimating her own political charm — she had none — and underestimating the appeal of her opponent, the Golden Golem of Greatness, Donald Trump.
Mr. Trump’s astonishing victory apparently disordered Hillary’s mind. She was reportedly too drunk late that election night to even appear at the podium to make the excruciating concession speech. But her Russian Collusion operation ginned up months earlier had already set in motion a great vengeance machine which partisans in the DOJ, FBI, CIA, and State Department ran with through the whole of Mr. Trump’s term in the White House, climaxing in the orchestrated election frauds of 2020, which installed Barack Obama’s empty vessel of a stand-in “Joe Biden” as president.
The amalgamated pathologies of Barack Obama’s reign — which includes the birth of Wokery, the Jacobin-Marxist crusade to trash culture and economy — and Hillary Clinton’s psychotic thirst for revenge has transformed the Democrats into the Party of Chaos, presiding over the suicide of America, and Western Civ with it. Which, of course, prompts the question: Who exactly is running Barack Obama? I don’t pretend to know at this point. Many people I know are sure it is an international banking claque. The part that doesn’t add up is the supposed banking claque’s utter lack of political charm. Nobody in Western Civ is for them, in the sense that they offer any salvation program from either the disorders of Woke culture or the disorders of crumbling economic globalism.
Mysteries abound now, and they are disconcerting to an extreme. How did the polite and rational society called Canada fall under the punishing sway of Justin Trudeau? Ditto the apparently insane Australia and New Zealand? Ditto the Europeans, who followed America’s absurd campaign to make Ukraine a war zone, and who now face a winter with no fuel for industry or home heating — and possibly a descent into new medievalism. Perhaps the Covid bamboozle did that, just drove them over the edge. (And they will soon learn what a deadly con that was, especially the “vaccine” feature.)
Personally, I think we under-appreciate the tendings of history per se, and that tending these days is the set of circumstances adding up to a Long Emergency, a.k.a. the Fourth Turning, a.k.a, Mr. J.M. Greer’s Long Descent. In plain English, we’re exiting the techno-industrial fiesta of the past 200-odd years and entering the uncharted territory of what-comes-next, and that is driving the immense anxiety of the age. Our business model for everything is broken, mostly because the fossil fuel situation has become so uncertain, and it is driving us nuts. Understand that and you will have enough mental equipment operating correctly to stay sane.
Suicide is hardly the only option. Resist those who want to drag you into it. We are going to carry on one way or another. We’re going to make it through this bottleneck. Let the insane bury the insane. Keep your eyes peeled, keep your hearts open, and keep your powder dry.
-
https://summit.news/2022/08/24/cnn-medical-analyst-who-fiercely-advocated-masking-now-admits-it-harmed-her-own-sons-development/
A lost generation.
-
The Cancellation of Leana Wen
Woe to someone who changes her mind about Covid mandates.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
Aug. 23, 2022 6:36 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
419
Dr. Leana Wen in 2019.
PHOTO: LLOYD FOX/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Public-health commentator Leana Wen may relate to the biblical saying that a prophet is never honored in her own home. A few years ago she was pushed out as president of Planned Parenthood because she wasn’t radical enough on abortion. Now the erstwhile supporter of government Covid mandates is enduring the wrath of public-health activists for saying we need to learn to live with Covid.
Dr. Wen, a CNN commentator, was once a defender of government vaccine and mask mandates. Last fall she opined that the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandates didn’t go far enough. “Why didn’t Biden announce that he will mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel?” she said.
But her columns in recent months have sung a new Covid tune, encouraging governments to drop mask mandates and embrace “individual responsibility.” This is what some of us have argued all along. But no political epiphany goes unpunished. And now more than 600 activists are demanding that the American Public Health Association cancel her as a panelist at a conference this autumn.
The subject of her panel: “Harassment, bullying and death threats: Staying the course while under attack.” She is supposed to give advice to fellow public-health officials about how to brave a backlash to their overreaching policies. Now she’s under attack for walking back support for the left’s overreaching policies.
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.
Preview
Subscribed
Her opponents accuse her of promoting “unscientific, unsafe, ableist, fatphobic, and unethical practices.” They take issue with a column in which she argued that large events such as Washington’s Gridiron Club dinner in April should go on despite the contagion risk. “This is our new normal—one that’s based on individuals being thoughtful about their own risks and the risks they pose to others,” she wrote.
Dr. Wen’s positions “assumed a capacity for personal responsibility that was not available to vast swaths of the population,” Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation epidemiologist David Swedler told Inside Higher Ed. He captures the mindset of the public-health ruling class: People are too stupid or selfish to be allowed to make their own choices.
Apparently public-health experts also can’t be allowed to make their own decisions about whether to listen to Dr. Wen.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/talented-mr-pottinger-us-intelligence-agent-who-pushed-lockdowns
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/federal-court-blocks-biden-admin-from-forcing-doctors-to-perform-gender-transitions/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=28866754
-
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/an-ill-wind/
An Ill Wind
Something’s coming… everybody feels it…
Clusterfuck Nation
For your reading pleasure Mondays and Fridays
Support this blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page
And thanks to all my Patrons for your support
Something ominously foul rides the late summer breeze as our country, and Western Civ with it, tilts into the season of growing darkness. Can you sense it? Death is in the air, and not in the usual Halloween vaudeville mode, either, with the cackling lawn zombies and top-hatted, tap-dancing skeletons. This ain’t no foolin’ around.
We have never been so unprepared for a calamity in plain sight and that is because the people who run things have made it happen in combined acts of wickedness and stupidity. After decades of mere racketeering, arranging things so as to bankrupt anyone who gets seriously ill, corporatized health care now presides over a harvest of medically-induced death, pretending dumbly that there is nothing to see.
Get this: the people are seeing it now, and talking about it, and there will be no stopping their discovery of exactly what has gone on, or their wrath in the afterwash. The chief architect of this epic debacle, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Captain Queeg of American Public Health, has announced his exit from the scene “to pursue the next chapter of my career.” He was coy about what that might be. I think the job title is: defendant. It will be a milestone in human history to witness The Science itself go on trial, should it live long enough. What awaits to take its place? Viziers with wands and pointed hats? Crones riding broomsticks against a cold, lifeless moon? A principality of dark magic? Descent into the underworld?
The medically-induced termination of life at large scale accompanies the current effort to provoke the suicide of culture and nationhood — more orchestrated depravity and folly. Institutions are turned against us like flame-throwers. The FBI might break down your door next in its quest to suppress dissent. The composers of official mind-fuckery never sleep, assuring that you will not know which end of anything is up. Your purblind legislators just set 87,000 new IRS agents on your asses, as if that was any sort of a good idea. The courts exist to protect The Party, but which party? (What does it matter, at this point? quoth Hillary Clinton.) Take your pissant complaints about those alleged constitutional rights someplace else, like Twitter and Facebook, where they can be expunged as soon as you hit the “post” button. You’ll be dead soon, anyway.
We’ve heard ad nauseam that the Washington DC insiders, the denizens of that demi-mythic Deep State in the wealthiest metro area of all the land, look down on the rest of America. Why is that? I’ll tell you. Because the DC confederacy of grifters has gotten fat off your suffering as they have systematically wrecked and looted that rest of America, the sinking middle-class. They are living in fabulous comfort off your bamboozlement and ruin. Their contempt for you grows on your tragic breakdown like fungus on a once-mighty fallen tree. They prevailed in this world and you didn’t. You chumps are in Palookaville on your way to the bone orchard, and therefore they are better than you, ha ha ha.
There is another side of this life, in case all that has got you demoralized. That is the side where human beings say things that comport with reality, where people mean what they say and use language as if it evolved to describe things and doings with some exactitude — as in this is this and that is that… and not the inverse or opposite. That is the side of life where pretending is not the highest-and-best use of human intelligence. I know, these days it’s hard to imagine that side of life, but it’s actually still there, waiting to be reanimated.
The regime that has turned our world inside out in its Satanic pursuit of comfort and power will be stripped naked and judged, if not by official judges, then by an unstoppable consensus. The sore-beset public will take an inventory of what has been lost and begin reconstructing a scaffold of shared life that rewards fidelity to the way things actually work. It will be a rough passage out of what amounts to a hostage crisis. There will be friction and heat. You will not be comfortable, but you will be dauntless. You will certainly not have nothing or be happy about that. You will have, at least, a restored memory of what it was like to strive honorably for a life worth living.
We’re in the crucible of all that just now, where everything is white hot. Do not bend or melt. Soldier through. Be men and be women (there is truly nothing in-between, and do not fall for faithless inducements to doubt that). You are brothers and sisters in an enterprise worth saving and you have a history worth defending. Believe it.
-
Is this the right thread for that? Maybe the Western Civ thread or the WW3 thread would be better.
-
You can't be a world champion tennis player or greatest of all time without a proven ineffective vaccine? What a bunch of fascist bullshit. Meanwhile, no vaccination required at the open border, and you can get a free to anywhere in the country to spread any disease or crime.
https://www.commonsense.news/p/let-djokovic-play
"The credibility and legitimacy of public health demands two things. The rules have to make sense; they can’t be nakedly contradictory. And the rules have to benefit people. You can’t demand jumping through hoops merely for optics.
The treatment of the tennis star Novak Djokovic, who is officially blocked from competing in this year’s U.S. Open, set to begin on Monday, violates both. Keeping him from playing because he has not received a Covid-19 vaccine undermines the credibility of the White House, which set the policy, and public health more broadly. I’m saying this both as a Democrat and a doctor gravely concerned about eroded trust in our institutions"
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/114/502/798/original/26dccc70dd61a2c6.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/114/502/798/original/26dccc70dd61a2c6.jpg)
You can't be a world champion tennis player or greatest of all time without a proven ineffective vaccine? What a bunch of fascist bullshit. Meanwhile, no vaccination required at the open border, and you can get a free to anywhere in the country to spread any disease or crime.
https://www.commonsense.news/p/let-djokovic-play
"The credibility and legitimacy of public health demands two things. The rules have to make sense; they can’t be nakedly contradictory. And the rules have to benefit people. You can’t demand jumping through hoops merely for optics.
The treatment of the tennis star Novak Djokovic, who is officially blocked from competing in this year’s U.S. Open, set to begin on Monday, violates both. Keeping him from playing because he has not received a Covid-19 vaccine undermines the credibility of the White House, which set the policy, and public health more broadly. I’m saying this both as a Democrat and a doctor gravely concerned about eroded trust in our institutions"
-
A year ago yesterday
The fight isn't over, it's just begun
Alex Berenson
Aug 29
SAVE
That hot August night 12 months ago, it felt like someone had duct-taped my mouth shut.
Yes, I’d feared Twitter might ban me permanently if I kept telling the truth about the Covid vaccines. How could I not? On July 30, 2021, Twitter had locked my account after I did nothing more than report the results of Pfizer’s own vaccine clinical trial.
That “strike” was my fourth. One more and I’d be gone for good.
--
But the actual reality of August 28 – the moment I could no longer communicate with the hundreds of thousands of people who followed me or the millions reading my tweets - came as a shock.
Anyone who says being publicly “canceled” isn’t painful hasn’t had it happen.
The act is not merely meant to silence. It is meant to shame; you are so dangerous we aren’t even going to allow you to speak. And it is meant to be permanent. It is a show trial that ends in a life sentence, no appeal possible.
It is meant to be painful.
(Guess again, little bird)
That “Thanks, Twitter” is a particularly nice touch!
—
(FIGHT CENSORSHIP)
Upgrade to paid
—
After that fourth strike, I tried to protect myself – highlighting the risk of the censorship I feared – even as I reported accurately.
I suppose some part of me hoped that as long as I stuck to the data and avoided conspiracy theories, Twitter would keep the promises it had made to me.
(Unicorns all the way down)
I was wrong.
In an instant, I lost what was by far my most powerful platform for journalism, one that offered free access to people around the world. Twitter gave me the chance to speak out in real time about the unprecedented medical experiment we’d conducted on a billion people, an experiment that continues to this day.
That megaphone, mine no more.
Which is why they did it, of course.
They.
I still don’t know who they really are, though I am on the path to finding out. At the time, I knew Twitter’s attitude towards me had changed dramatically six weeks before, after President Biden said social media companies were “killing people” by allowing questions about the Covid vaccines. And I suspected the Biden Administration and others had pressured Twitter privately, but back then I didn’t have proof.
Now I do. I know that in April 2021, three months before my deplatforming started, the administration summoned Twitter employees to the White House for a meeting in which my name featured prominently.
But in April 2021, Twitter didn’t think it could do anything about me. Twitter employees told each other that they had looked at my account and I was playing by its rules.
It wasn’t even clear Twitter wanted to do anything about me. Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s chief executive, was following me. And a Twitter executive had told me repeatedly that the company believed in free debate around Covid and the vaccines and that I was not violating its policies.
For a couple of months after that meeting Twitter continued to protect me - and its commitment to free speech.
But then, in July, the Biden administration raised the stakes. In under a week, the White House devoted most of a press conference to pressuring social media companies to ban vaccine skeptics; the President made his infamous “killing people” comment; and a Biden spokesperson said the administration might try to repeal the legal protection that prevents social media companies from being sued for posts they carry or their decisions to ban users.
—
Repealing Section 230 would cut to the heart of Twitter’s business model.
And the little bird could not tolerate the heat.
In just over a month I was gone.
—
The irony is that Twitter deplatformed me just as my skepticism about the vaccines was being proven right.
Maybe irony is the wrong word. Maybe the sequence makes perfect sense. A contrarian who’s wrong is merely a crank. A contrarian who’s right is dangerous. Especially if he has a megaphone.
And did I ever have a megaphone.
Well, now I’ve got it back, bigger than ever. The 345,000 Twitter followers I had last August are now over 400,000. The 100,000 Substack subscribers are now close to a quarter-million. (Most of you don’t pay, and that’s fine, but if you do - THANK YOU.)
I have two platforms now, and two missions (if not more) - to fight for free speech (and chase down the people who helped coerce Twitter to ban me last year); and to investigate the long-term impact of the mRNA shots.
That the vaccines are useless to stop coronavirus infection or transmission - my last tweet last year, the tweet that got me banned - is now beyond question. What we need to know now is what they’re doing to the billion-plus people who took them.
Neither fight will be easy. But I’m not fighting alone.
Keep spreading the word. Keep spreading the truth.
Onward.
You’re a free subscriber to Unreported Truths. For the full experience, become a paid subscriber.
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/2673811/the-most-amazing-genocide-ever
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/2673811/the-most-amazing-genocide-ever
Plan accordingly.
-
Look Who’s Rushing Covid Vaccines Now
The FDA authorized the new ‘bivalent’ mRNA shots without any trials of their efficacy or analysis of their risk.
Allysia Finley hedcutBy Allysia FinleyFollow
Sept. 4, 2022 9:07 am ET
Democrats and the public-health clerisy denounced President Trump for rushing Covid vaccines. They’ve been curiously quiet about the Food and Drug Administration’s gunshot approval last week of revamped booster shots with no trials showing they are safe or effective.
The FDA granted emergency-use authorization to mRNA shots by Pfizer and Moderna that are bivalent, targeting the initial Wuhan variant as well as the currently predominant BA.4 and BA.5 strains. The Biden administration ordered 171 million doses earlier this summer, so FDA authorization seems to have been a fait accompli. The FDA probably should have made the reconfigured vaccines available to high-risk and elderly patients. But the case is weak for young people, given the limited benefit and uncertain risks.
The FDA is in a tough spot. The original vaccines, which targeted the Wuhan variant, are much less effective against Omicron and even less so against subvariants that evolved in rapid fire—BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5. Vaccine makers spent this winter and spring testing vaccine configurations for Omicron and future variants. Some variants—including those that never became widespread in the U.S., such as Beta—share many of the same mutations. The trouble is nobody knows how the virus will evolve.
In late June, Pfizer and Moderna presented data to an FDA advisory committee on their experimental boosters, which targeted Omicron both alone and in combination with the Wuhan variant. The BA.4 and BA.5 variants had surged relatively recently, so the vaccine makers hadn’t had time to devise and test shots targeting them.
READ MORE LIFE SCIENCE
Student-Loan Forgiveness Is Really a Bailout for Woke Higher EdAugust 28, 2022
A Bumbling Biden Fails the Monkeypox TestAugust 21, 2022
China Gets a Great Leap Forward From CongressAugust 14, 2022
GM Is Government Motors AgainAugust 9, 2022
See more...
The FDA advisers found themselves in conflict, and so were the data. Pfizer’s data showed that its Omicron-specific booster generated a stronger antibody response to Omicron than its combination vaccine. Yet Moderna’s combo booster produced a more durable immune response—i.e., antibody levels stayed high longer.
Some advisory members worried that the FDA was moving too fast with too little data. “I think we need a higher standard than what we’ve been given. I think it’s uncomfortably scant,” said Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Members also were wary of recommending new boosters that target the BA.4 and BA.5 variants given the lack of evidence. With the advisory committee at loggerheads, the FDA made the executive decision—as is its prerogative—to direct Moderna and Pfizer to reconfigure their vaccines for the BA.4 and BA.5 variants in combination with the Wuhan variant.
The White House wanted the boosters available in the fall, which didn’t leave the FDA time to wait for more studies. Even so, last week’s decision was hasty. Antibodies wane after a few months, so even if the new shots are initially effective, those who get boosted in September will be susceptible to infection again by Christmas. The FDA surely could have waited for more efficacy data.
Alternatively, it could have limited its authorization to elderly and high-risk patients, for whom the benefits, while uncertain, are more likely to outweigh the potential risks. Yet the agency couldn’t do this without acknowledging the shots carry risks, which it appears loath to do lest it encourage vaccine hesitancy.
Last Wednesday an independent analysis of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials in 2020 was published in the journal Vaccine. It found that serious adverse events like kidney disorders were 36% more common in the Pfizer vaccine than the placebo group, at a rate of one in every 555 patients dosed. A similar discrepancy wasn’t found in the Moderna trial.
This followed a Journal of the American Medical Association study this summer that found veterans who received the Pfizer vaccine were significantly more likely to experience severe health problems, including myocarditis, heart attacks and hemorrhagic stroke, in the 38 weeks after vaccination than those who got the Moderna shot.
Yet the FDA summarily concluded, “based on the totality of the scientific evidence available, that the known and potential benefits” of the Pfizer bivalent booster outweigh its “potential risks” in people 12 or older. In fact, the benefits have yet to be proved, and the FDA didn’t conduct a risk-benefit analysis.
Drugs can cause severe side effects, which sometimes are so rare that they aren’t discovered until after large numbers of people have taken them. When new evidence about risks comes to light, public-health authorities normally revise their guidance to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force last fall revised earlier guidance by recommending against older adults taking low-dose aspirin daily to reduce the risk of stroke and heart attack after evidence showed that the risk of internal bleeding from the drug exceeded the benefit.
The FDA’s failure to analyze the new boosters’ potential risks against their potential benefits for different age groups leaves Americans on their own, having to decide whom to trust. Officials have only themselves to blame when vaccine skeptics fill the vacuum of information.
-
https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/how-the-us-descended-into-pharma
-
Commentary
California’s full-time Legislature has been comprised for years of a Democratic Party super-majority, backed by Democrats in every statewide office. This has emboldened them to enact anything they want, with essentially no checks or balances.
The recently completed legislative session provided more stunning examples of their excesses. They voted to set wages for fast food workers, permit abortion through the ninth month and fund services for it for out-of-state residents, and implement climate change initiatives requiring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 85 percent. State regulators also recently voted to completely ban gas-powered vehicles by 2035.
But perhaps most stunningly, the one-party state’s lawmakers voted to suppress all dissent by doctors when it comes to COVID-19. Assembly Bill 2098 effectively creates a “Ministry of Truth” that assures all information disseminated by doctors in the state conforms with the opinion of the ruling party. It directs the state’s medical board to take action against any doctor who spreads misinformation or disinformation about COVID-19. Under the legislation, it is “unprofessional conduct” to spread such information regarding “the nature and risks of the virus; COVID-19 prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”
The bill is on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for his signature. The breadth of the proposal is astounding: It bans both misinformation and disinformation. In case you don’t know the difference, the bill defines each. The ruling party declares that “misinformation” means “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” “Disinformation” means “misinformation that the licensee deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead.”
Based on these definitions, the banning of “disinformation” could potentially be understandable, since it sets a higher standard. The doctor must be shown to act with malice or intent to mislead by providing misinformation. But the law bans misinformation! So, a doctor who merely provides information not in conformance with the “medical consensus” is subject to punishment! Is this not like the Catholic Church jailing Galileo for suggesting the earth isn’t the center of the universe? How will medicine progress if “consensus” can’t be challenged?
What must a doctor now say to avoid punishment about the “nature and risks” of the virus? The bill’s preamble states that the “global spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, or COVID-19, has claimed the lives of over 6,000,000 people worldwide, including nearly 90,000 Californians.” So, clearly the ruling party expects doctors to inform patients that COVID-19 is extremely dangerous. If a patient asks for advice as to whether it is safe to travel or attend a large event, doctors must now be extremely careful what they say.
What must a doctor say about “prevention and treatment” for COVID-19? Is it okay to suggest building up the immune system and taking zinc as a means of prevention? Or must the doctor push the vaccine? Considering the preamble notes that “the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines have been confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration,” it appears anything other than pushing the vaccine would be deemed illegal misinformation.
For treatment, we already know the ruling party opposes the use of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine (for unknown reasons), so the law presumably bans doctors from discussing these options.
What must a doctor say about the “effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines?” The preamble declares that “misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines has weakened public confidence and placed lives at serious risk.” So, the ruling party has made clear that anything other than information designed to encourage taking the vaccine is strictly prohibited.
The law turns the state’s medical board into a Ministry of Truth designed to prohibit any dissent from the ruling party’s position on COVID-19. Incredibly, it comes at a time when the effectiveness of the vaccine is more in doubt than ever.
President Joe Biden told Americans that if you get the vaccine, you won’t get COVID-19; that turned out to be incorrect. His medical chief, Dr. Anthony Fauci, is on record stating if you have had the flu, taking a flu vaccine isn’t necessary, but he now pushes the vaccine regardless of prior infection. The vaccine no longer consists of a single shot but ongoing “boosters.”
It has been proven ineffective against numerous variants, and its side effects are becoming more and more known with time, including thousands of deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s reporting system.
Reporting side effects of medications is mandated by the Food and Drug Administration. We see them take up half of the ad time for prescription drugs. Yet, reporting them in California now will likely get a doctor punished. Big Tech has been censoring such information throughout the pandemic.
For example, YouTube took down one of my “Hidden Truth Show” podcasts, titled “Actress Sally Kirkland Suffers Severe Side Effects from Vaccine.” All she did was report her personal experience with major vertigo following the vaccine.
We are taught to always seek a second opinion on serious medical issues. California seeks to ban second opinions. If Newsom signs the bill, there will be only one approved opinion, that of the state. And this will no doubt only be the start. A law banning transgender “misinformation” will not be far behind.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
Judge Orders Fauci to Cough It Up
Jeffrey A. Tucker
Jeffrey A. Tucker
September 8, 2022
A lawsuit against the federal government—Anthony Fauci in particular—from the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana has been brewing for a good part of the summer of 2022. The issue concerns the censoring of certain high-level experts on social media, three of whom are senior scholars of the Brownstone Institute. We know for sure that this censorship began early in the pandemic response and included exchanges between Fauci and then head of NIH Francis Collins, who called for a “quick and devastating takedown” of the Great Barrington Declaration.
At issue is whether and to what extent the government itself has had a hand in encouraging tech companies to squelch speech rights. If so, this is unconstitutional. It flies in the face of the First Amendment. It never should have happened. That it did required arduous legal means to expose and, hopefully, stop.
The Framers guaranteed that Congress would make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The Constitution never allowed an exception for an administrative bureaucracy answerable not even to voters to collaborate with large-scale private corporations to obtain the same result by other means. It’s still a violation of free speech.
It is of course true that any private company can regulate itself and make terms of use. But matters are different when its managers directly collude with government agencies to distribute only information of high priority to administrative bureaucrats while censoring dissident voices at the behest of government and its interests.
In order to determine if that happened, courts need access to full information on precisely what was going in their circles of communication. On Sept. 6, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty released a decision that orders the government to give up information relevant to the case and do so in 21 days.
Dr. Fauci’s communications would be relevant to Plaintiffs’ allegations in reference to alleged suppression of speech relating to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin, and to alleged suppression of speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns. (Karine) Jean-Pierre’s communications as White House Press Secretary could be relevant to all of Plaintiffs’ examples.
Government Defendants are making a blanket assertion of all communications to social media platforms by Dr. Fauci, and Jean-Pierre based upon executive privilege and presidential communications privilege. Plaintiffs concede they are not asking for any internal White House communications, but only external communications between Dr. Fauci and/or Jean-Pierre and third-party social media platforms.
This Court believes Plaintiffs are entitled to external communications by Jean-Pierre and Dr. Fauci in their capacities as White House Press Secretary and Chief Medical Advisor to the President to third-party social media platforms….
The initial complaint was filed May 5, 2022 and can be read in full here. It includes vast evidence of collusion between government officials and social media companies. But the government answered by claiming some kind of executive privilege and would not fork over information.
An amended complaint added the fireworks: It documented that 50 government officials in a dozen agencies were involved in applying pressure to social media companies to censor users, reports Zachary Stieber of The Epoch Times.
That second filing might have flipped the switch and resulted in the judge’s decision to pull no punches. Indeed, it is a remarkable document, reproducing vast amounts of correspondence between government agencies and Facebook, Google, and Twitter.
What you see here is not antagonism but obsequious friendship: ongoing, relentless, guileless, as if nothing could be wrong here. They knew what they believed to be the problem voices and were determined to stamp them out. And that target included the documented censorship of top scientists associated with Brownstone Institute along with thousands of other credible experts and regular citizens who disagreed with the government’s extreme policy response to COVID.
Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Kheriaty, and Jay Bhattacharya are represented in the filing by the New Civil Liberties Alliance with Jenin Younes leading the legal team for the scientists. Within weeks, we’ll have a better sense of whether and to what extent these individuals were the targets directly and how many other accounts were named in takedown orders. For example, we know for sure that Naomi Wolf, another writer for Brownstone, was directly named in correspondence between the CDC and Facebook.
All of this went on for the better part of two years, during which time the First Amendment was a dead letter insofar as it concerned COVID information on platforms that are overwhelmingly dominant on the internet. Through those means, individual citizens were restricted in their access to a diversity of views and instead inhabit a world of censorship and tedious hegemonic exhortation that have seriously hurt the credibility of the platforms that cooperated.
Finally we see courts coming around to the view that government needs to be held accountable for its actions. It is happening far too little and far too late but at least it is happening. And at long last, we might gain a clearer look into the mysterious works of Fauci and its imperial reign over American public health during the worst crisis for constitutional rights in many generations.
From the Brownstone Institute
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
Continuing COVID craziness shows it was never about the science
By Karol Markowicz
September 18, 2022 6:18pm Updated
New York City public school students can't participate in school sports without the COVID-19 vaccine.
Brigitte Stelzer
Karol Markowicz
The pandemic is essentially over, right?
For some, yes. For others, not so much.
It was only June when unvaccinated Canadians were finally allowed to leave the country, for reasons unclear to anyone. The vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, so how did it make sense to keep the unvaccinated behind the frozen curtain? It didn’t.
But that’s Canada. It’s completely lost the plot with COVID and chucked all its previously freedom-loving ideals out the nearest window, eh? America wouldn’t behave like that, right?
Except we are.
Tennis player Novak Djokovic couldn’t travel to America to compete in the US Open in August because he’s unvaccinated. No foreigner may enter the United States without being fully vaccinated. Unless, of course, they walk across our border. That’s right. If you’re visiting, stay away with your COVID-infested self. If you’re trying to stay here forever, bring that COVID right in.
If you’re looking for consistency in COVID-19 policies, you can stop right now. None of it has ever made sense. The fractured trust between Americans and our institutions will be immeasurable. And the damage continues.
New York City kids don’t need a COVID vaccination to attend schools but do need it to play school sports. Think about this. These kids can go to school, have lunch with their friends, take school trips and play sports during gym class, but they can’t play in an after-school league.
Many kids rely on sports to pay for their higher education. Think about all the kids who no longer exercise after school because they can’t play sports.
If we’re doing this for kids’ “health,” we’re doing it all wrong. The poor will be most hurt by these no-science-anywhere rules. Professional athletes playing in the city, obviously, have no such mandate.
The New York City Department of Education fired another 850 teachers and classroom aides for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine.
Gregory P. Mango
It’s not just sports. A few days ago, New York City’s Department of Education fired another 850 teachers and classroom aides, bringing the total to approximately 1,950 DOE workers let go since the October 2021 vaccine mandate. It was a terrible thing to do, even back then, but a year later we have an avalanche of information, about the way COVID spreads and what the vaccines can’t do, that renders the decision not just foolish but cruel.
As The Post’s Susan Edelman reported a few days ago, “In all, NYC has fired more than 2,600 municipal workers not fully vaccinated.” This, when we’re told New York and so many other places are in the middle of a teacher shortage. These teachers are exploring opportunities in faraway places like Long Island. Make it make sense.
850 more unvaxxed NYC teachers, aides fired for not complying with mandate
Parents also can’t enter New York school buildings if unvaccinated. That includes parents of special-needs children, who must interact with teachers. These nonsensical rules are causing lasting damage.
If you’re vaccinated and thinking “Those people should just get vaccinated,” you’re missing the point. I’m vaccinated, too. But there’s absolutely no reason my Johnson & Johnson shot from March 2021 should gain me any privileges not accorded to others. Studies show the vaccine’s effectiveness wears off after a few months and transmission can happen at any time.
Forced compliance for the fun of it should not be health policy.
And no, boosters don’t mean you’re any safer. In fact, the Biden administration isn’t labeling the latest shot a “booster” at all. White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre called it a “new vaccine.” You might find yourself back with the “unvaccinated” sooner than you think.
But don’t take my word for it. Throughout the pandemic, the line from politicians forcing their will on us has been “We must listen to the CDC!” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whose guidance we’d ignored while we ate sushi (a big no-no) and medium-cooked burgers (seriously, are you trying to die at this picnic?), suddenly spouted the word of God.
Well, the CDC recommends to “no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur.” Yet somehow we’re no longer “following the science”?
It’s maddening. And it’s easy to forget these people left behind. But we will feel the effects of their absence. The policeman who’s no longer walking the beat, the firefighter who worked through the pandemic but now is off the job, the teachers missing from your child’s classroom because they wouldn’t do as they were told. And we’ll see repercussions from taking things away from youth because they would not comply.
We have won absolutely nothing with these vaccine mandates — but will have lost so much.
Politicians did so many backward, horrible things in the name of safety throughout COVID. The continuing vaccine mandates are a reminder that the pandemic is over for many, but the harm goes on
-
Biden : "the pandemic is over!"
Dems/MSM : "HE CRUSHED IT! "
:wink:
-
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/14/global-covid-pandemic-response-bill-gates-partners-00053969
-
Executive Order Advances Biotech-Transhumanist Agenda
BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIMESEPTEMBER 26, 2022 PRINT
I predicted this ‘no testing required’ formula would spread beyond COVID shots, and according to the executive order Biden just signed, that’s exactly what’s about to happen.
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
September 12, 2022, President Biden signed the “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy”
Specified in that order is the development of genetic engineering technologies and techniques “to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers,” as well as genetic technologies to “unlock the power of biological data” using “computing tools and artificial intelligence”
This executive order establishes a fast-tracked pipeline of mRNA shots and other gene therapies that will further the transhumanist agenda to create augmented humans and bring us into a post-human world
Drug makers have clearly expected this free-for-all as they have loads of mRNA candidates in their pipelines. September 14, 2022, Pfizer initiated a Phase 3 study that will test a quadrivalent mRNA-based flu shot on 25,000 American adults
Moderna began its Phase 3 mRNA flu jab trial in early June 2022. Ultimately, Moderna wants to create an annual mRNA shot that covers all of the top 10 viruses that result in hospitalizations each year
September 12, 2022, President Biden signed the “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.”1
Specified in that order is the development of genetic engineering technologies and techniques “to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers,” as well as genetic technologies to “unlock the power of biological data” using “computing tools and artificial intelligence.”
Additionally, “obstacles for commercialization” will be reduced “so that innovative technologies and products can reach markets faster.” What we have here is, in a nutshell, the creation of a fast-tracked mRNA pipeline.
When, in June 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration quietly implemented a “Future Framework” scheme 2 to deliver reformulated COVID boosters without additional testing, I predicted that this “no testing required” formula would spread beyond COVID shots. And, according to this executive order, that’s exactly what’s about to happen.
In early September 2022, the FDA also put out medically false and misleading COVID booster campaign messages that prove we’ve officially entered the era of transhumanism:
“It’s time to install that update! #UpdateYourAntibodies with a new #COVID19 booster.”3 “Don’t be shocked! You can now #RechargeYourImmunity with an updated #COVID19 booster.”4
recharge your immunity
Is This the Death Knell to Allopathic Medicine?
Historically, gene therapies have had to jump through extra hoops, which is why so few exist on the market. As of 2021, there were 20 gene therapies commercially available.5 The world’s first gene therapy trial didn’t begin until 1990, so this is still a very new field.
The entire gene therapy field actually collapsed overnight in 1999, when a teenage trial participant died from side effects. An FDA investigation concluded research had moved too fast and that safety “had not been put first.”6 Progress, thanks to increased caution, slowed from there on.
Such caution is now being thrown to the wind, and it’s not difficult to predict there will be disastrous ramifications. Millions will die from poorly tested gene therapies and, eventually, medical research and allopathic medicine will both cease to exist, as survivors vow to have nothing to do with that murderous cabal ever again.
The only way they might be able to keep going is if they are in control of people’s brain function and/or able to force drugs under threat of death, or worse — neither of which is impossible at this point, shockingly enough. In the meantime, we’re looking at a cornucopia of mRNA shots coming our way.
mRNA Flu Shots Are in the Works
Not surprisingly, mRNA flu shots are in the works.7 While we probably won’t see mRNA flu shots during the 2022/2023 winter season, there’s every reason to expect they’ll be rolled out next year.
September 14, 2022, Pfizer initiated a Phase 3 study, which will test a quadrivalent mRNA-based flu shot on 25,000 American adults.8 Pfizer is also exploring mRNA technology that uses self-amplifying RNA (saRNA), for potential use in the future.9
Moderna began its Phase 3 mRNA flu jab trial in early June 2022.10 It’s also working on mRNA shots for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV), which is in the herpes family, as well as a SARS-CoV-2-influenza combination shot. Ultimately, Moderna wants to create an annual mRNA shot that covers all of the top 10 viruses that result in hospitalizations each year.11
Its current flu jab candidate, mRNA-1010, encodes for the hemagglutinin (HA) glycoproteins of four different influenza strains, including influenza A/H1N1, A/H3N2, influenza B/Yamagata and B/Victoria. According to Moderna:12
“HA is a major influenza surface glycoprotein that is considered an important target to generate broad protection against influenza and is the primary target of currently available influenza vaccines.”
The Transhumanist Agenda
Over the past three years, I’ve written several articles exploring the transhumanist agenda, which all these mRNA shots and genetic technologies are part and parcel of. Basically, the goal of the transhumanist movement is to transcend biology through technology, and to meld human biology with technology and artificial intelligence.
In September 2020, I posted a video with Dr. Carrie Madej (above), in which she suggested we were standing at the crossroads of transhumanism, thanks to the fast approaching release of mRNA COVID-19 shots.
“One reason why it’s important to know whether synthetic RNA creates permanent changes in the genome is because synthetic genes are patented. If they cause permanent changes, humans will contain patented genes, and that brings up very serious questions, seeing how patents have owners, and owners have patent rights.”
Since these shots are designed to manipulate your biology, they have the potential to also alter the biology of the entire human race. Nearly two years later, we still don’t know the extent to which they might be doing that, yet more fast-tracked and untested gene therapies are on the way.
One reason why it’s important to know for certain whether synthetic RNA ends up creating permanent changes in the genome is because synthetic genes are patented. If they cause permanent changes, humans will contain patented genes, and that brings up very serious questions, seeing how patents have owners, and owners have patent rights.
US Defense Department Aims to Create Human Cyborgs
The hydrogel used to preserve the mRNA can also contain nanobots to create a bioelectric interface capable of connecting to a smartphone or other interface. Novel technologies that measure biological data, such as blood sugar, are based on this. Such technologies will, of course, have immediate ramifications for our privacy.
Who will collect and have access to all this data? Who will be responsible for protecting it? How will it be used? Also, if your cellphone can receive information from your body, what information can your body receive from it, or other sources? Could transmissions affect your mood? Your behavior? Your physical function? Your thoughts or memories?
So far, it doesn’t appear as though the COVID shots have these kinds of capabilities built in, but we do know for a fact that militaries around the world are exploring and working toward such capabilities. In fact, it’s an arms race in its own right.
In his September 14, 2022, Substack article,13 “Human Cyborgs Are Just the Beginning,” Dr. Robert Malone reviewed several of those plans. Certain report titles alone tell the story, such as the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Biotechnologies for Health and Human Performance Council’s report,14 “Cyborg Soldier 2050: Human/Machine Fusion and the Implications for the Future of the DOD.” It doesn’t leave a whole lot to the imagination, does it? According to the assessment abstract:
“The primary objective of this effort was to forecast and evaluate the military implications of machines that are physically integrated with the human body to augment and enhance human performance over the next 30 years.
This report summarizes this assessment and findings; identifies four potential military-use cases for new technologies in this area; and assesses their impact upon the DOD organizational structure, warfighter doctrine and tactics, and interoperability with U.S. allies and civil society.”
Human augmentation technologies deemed technically feasible by 2050 at the latest include ocular enhancements to improve sight and situational awareness, optogenetic bodysuit to restore or improve muscular strength and control, auditory enhancements, and neural enhancement of the brain for two-way data transfers and brain-to-brain communication.
Changing What It Means To Be Human
In “The Plan to Turn You Into a Genetically Edited Cyborg,” I covered another shockingly dystopian report by the U.K. Ministry of Defense and the German Bundeswehr Office for Defense Planning, published in May 2021.
That report, “Human Augmentation — The Dawn of a New Paradigm, a Strategic Implications Project,”15 reviews the scientific goals of the U.K. and German defense ministries, and they basically mirror that of the U.S. DOD. On page 12 of the report, the concept of the human body as a platform is described, and how various parts of the human platform can be augmented. For example:
Physical performance such as strength, dexterity, speed and endurance can be enhanced, as well as physical senses. One example given is gene editing for enhanced sight
Psychological performance such as cognition, emotion and motivation can be influenced to activate and direct desired behavior. Examples of cognitive augmentation include improving memory, attention, alertness, creativity, understanding, decision-making, intelligence and vigilance
Social performance — “The ability to perceive oneself as part of a group and the readiness to act as part of the team” — can be influenced. Communication skills, collaboration and trust are also included here
They list several different ways to influence the physical, psychological and social performance of the “human platform,” including genetics (germ line and somatic modification), synthetic biology, invasive (internal) and noninvasive (external) brain interfaces, passive and powered exoskeletons, drugs and nano technology, neurostimulation, augmented reality technologies such as external holograms or glasses with built-in artificial intelligence, and sensory augmentation technologies such as external sensors or implants.
As noted in this report, “Human augmentation has the potential to … change the meaning of what it means to be a human.” This is precisely what Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), has stated is the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution.16
WEF has been at the center of global affairs for more than 40 years, and if you take the time to dive into WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution material, you realize that it’s all about transhumanism. It’s about the merger of man and machine.
This is a dystopian future that WEF and its global allies are actively trying to implement, whether humanity at large agrees with it or not. Importantly, the “Human Augmentation” report readily admits that human augmentation can “directly enhance behavior.”
And, if you think these reports are just brain fodder for geeks in uniforms, think again. The U.K. Defense and Security Accelerator (DASA) is currently, right now, accepting proposals for human augmentation technologies such as those listed above.17 Grants of 70,000 euros ($74,000), will be given to proposals that can provide proof of concept.
We’re Already Being Programmed to Accept Transhumanism
Both the DOD’s “Cyborg Soldier” report and the British/German “Human Augmentation” reports discuss the fact that human augmentation will inevitably widen already existing disparities, inequalities and inequities, and therefore, “efforts should be undertaken to reverse negative cultural narratives of enhancement technologies.”18
In other words, don’t let people come to the conclusion that human cyborgs are a bad idea, because at worst that might prevent their development, and at best, it’ll pitch regular people against the augmented elite, making their efforts to rule the plebs more difficult.
As noted by Malone, “Once again, we are being played before we even know what the playing field looks like.”19
Disturbingly, considering how nontransparent governments have been so far, it’s not inconceivable that technologies capable of influencing thoughts and behaviors would be used on populations without informing anyone, which makes the list of potential risks one takes with each new mRNA injection even longer than it already is.
But we don’t need to be genetically reengineered or have nanobots introduced into our brains to be at risk of outside manipulation. That’s already happening through noninvasive means.
Control Capabilities Go Far Beyond Orwell’s ‘1984’ Vision
In a November 2019 interview with CNN,20 history professor Yuval Noah Harari, a Klaus Schwab disciple, stated that humans are already “hackable,” meaning the technology exists by which a company or government can know you better than you know yourself, and this knowledge can be used for both good and ill.
According to Harari, the available capabilities already go far beyond Orwell’s “1984” authoritarian vision, and it’s only going to become more powerful from here.
He predicted that algorithms will increasingly be used to make decisions that historically have been made by humans, either yourself or someone else, including whether or not you’ll be hired for a particular job, whether you’ll be granted a loan, what scholastic curriculum you will follow and even whom you will marry.
To learn more about the larger issues of transhumanism and the race to merge man with machine and artificial intelligence, check out the Truthstream Media video below.
For example, there are even ongoing attempts to upload the human mind into the cloud, ultimately creating a form of “digital hive mind” where everyone communicates via “Wi-Fi telepathy.” This, despite the fact we still do not fully understand what “the mind” actually is, or where it’s located.
Final Thoughts
I don’t know what it will take to prevent the dystopian post-human world envisioned by Schwab and his technocratic minions, but I suspect education would be a cornerstone of such an endeavor. In order for there to be a resistance, enough people need to be aware of what the plan is, and where we’re actually being led with all these novel therapies and inventions.
In the shorter term, it’s crucial to realize that the fast-tracking of “genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers” means they’re going to cut corners. Loads of them.
Testing is basically going to be done on the population at large, just as they’ve done with the COVID jabs. The results of such experimentation are relatively predictable. People will be seriously injured and many will die. So, think long and hard before you agree to take any of these forthcoming gene therapies.
References
1Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy
2FDA Briefing Document June 28, 2022
3Twitter FDA September 7, 2022
4Twitter FDA September 9, 2022
5Gene Therapy Industry Report 2021
6Gene Therapy Industry Report 2021
7Time September 14, 2022
8Pfizer September 14, 2022
9Pfizer September 14, 2022
10Moderna June 7, 2022
11CNBC January 10, 2022
12Moderna June 7, 2022
13RW Malone Substack September 14, 2022
14Cyborg Soldier 2050: Human/Machine Fusion and the Implications for the Future of the DOD
15Human Augmentation — The Dawn of a New Paradigm, a Strategic Implications Project May 2021
16WEF The Fourth Industrial Revolution
17The Defense Post May 5, 2022
18Cyborg Soldier 2050: Human/Machine Fusion and the Implications for the Future of the DOD
19RW Malone Substack September 14, 2022
20CNN November 26, 2019
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
-
https://tldavis.substack.com/p/talking-to-the-dead
-
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/401238.php
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/117/321/062/original/974db75fc21ee11f.png
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/117/321/062/original/974db75fc21ee11f.png)
-
Hearing on Dr. Nass Suspension Set for Oct. 11 After Maine Medical Board Withdraws ‘Misinformation’ Allegations
BY THE DEFENDER STAFF TIMEOCTOBER 7, 2022 PRINT
CHD.TV will livestream the Maine Board of Licensure’s hearing, set for Oct. 11 at 1 p.m. Eastern, on the board’s Jan. 12 suspension of Dr. Meryl Nass’s medical license.
This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website
The Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine next week will hold a hearing related to the board’s Jan. 12 suspension of Dr. Meryl Nass’s medical license.
CHD.TV will livestream Nass’s hearing on Oct. 11, 1 p.m. Eastern. You can watch here.
Nass’s original suspension order included accusations of spreading “misinformation.” However, the board on Sept. 26 withdrew six of those accusations and, on Sept. 30, withdrew more of its factual allegations related to “misinformation.”
Next week’s hearing will focus on Nass’s prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to treat COVID-19 and on record-keeping issues.
There are no patient complaints for the board to review.
According to her opening statement, Nass will introduce 286 pages of e-mails and letters from her patients and others, attesting to her competency, care and responsiveness to patient needs.
You can read two of the board’s recent notices withdrawing various complaints (second and third notices), Nass’s opening statement to the board and defense counsel’s timeline of events that led to her suspension.
Commenting on Nass’s suspension, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President and General Counsel said:
“The Board’s attempts to censor physicians like Nass have no role in medicine or science. They present a grave danger to the health and human rights of all Americans.”
CHD is supporting Nass’s defense. Testifying experts will include: Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus in epidemiology at Yale University; Dr. Paul Marik, pulmonary and critical care specialist; Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccine technology; Dr. Pierre Kory, intensive care specialist; Dr. Steven Katsis, surgeon and member of the Oklahoma Medical Board.
Prior to her suspension, in November 2021, Nass wrote to the board asking it to define what it means by “misinformation” and “disinformation,” and to clarify what statutory authority the board has to discipline physicians on the basis of undefined transgressions.
Nass wrote the letter after the board issued a position statement in which it said:
“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license.”
The board did not respond to her letter, Nass told The Defender today.
Suspended Without a Hearing
The board suspended Nass, an internist with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, a biological warfare epidemiologist and member of the CHD scientific advisory committee, after accusing her of “unprofessional” and “disruptive” behavior based on her public criticism of government COVID-19 policies and early treatment of the virus.
Prior to her suspension, throughout her 40 years of practicing medicine, Nass never had a malpractice case or a prior board action taken against her.
However, between October and December 2021, the board received four complaints against her.
Two of the complaints came from strangers who cited “misinformation” they saw on the internet, one came from a physician who accused Nass of prescribing “deworming medication” (ivermectin) and one came from a midwife regarding Nass’ prescribing hydroxychloroquine.
Without a hearing, the board ordered her license immediately suspended, demanded a neuropsychological evaluation and implied that she was mentally impaired or a substance abuser and incompetent to practice medicine.
Nass’s Maine counsel, Gene Libby and Tyler Smith, moved to dismiss all charges and asked the board to apologize to Nass for what they characterized as its unfounded case, intended to silence Nass and like-minded physicians who used effective early treatments for COVID-19 instead of advising their patients to do nothing until or unless they became ill enough to require hospitalization.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC
BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/florida-surgeon-general-recommends-against-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-males-aged-18-39
-
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/10/covid-republican-democrat-deaths/
Is this accurate?
How do we respond?
-
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/10/covid-republican-democrat-deaths/
Is this accurate?
How do we respond?
1. Establish leftist talking point.
2. Leftist “scientists” cherry-pick or blatantly falsify data to fit the leftist narrative.
3. Respond to any skepticism with “Rheee! Why do you hate science?”
-
Though presumably accurate, do we have anything more specific than that?
-
Though presumably accurate, do we have anything more specific than that?
I cite the holy leftist text of the NY Slimes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/health/cloth-masks-covid-cdc.html
-
Though presumably accurate, do we have anything more specific than that?
I cite the holy leftist text of the NY Slimes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/health/cloth-masks-covid-cdc.html
https://www.city-journal.org/masks-still-dont-work
Has your Dr friend developed a perfectly normal case of myocardia yet?
-
Agreed, but non-responsive to the assertion of higher death rates for Reps than Dems.
-
Agreed, but non-responsive to the assertion of higher death rates for Reps than Dems.
Age range is probably the biggest factor. The older you are, the more likely you are conservative.
-
That was the one thing that occurred to me.
-
Age range is probably the biggest factor. The older you are, the more likely you are conservative.
That was my first reaction too but it seems they sorted deaths by age group.
Also seems they count all excess deaths, not just those labeled covid.
Maybe the vaccine saves lives. But the 4 'excess deaths' in my circles lately were vaccinated.
The future may discredit these studies.
They certainly didn't control all other variables, but nothing obvious jumps out.
-
Age range is probably the biggest factor. The older you are, the more likely you are conservative.
That was my first reaction too but it seems they sorted deaths by age group.
Also seems they count all excess deaths, not just those labeled covid.
Maybe the vaccine saves lives. But the 4 'excess deaths' in my circles lately were vaccinated.
The future may discredit these studies.
They certainly didn't control all other variables, but nothing obvious jumps out.
Odds are, it's all bullshit. Always assume the left is lying and you'll be correct.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/hopkins-gaslighting-masses
-
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6313966982112?fbclid=IwAR3aBhQDyhFUsMiulW3COH-i1J7ZRHBpWSotQugZfP1YZblQ-xsYfYpU1jM
also
CDC Advisers Poised for Major Vote on COVID-19 Vaccines for Children
By Zachary Stieber October 18, 2022 Updated: October 19, 2022biggersmaller Print
0:00
4:45
1
Advisers to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are scheduled to vote on adding COVID-19 vaccines to a program for children.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), an advisory panel to the centers (CDC), will vote on Oct. 19 on adding COVID-19 vaccines to the Vaccines For Children program, according to a draft agenda (pdf) for the meeting.
The taxpayer-funded program provides vaccines for free to children who “might not otherwise be vaccinated because of inability to pay,” according to the CDC.
Advisers are also poised to vote on Thursday on the 2023 vaccination schedules for children and adolescents.
The agenda does not make clear whether advisers will consider adding COVID-19 vaccines to the immunization schedules, but experts say that vaccines that are recommended for the Vaccines For Children program must be part of the schedules.
The timing of the votes “is persuasive for the ACIP adding the COVID vaccine to the recommended schedule this week, whether officially licensed by FDA for young children or not, because vaccines covered by VFC have to be on the CDC recommended schedule,” Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, told The Epoch Times via email.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted emergency use authorization to several COVID-19 vaccines for children. It has approved, or licensed, Pfizer’s vaccine for people 12 and older.
The vaccination schedules are utilized by pediatricians and other doctors across the country. Many states require children and adolescents to receive the vaccines on the schedule to attend school.
CDC spokespersons and Stephanie Thomas, an ACIP management specialist for the agency, did not respond to requests for comment.
The vaccination schedules are recommended by ACIP but need approval by three entities: the CDC, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). All three have been relentlessly promoting COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic, even after the effectiveness proved to be worse against newer virus variants and the number of side effects has grown.
An AAFP spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that the group supports all eligible people getting a COVID-19 vaccine, including the new booster, saying, “Vaccines are safe, effective and save lives.”
“If ACIP recommends the COVID-19 vaccine be added to the childhood vaccination schedule, the AAFP will follow its process of reviewing the recommendation through the AAFP Commission on Health of the Public and Science before issuing clinical guidance to family physicians,” the spokesperson added.
The AAP did not return a query.
Another group, the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists, said it opposes adding the shots to the immunization schedules.
“This is a dangerous idea that will only benefit the vaccine manufacturers at the expense of the best interests of kids,” the association said in a statement. “Not only do the shots have essentially no meaningfully positive impact on children’s health, the fact that the risk of severe adverse events are greater than any potential small benefit is becoming increasingly evident.”
The public can submit comments on the vote here.
Parents have been increasingly reluctant to get their children vaccinated as the pandemic has worn on, CDC data show. Just 9 million children between 5 and 11, and approximately 600,000 younger children, have completed a primary series as of Oct. 12. There are about 47.5 million children 11 or younger in the United States.
Some have said that federal law prevents adding vaccines that have not been approved to the vaccination schedules, but Fisher, with the vaccine information center, said she was not aware of any such language in a law.
Still, if the vaccines did make it onto the schedules, it would be unprecedented, Fisher said.
“I think it will really come down to whether the majority of ACIP members are comfortable with voting to add a vaccine to the child schedule that is not yet licensed by FDA for young children,” she said.
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated with a comment from the AAFP.
-
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-authorities-are-our-enemies/
"Adding the mRNA shots to the official vaccine schedule will make permanent the liability shield their makers enjoy under the current emergency use authorization (EUA). Pfizer and Moderna are now off-the-hook for any responsibility, unless fraud over the vaxxes is proven in a court of law."
Hat tip to GM, who posted this in the Epidemic thread.
-
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-authorities-are-our-enemies/
"Adding the mRNA shots to the official vaccine schedule will make permanent the liability shield their makers enjoy under the current emergency use authorization (EUA). Pfizer and Moderna are now off-the-hook for any responsibility, unless fraud over the vaxxes is proven in a court of law."
Hat tip to GM, who posted this in the Epidemic thread.
Safe and effective! For Big Pharma!
For you, not so much...
-
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-authorities-are-our-enemies/
"Adding the mRNA shots to the official vaccine schedule will make permanent the liability shield their makers enjoy under the current emergency use authorization (EUA). Pfizer and Moderna are now off-the-hook for any responsibility, unless fraud over the vaxxes is proven in a court of law."
Hat tip to GM, who posted this in the Epidemic thread.
Safe and effective! For Big Pharma!
For you, not so much...
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/118/485/532/original/0421bccf95d8f072.jpeg
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/118/485/532/original/0421bccf95d8f072.jpeg)
-
Exactly.
-
The CDC Pushes to Vaccinate Toddlers, Again
Its decision to include Covid-19 shots in children’s schedules is based on far-too-flimsy evidence.
Allysia Finley hedcutBy Allysia FinleyFollow
Oct. 23, 2022 12:44 pm ET
Is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention trying to give vaccine skeptics a shot in the arm? That’s the message its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices sent last week with its vote to add Covid-19 vaccines to childhood vaccination schedules.
Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf stressed that the CDC isn’t mandating vaccines for kids. “Mandates are not the remit of either CDC or FDA,” he tweeted on Oct. 19. Didn’t the CDC argue the opposite in court when defending its mask requirement for public transportation?
It’s true that states and localities don’t have to follow the CDC’s recommendations when deciding which shots kids must receive to attend daycare and school, but they usually do. One CDC panelist said the vote was merely symbolic. But symbolism matters.
Why else did face masks become so controversial? Given the scant evidence supporting widespread use of nonmedical-grade masks, many conservatives perceived masking as another instance of liberals imposing scientifically baseless rituals on nonadherent Americans. The same is now true with vaccinating children.
Most conservatives don’t oppose vaccines per se. But never before has the CDC recommended, or the FDA authorized, a vaccine for children based on such thin evidence of benefits and lack of clarity on potential risks.
It’s generally accepted that kids are at much lower risk for severe Covid than adults. One study, released earlier this month, estimated that only 3 of every million kids who have been infected with Covid have died from it. Children also are much less likely to get severely sick with Covid than with some other bugs.
In Moderna’s toddler trial, no child in either the placebo or vaccine group was hospitalized with Covid, but at least 15 were for other infections including RSV, adenovirus, rhinovirus, metapneumovirus and Epstein-Barr. The two toddlers in Pfizer’s trial who were most severely ill with Covid also tested positive for other viruses, which probably exacerbated their infections.
The FDA authorized the vaccines for children primarily based on an “immunogenicity” analysis comparing their antibody levels with those of adults who received the shots. But antibodies are only one component of immunity, and the immune systems of children and adults differ in important ways. Children have stronger “innate” immune responses, which essentially carpet-bomb germs. On the other hand, children’s adaptive immunity, which operates more like tactical-weapon systems, is less developed. Children may not require the same level of antibodies to achieve the same protection as adults.
Normally, the FDA requires vaccines to be tested in randomized controlled trials with tens of thousands of people before approval, as it did with the original Covid vaccines for adults. Large-scale trials can help public-health authorities determine whether the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. But the trials on children were too small to draw conclusions.
It’s true that most kids who received vaccines in the trials didn’t experience much worse than a swollen arm, fatigue, headache or low-grade fever. On the other hand, most kids who catch Covid don’t either.
Yet some children who were vaccinated in the trials did suffer worse symptoms. About 0.8% of adolescents who received the Pfizer vaccines developed swollen lymph nodes—four times the rate in the placebo group. Then there’s the case of 12-year-old Maddie de Garay, whose second dose immediately preceded a cascade of ailments that has left her wheelchair-bound.
Twelve hours after her second dose, Maddie began to develop severe stomach pain, sensations of electric shocks down her spine, and chest pain, her mother Stephanie reported to the FDA. Maddie later developed mysterious rashes, blood in her urine, dizziness, convulsions, tinnitus, memory loss, extreme fatigue and eventually the loss of feeling from her waist down, among other debilitating conditions that hospitalized her for 64 days.
A New England Journal of Medicine write-up on the Pfizer trial, however, reported “there were no vaccine-related serious adverse events and few overall severe adverse events.” The FDA emergency-use authorization for Pfizer’s vaccines for adolescents pithily noted that one trial participant reported “generalized neuralgia” and was diagnosed with “functional abdominal pain.” That’s all?
Pfizer says it and the vaccine clinical-trial investigator “each independently evaluated this case and concluded that it isn’t related to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The information about the case was shared with health authorities.” The FDA didn’t respond to request for comment.
It’s impossible to conclude with any certainty whether the vaccine caused Maddie’s maladies. But it doesn’t help the credibility of public-health authorities to whitewash her case.
One reason many conservatives don’t trust Covid-19 vaccines is because they don’t trust public-health authorities. And for good reason. Since the beginning of the pandemic, these experts and officials have repeatedly shown a lack of candor and respect for the intelligence of ordinary Americans. They don’t trust Americans, and the feeling is mutual.
Adding the Covid-19 shot to the children’s vaccine schedule based on flimsy evidence risks inciting a backlash against vaccines in general. Haven’t the government scientists learned that every political action has an equal and opposite reaction?
-
Judge Strikes Down NYC Vaccine Mandate for All City Workers
By Caden Pearson October 25, 2022 Updated: October 25, 2022biggersmaller Print
0:00
5:13
1
A New York Supreme Court judge on Monday struck down New York City’s vaccine mandate for all city workers, finding the rule to be unconstitutional, arbitrary, and capricious.
Attorney Chad LaVeglia, who announced the verdict outside the Richmond County courthouse, said the mandate was now “null and void.”
“So, we just defeated the vaccine mandate for every single city employee—not just sanitation,” LaVeglia said in a video on Twitter account NYCforYourself.
The ruling strikes down the mandate that saw over 2,000 city workers fired for not getting a COVID-19 vaccine. LaVeglia said the ruling extends to all public workers, including the New York fire department, the police department, and the Department of Corrections.
“For all the brave men and women who have been our first responders and have been brave through all this are now free, and you should be able to go back to work,” he said.
George Garvey and 15 others who worked at the New York City Department of Sanitation filed the lawsuit on July 20 after they were terminated for failing to comply with the mandate.
Porzio ruled against the city and found the mandate, which allowed exceptions, to have been an arbitrary and capricious order. He said that Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, “made a different decision for similarly situated people based on identical facts” in his Executive Order No. 62.
However, there wasn’t anything in the record to “support the rationality of keeping a vaccination mandate for public employees, while vacating the mandate for private sector employees or creating a carveout for certain professions, like athletes, artists, and performers.”
“This is clearly an arbitrary and capricious action because we are dealing with identical unvaccinated people being treated differently by the same administrative agency,” the judge said in his ruling (pdf).
‘No Reason’ to Terminate for Noncompliance: Judge
The ruling noted that all but one of the 16 petitioners applied for exemptions and received “generalized and vague denials.” They remained unvaccinated during the time their exemptions were being processed. Porzio said there was “no reason” they couldn’t have been allowed to keep working while submitting to COVID-19 testing.
“There was no reason why the City of New York could not continue with a vaccinate or test policy, like the Mayor’s Executive Order that was issued in August 2021,” the judge said in his ruling.
The judge affirmed vaccinations but said that public employees shouldn’t have been “terminated for their noncompliance” with the mandate, noting that almost 80 percent of New York City is vaccinated.
Epoch Times Photo
A person holds up a signs as people hold a rally in support of a group of teachers fighting enforcement of the coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine mandate for public school employees at Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, in New York City, on Oct. 12, 2021. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Porzio’s ruling noted that “certain classes of people” were granted vaccination exemptions, proving the mandate for public workers “to be arbitrary and capricious.”
“It is clear that the Health Commissioner has the authority to issue public health mandates. No one is refuting that authority. However, the Health Commissioner cannot create a new condition of employment for City employees,” Porzio said in his ruling.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ Executive Order No. 62 “renders all of these vaccine mandates arbitrary and capricious.”
“Being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting COVID-19. As of the day of this Decision, CDC guidelines regarding quarantine and isolation are the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.”
Judge Praises First Responders
In his ruling, Porzio said city workers shouldn’t be terminated for choosing “not to protect themselves” with a vaccine, noting that “breakthrough cases occur” even for those who are vaccinated and boosted. He also noted that President Joe Biden has declared “the pandemic is over.”
The judge noted that New York ended its COVID-19 state of emergency “over a month ago.” He also noted that the first responders named in the lawsuit continued to work without protective gear, and had “created natural immunity” after catching COVID-19.
“They were terminated and are willing to come back to work for the City that cast them aside. The vaccination mandate for City employees was not just about safety and public health; it was about compliance. If it was about safety and public health, unvaccinated workers would have been placed on leave the moment the order was issued.
“If it was about safety and public health, the Health Commissioner would have issued city-wide mandates for vaccination for all residents. In a City with a nearly 80 percent vaccination rate, we shouldn’t be penalizing the people who showed up to work, at great risk to themselves and their families, while we were locked down.
“If it was about safety and public health, no one would be exempt. It is time for the City of New York to do what is right and what is just,” Porzio said in his ruling
-
‘Speed of Science’ — A Scandal Beyond Your Wildest Nightmare
It was never about science or protecting others.
HEALTH VIEWPOINTS
Joseph Mercola
JOSEPH MERCOLA
Oct 24 2022
Small admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would prevent transmission because they had to “move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market ... and we had to do everything at risk” (Billion Photos/Shutterstock)
Small admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would prevent transmission because they had to “move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market ... and we had to do everything at risk” (Billion Photos/Shutterstock)
It was never about data or science; it was about following the top-down script they had from the beginning. And this recent admission by a Pfizer executive proves it would be called out as fraudulent in any other industry. So how have they managed to pull the wool over so many people’s eyes?
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19
In early October 2022, during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament, Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout
Small admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would prevent transmission because they had to “move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk”
We’ve known for well over two years that the shots were never tested for transmission interruption. In October 2020, Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, highlighted that trials were not designed to reveal whether the vaccines would prevent transmission. Yet everyone in government and media insisted they would do just that
It was never about science or protecting others. It was always about following a predetermined narrative that sought to get experimental mRNA technology into as many people as possible
February 9, 2021, I published an article that clarified the medical and legal definitions of a “vaccine.” In the article, I noted that mRNA COVID-19 jabs did not meet those definitions, in part because they don’t prevent infection or spread. In reality, they’re experimental gene therapies. In July that year, The New York Times published a hit piece on me citing that February 9 article:1
“The article that appeared online on Feb. 9 began with a seemingly innocuous question about the legal definition of vaccines. Then over its next 3,400 words, it declared coronavirus vaccines were ‘a medical fraud’ and said the injections did not prevent infections, provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease.
Instead, the article claimed, the shots ‘alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch.’ Its assertions were easily disprovable …”
Pfizer Moved ‘at the Speed of Science’
Fast-forward to early October 2022, and my claims were officially confirmed during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament. Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout.
As noted by Roos, the entire premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19. Small replied:
“No. We had to really move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk.”2
This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated. I find this shocking — even criminal.
— Rob Roos, MEP
As noted by Roos, “This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated.” Roos added that he found this deception “shocking — even criminal.”3
In the video below, biologist and nurse teacher John Campbell, Ph.D., reviews this growing scandal. He points out that U.K. government officials emphatically assured the public that everything that was normally done in clinical trials for a vaccine was done for the COVID shots. Now we’re told that was not the case after all.
The question is why? According to Small, these basic trials were not done because they “had to move at the speed of science.” But just what does that mean? As noted by Campbell, these are “just words without meaning.” It’s complete nonsense.
Moreover, what does it mean to “do everything at risk”? Campbell admits he has no idea what that means. I don’t either, but were I to venture a guess, I’d guess it means they knowingly skipped certain testing even though they knew the risks of doing so.
Government and Media Promulgated a Blatant Lie
Over the past three years, mainstream media have promulgated the lie that the COVID shots will prevent infection and transmission, telling us that anyone who doesn’t get the shot is selfish at best, and at worst, a potential murderer at large. Anyone who refuses poses a serious biomedical threat to society, hence the need for heavy-handedness.
Alas, it was all a lie from the start. The frustrating part is that we’ve KNOWN for well over two years that the shots were never tested for transmission interruption, yet everyone in government and media insisted they would do just that.
In October 2020, Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, highlighted the fact that the trials were not designed to reveal whether the vaccines would prevent transmission, which is key if you want to end the pandemic. He wrote:4
“None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”
So, by October 2020, at the latest, it was clear that no studies had been done to determine whether the shots actually prevented transmission, which is a prerequisite for the claim that you’ll save the lives of others if you take it.
By then, Moderna had also admitted they were not testing its jab’s ability to prevent infection. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, stated that this kind of trial would require testing volunteers twice a week for long periods of time — a strategy he called “operationally untenable.”5
So, neither Pfizer nor Moderna had any clue whether their COVID shots would prevent transmission or spread, as that was never tested, yet with the aid of government officials and media, they led the public to believe they would. Below is just one example where Pfizer clearly obfuscated the truth.6 If stopping transmission was their “highest priority,” why didn’t they test and confirm that their shot was accomplishing this priority?
Epoch Times Photo
Similarly, in an Israeli interview7 (below), Bourla stated that “The efficacy of our vaccine in children is 80%.” The reporter asked him to clarify, “Are you talking about efficacy to prevent severe disease or to prevent infection?” and Bourla replied, “To prevent infection.” How could he say that when preventing infection has never been tested? Is that not evidence of fraud, caught on camera?
COVID Shots Have Been Fraudulently Marketed
As I stated in February 2021, the shots are a medical fraud. A true vaccine prevents infection; COVID shots don’t. Hence, they’ve also been fraudulently marketed. Governments around the world enabled this marketing fraud and media promulgated it.
As a result of mandating COVID shots and vaccine passports based on a blatant lie, millions have suffered potentially permanent harm and/or have died. Millions have also lost their jobs, forfeited careers and missed out on educational opportunities. This all happened because we DIDN’T follow the science.
Massive Conflicts of Interest Have Been Allowed
Why did government agencies go along with what was, to anyone with a microgram of critical thinking skills, an apparent fraud? Probably, because they’re in on it. As reported by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, the same PR company that serves Moderna and Pfizer also staffs the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Viral Diseases team:8
“Early last month [September 2022], CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky endorsed recommendations by the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for updated COVID-19 boosters from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.
‘This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion,’ Dr. Walensky said in a statement. ‘If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it’ …
[The] PR firm Weber Shandwick, which has long represented Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies and began providing public relations support to Moderna sometime in 2020.
In an odd case of synchronicity — and let’s be honest, a whiff of undue influence — Weber Shandwick employees are also embedded at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), the CDC group that implements vaccine programs and oversees the work of ACIP [CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] …
The CDC has refused to respond to questions explaining this apparent conflict … ‘[It] is irresponsible of CDC to issue a PR contract to Weber Shandwick, knowing that the firm also works for Moderna and Pfizer,’ emailed Public Citizen’s Craig Holman. ‘It raises legitimate questions of whose interests Weber Shandwick will put first — their private sector clients or the public’s interest at NCIRD.’”
Incidentally, Weber Shandwick was in 2016 found to have ghostwritten a drug study for Forest Pharmaceuticals — another unethical practice that has undermined the foundation of medical science for decades.
One PR Company, One Consistent Message
Weber Shandwick’s responsibilities at the CDC include but are not limited to “generating story ideas, distributing articles and conducting outreach to news, media and entertainment organizations” to boost vaccination rates.9 The company provides similar services to Moderna.
For example, it helped generate 7,000 news articles internationally after Moderna applied for emergency use authorization (EUA) for its jab.
In June 2022, Moderna announced a “cross-discipline team drawing on talent and expertise from Weber Shandwick” would “drive the brand’s narrative globally,” and “support Moderna in activating and engaging key internal and external audiences, including employees, consumers, health care providers, vaccine recipients and policymakers.”10
Considering the primary COVID jab makers have the same PR company as the CDC, is it any wonder that the messaging has been so consistently one-sided? As noted by Doshi in a recent interview on German television,11 mainstream media have consistently ignored COVID jab data and have “not done a good job in providing balanced coverage” about the shots.
“We’re not getting the information we need to make better choices and to have a more informed understanding of risk and benefit,” he told the interviewer, adding:12
“It was very unfortunate that from the beginning, what was presented to us by public health officials was a picture of great certainty … but the reality was that there were extremely important unknowns.
We entered a situation where essentially the stakes became too high to later present that uncertainty to people. I think that’s what set us off on the wrong foot. Public officials should have been a lot more forthright about the gaps in our knowledge.”
Reanalysis of Trial Data Confirms COVID Shot Dangers
In late September 2022, Doshi published a risk-benefit analysis focused on serious adverse events observed in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID trials. Reanalysis of the data showed 1 in 800 who get a COVID shot suffers a serious injury. As detailed in Doshi’s paper:13
“Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 respectively.
Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated; risk ratio 1.43.
The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group … The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group … Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients …”
Doshi and his coauthors also concluded that the increase in adverse events from the shots surpassed the reduction in risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19. So, in short, the shots confer more harm than good.
Sen. Rand Paul Promises Investigation
A spokesperson for Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., replied to an inquiry by Thacker stating, “[T]hat CDC had a contract with the same PR firm representing the manufacturers of the COVID-19 vaccine raises serious concerns,” adding that “these conflicts of interest will be thoroughly investigated” by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) — which oversees the CDC — sometime next year.
After the November midterms, Paul will be next in line as the top Republican on this committee. It’s well worth noting that, at bare minimum, this kind of conflict of interest should have been disclosed by both parties. At best, it should have been avoided altogether. The CDC did neither. It didn’t disclose its relationship with the PR firm and it didn’t prevent the conflict of interest from developing in the first place.
What Was the COVID Jab Push All About?
The rational take-home from all this is that the massive push to inject the global population with these experimental jabs was never about following science and protecting others.
It was always about promoting a false, invented narrative designed to allow for the implementation of a top-down directive to inject every person on the planet with a novel mRNA technology. This, in turn, brings up two central questions:
•Who’s at the top? — We don’t yet know. All we can say for sure is that they have a very powerful and global influence — powerful enough that government officials have willingly lied and sacrificed their own populations in an incredibly risky medical experiment.
•Why is injecting everyone with mRNA technology so important to the anonymous decision-makers? — Again, we don’t know, but it’s quite clear that there’s a reason for it, that it’s supposed to accomplish something.
As detailed in previous articles, the only rational reason for why the CDC is allowing COVID jab EUA’s for young children is because they’re assisting drug makers in their effort to obtain liability shielding by getting the shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule.
ACIP is poised to add COVID shots to the childhood vaccination schedule any day now,14 and once on the childhood schedule, vaccine makers will not be liable for injuries and deaths occurring from their shots, whether they occur in children or adults.
Also, remember that even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted full approval to Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID shot, Comirnaty was never released to the public. The Pfizer shot being given is still under EUA.
Why was Comirnaty never released? Probably because once the shot has full FDA approval, liability kicks in. It appears they’re trying to avoid liability by getting the EUA shot on the childhood schedule before Comirnaty is rolled out and starts injuring and killing people.
Now, if they’re concerned about liability, that means they know the shot is dangerous. And if they know it’s dangerous (which all available data clearly show it is), then why do they want every person on the planet to get it?
Following this line of questioning to its logical conclusion leads us to the shocking conclusion that even though we don’t know the reasons why, the injuries and deaths from these jabs could be intentional?
Vaccine Makers Continue to Spread Lies
Despite Small’s unequivocally clear admission that Pfizer has not tested its COVID shot to ascertain whether it prevents transmission, Pfizer’s CEO still does not shy away from insinuating as much. Here’s what he tweeted out October 12, 2022.15 He’s not saying the shot has been confirmed to prevent COVID, but he insinuates that it does by saying the FDA authorized it for the prevention of COVID. This is also known as lying by omission.
Epoch Times Photo
Meanwhile, so-called fact checkers are trying to salvage Pfizer’s reputation by saying the company never actually stated the shot would stop transmission.16 That may be so, but government officials and media DID claim it would prevent both infection and spread, and Pfizer never corrected them, even as people were being fired and ostracized from society for not taking the jab.
If they were truly on the up-and-up, Pfizer officials would have clarified that the shot had not been tested to confirm it would prevent transmission, and until that was known, mandates and passports had no basis. Pfizer didn’t do that. Instead, they went along with it.
The Jabs Were Always To Be Pushed — ‘By Fair Means or Foul’
In conclusion, there’s no reason to trust government ever again, at least not in the U.S., which stands alone in pushing the jab on toddlers. (The reason for that, as mentioned earlier, is probably to get the jabs onto the childhood vaccination schedule, which will shield the vaccine makers from financial liability for harms.)
As noted by GB News host Neil Oliver in the video above, the very basis for COVID mandates or vaccine passports — that everyone had to get jabbed for the greater good, to protect others and help end the pandemic — was a deliberate lie from the start.
Many of us realized this early on, but our voices were drowned out as government, Big Tech and media pulled out all the stops, censoring anyone who told the truth. And all who have participated in this grand deception remain unrepentant to this day.
In a recent Twitter thread, a Twitter user named Daniel Hadas lays out an excellent description of what the last three years were really about:17
“The debate over whether, when, and to what extent lies were told about COVID vaccines preventing transmission misses a central point: No matter what the trial data showed, the vaccines were ALWAYS going to be pushed on entire populations, by fair means or foul.
Very early on, the COVID response was locked into a specific narrative. The world would lock down and stay safe, while brave scientists hammered away at a vaccine … You may recall that, in the first months of COVID, there was a lot of breathless talk about whether there would EVER be a vaccine.
This was all nonsense … Our authorities would not have adopted the strategy of lockdown-till-vaccine unless they were certain a vaccine could and would be made …
The purpose of sowing fear that there might never be a vaccine was to increase gratitude and enthusiasm when one came along. Indeed, every part of the early COVID response can be understood as (in part) pre-release marketing for the vaccine …
That’s why COVID risks for the young were wildly amplified. That’s why there was unending obfuscation of the central role of infection-conferred immunity both in protecting individuals and in ending the pandemic.
The plan was that the vaccine would be met by a perfectly primed population: immunologically naive, desperate to be released from lockdowns, terrified of COVID, eager to do the right thing, i.e. protect others through taking the shots.
Once so much effort had gone into priming, it is UNIMAGINABLE that authorities would have pivoted to telling us … ‘Well, actually, the vaccine’s safety profile is only so-so, efficacy is murky, and most people don’t need to worry about COVID anyway. So best most of you not take this … Sorry about the lockdowns.’
That was not in the script. So it was inevitable that the vaccine be pushed on everyone, and inevitable that the best arguments for universal vaccination would be used. Those arguments were: COVID is super-dangerous for YOU. Distrust in this vaccine is distrust in science. Refusing to get vaccinated is immoral, because you will infect others.
The veracity of these claims didn’t matter: they were in the script, and it was too late to deviate … Accordingly, the stage was also set for vaccine mandates.
None of this is conspiratorial. It is descriptive … Clarifying the details won’t alter the essence of the picture — The COVID response was determined by a script of vaccine salvation, and societies’ investment in that script was too deep for mere realities to divert its execution.”
The primary questions that still remain unanswered are: Why was this script created? What are its intended consequences? And, who created it? As mentioned earlier, the evidence suggests harm is an intended outcome — harm to our economy, our social order, our health, our life span and reproductive capacity.
As for “why,” we can just look at what has been accomplished so far.
Originally published October 24, 2022 on Mercola.com
Sources and References
1 New York Times July 24, 2021 (Archived)
2 News.com.au October 12, 2022
3 Twitter Rob Roos October 11, 2022
4, 5 The BMJ 2020;371:m4037
6 Twitter Pfizer January 13, 2021
7 Twitter Dr. Eli David October 18, 2022
8, 9, 10 Disinformation Chronicle October 11, 2022
11, 12 Maryanne Demasi Substack October 17, 2022
13 Vaccine September 22, 2022; 40(40): 5798-5805
14 Steve Kirsch Substack October 17, 2022
15 Twitter Dr. Eli David October 13, 2022
16 Twitter Lewis U October 14, 2022
17 Twitter Daniel Hadas October 15, 2022
-
A ‘Pandemic Amnesty’? Hell, No
By MICHAEL BRENDAN DOUGHERTY
October 31, 2022 1:06 PM
‘Forget everything, learn nothing’ is a bad way to ensure accountability for our institutions.
Emily Oster, writing at the Atlantic, asks whether we can all just forgive and forget about what we said and did to one another during the Covid-19 pandemic. On the question of masks, school closings, and the efficacy of this or that vaccine, some people got it right, and some got it wrong. But litigating this forever is a waste of time, she argues. The headline is “Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty.”
No, thank you. I don’t want this. And I don’t even think Emily Oster should want this. Frankly, Oster herself deserves more credit for trying to talk sense into people during the pandemic about the harms that school closures were inflicting on children.
An amnesty means throwing up our hands and simply re-declaring something all adults should already know: Men and institutions are fallible. But what we need is more forensic accountability for our institutions; one hopes (perhaps in vain) that a Republican Congress can launch a solid inquiry into the FDA and the CDC on their response to the pandemic. And we need much better reflection from journalists, experts, and the public.
Some examples should suffice. Oster writes:
In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking. Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know.
It’s true that most of the public didn’t know (though some were wary of the Covid messaging from the get-go). I remember the early days when, spooked by stories of vicious triaging in Wuhan and Northern Italy, we started sewing masks together in my home. But the experts knew, Dr. Anthony Fauci among them, which is why he told people on 60 Minutes that drugstore masks didn’t really do anything. Scientists like Fauci were citing decent existing studies on the questionable efficacy of cloth masks. Only later did Fauci retract that view and pretend that he’d been lying to protect supplies of PPE for front-line workers. He started wearing masks himself, although he hinted at his true feelings when he called them a “symbol” of the sort of thing we should do.
We don’t need amnesty here. Just as with Fauci admitting to the New York Times that he would shade his views on “herd immunity” based on where he thought public opinion was landing. We need to understand what role conscious deception (noble lying) plays in public-health messaging. We should investigate it precisely because, while it didn’t accomplish its ends, it did inspire backlash. We need to investigate it because perhaps the stodgy small-r republicans are right, and the very practice of expert deception is an offense against self-government. Maybe we also need to relearn the lesson from the stodgy old moralists that even the practice of noble lies tends to corrupt men and their institutions.
Oster writes that “given the amount of uncertainty, almost every position was taken on every topic.” Fine enough. Then:
The people who got it right, for whatever reason, may want to gloat. Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts. . . . These discussions are heated, unpleasant and, ultimately, unproductive. In the face of so much uncertainty, getting something right had a hefty element of luck.
Obviously some people intended to mislead and made wildly irresponsible claims. Remember when the public-health community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach, because President Trump had supposedly recommended this treatment — when, in fact, he had done no such thing?
I remember also that Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance spearheaded a false scientific consensus against the lab-leak theory, unethically suborning a science journal. By doing so, he was able to sway the balance of progressive opinion, which had the run-on effect of changing the way social-media companies governed and censored the speech across their user base of billions of people.
No, I don’t want to throw amnesty over bad actors like this.
A call for amnesty would prevent us from learning lessons. My boss, no expert in science, was able to write this confidently in April of 2020:
Among all types of closures, school shutdowns are among the most damaging to society. Younger children have no outlet for social and emotional development. Sustained shutdowns inhibit the ability of older children to meet grade-level requirements. Parents who are trying to juggle homeschooling with working full time from home are not in a position to replicate the instruction a child would receive in a full day of school. The closures also exacerbate the achievement gap between wealthier households with more resources and the ability to work from home and those that do not have that option.
Why was he so right, while people at the New York Times or in government were so wrong? The lesson is simply this. Even in a crisis we are not to be swallowed up entirely in the “current thing.” We do not begin again at Year Zero to maintain our common sense and proportion.
Yes, of course, Oster is right that millions of people fell to the wrong side of prudential questions about freedom versus safety. And of course she is right that our predispositions and political commitments tended to shape how we weighed evidence that pointed one way compared with evidence that pointed another way.
But the questions in the pandemic were not just factual disputes about a disease that was evolving quickly. They were also disputes about whether the Bill of Rights mattered anymore. Think of Bill de Blasio, telling Christians, Jews, and other religious believers that they had to abide by the city’s rule against gatherings of ten or more people, even as he himself was violating these rules in public support of the George Floyd protests.
Amnesty for this? Hell, no.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/virus-hits-71-vaxxed-over-unvaxxed_4836431.html?utm_source=Health&src_src=Health&utm_campaign=health-2022-11-03&src_cmp=health-2022-11-03&utm_medium=email&est=U%2FhSNhltL8%2FME52rM4%2FizNt%2BUvLvMPT35zkFWvFxu693P69uTSNTLZf5cb5BzSyywLcG
also
https://www.theepochtimes.com/risk-of-heart-inflammation-in-children-elevated-after-receipt-of-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-study_4833782.html?utm_source=Health&src_src=Health&utm_campaign=health-2022-11-03&src_cmp=health-2022-11-03&utm_medium=email&est=2H4bocOM5CnV6ioTD3KWjwI9GgGgJA1HrbKwhYrRn%2BrR8Lg0lboj7O%2BjWgj0XvSBhxqc
-
Awesome Instagram clip contained herein:
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/pandemic-amnesty-video?utm_source=lwc-trending&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Afternoon%20Trending%20Curated%20Test%202022-11-03
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/nov/3/doctor-resistance-mounts-california-law-restrictin/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=evening&utm_term=evening&utm_content=evening&bt_ee=5fjoOb9wzpLhfJknq8NjzL68Tje9Aswp319%2FjbjDhgZ2PY8a9RgIMvKAGrQpXgJ%2F&bt_ts=1667507125345
-
https://dailycaller.com/2022/11/11/border-cbp-immigration-vaccine/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking&pnespid=tOllUjxcOqgchqjYuDvsC4_I4UP2VoJwJOfl2.cxsQ1mZdcy0evK.wbxfVSkx.AONXUipZsX
-
second
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/3039419/this-destroys-trump-and-all-those-who-stick-by-it
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/missouri-doctor-faces-500-billion-in-ftc-fines-for-promoting-vitamin-d3-during-pandemic_4865164.html?utm_source=News&src_src=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-11-16-1&src_cmp=breaking-2022-11-16-1&utm_medium=email&est=e%2BiU9wHJjxSOC%2FFugYF9FtZtz6kez2iz3LfhTXMjUgd8eHgv6D%2F3oabSms3RDU1eFyK1
-
MASS. SURVEILLANCE… Massachusetts, Google Installed ‘Spyware’ Onto Phones To Track COVID Cases Without Users Knowing, Lawsuit Alleges
The Massachusetts Public Health Department (DPH) allegedly “worked with” Google to install its COVID-19 contact tracing app onto more than one million android devices without users’ permission or knowledge, a New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) lawsuit claims.
The app was first released in April 2021, but the DPH had a version secretly installed onto devices beginning that June after few Massachusetts residents installed it voluntarily, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. The app allegedly causes devices to emit and receive Bluetooth signals even when users do not opt into COVID-19 exposure notifications, and nearby devices that feature the app consequently exchange data that can be linked to specific device owners and locations.
The DPH, Google and other third parties including app developers, device manufacturers and network providers can access such data and use it to determine device owners’ identities when it is written onto mobile devices’ systems, the lawsuit claims. It summarily accuses the department of installing “spyware that deliberately tracks and records movement and personal contacts onto over a million mobile devices without their owners’ permission and awareness.”
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/fda-says-telling-people-not-to-take-ivermectin-for-covid-19-was-just-a-recommendation_4873897.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-11-20&src_cmp=mb-2022-11-20&utm_medium=email&est=IG9fXXZSb87jdAAI8DIRuZTqDG4pE343wttx2lhu8dyCyqIJ7%2B%2Fw5LIJErV3CAcZrc7M
-
second
https://www.theepochtimes.com/denying-life-saving-organ-transplant-to-unvaccinated-woman-breaks-every-ethics-rule_4868489.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-11-20&src_cmp=mb-2022-11-20&utm_medium=email&est=lxJHBxn1XrSIIkr3HHlojZq3lKgw8ywPlN1sR67nBo1hDfW43dpN0pudNotOEgs6PKfC
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMT1bdGLxfw
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/3088664/global-vaccine-passports
-
Fourth
https://www.theepochtimes.com/virus-hits-71-vaxxed-over-unvaxxed_4836431.html
-
Fifth
https://www.theepochtimes.com/22-states-urge-biden-administration-to-repeal-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-for-health-care-workers_4873834.html?utm_source=Health&src_src=Health&utm_campaign=health-2022-11-20&src_cmp=health-2022-11-20&utm_medium=email&est=tH7pndqy73b1cpX0SdMs%2BAl0OjWv2vQgax5JEYmjCwceejJ9INSAFXiTap8bMkuedVOI
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/vaccinating-after-recovering-from-covid-19_4834597.html?utm_source=Health&src_src=Health&utm_campaign=health-2022-11-21&src_cmp=health-2022-11-21&utm_medium=email&est=RpJ9npzHP40GYi1mv7JjdFQoW28B0pk1mceKNfrXXaXoRmQ7c9togxyIpyb4hmmFmXeA
Vaccinating After Recovering From COVID-19
Begging for trouble with blood clots
HEALTH VIEWPOINTS
Dr. Peter A. McCullough
John Leake
Nov 1 2022
With each COVID-19 infection there is exposure to the Spike protein on the surface of the virus. This protein causes a world of trouble including damaging blood vessels and causing blood clots.
When the virus infects the nose, with nasal washes and gargles and other treatments in the McCullough Protocol©, the degree of viral invasion in the body should be negligible.
When a COVID-19 vaccine is given, however, the genetic code for the Spike protein is installed throughout the body and then it is produced for at least a month or longer, giving a heavy and prolonged exposure to this deadly protein. The highest risk patients for complications after vaccination are those who already had untreated COVID-19 illness and then went on to take unnecessary COVID-19 vaccines.
The US FDA and the vaccine companies excluded COVID-19 recovered patients from clinical trials because they knew there could be no theoretical benefit and that they would cause harm. When the FDA and CDC advised Americans that naturally immune patients should undergo vaccination violating the exclusions of the clinical trials—we knew the program was off the rails.
Multiple studies have shown complication rates are markedly increased for the naturally immune who vaccinate. Take my favorite college football commentator Herb Kirkstreit who contracted COVID-19 in December of 2020 and later commented: “Been 5 months since I tested positive for Covid. Still can’t taste or smell.”[ii] Then in the Spring of 2021 he takes a COVID-19 vaccine stating, “I just wanted to get vaccinated and feel the freedom.” Presumably he takes a booster six months later in the fall of 2021. Then early in 2022 Kirkstreit announces he cannot attend the NFL draft because he has a blood clots that have shot to the lungs.[iii] More cancellations occur because of this persistent problem. He wasn’t exactly “feeling the freedom” at that point.
Epoch Times Photo
Kirk Herbstreit, right, revealed that he was diagnosed with blood clots in his ankle and lungs back in April, 2021.AP
Kirkstreit has been loaded with the Spike protein at least three times and may still be taking on more thrombogenic protein every six months if boosting. I would not be surprised if in addition, he has an inherited genetic trait that predisposes to blood clots. I am concerned that in my practice large blood clots like the one he has are not going away quickly with conventional blood thinners.
Additionally, undertakers are reporting tubular rubbery blood clots in the form of a casts of the major blood vessels obstructing the flow of injected embalming fluid. Thus, the quality and the size of the clot are worrisome. Reports indicate the Spike protein is within the clots and is amyloidogenic, meaning the Spike protein folds and encourages complexes of clotting material to organize into a solid form that is resistant to the natural thrombolytic system of the body.[iv] We hope for Kirkstreit that his clot is not permanent. His doctors should recognize the connection and fully exempt him from more ill-advised vaccinations.
Reposted from the author’s Substack
References
Mathioudakis AG, Ghrew M, Ustianowski A, Ahmad S, Borrow R, Papavasileiou LP, Petrakis D, Bakerly ND. Self-Reported Real-World Safety and Reactogenicity of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Vaccine Recipient Survey. Life (Basel). 2021 Mar 17;11(3):249. doi: 10.3390/life11030249. PMID: 33803014; PMCID: PMC8002738.
[ii] ESPN’s Kirk Herbstreit Still Feeling Effects of December COVID-19 Bout BEN PICKMAN JUN 1, 2021
[iii] Kirk Herbstreit reveals he had blood clots: ‘That’s where people die. … And so I was just like, ‘Damn’ Published: Aug. 29, 2022
[iv] The Defender, Could Spike Protein in Moderna, Pfizer Vaccines Cause Blood Clots, Brain Inflammation and Heart Attacks? By Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN 2/10/2021
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Dr. Peter A. McCullough
Dr. Peter A. McCullough
MD
Dr. McCullough is a practicing internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist managing the cardiovascular complications of both the viral infection and the injuries developing after the COVID-19 vaccine in Dallas TX, USA. He has dozens of peer-reviewed publications on the infection, multiple US and State Senate testimonies, and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in TheHill, America Out Loud, NewsMax, and on FOX NEWS Channel.
John Leake
John Leake
John Leake studied history and philosophy with Roger Scruton at Boston University. He then went to Vienna, Austria on a graduate school scholarship and ended up living in the city for over a decade, working as a freelance writer and translator. He is a true crime writer with a lifelong interest in medical history and forensic medicine.
-
Fauci Couldn’t Name Any Studies Showing Masks Work Against COVID-19: Lawyers
By Zachary Stieber November 28, 2022 Updated: November 28, 2022biggersmaller Print
0:00
5:27
1
Dr. Anthony Fauci could not cite any studies that changed his mind about masking against COVID-19 during a recent deposition, lawyers who were in the room said.
Fauci, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director, was among the U.S. officials repeatedly urging people not to mask early in the pandemic unless they were showing symptoms. Among his many public and private statements, he wrote in a Feb. 5, 2020 email that “the typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”
About two months later, Fauci and other top officials reversed course and issued widespread masking recommendations, regardless of symptoms.
Asked about the change while under oath on Nov. 23, Fauci couldn’t provide any studies, according to lawyers representing plaintiffs in a case against the federal government.
“He was asked what studies or study changed his mind in that interim, which is what he claimed—he claimed that it was studied. He couldn’t name any,” Jenin Younes, one of the lawyers, told The Epoch Times.
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican who was also present during the deposition in Maryland, said on social media that Fauci “couldn’t cite a single study” to back up his claim that masks were effective against COVID-19.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made the the change in masking advice on April 3, 2020, leading to widespread mask mandates. Officials, including then-CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield, said studies indicating asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 led to the change. They cited zero studies on mask effectiveness. Many studies on masks don’t support their usage, including a CDC study widely cited by top officials, researchers have found.
During an appearance that day on PBS, Fauci promoted the change, saying it was based on data regarding asymptomatic transmission.
Fauci has not appeared to cite any studies since in his repeated calls for people to mask.
Epoch Times Photo
The founder and CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg speaks during the 56th Munich Security Conference (MSC) in Munich, southern Germany, on Feb. 15, 2020. (Christof Stache/AFP)
Zuckerberg Interview
He told Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in an interview in mid-2020 that the original recommendation not to wear a mask was because of mask shortages.
“Two things happened. One, it became clear that we had enough of the equipment, so there was no shortage. It became clear that cloth coverings—that you didn’t have to buy in a store, that you could make yourself—were adequate. And third—and probably the most compelling thing—is when it became very clear that anywhere from 20 to 45 percent of people who were infected, didn’t have any symptoms,” Fauci said.
“So the risk of your being in contact with someone who said, ‘Well, you look good, I look good, we’re not infected’ was not the case, that you could be spreading it asymptomatically. You put all of those things together, which had us evolve from saying maybe we should hold off on masks because we needed them for the health care workers to saying now everybody should be wearing a mask when they’re outside and should be trying to distance. That’s one example of evolving as you get more data, and you get more information,” he added.
Fauci and NIAID have not responded to requests for comment on the deposition. The questioning took place on orders from the U.S. judge overseeing the case, which Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, another Republican, brought against the federal government and a slew of officials for allegedly colluding with Big Tech firms to illegally censor users.
Fauci was not asked about the deposition during interviews that aired on CBS’s “Face the Nation” and NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
A transcript of the deposition is expected to be made public at a later date.
FBI official Elvis Chan and former White House press secretary Jen Psaki are scheduled to be deposed next in the case.
Epoch Times Photo
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, lowers his mask before testifying at a Senate committee in Washington on June 30, 2020. (Kevin Dietsch/Pool/Getty Images)
Made Court Reporter Wear Mask
Fauci sat for the deposition at the headquarters of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. NIH is the parent agency of NIAID, which Fauci is preparing to leave by the end of the year. The questioning lasted for about seven hours.
Fauci did not wear a mask and neither did anybody else when the deposition started, Younes, with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, told The Epoch Times.
The woman transcribing the questioning, or the court reporter, was sniffling. Fauci asked the woman if she had a cold. She responded that she had allergies.
“About 15 minutes later he asked her to put on a mask and said that he was uncomfortable, ‘and the last thing in the world I want right now is to get COVID,'” Fauci said, Younes recalled. “So she had to wear mask the whole time, the whole rest of the time.”
“This is the mentality in Nov 2022 of the guy who locked down our country & ruined countless lives & livelihoods,” Schmitt, the attorney general of Missouri, who is headed to the U.S. Senate soon, said on Twitter.
-
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2022/11/27/guess-who-dr-fauci-blames-for-china-covering-up-where-how-covid-originated/
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_fPyew8WiQ
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/renowned-oncologist-sends-urgent-letter-calling-uk-end-covid-vaccine-program-immediately-cancers-diseases-rapidly-progressing-boosted-people/?fbclid=IwAR160RIQLdMhSvRBnbBEg6IAeOIuJBj-Mb-_dVLelg3pCNk6IdvK-87cQWc
-
second
GM sent me this on my phone and I listened to it while driving home from the range so I didn't get to see the video, but strong nonetheless. Apparently, many others are having similar response.
https://nationalfile.com/10-million-died-suddenly-soars-into-8-digit-territory/
-
I am still not convinced but am all ears
maybe this is vaccine related.
has GM stopped posting ?
-
I am still not convinced but am all ears
maybe this is vaccine related.
has GM stopped posting ?
Are there no death statistics, vaccinated versus unvaccinated? Boosted versus non-boosted? When do they lift the liability protection? We've had time to study it now and it's not a race to market anymore.
-
Yes, GM has stopped.
I will be chewing his ear in the next few days.
-
‘Negative Efficacy’ Should Have Stopped COVID Vaccine Recommendations in Their Tracks
Dr. Sean Lin
Mingjia Jacky Guan
Nov 28 2022
Recently, various health agencies around the world have approved and are actively pushing for another COVID booster shot, meant to enhance the vaccine efficacy against a COVD-19 infection.
However, many studies have found that the boosters do not make a significant difference in protection, especially in terms of protection against reinfection. In fact, the latest data shows vaccine efficacy against the coronavirus tends to even drop into the negatives after just a few months.
What Does Negative Efficacy Mean?
It is a well known fact that COVID vaccine effectiveness wanes quickly as time goes on; this is confirmed by countless studies.
Although the official narrative for COVID-19 vaccines nowadays only emphasizes its efficacy on protection against ICU admission and death rates, it actually implies the indisputable fact that vaccines don’t protect, contrary to their design, against infection or even symptomatic infection, especially after the emergence of various Omicron variants.
Even the protection two shots offers against hospitalization drops to about 40 percent after less than a year. It’s actually looking worse for protection against severe symptoms, as efficacy rates seem to drop into the negatives about five months into full vaccination.
When a vaccine’s efficacy drops into the negatives, it means that vaccination actually elevates the risks of hospitalization and severe diseases rather than reducing the risks. In simple terms, it does more harm than good when the efficacy is negative.
During the time prior to the pandemic, any vaccine with an efficacy less than 50 percent would be regarded as a poor product. When a product shows negative efficacy, it should be banned. It seems that the pandemic isn’t only bad for our health, but also is tugging at our common sense.
COVID Vaccines’ Declining Usefulness
It has been around three years since the first COVID-19 case was discovered in Wuhan, China. Since then, more than 600 million cases of the virus have been recorded, translating into a little less than 1 in 10 people around the world already being infected with the virus. In many countries, “living with COVID” has become the norm, along with getting “fully vaccinated” and getting those booster shots.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it is recommended that everyone 6 months and older should receive a full vaccination and everyone 5 years and older should receive a booster shot. Booster shots are recommended as they “are an important part of protecting yourself from getting seriously ill or dying from COVID-19” according to the CDC.
However, emerging data paints a different picture.
At its crux, the vaccines were developed with the earlier strains of the coronavirus, meaning developers primarily used the original Wuhan strain in their testing. The Delta strain that came along was particularly infamous as it was known to have a high death rate, but vaccines fared quite well against it. The results, however, went south as time went on and as the Omicron strain rolled out.
Trying to Outrun Nature
Making its debut in South Africa, the Omicron strain started to dominate the world by the beginning of 2022, which caused even more turmoil in terms of vaccine efficacy. The most shocking result is the extent it dragged down the vaccine’s efficacy against infection. Data shows that the vaccine used to be around 90 percent effective for weeks on end after vaccination.
After Omicron came along, infection prevention dropped to less than 50 percent after about a month after two shots and dived into the negatives four months later. It doesn’t seem to stop after that.
This clearly suggests that the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns should’ve been suspended as soon as the Omicron variant began to dominate over Delta.
In a study which analyzed COVID-19 cases from the beginning of this year in children that were previously infected, it was discovered that vaccine effectiveness wasn’t keeping up with pre-Omicron levels. The effects of a full vaccination against a second infection drops into the negatives within a few months, and it seems that the earlier one got the vaccination, the more likely it would lose its efficacy during the omicron waves.
The results from a September 2022 British Medical Journal study highlights again the fact that vaccine potency drops rapidly with time. It concluded that protection against severe symptoms drops well below half within a few weeks of administering the full two doses, or even after a third dose is administered. It also showed that in the immunocompromised, two doses never had an efficacy rate against hospitalization over 50 percent. Things do look a little better for three doses, but not by much.
Another study published data on the efficacy of the third dose relative to primary doses and found that the mean efficacy of three doses of the Moderna vaccine against the Omicron variants are, in fact, below 0.
It is interesting to note a logical assumption made by many, which is that the more you take the vaccine the better prepared you are against the virus, isn’t necessarily true.
Data published shows that neutralizing antibody count doesn’t necessarily correlate with the number of doses.
They found that people who took the fourth dose sometimes had higher, but mostly lower, antibody concentrations in the body compared with those who took the third dose.
Also, the hazard ratio calculated by researchers for the third and fourth vaccine doses provide us with mixed results. Sometimes, it seems like a good option to stick with the third dose, as the hazard ratio actually rises for taking the second booster compared with the first one.
One possible reason vaccine data is going downhill after Omicron appeared is that the new variant had a lot of changes in its spike protein composition.
This changes the way the virus enters the body and allows it to better “bypass” the security system set up by the old vaccines, which were developed from the very first SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan strain. One can understand it as if the variants have new toys to play with the old security guards.
Another potential mechanism that leads to the significant decline of vaccine efficacy is that repeated vaccination also damages people’s immunity via immune imprinting, a phenomenon in which an initial exposure to a virus–such as the original strain of SARS-CoV-2, by infection or vaccination–limits a person’s future immune response against variants.
Meanwhile, there are numerous underlying factors that would contribute to the disease’s progression from mild to severe, or even into fatal stages. Even if the vaccination groups during clinical trials were carefully chosen to have similar comorbid medical conditions as the control or unvaccinated group, there are still many other unknown factors that would dictate the outcome of the disease progression.
It is inconceivable and overtly overambitious that any pharmaceutical company would aim so high to design a vaccine which can protect against severe diseases from the onset of research, especially since the resulting vaccine can’t seem to keep up with preventing infection in the first place.
If a vaccine reaches negative efficacy, it means that people have higher chances to get infected than if you didn’t get the shot in the first place, meaning that not getting vaccinated might just reduce the chance of infection, unwanted symptoms, and severe disease. This is not just a vaccine failure or breakthrough infection issue, but a good time to halt COVID vaccines for good. Humans will never win in this cat-and-mouse game against nature.
Are Previous Infections Still Protective?
As time goes on, the likelihood of reinfection is quite high. Studies do show that in reinfected people the chances of death, hospitalization, and some form of sequela is much higher in those infected for the first time. It also seems like a logical conclusion for the CDC to recommend that everyone gets vaccinated.
However, the data we have is rather conflicting as the aforementioned study doesn’t show much of a difference between the unvaccinated, the half vaccinated, or the fully vaccinated. They all have just about the same values for cardiovascular, thrombotic, renal, or pulmonary sequelae post infection, or chances of getting a tough COVID-19 infection in the first place.
Data also shows that previously infected and unvaccinated children were better at preventing a second infection compared with children who were in the same age category but who were vaccinated. Generally speaking, vaccine induced immunity doesn’t seem to be quite as effective as that induced by a previous, natural infection.
What this essentially means is that the vaccines cannot keep up with the constantly emerging variants and that a waning efficacy was frankly inevitable. The only question left is, what is the driving force behind the Omicron variants, or SARS-CoV-2 variants on a broad scale? What accounts for variants emerging at the same time around the world?
Microevolution cannot explain everything.
Over the past 3 years, scientists have applied the theory of evolution to describe and explain the trajectory of SARS-CoV-2. Delta was the deadly variant and now Omicron is the road runner. In theory, the virus developed these strains to best adapt to the objective environment, yet scientists are still looking for more answers.
For example, when much of the world’s population was in different degrees of “lockdown” or restriction of movements, when international travel was severely impaired, how did the Alpha and Delta variants emerge and quickly spread widely, and even become dominant globally?
If the only factor that determines which variant to become dominant or not was its fitness, i.e., its transmissibility and replication efficiency, why were there not multiple variants with better fitness that emerged and all became dominant regionally, just like how divergent strains of flowers blossom at the same time in distinct locations? Why does it appear as if there is a coordinating force behind the virus such that one strain was able to uniformly retire the previous one?
In order to answer all these questions, I believe that there needs to be a more holistic evaluation of the current pandemic. At the same time, it’s important to note that viruses adapt to the vaccines, and not the other way around.
There were plenty of outbreaks in the past, such as measles and polio, but they all disappeared with time. Many times when pandemics traversed the earth, the pathogen was truly in an optimal state to essentially infect mankind. However, they all disappeared, and it was seldom because of some vaccine. Polio, for example, was already in its stark decline when the vaccine rolled out.
Quite similarly to today’s situation, the polio vaccine was hailed as a wunderkind, yet it played quite a small role during pandemic prevention. The findings we have today about the COVID-19 shots are similarly discouraging, perhaps because we are still in the middle of it. However, the virus is still evolving and a vaccine is not going to be the simple answer out. Omicron shows that SARS-CoV-2 is smart enough to evolve and dodge it.
The pattern is not simple and requires more deliberation to find a sophisticated answer, if human limitations even allow us to discover one in the first place. It is almost as if there were some factors at play behind the trajectory of the virus that microevolution fails to explain, because it is most likely more complex than that.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Dr. Sean Lin
Dr. Sean Lin
Dr. Xiaoxu Sean Lin is an assistant professor in Biomedical Science Department at Feitian College - Middletown NY. Dr. Lin is also a frequent analyst and commentator for Epoch Media Group, VOA, and RFA. Dr. Lin is a veteran who served as a U.S. Army microbiologist. Dr. Lin is also a member of Committee of Present Danger: China.
Mingjia Jacky Guan
Mingjia Jacky Guan
Jacky Mingjia Guan is based in Switzerland. He writes about a diverse range of contemporary topics, guided by the limitations of human rationality and perception.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/30/new-zealand-parents-refuse-use-of-vaccinated-blood-in-life-saving-surgery-on-baby
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/3155314/heroes-do-hero-stuff
Challenging questions presented here , , ,
-
https://patriotpost.us/articles/93590-good-and-bad-congress-repeals-military-vax-mandate-2022-12-16?mailing_id=7168&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.7168&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
-
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2022/12/20/dr-leana-wen-drops-a-bombshell-about-natural-immunity-vs-the-covid-vaccine/?bcid=ed8ce24540e2a6eab20f810eceb96df780d7f81b5498da2ea67392b28fbf1b00&utm_campaign=nl&utm_medium=email&utm_source=twtydaily
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/leftist-actor-tim-robbins-now-regrets-adhering-orwellian-politicized-government-mandates-pandemic/?fbclid=IwAR39y82rC7EB8uZhj-t7SIaFHOTen9a-yBknI6RRsPgKEItMrl-bT79k_No
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/twitter-files-platform-suppressed-valid-information-from-medical-experts-about-covid-19/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=30085133
Twitter Files: Platform Suppressed Valid Information from Medical Experts about Covid-19
By RYAN MILLS
December 26, 2022 3:01 PM
During the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, Twitter’s leaders bowed to government pressure to censor information that was true but inconvenient, suspended medical professionals who disagreed with establishment views, and relied on bots and foreign contractors to moderate complex scientific topics, according to the newest edition of the Twitter Files.
Independent journalist David Zweig released the 40-tweet Twitter Files report — “How Twitter Rigged the Covid Debate” — on Monday. The report is based on internal Twitter files that Zweig reviewed for the Free Press. The Twitter Files is a series of reports based on internal Twitter documents released to select journalists by the company’s new CEO, Elon Musk.
Zweig reported Monday that both the Biden and Trump administrations pressured Twitter and other social-media platforms to elevate content that fit their narratives and to suppress information that didn’t. At the outset of the pandemic, the Trump administration urged tech companies to “combat misinformation” about “runs on grocery stores,” Zweig reported.
“But,” Zweig noted, “there were runs on grocery stores.” It wasn’t misinformation but was instead a true phenomenon the Trump administration did not want to be highlighted.
When Joe Biden took over as president, his administration was concerned about “anti-vaxxer accounts,” and particularly the account of journalist Alex Berenson, Zweig reported.
Berenson’s Twitter account was suspended hours after Biden alleged that social-media companies were “killing people” for allowing vaccine misinformation. Berenson later sued and eventually settled with Twitter.
Zweig reported that Biden’s team was “very angry” that Twitter hadn’t been more aggressive at de-platforming accounts that it didn’t approve of.
“An extensive review of internal communications at the company revealed employees often debating moderation cases in great deal, and with more care than was shown by the government toward free speech,” Zweig reported.
But, Zweig reported, Twitter did suppress views, including the views of doctors and scientific experts whose opinions “conflicted with the official position of the White House,” “differed from CDC guidelines,” or were “contrarian but true.”
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard Medical School epidemiologist, tweeted views at odds with U.S. public-health authorities and the American Left (“the political affiliation of nearly the entire staff at Twitter”), Zweig’s report noted. One of his tweets about vaccines was flagged by a moderator as “false information,” even though it was essentially an expert opinion, and in line with vaccine policies in several other countries. “Yet it was deemed ‘false information’ by Twitter moderators merely because it differed from CDC guidelines,” Zweig reported.
Democratic Lawmakers Urge Facebook to Ramp Up Political-Speech Suppression
Andrew Bostom, a Rhode Island physician, was permanently suspended from Twitter for spreading supposed misinformation, including a tweet that referred to the results from a peer-reviewed study on mRNA vaccines. An internal audit conducted after Bostom’s lawyer contacted Twitter found that only one of his five alleged violations was valid; and it was deemed a violation only because it “cited data that was legitimate but inconvenient to the public health establishment’s narrative about the risks of flu versus Covid in children,” Zweig wrote.
Zweig reported that much of Twitter’s content moderation was conducted by bots trained in machine-learning and artificial intelligence, as well as by foreign contractors in places like the Philippines. Higher-level Twitter leaders chose the inputs and decision trees the bots and foreign contractors based the decisions on, Zweig wrote, adding that “tasking non experts to adjudicate tweets on complex topics like myocarditis and mask efficacy data was destined for a significant error rate.”
Human bias “run amok,” Zweig wrote, noting the reaction to an October 2020 tweet by then-president Donald Trump after he had contracted Covid and was released from Walter Reed Medical Center. “Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life,” Trump had tweeted.
Jim Baker, then Twitter’s deputy general counsel (who has since been fired), questioned why that statement was not flagged as a violation of Twitter’s policies. Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former head of trust and safety, had to explain that optimism didn’t count as misinformation.
Send a tip to the news team at NR.
-
https://twitter.com/spacepirate144/status/1604425309503176704?s=61&t=nE-9upQ2QM3SbKPhGbVE1g
-
I dunno
I had 4 moderna shots
and, maybe a had, extremely mild headache or tired for 24 hr
injection site mild sore
big deal
SYSTEMIC SIDE EFFECTS !
-
I dunno
I had 4 moderna shots
and, maybe a had, extremely mild headache or tired for 24 hr
injection site mild sore
big deal
SYSTEMIC SIDE EFFECTS !
I don't think there is any question that more than 99 out of 100 did not die from the vaccine or have heart or clot issues, even if there are major undisclosed unintended consequences from it.
I think of the Twitter FBI story as authorities keeping information from the public and putting out disinformation - to the public.
ccp introduces a different angle. Were they blocking relevant information from getting to our doctors and care givers?
When we only hear these developments on right wing sources, it doesn't seem as real as when it's on the front page of 'the news' (or the medical journals), even though their credibility may be worse than ours.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/chinas-covid-chaos-a-horrible-indictment-of-us-leadership-for-emulating-ccp-lockdowns-former-white-house-adviser_4950438.html?utm_source=China&src_src=China&utm_campaign=uschina-2022-12-30&src_cmp=uschina-2022-12-30&utm_medium=email&est=3g7llI%2BDUQEGXZzN%2BSbvywvqGaIEoVwqVp1PquT0ho2x34vBCtaqo%2FbeImXJSoIvEq0W
-
Are Vaccines Fueling New Covid Variants?
The virus appears to be evolving in ways that evade immunity.
Allysia Finley hedcutBy Allysia Finley
Jan. 1, 2023 10:08 am ET
Public-health experts are sounding the alarm about a new Omicron variant dubbed XBB that is rapidly spreading across the Northeast U.S. Some studies suggest it is as different from the original Covid strain from Wuhan as the 2003 SARS virus. Should Americans be worried?
It isn’t clear that XBB is any more lethal than other variants, but its mutations enable it to evade antibodies from prior infection and vaccines as well as existing monoclonal antibody treatments. Growing evidence also suggests that repeated vaccinations may make people more susceptible to XBB and could be fueling the virus’s rapid evolution.
Prior to Omicron’s emergence in November 2021, there were only four variants of concern: Alpha, Beta, Delta and Gamma. Only Alpha and Delta caused surges of infections globally. But Omicron has begotten numerous descendents, many of which have popped up in different regions of the world curiously bearing some of the same mutations.
“Such rapid and simultaneous emergence of multiple variants with enormous growth advantages is unprecedented,” a Dec. 19 study in the journal Nature notes. Under selective evolutionary pressures, the virus appears to have developed mutations that enable it to transmit more easily and escape antibodies elicited by vaccines and prior infection.
The same study posits that immune imprinting may be contributing to the viral evolution. Vaccines do a good job of training the immune system to remember and knock out the original Wuhan variant. But when new and markedly different strains come along, the immune system responds less effectively.
Bivalent vaccines that target the Wuhan and BA.5 variants (or breakthrough infections with the latter) prompt the immune system to produce antibodies that target viral regions the two strains have in common. In Darwinian terms, mutations that allow the virus to evade common antibodies win out—they make it “fitter.”
XBB has evolved to elude antibodies induced by the vaccines and breakthrough infections. Hence, the Nature study suggests, “current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not efficiently prevent the infection of Omicron convergent variants.”
A New England Journal of Medicine study published last month provides more evidence of the vulnerability caused by immune imprinting. Neutralizing antibodies of people who had received the bivalent were 26 times as high against the original Wuhan variant as they were against XBB and four times as high as they were against Omicron and the BA.5 variant.
Similarly, a study this month in the journal Cell found that antibody levels of people who had received four shots were 145 times as high against the original Wuhan strain as the XBB variant. A bivalent booster only slightly increased antibodies against XBB. Experts nevertheless claim that boosters improve protection against XBB. That’s disinformation, to use their favored term.
A Cleveland Clinic study that tracked its healthcare workers found that bivalent vaccines reduced the risk of getting infected by 30% while the BA.5 variant was spreading. But, as the study explained, the reason might be that workers who were more cautious—i.e., more likely to wear N95 masks and avoid large gatherings—may have also been more likely to get boosted.
Notably, workers who had received more doses were at higher risk of getting sick. Those who received three more doses were 3.4 times as likely to get infected as the unvaccinated, while those who received two were only 2.6 times as likely.
“This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19,” the authors noted. “We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.”
Two years ago, vaccines were helpful in reducing severe illness, particularly among the elderly and those with health risks like diabetes and obesity. But experts refuse to concede that boosters have yielded diminishing benefits and may even have made individuals and the population as a whole more vulnerable to new variants like XBB.
It might not be a coincidence that XBB surged this fall in Singapore, which has among the highest vaccination and booster rates in the world. Over the past several weeks a XBB strain has become predominant in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts, making up about three-quarters of virus samples that have been genetically sequenced. The variant has been slower to take off in other regions, making up only 6% of the Midwest and about 20% in the South. The Northeast is also the most vaccinated and boosted region in the country.
Hospitalizations in the Northeast have risen too, but primarily among those over 70. One reason may be that the T-Cell response—the cavalry riding behind the front-line antibodies—is weaker in older people. The virus can’t evade T-Cells elicited by vaccines and infections as easily as it can antibodies. Because of T-Cells, younger people are still well-protected against new variants.
Another reason may be that monoclonal antibodies are ineffective against XBB, and many older people who catch Covid can’t take the antiviral Paxlovid because they have medical conditions such as severe kidney disease or take drugs that interfere with it.
The Biden administration’s monomaniacal focus on vaccines over new treatments has left the highest-risk Americans more vulnerable to new variants. Why doesn’t that seem to worry the experts?
-
2. AB 2098: ‘COVID Misinformation’ – This law, signed in September, requires California’s medical licensing boards to take disciplinary action against doctors who are involved with the “dissemination of misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, or ‘COVID-19’.” The law does not take into account the fact that authorities like Dr. Anthony Fauci changed their recommendations over time.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bOHYZhL0WQ&t=5s
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/3326769/open-borders-is-fentanyl-freeway
-
The White House Covid Censorship Machine
Newly released emails show how officials coerce social-media companies to toe the government line.
By Jenin Younes and Aaron Kheriaty
Jan. 8, 2023 5:23 pm ET
Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital media, and social-media executives prove the companies put Covid censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House—not voluntarily. The emails emerged Jan. 6 in the discovery phase of Missouri v. Biden, a free-speech case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and four private plaintiffs represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
On March 14, 2021, Mr. Flaherty emailed a Facebook executive (whose name we’ve redacted as a courtesy) with the subject line “You are hiding the ball” and a link to a Washington Post article about Facebook’s own research into “the spread of ideas that contribute to vaccine hesitancy,” as the paper put it. “I think there is a misunderstanding,” the executive wrote back. “I don’t think this is a misunderstanding,” Mr. Flaherty replied. “We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy—period. . . . We want to know that you’re trying, we want to know how we can help, and we want to know that you’re not playing a shell game. . . . This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us.”
On March 21, after failing to placate Mr. Flaherty, the Facebook executive sent an email detailing the company’s planned policy changes. They included “removing vaccine misinformation” and “reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation.” Facebook characterized this material as “often-true content” that “can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.” Facebook pledged to “remove these Groups, Pages, and Accounts when they are disproportionately promoting this sensationalized content.”
In that exchange, Mr. Flaherty demanded to know what Facebook was doing to “limit the spread of viral content” on WhatsApp, a private message app, especially “given its reach in immigrant communities and communities of color.” The company responded three weeks later with a lengthy list of promises.
On April 9, Mr. Flaherty asked “what actions and changes you’re making to ensure . . . you’re not making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem worse.” He faulted the company for insufficient zeal in earlier efforts to control political speech: “In the electoral context, you tested and deployed an algorithmic shift that promoted quality news and information about the election. . . . You only did this, however, after an election that you helped increase skepticism in, and an insurrection which was plotted, in large part, by your platform. And then you turned it back off. I want some assurances, based in data, that you are not doing the same thing again here.” The executive’s response: “Understood.”
On April 14, Mr. Flaherty pressed the executive about why “the top post about vaccines today” is Tucker Carlson “saying they don’t work”: “I want to know what ‘Reduction’ actually looks like,” he said. The exec responded: “Running this down now.”
On April 23, Mr. Flaherty sent the executive an internal memo that he claimed had been circulating in the White House. It asserts that “Facebook plays a major role in the spread of COVID vaccine misinformation” and accuses the company of, among other things, “failure to monitor events hosting anti-vaccine and COVID disinformation” and “directing attention to COVID-skeptics/anti-vaccine ‘trusted’ messengers.”
On May 10, the executive sent Mr. Flaherty a list of steps Facebook had taken “to increase vaccine acceptance.” Mr. Flaherty scoffed, “Hard to take any of this seriously when you’re actively promoting anti-vaccine pages in search,” and linked to an NBC reporter’s tweet. The executive wrote back: “Thanks Rob—both of the accounts featured in this tweet have been removed from Instagram entirely for breaking our policies.”
President Biden, press secretary Jen Psaki and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy later publicly vowed to hold the platforms accountable if they didn’t heighten censorship. On July 16, 2021, a reporter asked Mr. Biden his “message to platforms like Facebook.” He replied, “They’re killing people.” Mr. Biden later claimed he meant users, not platforms, were killing people. But the record shows Facebook itself was the target of the White House’s pressure campaign.
Mr. Flaherty also strong-armed Google in April 2021, accusing YouTube (which it owns) of “funneling” people into vaccine hesitancy. He said this concern was “shared at the highest (and I mean the highest) levels of the WH,” and required “more work to be done.” Mr. Flaherty demanded to know what further measures Google would take to remove disfavored content. An executive responded that the company was working to “address your concerns related to Covid-19 misinformation.”
These emails establish a clear pattern: Mr. Flaherty, representing the White House, expresses anger at the companies’ failure to censor Covid-related content to his satisfaction. The companies change their policies to address his demands. As a result, thousands of Americans were silenced for questioning government-approved Covid narratives. Two of the Missouri plaintiffs, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, are epidemiologists whom multiple social-media platforms censored at the government’s behest for expressing views that were scientifically well-founded but diverged from the government line—for instance, that children and adults with natural immunity from prior infection don’t need Covid vaccines.
Emails made public through earlier lawsuits, Freedom of Information Act requests and Elon Musk’s release of the Twitter Files had already exposed a sprawling censorship regime involving the White House as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies. The government directed tech companies to remove certain types of material and even to censor specific posts and accounts. Again, these included truthful messages casting doubt on the efficacy of masks and challenging Covid-19 vaccine mandates.
The First Amendment bars government from engaging in viewpoint-based censorship. The state-action doctrine bars government from circumventing constitutional strictures by suborning private companies to accomplish forbidden ends indirectly.
Defenders of the government have fallen back on the claim that cooperation by the tech companies was voluntary, from which they conclude that the First Amendment isn’t implicated. The reasoning is dubious, but even if it were valid, the premise has now been proved false.
The Flaherty emails demonstrate that the federal government unlawfully coerced the companies in an effort to ensure that Americans would be exposed only to state-approved information about Covid-19. As a result of that unconstitutional state action, Americans were given the false impression of a scientific “consensus” on critically important issues around Covid-19. A reckoning for the government’s unlawful, deceptive and dangerous conduct is under way in court.
Ms. Younes, litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, represents the private plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden. Dr. Kheriaty is a senior scholar at the Brownstone Institute, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and one of the plaintiffs.
-
second
From the Twitter Files: Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb secretly pressed Twitter to hide posts challenging his company's massively profitable Covid jabs
To funnel his demands, Gottlieb used the same Twitter lobbyist the White House did - fresh evidence of overlap between the company selling mRNA shots and the government forcing them on the public.
ALEX BERENSON
JAN 9
SAVE
▷ LISTEN
On August 27, 2021, Dr. Scott Gottlieb - a Pfizer director with over 550,000 Twitter followers - saw a tweet he didn’t like, a tweet that might hurt sales of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines.
The tweet explained correctly that natural immunity after Covid infection was superior to vaccine protection. It called on the White House to “follow the science” and exempt people with natural immunity from upcoming vaccine mandates.
It came not from an “anti-vaxxer” like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but from Dr. Brett Giroir, a physician who had briefly followed Gottlieb as the head of the Food & Drug Administration. Further, the tweet actually encouraged people who did not have natural immunity to “Get vaccinated!”
No matter.
By suggesting some people might not need Covid vaccinations, the tweet could raise questions about the shots. Besides being former FDA commissioner, a CNBC contributor, and a prominent voice on Covid public policy, Gottlieb was a senior board member at Pfizer, which depended on mRNA jabs for almost half its $81 billion in sales in 2021. Pfizer paid Gottlieb $365,000 for his work that year.
Gottlieb stepped in, emailing Todd O’Boyle, a top lobbyist in Twitter’s Washington office who was also Twitter’s point of contact with the White House.
The post was “corrosive,” Gottlieb wrote. He worried it would “end up going viral and driving news coverage.”
(SOURCE: Twitter)
I found the email in a search of records I ran at Twitter last week - part of Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” effort to raise the veil on censorship decisions Twitter made before Musk bought the company in October.
I went into detail about my involvement at the Twitter Files in a Substack article yesterday. I plan more reporting on the files in the weeks to come.
—
(GET THE TRUTH BIG PHARMA WISHES YOU WOULDN’T SEE!)
Upgrade to paid
—
Through Jira, an internal system Twitter used for managing complaints, O’Boyle forwarded Gottlieb’s email to the Twitter “Strategic Response” team. That group was responsible for handling concerns from the company’s most important employees and users.
“Please see this report from the former FDA commissioner,” O’Boyle wrote - failing to mention that Gottlieb was a Pfizer board member with a financial interest in pushing mRNA shots.
A Strategic Response analyst quickly found the tweet did not violate any of the company’s misinformation rules.
Yet Twitter wound up flagging Giroir’s tweet anyway, putting a misleading tag on it and preventing almost anyone from seeing it. It remains tagged even though several large studies have confirmed the truth of Giroir’s words.
(SOURCE)
—
A week later, on Sept. 3, 2021, Gottlieb tried to strike again, complaining to O’Boyle about a tweet from Justin Hart. Hart is a lockdown and Covid vaccine skeptic with more than 100,000 Twitter followers.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but a viral pathogen with a child mortality rate of <>0% has cost our children nearly three years of schooling,” Hart had written.
Why Gottlieb objected to Hart’s words is not clear, but the Pfizer shot would soon be approved for children 5 to 11, representing another massive market for Pfizer, if parents could be convinced Covid was a real threat to their kids.
O’Boyle referred to “former FDA Commissioner Gottlieb” when he forwarded the report, again ignoring Gottlieb’s current work for Pfizer.
This time, though, Gottlieb’s complaint was so far afield that Twitter refused to act.
—
At the same time, Gottlieb was also pressing Twitter to act against me, as I disclosed on Substack on Oct. 13, 2022, drawing on documents that Twitter’s pre-Musk regime provided to me as part of my lawsuit against it. (Gottlieb’s action was part of a larger conspiracy that included the Biden White House and Andrew Slavitt, working publicly and privately to pressure Twitter until it had no choice but to ban me. I will have more to say about my own case and will be suing the White House, Slavitt, Gottlieb, and Pfizer shortly.)
The morning after I wrote that article, Gottlieb appeared on CNBC, the financial news channel where he is a contributor, and offered what at best was a seriously misleading explanation of his actions and his motives.
Gottlieb did not deny pressing Twitter on me - he could not, given the documents I had released the night before.
But in an interview with Joe Kernan of CNBC, Gottlieb said he had asked Twitter to act only because he was concerned if tweets raised the threat of violence against vaccine advocates.
“The inability of these platforms to police direct threats, physical threats about people, that’s my concern about what’s going on in that ecosystem,” Gottlieb said.
SOURCE
"I'm unconcerned about debate being made,” Gottlieb told Kernan. “I'm concerned about physical threats being made for people's safety."
In a tweet that morning, Gottlieb doubled down, writing:
Respectful debate and dialogue is one thing, and should be encouraged and protected. But there's no place for targeted harassment, and misleading dialogue which can instigate a small but persuadable group of people to make targeted and dangerous threats.
But Brett Giroir’s tweet about natural immunity was the definition of “respectful debate and dialogue.” And in his own email to Todd O’Boyle, Gottlieb did not raise any security concerns about it. He simply complained that it might wind up “driving news coverage.
—
Gottlieb is not just a Pfizer board member.
He is one of seven members of the board’s executive committee and the head of its regulatory and compliance committee, which oversees “compliance with laws, regulations, and internal procedures applicable to pharmaceutical sales and marketing activities.”
Pfizer has a long history of violating drug industry laws and ethics rules. In 2009, it agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in American history, for fraudulently marketing several drugs. In 1996, it conducted a clinical trial of an antibiotic in Nigeria in which 11 children died and which became the inspiration for John le Carre’s novel The Constant Gardner.
-
Pfizer Board Member Pressured Twitter to Censor Posts on Natural Immunity, Low COVID Risk to Children: Emails
By Zachary Stieber January 9, 2023 Updated: January 10, 2023biggersmaller Print
0:00
5:57
1
A Pfizer board member who used to head the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lobbied Twitter to take action against a post accurately pointing out that natural immunity is superior to COVID-19 vaccination, according to an email released on Jan. 9.
Dr. Scott Gottlieb wrote on Aug. 27, 2021, to Twitter executive Todd O’Boyle to request Twitter take action against a post from Dr. Brett Giroir, another former FDA commissioner.
“This is the kind of stuff that’s corrosive. Here he draws a sweeping conclusion off a single retrospective study in Israel that hasn’t been peer reviewed. But this tweet will end up going viral and driving news coverage,” Gottlieb wrote.
Giroir had written that it was clear natural immunity, or post-infection immunity, “is superior to vaccine immunity, by ALOT.” He said there was no scientific justification to require proof of COVID-19 vaccination if a person had natural immunity. “If no previous infection? Get vaccinated!” he also wrote.
Giroir pointed to what was at the time a preprint study from Israeli researchers that found, after analyzing health records, that natural immunity provided better protection than vaccination. The study was later published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases following peer review.
Researchers said the data “demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.” BNT162b2 is the trade name for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, which is the main shot used in Israel.
Gottlieb’s email triggered messages on Jira, Twitter’s internal messaging system, according to journalist Alex Berenson, who was granted access to Twitter’s internal files by CEO Elon Musk.
“Please see this report from the former FDA commissioner,” O’Boyle wrote.
A Twitter analyst who reviewed the post determined it did not violate any misinformation rules but Twitter still put a tag on it, claiming to all users who viewed it that it was “misleading” and directing them to a link that would show “why health officials recommend a vaccine for most people.” The tag prevented people from replying to, sharing, or liking Giroir’s post.
Gottlieb, Twitter, and Giroir, now the CEO of Altesa BioSciences, did not respond to requests for comment.
Another Message
Gottlieb later messaged O’Boyle again, flagging a post from Justin Hart, a critic of lockdowns and a skeptic of COVID-19 vaccines, Berenson reported.
Gottlieb took issue with Hart writing that “sticks and stones may break my bones but a viral pathogen with a child mortality rate of <>0% has cost our children nearly three years of schooling.”
COVID-19 poses little mortality risk to young, healthy people, studies and data show.
Gottlieb did not detail why he wanted to censor Hart, but the objection came shortly before the U.S. government authorized and recommended Pfizer’s vaccine for children aged 5 to 11.
O’Boyle sent the request to Twitter analysts, failing for a second time to disclose Gottlieb’s ties to Pfizer. The complaint did not trigger any action.
“Our team of ragtag analysts, activists, moms and dads have been going after Scott since April 2020 when he repeatedly advocated for school closures and lockdowns. He doesn’t like people pushing back on the narrative,” Hart told The Epoch Times in a Twitter message.
Tried to Get Journalist Banned
Gottlieb also tried to get Berenson, a former New York Times reporter who now authors a Substack, banned from Twitter, a message released in 2022 showed.
The message showed that Gottlieb forwarded a blog post from Berenson to a Twitter worker, writing that Berenson calling Dr. Anthony Fauci arrogant was an example of why Fauci, at the time the head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, needed a security detail.
Four days later, and a day after Gottlieb met with Twitter workers, Twitter banned Berenson for allegedly violating its rules on COVID-19 misinformation.
Gottlieb defended his actions.
-
battacharyia and berenson
could increase their credibility with + corona vaccines studies
instead of tooting their own horns 24/7 solely with anything negative they can churn up:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm715152e2.htm
-
Really good point ccp. All I've seen since it started is sources that push only the positive and sources that publish only the negative. Then everything changes, new variants, new vaccines, and we start seeing old data that doesn't help with current decisions except to prove someone else was wrong in hindsight, IF the study was valid and properly interpreted.
I've not had a shot since the first round, June of 2020. Still mad about being lied to then. My understanding was 95% effective against catching covid, but that was against 'alpha' and the risk by that time was 'delta'. (And zero health risk which also wasn't true.) Then I caught 'omicron' 6 months later. (Now that immunity has worn off.) My vaccination maybe helped with severity but not with prevention. Fair enough but not my reason for taking it.
Now we have XBB.1.5 but the latest vaccine is aimed at BA.5.
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/what-you-need-to-know-about-xbb15-the-latest-omicron-variant
If the next vaccine to come out has perfect effectiveness and safety, how would I know?
And if the next vaccine to come out is really dangerous, I would only hear that from Alex Berenson and the negative sources.
-
I remember when Dr. Scott Gottleib was one of the good guys.
Being on the Board of Pfizer is not the best position to speak freely with unbiased, disinterested opinions.
-
Looks to me like there is still no serious effort to distinguish vaxxers with natural antibodies in the data. Therefore, IMHO all efficacy data is tainted.
-
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/01/pentagon-rescinds-covid-vaccine-mandate/381684/
-
third
https://gab.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/posts/109665365724214390
-
How the U.S. Government and Social Media Stifled the Covid Conversation
By PRADHEEP J. SHANKER
January 12, 2023 6:30 AM
Our government, in coordination with large, powerful corporations, intentionally limited the spread of dissenting opinions and ideas during the pandemic.
The release of internal Twitter communications, thanks to the actions of the company’s new owner, Elon Musk, has provided the public with a unique view of how our government, in coordination with large, powerful corporations, intentionally suppressed dissenting opinions and ideas about Covid and Covid policies. Amid our vigorous and often angry debates over the pandemic and the way it was handled, political actors were working with Twitter to limit the speech of certain voices challenging what had become the “official” line.
In a December release of one batch of the Twitter Files, journalist David Zweig revealed how the Trump and Biden administrations both actively pushed social media to suppress the opinions of certain scientists, thinkers, and physicians in their discussions of the U.S. public-health policy response to the pandemic. Politicians, it became clear, wanted to stop the spread of science-based dissent from their policies, setting a dangerous new precedent in America. This startling bipartisan effort to shape public debate over such a critical issue shows how the levers of our government have become corrupt, regardless of who holds power.
Zweig presented emails and texts between federal-government officials and Twitter executives, starting in 2020 and continuing until the summer of 2022. Zweig explains: “It wasn’t just Twitter. The meetings with the Trump White House were also attended by Google, Facebook, Microsoft and others.” For example, early in 2020, Trump officials tried to get Twitter to censor accounts that were spreading what they deemed misinformation. Their goal was to prevent fear and thus panic-buying of groceries and basic medical supplies. The effort to use the power of the executive to limit or outright censor dissenting views accelerated upon the election of Joe Biden.
In an astounding abuse of power, the Biden administration actively and directly targeted and tried to suppress debate regarding Covid-19 science, intentionally trying to punish or silence anyone whom they considered a dissenting voice. This was most prominent with the release of email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital media, and social-media executives. The emails prove definitively that social-media companies, including Facebook and Twitter, were badgered and pressured to restrict free speech and impose Covid censorship policies promoted by high-level officials within the White House.
As has been well documented in the Twitter Files, Flaherty repeatedly, over a period of weeks and months, threatened and cajoled executives at Facebook, WhatsApp, YouTube, and other sites to dramatically restrict free expression of any individuals that disagreed with the White House stance on coronavirus policy. From the Wall Street Journal:
These emails establish a clear pattern: Mr. Flaherty, representing the White House, expresses anger at the companies’ failure to censor Covid-related content to his satisfaction. The companies change their policies to address his demands. As a result, thousands of Americans were silenced for questioning government-approved Covid narratives. Two of the Missouri plaintiffs, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, are epidemiologists whom multiple social-media platforms censored at the government’s behest for expressing views that were scientifically well-founded but diverged from the government line—for instance, that children and adults with natural immunity from prior infection don’t need Covid vaccines.
This use of political pressure was not limited to lower-level staffers in the West Wing. White House press secretary Jen Psaki, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and even President Biden himself directly advocated such censorship. As the WSJ reported, “on July 16, 2021, a reporter asked Mr. Biden his ‘message to platforms like Facebook.’ He replied, ‘They’re killing people.’ Mr. Biden later claimed he meant users, not platforms, were killing people. But the record shows Facebook itself was the target of the White House’s pressure campaign.” From within our federal government came repeated, organized pressure to coerce — possibly illegally — private companies to censor the free speech of Americans whose positions deviated from government-approved messaging. This very well may be the most sustained and organized effort of censorship in modern American history.
And it’s not just inside the Beltway: Last year, the government of California passed a law that prohibits doctors from spreading Covid “misinformation.” Putting aside the downright un-American and authoritarian aspects of this effort to suppress certain views, we arrive at another core problem: What exactly is misinformation? Twitter executives, in cahoots with government officials, deemed certain opinions to be misinformation not because these views were at odds with science but simply because they were at odds with the government narrative.
TOP STORIES
‘Not An Accurate Description’: MSNBC Anchor Chides Reporter for Using ‘Pro-Life’ On-Air
AG Garland Appoints Special Counsel to Investigate Biden’s Alleged Mishandling of Classified Documents
‘Not True!’: Joy Reid Shouts Down Byron Donalds as He Predicts Social-Security Collapse
Stop Electing Lazy, Narcissistic Men-Children to Congress
As a New Batch of Classified Documents Emerges, Assessing Biden’s Statements about the First Batch
Heck of a Morning, Axios!
But we have another major problem regarding misinformation: Government officials have been spreading untrue information for the entirety of the pandemic. This, of course, started under Trump, but Biden and his staff have clearly been involved in their own misinformation campaigns.
The examples are plentiful. The most familiar one, by now, is Covid adviser Anthony Fauci’s misinformation about masks: In early 2020, he proclaimed that people did not need them to protect themselves from the virus. He later admitted that he’d said this because he and other policy-makers were worried about depleting supplies of high-grade masks needed by medical professionals. But that worry doesn’t change the fact that he was actively misinforming the public on the matter.
More on
COVID
Woke Shock Troops on Campus
The Adverse Effects of Lying during a Pandemic
White House Pressured Facebook to Censor Tucker Carlson Anti-Vaccine Video
In 2021, current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Rochelle Walensky repeatedly, and on numerous occasions, proclaimed that the Covid vaccines could prevent transmission of the virus. Fauci said this, too. This unscientific misstatement was repeated by President Biden in July 2021. No evidence or data supported such a statement, but the misinformation was disseminated nonetheless. In fact, it was on the basis of this misinformation that the Biden administration pushed for vaccine mandates, even after the claim that vaccines prevent transmission had been disproven.
These are but a few of the examples of government misinformation on Covid, which the American people were asked to accept as “science.” And yet we are expected to excuse those in power for their misstatements.
The pandemic-driven interest in censorship as a tool of government will not simply end with the Biden administration, now that the pandemic has wound down. Once such authoritarian powers become tolerated by the public, their use will spread. There is now a pervasive belief, especially among the American political Left, that the elites controlling the levers of government power have not only a right but a duty to suppress information flowing to the American public. We learned from the Twitter Files, for example, that Congressman Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) used the power of his elected office to suppress the speech of Americans he disagrees with. Journalist Matt Taibbi documented that Schiff demanded that Twitter executives suspend the accounts of various political voices he deemed dangerous.
The arrogance and lack of humility among these leaders is one of the key reasons why skepticism and distrust have been growing among the American people. One cannot call it paranoia when the public, suspecting that its leaders are not being honest, is shown evidence that their leaders were in fact lying.
The Biden administration, from the president on down, owes the American people full transparency, accountability, and public apologies for their behavior. Their un-American suppression of dissent is not only a disgrace in a free country, but it also might have cost lives. The eternal quest for knowledge in science depends on vigorous, open, honest debate carried on freely and without threat of punishment. Debates by their very nature will often reveal certain claims to have been false. That is literally how the scientific method works: eliminating the ideas that are wrong to truly learn what is right.
Donald Trump and his administration certainly started this process early in the pandemic, but their scattershot attempts to restrict messaging pale in comparison to his successor’s attempt at censorship. And in that sense, Biden and his administration continue to fail the American people. Americans should demand that their leaders be held to account for this affront to the First Amendment.
-
Considering contrary POVs is part of the search for Truth:
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/the-science-and-business-behind-covid?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
-
Considering contrary POVs is part of the search for Truth:
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/the-science-and-business-behind-covid?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
A good article about how misinformation spreads but not much about determining which side's message is misinformation.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/elon-musk-reveals-major-side-effects-after-2nd-covid-booster_5001304.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-01-22&src_cmp=mb-2023-01-22&utm_medium=email&est=LuGdsIKq02xjyuQG%2Bb%2BRbfGt12XAuZa8eumrRkpPsiLK2C3jWIrmlg4r%2BE%2FbNcKhaLC6
-
Looking like Michael Yon was on target , , ,
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/health/joe-rogan-and-bret-weinstein-covid-19-blunder_5004427.html?utm_source=News&src_src=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2023-01-24-2&src_cmp=breaking-2023-01-24-2&utm_medium=email&est=%2FQx6lKwr%2BKKURU1lLm6NNTK0tbqbMdwbqpg%2FTNB%2BwqoMAMZj%2FkbHBSpXlgtXpcetLshP
Joe Rogan and Bret Weinstein: COVID-19 Blunder
An evolutionary theorist dropped this bombshell on Joe Rogan, referring to it as the biggest blunder in human history.
HEALTH VIEWPOINTS
Joseph Mercola
Joseph Mercola
Jan 23 2023
biggersmaller
By Lightspring/Shutterstock
By Lightspring/Shutterstock
An evolutionary theorist dropped this bombshell on Joe Rogan, referring to it as the biggest blunder in human history. Just look at this ‘mind-blowing’ research published in Science Immunology regarding what happens to your immune system after just 3 doses.
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Bret Weinstein, an evolutionary theorist, discussed some of the most heavily censored topics today on “The Joe Rogan Experience”
From the initial allowance of gain-of-function research to the botched pandemic response, Weinstein believes the COVID-19 pandemic is the largest blunder in human history
Research published in Science Immunology reveals a “mind blowing” finding that after three doses of mRNA COVID-19 shots, your immune system may be triggered not to fight
As SARS-CoV-2 spread through the population, fear was used to make the population compliant
Weinstein explores the possibility that a select group may have had advance notice of the impending pandemic and used that knowledge to position themselves for a financial windfall
Bret Weinstein, an evolutionary theorist, author of “A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century” and host of “The DarkHorse Podcast” was interviewed on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” discussing some of the most heavily censored topics today.[1]
From discussing why he believes COVID-19 is the “biggest blunder in human history” to how COVID-19 shots may make the human immune system unable to fight off pathogens, the interview is as riveting as it is pertinent to public health.
At the root of the problem is censorship, which has buried information that could have turned the tide of the COVID-19 pandemic early on, and the intentional act of keeping people in the dark, which may have paved the way for massive wealth transfer ahead of the pandemic.
‘Zero Is a Special Number’
Weinstein begins by discussing how the narrative has been able to get so out of control, with free speech openly dampened by those in control. He calls the concept “zero is a special number”:[2]
“The idea of zero as a special number is that this narrative control would not work if there was even one newspaper that was dedicated to the job of reporting the news. It wouldn’t work if there was even one university that was dedicated to finding what the truth might be. Right?
It doesn’t work if there’s one social media platform in a primary position in which free speech reigns, because in any of these cases, if you had the university that was still interested in truth seeking in an era where everybody else was doing their diversity, equity and inclusion thing, every reasonable person would wanna send their kid there, right?
So it would win in competition almost immediately, and the result would be every other institution would have to change their policy to compete. So if you get even one exception, that’s enough to break this pattern.”
What we face is a corporate stronghold over media combined with a state-run propaganda machine. Countless private-public partnerships between government and corporations bind the two camps together in a pact to dictate “truth” to the public. Weinstein believes Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter is an attempt to become that single exception, which is why you’re seeing so many people publicly announcing that they’re leaving the platform:[3]
Top US Men's Surgeon: Do This Once Daily To 'Shrink' Enlarged Prostate
SPONSORED CONTENT
Top US Men's Surgeon: Do This Once Daily To 'Shrink' Enlarged Prostate
BY PROSTANEWS.COM
“The structure that is controlling the narrative understands that it cannot endure that [Twitter becoming a platform for free speech]. And so far it has failed to shut down Elon.
So their next move is actually to get people on one side of this debate to leave so that they can’t prevent Twitter from being a space where people can speak freely, but they can take it out of the position of being a primary social media environment. And in so doing, they will take the number of meaningful exceptions to the free speech control back to zero. That’s what they’re up to.”
They Don’t Want You to Know the Shots Are Gene Therapy
Initially, Weinstein didn’t think the issue of labeling mRNA COVID-19 shots “vaccines” was a big issue, but he’s since changed his mind. “Lots of people were upset by the redefinition of the term vaccine,” he says. “I wasn’t convinced it was an important issue. I have switched sides on this. I now think the definition is vitally important and we’re beginning to see why.”[4]
The No. 1 reason why Weinstein believes COVID-19 shots are not vaccines is because they do not create immunity to the pathogen. They also use a very different technology than that used by typical vaccines. But if the government began touting a new gene therapy, people would have questioned it. Weinstein explains:[5]
“What they’ve done is they’ve smuggled in a really, truly radically new technology. And they caused us all not to worry about it very much by using the term vaccine, right? If they had said, alright, we’ve got this pandemic and in order to prevent it from spreading, we’re gonna have everybody take gene therapy.
Everybody would’ve said, what? Gene therapy is that safe? So the point is we had a category and it was called vaccine. And we all thought, you know, there are some crazy folks who are worried about vaccines, but in general, it’s safe. So if something carries that label, it’s probably safe too.”
How COVID Shots Made the Pandemic Worse
As Weinstein and his wife, Heather Heying, an evolutionary biologist and cohost of “The DarkHorse Podcast,” dug deeper, they realized there was no way anyone could know whether COVID-19 shots were safe. “We looked at these technologies and thought, wow, you are intervening in a nested series of complex systems in a way that you can’t possibly predict the outcome.”[6]
This brought them to the work of Geert Vanden Bossche, Ph.D., a vaccinology expert and former global director of vaccine programs, including work for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He’s been heavily censored because he’s among those who have warned about immune escape due to the pressure being placed upon the virus during the mass COVID-19 shot campaign.
Bossche describes a general principle in biology, vaccinology and microbiology that if you put living organisms like bacteria or viruses under pressure, via antibiotics, antibodies or chemotherapeutics, for example, but don’t kill them off completely, you can inadvertently encourage their mutation into more virulent strains. Those that escape your immune system end up surviving and selecting mutations to ensure their further survival.
SARS-CoV-2 has a high capacity for mutation but, according to Bossche, if the virus isn’t under pressure, it won’t necessarily see a need to select mutations to, for instance, become more infectious. But if you put it under pressure, as occurred during the mass vaccination campaign — or as Bossche calls it the “one big experiment” — this changes. Weinstein says: [7]
“What he said is, look, if you vaccinate into a pandemic and you do so broadly across the population, you’re going to drive the evolution of variants … You are going to create an evolutionary arms race, and you were going to cause the number of variants to proliferate.
And, you know, at the time, I couldn’t say for sure that he was right, but what I could say was that he was making evolutionary sense. There was nothing terribly complex about his argument, and it was robust. And I think now we are seeing … that proliferation of variants.”
Are the Shots Triggering Immune Systems to Give Up?
Research published in Science Immunology [8] reveals a “mind blowing” finding that after three doses of mRNA COVID-19 shots, your immune system may be triggered not to fight. “It’s a very dangerous discovery,” Weinstein says, that has to do with an elevation in the percentage of IgG4 antibodies:[9]
“IgG4 is actually part of a system in which the body attenuates its own response to an antigen. So the mind blowing, and you know, it’s an early result, maybe it doesn’t get replicated, but … the implication is that the evolutionary path we have traveled is causing the pathogen now to be able to trigger a response that will cause the immune system not to fight. Nobody knows what happens next …
So the idea that a pathogen, and mind you, not a normal pathogen, a pathogen that we can now be pretty darn certain was engineered by humans, at least in part, that pathogen is now triggering that signal that causes the immune system not to react anymore, means we’re in a whole new landscape.”
Another potential mechanism of harm involves Marc Girardot’s Bolus Theory [10] and what happens if a COVID-19 shot, or any shot which is intended to be injected into the muscle, accidentally gets injected into a blood vessel, a demonstrated regular occurrence in hospitals. According to Girardot: [11]
“Say the direct IV injection of a dose of Pfizer [COVID-19 shot] is diluted by 30 by the time it gets to the aorta, you’d have around 10,000 lipid nanoparticles hitting each square millimeter of endothelium during the very brief passage of the bolus.
Let’s imagine 10% of these vaccine particles penetrate a cell when they hit it. That means that up to 1,000 cells will end up destroyed by the immune system. That’s more than 100% of the cells in that area! Likely irreparable, similar to a third-degree burn.
In the case of a proper intramuscular injection, the maximum concentration would be 25 lipid nanoparticles presenting themselves to the same 1 sq.mm. of endothelial surface. Only three would be uptaken, or less 0.4% of the surface would end up destroyed. Those three cell gaps would be fixed within minutes of the immune attack. And life would go on.
This brief physical phenomenon, similar to an avalanche crashing through your vascular system, is in my opinion the cause of all the adverse effects we have witnessed these past two years, and that have occurred for decades.”
More Clues SARS-CoV-2 Is Not of Natural Origin
Weinstein says he knew very early on in the pandemic that SARS-CoV-2 did not appear to be of natural origin. Further, it didn’t appear to be due to a simple laboratory escape either, but rather was a highly unusual pathogen with “unprecedented genetic alteration” — one that was likely enhanced in a laboratory before it escaped. Even the way it behaves in the human body, harming everything from toes to circulation to the brain is unusual:[12]
“There’s a reason that a normal pathogen doesn’t do the widescale damage that COVID seems to, and that reason is that, in general, pathogens don’t have an interest in harming you … In fact, they do best when you are healthy enough to walk around and spread them.
And so they tend to spare tissues that do not help them to be transmitted. Well, that’s not the case with this pathogen. This pathogen seems to invade all kinds of tissues that don’t help it to spread.”
The presence of a furin cleavage site on SARS-CoV-2, which is what makes it so transmissible and able to invade tissue so effectively, is another smoking gun. “That’s something that we knew would take a coronavirus and cause it to be highly effective in humans. We knew that before SARS-CoV-2 ever emerged. So, to find it on this virus, even though no other member of the subfamily has it, is conspicuous,” he says.[13]
The lengths that the mainstream narrative has gone to discredit the lab-origin theory also hint at its relevance: [14]
“Why are they continually trying to reanimate the explanation that this is a natural spillover event? Because if it isn’t, then we know who did it, right? Anthony Fauci was key to circumventing the ban on gain-of-function research that resulted in the Wuhan lab being funded by us [the U.S.] to do this work. So if this was a natural spillover event from a wet market, then Anthony Fauci is in the clear, right?
If this is the result of ill-conceived gain-of-function research taking place in Wuhan, partially at our direction, that’s a whole different ballgame … those who are responsible cannot allow a full investigation.
I don’t know what will happen if the truth were to fully emerge about, not only what was the explanation for how this virus came into the world when it came into the world … but also what we failed to do, … we failed to deploy …
Because we didn’t deal with the pathogen properly at the beginning, because we didn’t deploy the drugs that we had at our disposal that did work, we ran out the clock on the brief period of time when we might have driven it extinct or at least controlled it.”
The Largest Blunder in Human History
From the initial allowance of gain-of-function research to the botched pandemic response, Weinstein believes the COVID-19 pandemic is the largest blunder in human history. He asks poignant questions, like what would have happened if we had treated COVID-19 the way we treat other emerging pathogens — with trial and error and open discussion until the best course of treatment is identified.
“[If] we just let doctors figure out how to treat it … they would’ve gotten rapidly better at treating this disease, and they would’ve discovered all of the compounds that work. And they would’ve talked to each other about in what way to deploy those compounds, at what dosage. They would’ve discovered all of that stuff,” Weinstein says. [15]
Instead, as SARS-CoV-2 spread through the population, fear was used to make the population compliant. Data was manipulated, with COVID-19 deaths including people who died “with” COVID, not from it.
“Those numbers caused us to think the pathogen was something other than it was. And it is obvious to anyone seriously analyzing this that COVID isn’t a dangerous pathogen. SARS-CoV-2 is a dangerous pathogen. I’m very worried about where it goes. But the case fatality rate is not one that should have caused us to vaccinate literally billions of people,” Weinstein explains. [16]
A tweet featured in the interview claimed to be from a doctor who defended her choice to get a COVID-19 shot, saying she did it out of love while antivaxxers were acting out of hate. The tweet turned out to be fake, [17] but its sentiment was not a far stretch from reality, as friends, families and colleagues have been torn apart over differing viewpoints during the pandemic.
This divisiveness is not happenstance; it’s very much intentional. “One of the best ways to not look at people as being human is to categorize them as an enemy in some way,” Weinstein says, mentioning mass formation, which involves the formation of a hypnotic state around a shared consensus.
“The mass formation appears to be downstream of an industrial strength propaganda campaign,” Weinstein says. “A very expensive one designed to create these unsolvable puzzles for people so that they would end up in this mindset.” [18]
The solution begins with continuing to share and spread the truth, and coming together toward this end. “If we don’t do that, then we head into further and further polarization.” [19]
Who’s Profiting Off Keeping You in the Dark?
Meanwhile, Weinstein explores the possibility that a select group may have had advance notice of the impending pandemic and used that knowledge to position themselves for a financial windfall — and a “cryptic, massive transfer of wealth: [20]
“There’s been lots of talk in various publications at this point about the possibility that COVID was circulating earlier than we knew … If you know that a pandemic is coming and that it is going to spread around the globe, and it is going to cause all kinds of alterations, you can, you know, short stocks for cruise ships or airplanes, hotels, right? You can invest in pharmaceutical companies that have useful technologies …
And so the question is, how much of the story here involves something having understood what was coming and having revealed it at a point that it was positioned rather than it having emerged naturally? … I’m as much an outsider to this as anybody, but I will say there’s a version of the story in which our being kept in the dark is a perpetual source of wealth.”
Originally published Jan 20, 2023, on Mercola.com
References
[1] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023
[2] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 17:16
[3] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 18:14
[4] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 19:53
[5] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 22:55
[6] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 25:46
[7] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 22:55
[8] Science Immunology December 22, 2022
[9] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 28:36
[10] Substack, COVID Myth Buster Series January 9, 2023
[11] Substack, COVID Myth Buster Series January 9, 2023
[12] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 36:00
[13] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 39:20
[14] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 47:00
[15] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 1:14
[16] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 1:17
[17] The New York Post January 6, 2023
[18] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 1:40
[19] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 1:49
[20] The Joe Rogan Experience Video January 5, 2023, 1:25
-
I would argue the biggest blunder was the covid 19 escape from the Wuhan lab in the first place.
if the vaccinations were disarming the immune system
then it would be the first time I ever heard of this in history.
so I think the word "blunder" which is thrill for the anti vaxers
is an unfair adjective that just makes anti vaxers feel good
"I was right all along " and "YOU were/are wrong " mentality
which comes from both sides of the issue
all one upmanship
instead we are all in this together
learning along the way
-
a) If I have it right, the argument is that these were not vaccinations, but something of an entirely different nature;
b) I would submit that the attitude of the anti-vaxxers here is driven by the quasi-totalitarian (quite possibly driven in corrupt motivations) suppression of scientific inquiry and other points of view, the financial ruin created by the cancelation of those of the other points of view. The vaxx forces most certainly were NOT of the we-are-all-in-this-together mindset.
-
there is historical evidence
that in 1918 - 19
cities that had quarantine did a lot better in preventing deaths than those that did not.
I believe the medical community thought then logically they need to do same here
to prevent
spread and death
the pros and cons did not turn out as expected
(that might have worked in past to some degree )
the virus is too easily spread ,
and people are just too interconnected to stop the spread and the vaccines are very disappointing in they do not stop spread
mask do not work well
it turns out
To stop a contagion like this you need all in
was the thinking
it turns out with this contagion
this approach does not work and is counter productive
in retrospect
were lives saved ?
I don't know anymore
I am tired of data - one person dies it is a tragedy
if a million die it is a statistic .....
-
As far as the beginning is concerned, we are in agreement that the official thinking was plausible, the problem is in the cross connection with the WHO and the Chi Coms and the apparent insider dealing with the Pharmas AND THE OPPRESSION OF OTHER POINTS OF VIEW AND THE FAILURE TO CHANGE COURSE AS KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS EVOLVED.
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/125/686/979/original/a515e5cbb51aa213.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/125/686/979/original/a515e5cbb51aa213.jpg)
there is historical evidence
that in 1918 - 19
cities that had quarantine did a lot better in preventing deaths than those that did not.
I believe the medical community thought then logically they need to do same here
to prevent
spread and death
the pros and cons did not turn out as expected
(that might have worked in past to some degree )
the virus is too easily spread ,
and people are just too interconnected to stop the spread and the vaccines are very disappointing in they do not stop spread
mask do not work well
it turns out
To stop a contagion like this you need all in
was the thinking
it turns out with this contagion
this approach does not work and is counter productive
in retrospect
were lives saved ?
I don't know anymore
I am tired of data - one person dies it is a tragedy
if a million die it is a statistic .....
-
Mask-Wearing Champions Japan and South Korea Look to End the Habit
‘We want to restore normalcy,’ says Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida
In Japan, social pressure to wear masks remains strong even as business has returned to nearly normal.
PHOTO: ISSEI KATO/REUTERS
By Miho InadaFollow
in Tokyo and Dasl YoonFollow
in Seoul
Jan. 20, 2023 6:42 am ET
Three years into the pandemic, nearly everyone in Japan is wearing a mask most of the time in public, and in South Korea it is legally required indoors.
Now these two Asian champions of mask-wearing say it is time to move on. Officials in Tokyo and Seoul on Friday called for easing of mask protocols, overriding concerns from some who say the practice still saves lives and keeps away a variety of ailments.
It is a striking cultural divide with the U.S. and European nations, where most people long ago gave up their masks and the political debate was often driven by people who objected to face-covering.
In Japan and South Korea, antimask sentiment has had little political currency. Tokyo even had to run ads last summer urging people to take off their masks outside to avoid heat stroke.
Chiharu Kanki, a 58-year-old teacher in Japan who double-masks in public, said the habit has protected her not only from Covid-19 but also from colds and hay-fever symptoms over the past three years. “My eyes didn’t itch even once,” she said. “I’m just scared to take off my mask.”
Still, some critics have raised concerns recently that permanent masking is unhealthy for society.
“Children have been deprived of freedom most,” said political scientist Lully Miura. She said that at her daughter’s elementary school, students have to wear masks all day including when singing in chorus. The exceptions are gym class and lunch, when she said the children have to eat silently.
“They are put in a position where they can’t enjoy life,” she said.
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on Friday called on government officials to prepare for easing guidance that currently recommends mask-wearing indoors. “We want to restore normalcy in Japan,” he said.
He also said the government would prepare to downgrade Covid-19 to a lower-risk category of diseases that includes influenza. Currently, it is rated high-risk along with pneumonia.
Japan has never legally mandated mask wearing, but it is effectively required in many settings.
PHOTO: KYODONEWS/ZUMA PRESS
South Korea said it would lift its indoor-mask mandate starting Jan. 30, citing a downward trend in infections. It had dropped the mandate for outdoors last September. People will still be required to wear masks at hospitals and pharmacies and while using public transportation.
South Korean Prime Minister Han Duck-soo said infections and critical Covid-19 cases were falling, allowing for looser rules.
The move enjoys popular support. In a December poll by the Korea Chamber of Commerce of Industry, three of four South Koreans said they wanted the indoor-mask mandate lifted. Most people have already stopped wearing masks outside.
In Japan, by contrast, it is too early to say whether an all-clear signal from the government will change public behavior.
An internet poll conducted in December by survey firm MyVoice found nearly 80% of Japanese respondents wanted to wear masks either all the time or in some situations even after the pandemic is over.
While business has returned to virtually normal in Japan and the country’s borders have been fully open to travel since October, social pressure to wear masks remains strong.
On a recent morning show on public broadcaster NHK about soba noodles, a reporter slurped some noodles on camera but quickly put his mask back on before commenting on the taste.
At Ginza Mitsukoshi, a department store in Tokyo operated by Isetan Mitsukoshi Holdings Ltd. often visited by tourists, the symbolic lion statue at the entrance still bears a huge mask. The company said it hoped customers would follow suit.
South Korea said it would lift its indoor-mask mandate at the end of January, citing a downward trend in infections.
PHOTO: WOOHAE CHO/BLOOMBERG NEWS
In contrast to South Korea, Japan has never legally mandated mask wearing, but it is effectively required in many settings.
A professional player of shogi, or Japanese chess, removed his mask at an October match and forgot to put it back on. Match officials, citing a mask requirement, said he had to forfeit the match, and the Japan Shogi Association this month upheld the decision on appeal.
Asian nations generally weathered the pandemic better than the U.S., but the role of masks is still debated. The Covid-19 death rate per capita for Japan is one-sixth the U.S. level, while South Korea’s is one-fifth the U.S. level, according to the website Our World in Data.
Norio Sugaya, an infectious-diseases expert and a visiting professor at Keio University in Tokyo, said it was too early for the government to encourage people to go maskless. He observed that more than 10,000 people in Japan have died of Covid-19 in the past month, which is two to three times the typical number of flu deaths annually in the country. That means Covid-19 shouldn’t be downgraded to the same category as the flu, he said.
Other specialists, however, say masks also carry long-term risks. Masami Yamaguchi, a psychology professor at Chuo University in Tokyo, said that many teenage girls who are accustomed to masks don’t want to show their faces and that in some cases, dating couples have never seen each other’s unmasked face. Even babies might suffer disruption in their ability to recognize faces, she said, a subject she is researching now.
“We cannot see an obvious impact, but it could emerge in 10 or 20 years,” she said.
Write to Miho Inada at miho.inada@wsj.com and Dasl Yoon at dasl.yoon@wsj.com
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywlpArNWKxM
Controlled evolution!
-
https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/image00000933.jpg
(https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/image00000933.jpg)
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/125/686/979/original/a515e5cbb51aa213.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/125/686/979/original/a515e5cbb51aa213.jpg)
there is historical evidence
that in 1918 - 19
cities that had quarantine did a lot better in preventing deaths than those that did not.
I believe the medical community thought then logically they need to do same here
to prevent
spread and death
the pros and cons did not turn out as expected
(that might have worked in past to some degree )
the virus is too easily spread ,
and people are just too interconnected to stop the spread and the vaccines are very disappointing in they do not stop spread
mask do not work well
it turns out
To stop a contagion like this you need all in
was the thinking
it turns out with this contagion
this approach does not work and is counter productive
in retrospect
were lives saved ?
I don't know anymore
I am tired of data - one person dies it is a tragedy
if a million die it is a statistic .....
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywlpArNWKxM
Controlled evolution!
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/directed-evolution-pfizer-rd-exec-says-covid-19-created-wuhan-cash-cow-company
-
I suppose I get the logic of wanting to be ready, but OTOH "Intelligence is the amount of time it takes to forget a lesson."
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687675/Army-spied-lockdown-critics-Sceptics-including-Peter-Hitchens-suspected-watched.html
Good thing we have a constitution!
https://nationalpost.com/news/what-the-twitter-files-reveal-about-the-platforms-relationship-with-the-fbi
-
Please post those two in Surveillance State as well.
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/3441999/dr-obvious
-
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/about-that-project-veritas-scoop
-
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/bill-gates-profits-biontech-effectiveness-covid-vaccines/
-
unless people are f'ing and s'ing on airplanes and in restaurants
not an issue with transmission
duh
-
https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas/status/1620193873875320834
-
sounds to me they are altering virus
don't they claim they are forced to or have no choice?
who is telling them to do this
FDA ?
NIH ?
other ?
we should not be messing with natural viruses
is not corona not enough evidence the danger is greater than any benefit ?
supposedly this is being done around the world I read somewhere
you know China from what I read never does anything without military input .
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/01/vaccinated-msnbc-host-reveals-developed-pericarditis-myocarditis-due-common-cold-video/
:roll:
-
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2023/01/31/its-time-for-the-scientific-community-to-admit-we-were-wrong-about-covid-it-cost-lives/
-
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2023/02/01/who-will-be-spared-from-covid-19-vaccine-injury/#more-292843
-
remember when Trump pushed to get vaccine ASAP
and most in the med community at first said it would take a yr and half to be sure it is safe and ready
then it came out in a yr
so it is rightly called the *Trump vaccine*
"Americans have become numb with newsreels of sudden cardiac death, blood clots, stroke, seizures, hospitalization, and death after COVID-19 vaccination.
[me , not really ]
Many have vowed to decline future boosters and get off the vaccination train. However, a common question is: will I be spared?
[me , not losing sleep ]
in response the the daily
"clot shot" post
even right wing fav Bhattachayria finally admitted shots for those 65 and older or at high risk "work"
Finally admitted that despite yrs of only bashing
-
https://www.newsweek.com/its-time-scientific-community-admit-we-were-wrong-about-coivd-it-cost-lives-opinion-1776630
-
https://sharylattkisson.com/2023/01/read-autopsy-analysis-of-2-teen-boys-who-died-days-after-2d-pfizer-covid-19-shot/
-
" clotshot " = "Trump vaccine"
:-D :wink:
-
https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/02/west-point-travel-cadet-vaccine-mandate/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking&pnespid=p6t4VXROMrMGxOOcpTa.Q8zXpBmgUop0J7K30Ogwt0Zm1A6dcVi1jQnQw7BQVz7tl6R7MTPe
-
" clotshot " = "Trump vaccine"
:-D :wink:
Yes.
As the narrative shifts from “safe and effective” to “Oh my god, what did we do?” Then it will be Trump’s vaccine!
-
well Trump pushed it out faster then most wanted to do so
so it fits
more "data " for you :
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext
https://www.statnews.com/2022/12/13/covid-vaccines-prevented-3-million-deaths/
-
Was Trump listening to his advisors, like Anthony "Chinese Biowarfare Lab" Fauci?
well Trump pushed it out faster then most wanted to do so
so it fits
more "data " for you :
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext
https://www.statnews.com/2022/12/13/covid-vaccines-prevented-3-million-deaths/
-
"Was Trump listening to his advisors, like Anthony "Chinese Biowarfare Lab" Fauci?"
no
in mho
he was very late
and did lousy job early epidemic
indeed I recall you were one of the early ones to rightly call the disaster the epidemic would become .
There was almost certainly no way to stop it anyway
no matter what anyone did. When the CCP let the infected leave Bejing and with world wide travel the way it is
trying to stop the spread was a fools game.
Fauci, who I do not like, and from what I remember, thought trying to get a vaccine out by the end of the yr was not possible or safe
-
He didn't shut down international flights early enough?
"Was Trump listening to his advisors, like Anthony "Chinese Biowarfare Lab" Fauci?"
no
in mho
he was very late
and did lousy job early epidemic
indeed I recall you were one of the early ones to rightly call the disaster the epidemic would become .
There was almost certainly no way to stop it anyway
no matter what anyone did. When the CCP let the infected leave Bejing and with world wide travel the way it is
trying to stop the spread was a fools game.
Fauci, who I do not like, and from what I remember, thought trying to get a vaccine out by the end of the yr was not possible or safe
-
Why Vaccine Skepticism Is Growing on the Right
Public-health officials imposed mandates and kept news of potential side effects under wraps.
Allysia Finley hedcutBy Allysia FinleyFollow
Feb. 5, 2023 5:03 pm ET
Republicans cheered when Covid-19 vaccines rolled out two year ago. “I think the messaging should be, ‘Get a vaccine because it’s good for you to do it. It works. You’re not going to have to have to be doing anything abnormal. You can live your life,’ ” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said in April 2021.
The message from the Biden administration and public-health officials has been different: Vaccines are safe and effective. Period. Those who don’t trust us should shut up.
This contempt for the laity helps explain why vaccine skepticism is growing on the political right. Some of this skepticism is misguided. In the early months of the pandemic, thousands were dying daily from Covid. There was a political imperative to roll out vaccines as soon as it became clear they could prevent severe illness. But public-health authorities have since fueled distrust by overselling the benefits of vaccines, pushing them on children who are at low risk for serious illness, mandating shots while playing down potential side effects, and smearing those who raise concerns as spreading misinformation.
Anthony Fauci was among those who misled the public in May 2021. “When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family,” he said. “But also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community.” But the vaccine trials didn’t show that they prevent transmission.
When Covid vaccines were first introduced, the extent to which the virus would mutate wasn’t known. But it was known that most respiratory infections, including RSV, flu and other endemic human coronaviruses, don’t confer long-lasting immunity. Reinfections are common.
In an article last month in the journal Cell, Dr. Fauci and two coauthors describe in dense scientific detail why it’s so hard to develop vaccines that provide lifetime protection from infection by respiratory viruses. Among the reasons: Covid has a short incubation period and replicates rapidly in the mucosal passages.
“If natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines [such as the Covid vaccines] to do so?” the article asked. Good question.
But public-health officials nonetheless suggested that Covid vaccines would help achieve herd immunity and reduce transmission. That was the premise for the Biden administration’s vaccine mandates, which look even worse in hindsight.
Recently released emails reveal that some Food and Drug Administration officials were concerned the agency’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine during the summer of 2021 was being rushed. The vaccine had been authorized for emergency use in December 2020, but full approval requires a significantly more comprehensive examination of safety, efficacy and manufacturing data.
Marion Gruber, then director of the FDA’s vaccine research office, warned Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock in a July 21, 2021, email that the “hyper-accelerated” review would “undermine confidence in the vaccine (and, indeed, in FDA’s credibility).”
There was good reason for the FDA to conduct a rigorous and meticulous review. The FDA earlier that month had quietly published a statement on its website that it had detected four potential adverse events related to Pfizer’s vaccine in seniors: Pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, immune thrombocytopenia, and disseminated intravascular coagulation.
Increased risks from the FDA’s preliminary review of Medicare data for these potential adverse events ranged 42% to 91%. According to Dr. Gruber’s email, her colleague Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, had expressed concern that cases were rising in the U.S. It was his opinion that “states cannot require mandatory vaccination” without full approval.
The FDA reviewed and approved Pfizer’s application in less than a third of the time it takes for a typical drug approval. The Biden administration and many Democratic governors soon imposed vaccine mandates without exceptions for prior infection. They dismissed Americans who cited studies showing the protection offered by natural immunity.
As vaccine protection against infection waned, public-health officials pushed boosters despite little evidence that their benefits outweighed the potential safety concerns for healthy young people such as myocarditis. Officials also rushed last summer to roll out vaccines for children, who are at extremely low risk for severe illness. Yet vaccinated toddlers in Pfizer’s trial were more likely to get severely ill with Covid than those who received a placebo. Most kids who developed multiple infections during the trial were vaccinated. These findings warranted closer examination.
Pfizer says “all information is reviewed meticulously by experienced medical and clinical experts,” and “non-experts reviewing such scientific data is likely to lead to information being misinterpreted or taken out of context.” Got it.
Only in December 2022 did the FDA publish a detailed analysis on the four “safety signals” it had earlier disclosed related to the Pfizer vaccine. After myriad statistical adjustments, the study showed a “safety signal” only for pulmonary embolism. The study’s most noteworthy revelation, however, was that some signals were first detected in February 2021.
If the FDA could review Pfizer’s vaccine application in only a few months, it shouldn’t have taken nearly two years to investigate and publish a study on potential side effects.
Authorities no doubt worry that alerting the public to potential safety risks could discourage vaccination, but their lack of transparency and dismissal of critics fuels the distrust in vaccines. Information about potential side effects is inevitably emerging in viral videos and Twitter threads. It would be better for Americans to hear it from their government.
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/126/663/415/original/7940e927ea65a328.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/126/663/415/original/7940e927ea65a328.jpg)
Just perfectly normal blood clots!
-
https://www.westernjournal.com/autopsy-reveals-cause-death-air-force-cadet-collapsed-died-way-class/
saw this around 1988 in 37 yo male who played soccer
-
https://www.westernjournal.com/autopsy-reveals-cause-death-air-force-cadet-collapsed-died-way-class/
saw this around 1988 in 37 yo male who played soccer
Just how common was it back pre-ClotShot vs now?
-
"Just how common was it back pre-ClotShot vs now?"
you just never give it break do you
-
The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State
Joseph Mercola
Feb 6 2023
In his book "The New Abnormal," Dr. Aaron Kheriaty details how the pandemic paved the way for a totalitarian one-world government.(Manoej Paateel/Shutterstock)
It all started in early 2020 when our world turned upside down. Never before had we witnessed such unimaginable social controls threaten our human rights and freedoms. Now, three years later, the truth is finally coming out about the pandemic and what it means for our future.
Story at a Glance
In his book “The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State,” Dr. Aaron Kheriaty details how the COVID pandemic paved the way for the implementation of a totalitarian one-world government, where human rights and freedoms will no longer exist.
On Sept. 30, 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 2098, which was set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2023. It prohibits doctors from providing COVID-19 treatment or advice that includes false information, and/or contradicts “contemporary scientific consensus,” and/or is “contrary to the standard of care.” A doctor found to violate this law is guilty of “unprofessional conduct” and can face disciplinary action, including having his or her medical license revoked.
Together with four other California-based doctors—Tracy Hoeg, Ram Duriseti, Pete Mazolewski, and Azadeh Khatibi—Kheriaty filed a lawsuit against Newsom and other officials, including the president and members of the Medical Board of California, to block this law.
Another lawsuit, filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, and Physicians for Informed Consent, is also seeking to get AB 2098 tossed out. On Dec. 7, 2022, attorneys for the CHD filed a motion for a preliminary injunction while its legal challenge makes its way through the courts. On Jan. 26, 2023, Senior U.S. District Judge William Shubb granted the CHD’s preliminary injunction.
Kheriaty is also a plaintiff in the Missouri v. Biden case, filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, in which they argue that the Biden administration is colluding with Big Tech to illegally censor Americans. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, who holds a doctorate in operations research and industrial engineering—two authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, an early critique of lockdowns and school closures—have also joined the case.
In the video above, I interview Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, author of “The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State.” Kheriaty is a medical doctor and psychiatrist and worked as a professor in the School of Medicine at the University of California Irvine for 15 years before getting fired for his objections to mandatory COVID shots.
He also directs the Bioethics and American Democracy Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and is a senior scholar and fellow of the Brownstone Institute.
“As ethics program director and ethics community chair, I was involved in basically all of the pandemic policy drafting, right up until the vaccine mandate,” Kheriaty says.
“Our committee at the office of the president had done the ventilator triage policy, the vaccine allocation policy. But when it came to the vaccine mandate, it came down from on high and there was no discussion debate. Our committee was not involved in drafting the policy.
“I was very concerned about the lack of open discussion and debate. Because of all the sensitive policies that we had developed during the pandemic, this one I thought was going to be the most ethically controversial, problematic, and the most publicly fraught.
“So I was puzzled by the fact that we didn’t really have a conversation about it. I published a piece in The Wall Street Journal last year, arguing that vaccine mandates are unethical based on the principle of informed consent, which I teach to all the medical students every year.”
This is the principle that an adult of sound mind has the right to decide what medications or interventions to accept or decline, and that they have the right to make this decision on behalf of their children who are not yet old enough to give consent.
“I was very concerned that vaccine mandates were just tossing this principle overboard under the guise of, ‘We’re in emergency and so the regular rules don’t apply.’ I think it’s precisely in wartime and crises that it’s all the more important to stand fast and hold onto our ethical principles, because those are the times where we’re most tempted to abandon them. And when you do that, you can often invite disaster.”
Doctors Were Bullied Into Not Writing Medical Exemptions
Despite several efforts, the university refused to engage in a debate, and instead put the mandatory COVID jab policy in place. As students started to be steamrolled, many reached out to Kheriaty for help. They’d say things like, “I’m not a religious person, and so, in good conscience, I don’t want to submit a dishonest religious exemption, but I have other moral or ethical concerns about this vaccine.”
Others were unable to get an appropriate medical exemption. The reason they couldn’t get one was that the California Medical Board sent a letter threatening to revoke the medical license of any physician who wrote “inappropriate exemptions.” The board, of course, never defined what was appropriate or inappropriate, but it had the intended effect. Doctors were incredibly hesitant to write medical exemptions at all, for fear of the repercussions. Kheriaty said:
“I remember one patient of mine, a young man who went to his rheumatologist and this doctor told him, ‘Given your autoimmune condition, given what I’ve seen of the vaccine data so far, I recommend that you don’t get the vaccine because I think you’re young and otherwise healthy. You’re not at high risk of COVID, but the vaccine could exacerbate your autoimmune condition.’
“The patient then turned to him and said, ‘OK, can you write me a medical exemption because there’s a mandate at my place of employment?’ The same doctor that just recommended against the vaccine said, ‘No, I’m sorry, I can’t do that because I might lose my medical license.’ So this was the, in my view, intolerable situation that we found ourselves in 2021.
“I just couldn’t imagine trying to teach the principle of informed consent, which I do in the second lecture, or talking with them about integrity and moral courage, standing up and doing the right thing even though you’re at the bottom of the hospital hierarchy as a medical student.
“I couldn’t imagine having those conversations if I had seen something being rolled out that I knew was wrong, that I knew was harming people. I could see my colleagues, nurses, and other very good professionals in the hospital getting fired, having their jobs threatened by this [mandate]. If I hadn’t stood up and done something, I just don’t think I would have woken up with a clear conscience.”
Kheriaty Fired After Legal Challenge
Kheriaty ended up filing a lawsuit in federal court, challenging the vaccine mandate. He argued on behalf of people with natural immunity because, strategically, he thought that was an argument that stood on solid ground legally. The university responded by first placing him on investigatory leave, followed by unpaid suspension. Two months after the lawsuit was filed, they fired him. Kheriaty ended up opening a private practice, and so far has fared well.
“I have been able to provide for my family and get, almost, back to the point where I was before in terms of earnings,” he said. “But it’s much more hand to mouth now. I don’t know how things are going to look year to year. I’m not a salaried employee anymore, but I’ve been able to cobble together various sources of support, including the book I wrote …
“I’ve been able to replicate my clinical work. I’m able to see my patients in my private practice. I’m able to do my research, writing, and speaking. The Ethics and Public Policy Center in D.C., the Brownstone Institute, and the Zephyr Institute have offered me a bit of support to keep that work going.
“The one thing I haven’t really been able to replicate, at least not in the same way, is the teaching and supervision of medical students and residents, which I really enjoyed … That was hard to walk away from, but when I mention that, other people have told me, ‘Yes, but you’re teaching now, you’re just teaching on a different and maybe even on a bigger scale,’ because my case got quite a bit of attention.
“My social media profile expanded and I’ve been given lots of opportunities this year to speak on podcasts to larger audiences, to speak at conferences, and I’ve met some extraordinary people in the medical freedom movement. So I have new colleagues and new friends that are really remarkable and amazing people that I feel a strong connection and solidarity with, because we’re all trying to pull the cart in the same direction.
“We’re all concerned about what’s happened to science and medicine during the pandemic—or I should say what’s happened over the last several decades that really fully manifested during the pandemic.
“So it’s been exciting to be a part of that, to be able to testify at the U.S. Senate, at the California Senate, to get involved in some other legal cases that have to do with physicians’ free speech rights and preserving the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, so that outside governmental intrusions don’t undermine it.
“The work I’ve done this year has been really tremendously rewarding, and I’m grateful for that, so I have no regrets. And even without all those things, there’s nothing better than waking up with a clear conscience, knowing that I tried to do the right thing and that I didn’t compromise my convictions out of convenience.”
Preserving the Freedom of Speech for Physicians
One of the legal cases Kheriaty has gotten involved with is trying to block a new California law from taking effect. On Sept. 30, 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 2098, which was set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2023.
AB 2098 prohibits doctors from providing COVID-19 treatment or advice to a patient when that treatment or advice includes false information, and/or contradicts “contemporary scientific consensus,” and/or is “contrary to the standard of care.”
A doctor found to violate this law is guilty of “unprofessional conduct” and can face disciplinary action, including having his or her medical license revoked. As noted by Kheriaty:
“This, to my mind, obviously undermines the core element that has to be the centerpiece of medicine, which the trust that the patient has in their physician …
“I don’t know of anyone who would want to ask their physician a question … and not have their physician give them an honest answer based on his or her actual medical judgment and reading of the scientific literature. A physician with a gag order is not a physician that you can trust.”
So together with four other California-based doctors—Tracy Hoeg, Ram Duriseti, Pete Mazolewski, and Azadeh Khatibi—Kheriaty filed a lawsuit against Newsom and other officials, including the president and members of the Medical Board of California, to block this law.1
“I think everyone wants their physician to be able to say what they think … and not just be reading from a script that the government gave them,” Kheriaty says.
“So this lawsuit challenges this unjust law in federal court, again on the basis of a constitutional claim that this, No. 1, infringes on the rights of free speech of the physician and, No. 2, is also a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Rights of Physicians …
“We have a constitutional right that’s been established by the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment to have laws that are sufficiently clear that a person can know whether or not they’re in violation of the law, so that you don’t have this looming thing in the background that you’re always wondering, ‘Am I OK or am I not OK?’ So I’m cautiously optimistic that we will prevail in court.”
Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction
Another lawsuit, filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, and Physicians for Informed Consent, is also seeking to get the law tossed out. On Dec. 7, 2022, attorneys for the CHD filed a motion for a preliminary injunction while its legal challenge makes its way through the courts.2
On Jan. 26, 2023, Senior U.S. District Judge William Shubb granted the CHD’s preliminary injunction.3,4 According to Shubb, the defendants failed to provide evidence that “scientific consensus” has any “established technical meaning,” and that the law provides “no clarity” on the meaning of the word “misinformation.” As noted by Shubb:5
“Who determines whether a consensus exists to begin with? If a consensus does exist, among whom must the consensus exist (for example practicing physicians, or professional organizations, or medical researchers, or public health officials, or perhaps a combination)?
“In which geographic area must the consensus exist (California, or the United States, or the world)? What level of agreement constitutes a consensus (perhaps a plurality, or a majority, or a supermajority)? How recently in time must the consensus have been established to be considered ‘contemporary’?
“And what source or sources should physicians consult to determine what the consensus is at any given time (perhaps peer-reviewed scientific articles, or clinical guidelines from professional organizations, or public health recommendations)?
“The statute provides no means of understanding to what ‘scientific consensus’ refers … Because the term ‘scientific consensus’ is so ill-defined, physician plaintiffs are unable to determine if their intended conduct contradicts the scientific consensus, and accordingly ‘what is prohibited by the law’ …
“Vague statutes are particularly objectionable when they ‘involve sensitive areas of First Amendment freedoms’ because ‘they operate to inhibit the exercise of those freedoms.'”
As reported by the CHD:6
“Judge Shubb’s ruling prevents enforcement of AB 2098 pending resolution of the lawsuit. According to lead counsel Rick Jaffe, ‘Judge Shubb looked at the law and correctly determined that the COVID misinformation was unconstitutionally vague, in large part because the plaintiffs in both cases showed there is no ‘current scientific consensus,’ given the fast-changing pace of the pandemic.’
“‘The case will now proceed on two tracks,’ Jaffe said, adding: ‘The parties will continue to litigate the case before Judge Shubb and we will be filing a motion for summary judgment in the not-too-distant future.
“But because we won, and because a judge in the Central District of California denied a similar challenge to AB 2098, the attorney general will certainly appeal and argue that the central district judge was right. So there is much more to come.'”
Kheriaty Is Also Suing the White House
Kheriaty is also a plaintiff in the Missouri v. Biden case, filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, in which they argue that the Biden administration is colluding with Big Tech to illegally censor Americans. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, who holds a doctorate in operations research and industrial engineering—two authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, an early critique of lockdowns and school closures—have also joined the case.
“There’s been a lot of attention in recent weeks on the Twitter files, where we’re looking under the hood at that social media company and seeing, for example, a relationship with the FBI, where the FBI is basically telling Twitter what to do and what to censor and which accounts to shut down,” Kheriaty says.
“Arguably, the social media companies can do this as private entities … but inarguably, no one doubts that the federal government cannot censor Americans. That’s a clear free speech First Amendment violation. And the federal government cannot … pressure other entities into doing its bidding as a long arm of its censorship regime.
“We’re hoping, first of all, to uncover exactly what’s going on with this collusion, and the materials that we have so far in discovery in this case have clearly shown that not only is this happening, but it’s happening on a vaster scale than we suspected when we first filed the lawsuit. At least 17 different federal agencies have been involved in this censorship regime.
“So I think that case is going to receive increasing attention in the new year as it proceeds and as more and more information comes out from other investigative reporters on what’s been going on …”
During his deposition for this case, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, had what Kheriaty calls “wildly implausible memory lapses.” He said “I don’t know” 174 times. “If he were to be honest … he’s probably worried that it would implicate him in ways that are problematic,” Kheriaty says.
Propaganda in the COVID Era
I’ve previously interviewed psychologist Mattias Desmet about the role of mass formation in the government’s ability to infringe on our human rights and freedoms. Kheriaty agrees that the mass formation mechanism has been part of the problem, but it’s not the only one.
“I don’t think mass formation is the only mechanism at work in terms of accounting for our COVID response. In addition to that theory, which I mentioned in my book, I take a look at the more deliberate employment and deployment of fear through propaganda.
“And, through other subtle and not so subtle mechanisms of coercion that were operating during the pandemic—[I look at] financial incentives and power dynamics that also help to account for what happened to us and why so many people went along with it.
“The control of the flow of information has been extremely important during the pandemic. I think without the government’s partnering with private entities in these vast censorship enterprises, we would not have adopted policies like lockdowns and school closures. We would’ve had much more pushback against policies like vaccine mandates than we saw.
“When you lock people down at home and so they’re isolated behind screens, forced to interact with one another only through this medium, they can’t have quiet face-to-face conversations at the watercooler, then you control the flow of information that they’re getting through the control of social media, the control of mainstream media.
“And then [when] you deploy very sophisticated high-level propaganda techniques—wartime propaganda techniques—and you deliberately deploy fear as a mechanism of control, then you create conditions where people go along with manifestly unjust policies, and not only are not troubled by that, but actually believe that they’re doing good.
“These things are framed as duties of a good citizen. And people who challenge these policies are immediately branded with, ‘You only care about money. You don’t care about not killing grandma,’ this sort of thing.
“This desire to be a good person, this desire to be seen as among the virtuous because I’ve done what I’m told to do and I’ve done what it looks like everyone else is wanting to do or being told to do, this is a very powerful tonic that has proven to be very effective over the last three years.”
Why We Must Understand the Big Picture
On Oct. 23, 2022, Bill Gates, Johns Hopkins, and the World Health Organization cohosted yet another tabletop exercise dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,” involving a novel pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25), which primarily affects children and teens.
When asked if he believes COVID-19 was a kind of fine-tuning of a process the globalist cabal intends to deploy in the future during another pandemic, Kheriaty replied:
“Monkeypox never took hold as the next crisis but, yes, I think we’ve adopted a new model of governance and this is what I argue in “The New Abnormal”—that even though a lot of these individual policies have been rolled back, some of the problematic policies that we’ve mentioned, the whole infrastructure for lockdowns, for digital surveillance through vaccine passport-type technology and through digital track and trace technology, this infrastructure has been put in place.
“It’s still in place and it’s just waiting for the next declared public health crisis. This new model of governance involves unprecedented level of control over people’s lives, their movements, their speech, their freedom of association, and it requires that we jump from one declared crisis to the next to keep this state of emergency going, so that certain people can maintain power … and continue to advance their aims.
“In Chapter 3 of the book, I talk about what some of the next steps are in the rollout of what I call a biosecurity or biomedical security paradigm—things like digital IDs tied to biometric data like your iris scan, your face ID, your fingerprint; eventually, data from wearables or implantable devices on your vital signs and your moment-to-moment health status or emotional status.
“Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will be the financial arm of that monitoring, surveilling, and controlling apparatus, so there’s going to be another declared public health crisis. You see an attempt to reframe other issues from racism to climate change as public health issues.
“People in positions of power have floated serious proposals to do rolling lockdowns to deal with the climate crisis, for example, or the energy crisis in Europe, so we’re going to see something.
“Whether it’s a computer virus or an enterovirus, a gastrointestinal bug that disproportionately impacts children—because children were largely spared from COVID and not enough parents vaccinated their children in the eyes of the biosecurity paradigm elites—I don’t know.
“I don’t know exactly what issue is going to be the one that takes hold, but there will be another declared public health crisis, sometime in the next two to three years, with attempts not only to revive COVID-era policies and mechanisms of control, but to advance additional pieces in that regime. Of that, I have absolutely no doubt.
“One of the reasons I wrote the book … [was] to look toward the future and to ask, ‘OK, how is this apparatus, this biomedical security apparatus going to be deployed down the road, and what are the next steps in that process?’
“[I ask this ] so that we can realize that if we don’t start standing up for certain freedoms, if we don’t draw lines and say, ‘These are rights that should never be relinquished, even during an emergency or a declared crisis,’ if we don’t start doing that, and if we’re not aware of what the next steps in this process are going to be and how they’re going to be sold to us, then we’re going to find ourselves caught off guard once again.
“In a crisis where there’s fear and uncertainty, we’re not going to be able to think clearly. We’re going to lose our heads again and we’re going to wake up in a year or two or three and wonder, ‘How did we get here? What happened to us?’ and I don’t want to see that happen again. We’ve already relinquished enough of our freedoms, we’ve already endured the enormous collateral harms of our disastrous pandemic policies, and to my view, we can’t go down that road again in another few years.”
Looking Ahead
In the epilogue of the book, titled “Seattle 2030,” Kheriaty imagines what life might be like seven years from now, if we don’t change course.
“What I do in the first half of the epilogue is try to give the reader a sense of how some of these new technologies and measures are going to be sold to the public, so the first couple of pages of the epilogue don’t seem dystopian …
“It’s only once you get about halfway through that you start seeing, ‘OK, there are some flies in the ointment, and there’s people in this society under this regime who are not benefiting, who are excluded by the social credit system and other mechanisms of social and financial control.’
“There are certainly health problems that are not being solved by twice-a-year mRNA injections, and probably being exacerbated by this model of treating human beings as though we’re hardware that needs software updates in the form of gene therapies.
“Hopefully, by the end of the epilogue, the reader wakes up and recognizes, ‘Oh, my goodness, this is not the kind of society that I want to live in. This is certainly not the kind of society that I want my children or my grandchildren to grow up in.’
“I didn’t invent any new technologies to describe in the epilogue … [I say] ‘A few years from now, if certain things that are readily available are adopted on a mass scale and deployed in particular ways, this is what your life is going to look like. Is this the kind of life that you want to lead?’
“So it’s an attempt to bring together the future-oriented gaze of the book and help people really get a firm and concrete grasp of what’s coming down the pike if we don’t stand up and resist.”
Is There a Way to Resist CBDC Implementation?
I believe the implementation of CBDCs will be instrumental in the coming control scheme, because once the globalist cabal has direct access to your money, you become far easier to control. And, the way it’s looking right now, CBDCs are inevitable. The question is, how do we opt out of the system?
“This is a really hard problem and it’s a really important question,” Kheriaty says. “I think we have to learn how to opt out of the system and develop, whether it’s a parallel economy or parallel medical institutions, that truly are independent.
“We have to do that right now, and we have to develop those things soon, because if we collectively get into an opt-in situation with digital IDs and CBDCs, then resistance to that system will be almost impossible …
“I think we need to start thinking small and local, and to develop strong face-to-face communities of communication, interaction, mutual support, and exchange. The currency works because of a communal agreement that when I give you this piece of paper, it’s going to be worth something.
“It’s a mutual agreement that we’re going to use this mechanism of exchange, and this mechanism of measuring market value is how currency becomes currency.
“So [as a] collective, [we need to say] ‘No, we’re not going to go cashless.’ If as a collective, we say, ‘No, we’re not going to transition all of our assets into a centrally controlled digital currency,’ we’ll halt the process of that becoming the default or the only game in town.
“Beyond that, I wish I could tell you what the answer looks like and what these parallel economies are going to look like. I don’t know the answer to that, and part of the reason I don’t know the answer is because that’s not how novel solutions develop. Novel solutions don’t develop from a couple of perceptive or intelligent people figuring it all out.
“They require the collective wisdom of a lot of people trying things, some of which don’t work and some of which work. They require people at the local level asking, ‘What are the needs of the population here close to home?’ which may look very different from the needs of a population in a different setting or in a different context.”
Past the Point of No Return, All Freedom Will Be Lost
Kheriaty goes on to explain why getting out of the control system—once CBDCs are fully implemented and society has gone cashless—will be near-impossible:
“CBDCs need to be distinguished from decentralized digital currencies like Bitcoin. The feds are issuing a digital dollar, and if that digital currency is adopted to the point where we’ve gone entirely cashless, then we’re in a situation in which you can be locked out of your ability to engage in financial transactions if you don’t comply or if you don’t behave.
“And, as I explain in the book, if you have a digital dollar in your digital wallet, it’s not actually the same as a dollar bill in your real wallet. The reason for that is, let’s say the government gives you $1,000 tax rebate in the form of a digital dollar. They may even sweeten the deal saying, ‘We’ll give you a $1,000 check in your bank account or we will give you $1,200 in the form of a digital dollar,’ right?
“‘Oh, OK, I’ll take the digital dollar. That’s a no-brainer. It’s more money.’ Well, two to three years from now, once we’ve gone cashless, that digital dollar can be programmed to have conditions attached to it.
“In other words, the government can say, ‘Here’s your tax rebate, but you got to spend this $1,200 sometime in the next nine months, and if you don’t, then it’s going to turn into $600. And if you don’t spend it in the next six months after that, it’s going to disappear.’
“So what you have in your digital wallet is not actually like cash. Cash doesn’t just disappear. It doesn’t have an expiration date on it. The government can also say, ‘You have to spend it on these favored industries.’
“Or, ‘You can’t spend it on these disfavored industries. You can’t give a donation or contribution to support Dr. McCullough’s podcast because he’s a disinformation spreader,’ or, ‘You have to spend it on green energy,’ or whatever.
“Once this is tied to a digital ID, the government will be able to track all of your financial transactions using this digital currency. It will be able to nudge you and punish you in the ways that I have described.
“If you try to opt out of that system, basically you’re not going to be able to engage in financial transactions, or you’re going to find yourself in some parallel economy that involves bartering chickens or something like that—very primitive kind of economic transactions—because all of the banks and all of society’s mainstream institutions are going to rely on this digital system of productivity and exchange and currency to engage in all transactions.
“So once the system is in place, it’s going to be very hard to resist because an algorithm in the sky or a person can push a button and, look, you can no longer buy gasoline. You can no longer purchase things online unless you get your booster shot or unless you do what the public health authorities are telling you to do.
“So it’s a system of near total surveillance and control that would’ve made the totalitarian dictators of the past salivate. Hitler or Stalin could only have dreamed of this level of intrusive surveillance and minute control over the movements and the behavior of the populations that they were governing.”
More Information
I completely agree with Kheriaty’s notion that it is imperative that people understand where we’re headed—that the COVID measures weren’t just responses to a given pandemic, but rather laid the foundation for a totalitarian one-world government, where human rights and freedoms will no longer exist.
This is likely the biggest challenge mankind has ever faced as a collective, and it requires strong collective resistance. For that resistance to occur, however, people must understand what’s going on. So to learn more, be sure to pick up a copy of Kheriaty’s book “The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State” and share it with friends and family.
◇ Sources and References
1 ZeroHedge January 26, 2023
2 The Defender December 7, 2022
3, 5 US District Court Eastern District of California Case 2:22-cv-02147-WBS-AC (pdf)
4, 6 The Defender January 26, 2023
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
-
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/02/09/fauci-now-he-tells-us-n529526
Sorry about the damaged hearts and new and exciting cancers. We cool?
-
https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/nuremburg-code-warning.jpg
(https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/nuremburg-code-warning.jpg)
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/cases-medical-incidents-reported-military-pilots-increase-1700-pandemic-pentagon-blames-covid/
-
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2023/02/13/unfortunate-coincidences/
-
yes
seems like some are being injured by the vaccine
but you must recognize this:
Findings. From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that the COVID-19 vaccination program in the U.S. prevented more than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections.
one can argue all day and night about the numbers but millions of lives have been saved
-
The children, young adults would have died?
yes
seems like some are being injured by the vaccine
but you must recognize this:
Findings. From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that the COVID-19 vaccination program in the U.S. prevented more than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections.
one can argue all day and night about the numbers but millions of lives have been saved
-
you just revealed your in objectivity
you only see your side .
I will not concede if you don't .
-
Things that catch my attention:
a) as best as I can tell, the data asserting the efficacy of the various vaxxes is corrupted by the unmeasured presence of those with natural anti-bodies;
b) as best as I can tell, lots of inconvenient data was suppressed, and those pointing it out were cancelled;
c) As best as I can tell, the data asserting efficacy is most persuasive with those in high-risk groups: old, fat, diabetic, with high blood pressure.
d) as best as I can tell, the data against the vaxxes is strongest with the youngest and healthiest.
e) as best as I can tell, non-vaxx options (e.g. Vitamin D, others) were suppressed.
-
a) as best as I can tell, the data asserting the efficacy of the various vaxxes is corrupted by the unmeasured presence of those with natural anti-bodies;
[not sure what to make of this assertion]
b) as best as I can tell, lots of inconvenient data was suppressed, and those pointing it out were cancelled;
[probably true]
c) As best as I can tell, the data asserting efficacy is most persuasive with those in high-risk groups: old, fat, diabetic, with high blood pressure.
[and those over 65]
note obesity is now ~ 43 % of the population but I only prescribe paxlovid if they
are morbid or super obese FWIW]
d) as best as I can tell, the data against the vaxxes is strongest with the youngest and healthiest.
[I agree ]
e) as best as I can tell, non-vaxx options (e.g. Vitamin D, others) were suppressed.
[as far as I can tell the evidence does not support these do anything]
thank you
CD
I know the sun will burn it self out prior to ever getting even a half concession out of our message board friend GM.
-
"a) as best as I can tell, the data asserting the efficacy of the various vaxxes is corrupted by the unmeasured presence of those with natural anti-bodies; . . . [not sure what to make of this assertion]"
What I am trying to say is that the measurements of the outcomes of vaxxed vs unvaxxed does not distinguish vaxxed with natural antibodies from vaxxed with no natural antibodies. This, I assert, is bad science.
-
"a) as best as I can tell, the data asserting the efficacy of the various vaxxes is corrupted by the unmeasured presence of those with natural anti-bodies; . . . [not sure what to make of this assertion]"
What I am trying to say is that the measurements of the outcomes of vaxxed vs unvaxxed does not distinguish vaxxed with natural antibodies from vaxxed with no natural antibodies. This, I assert, is bad science.
You might want to look at Africa.
https://www.science.org/content/article/pandemic-appears-have-spared-africa-so-far-scientists-are-struggling-explain-why
-
This is an interesting point.
CCP, what is your sense of what the data shows here and what it means?
-
This article was from 2020
of course GM suggesting the corona shot is killing more people then corona
sorry
I don't anything about Africa but that is not the case here
-
If I understood correctly the assertion is that Africa had both low vax and low death rates from Wuhan Virus.
-
If I understood correctly the assertion is that Africa had both low vax and low death rates from Wuhan Virus.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/health/covid-africa-deaths.html
From 2022
-
I've reached limit of free articles.
-
I've reached limit of free articles.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/health/covid-africa-deaths.html
Trying to Solve a Covid Mystery: Africa’s Low Death Rates
Stephanie Nolen
Global Health
The coronavirus was expected to devastate the continent, but higher-income and better-prepared countries appear to have fared far worse.
A wedding in the village of Kamakuyor in northern Sierra Leone last month. During the pandemic, the village’s district has recorded just 11 Covid cases and no deaths.
Credit...Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times
KAMAKWIE, Sierra Leone — There are no Covid fears here.
The district’s Covid-19 response center has registered just 11 cases since the start of the pandemic, and no deaths. At the regional hospital, the wards are packed — with malaria patients. The door to the Covid isolation ward is bolted shut and overgrown with weeds. People cram together for weddings, soccer matches, concerts, with no masks in sight.
Sierra Leone, a nation of eight million on the coast of Western Africa, feels like a land inexplicably spared as a plague passed overhead. What has happened — or hasn’t happened — here and in much of sub-Saharan Africa is a great mystery of the pandemic.
The low rate of coronavirus infections, hospitalizations and deaths in West and Central Africa is the focus of a debate that has divided scientists on the continent and beyond. Have the sick or dead simply not been counted? If Covid has in fact done less damage here, why is that? If it has been just as vicious, how have we missed it?
The answers “are relevant not just to us, but have implications for the greater public good,” said Austin Demby, Sierra Leone’s health minister, in an interview in Freetown, the capital.
The assertion that Covid isn’t as big a threat in Africa has sparked debate about whether the African Union’s push to vaccinate 70 percent of Africans against the virus this year is the best use of health care resources, given that the devastation from other pathogens, such as malaria, appears to be much higher.
In the first months of the pandemic, there was fear that Covid might eviscerate Africa, tearing through countries with health systems as weak as Sierra Leone’s, where there are just three doctors for every 100,000 people, according to the World Health Organization. The high prevalence of malaria, H.I.V., tuberculosis and malnutrition was seen as kindling for disaster.
That has not happened. The first iteration of the virus that raced around the world had comparatively minimal impact here. The Beta variant ravaged South Africa, as did Delta and Omicron, yet much of the rest of the continent did not record similar death tolls.
Into Year Three of the pandemic, new research shows there is no longer any question of whether Covid has spread widely in Africa. It has.
Studies that tested blood samples for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the official name for the virus that causes Covid, show that about two-thirds of the population in most sub-Saharan countries do indeed have those antibodies. Since only 14 percent of the population has received any kind of Covid vaccination, the antibodies are overwhelmingly from infection.
Image
Credit...Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times
Image
Credit...Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times
A new W.H.O.-led analysis, not yet peer-reviewed, synthesized surveys from across the continent and found that 65 percent of Africans had been infected by the third quarter of 2021, higher than the rate in many parts of the world. Just 4 percent of Africans had been vaccinated when these data were gathered.
So the virus is in Africa. Is it killing fewer people?
Some speculation has focused on the relative youth of Africans. Their median age is 19 years, compared with 43 in Europe and 38 in the United States. Nearly two-thirds of the population in sub-Saharan Africa is under 25, and only 3 percent is 65 or older. That means far fewer people, comparatively, have lived long enough to develop the health issues (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease and cancer) that can sharply increase the risk of severe disease and death from Covid. Young people infected by the coronavirus are often asymptomatic, which could account for the low number of reported cases.
Plenty of other hypotheses have been floated. High temperatures and the fact that much of life is spent outdoors could be preventing spread. Or the low population density in many areas, or limited public transportation infrastructure. Perhaps exposure to other pathogens, including coronaviruses and deadly infections such as Lassa fever and Ebola, has somehow offered protection.
Since Covid tore through South and Southeast Asia last year, it has become harder to accept these theories. After all, the population of India is young, too (with a median age of 28), and temperatures in the country are also relatively high. But researchers have found that the Delta variant caused millions of deaths in India, far more than the 400,000 officially reported. And rates of infection with malaria and other coronaviruses are high in places, including India, that have also seen high Covid fatality rates.
So are Covid deaths in Africa simply not counted?
Most global Covid trackers register no cases in Sierra Leone because testing for the virus here is effectively nonexistent. With no testing, there are no cases to report. A research project at Njala University in Sierra Leone has found that 78 percent of people have antibodies for this coronavirus. Yet Sierra Leone has reported only 125 Covid deaths since the start of the pandemic.
Most people die in their homes, not in hospitals, either because they can’t reach a medical facility or because their families take them home to die. Many deaths are never registered with civil authorities.
This pattern is common across sub-Saharan Africa. A recent survey by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa found that official registration systems captured only one in three deaths.
Image
Credit...Samantha Reinders for The New York Times
Image
Credit...Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times
The one sub-Saharan country where almost every death is counted is South Africa. And it’s clear from the data that Covid has killed a great many people in that country, far more than the reported virus deaths. Excess mortality data show that between May 2020 and September 2021, some 250,000 more people died from natural causes than was predicted for that time period, based on the pattern in previous years. Surges in death rates match those in Covid cases, suggesting the virus was the culprit.
Dr. Lawrence Mwananyanda, a Boston University epidemiologist and special adviser to the president of Zambia, said he had no doubt that the impact in Zambia had been just as severe as in South Africa, but that Zambian deaths simply had not been captured by a much weaker registration system. Zambia, a country of more than 18 million people, has reported 4,000 Covid-19 deaths.
“If that is happening in South Africa, why should it be different here?” he said. In fact, he added, South Africa has a much stronger health system, which ought to mean a lower death rate, rather than a higher one.
A research team he led found that during Zambia’s Delta wave, 87 percent of bodies in hospital morgues were infected with Covid. “The morgue was full. Nothing else is different — what is different is that we just have very poor data.”
The Economist, which has been tracking excess deaths throughout the pandemic, shows similar rates of death across Africa. Sondre Solstad, who runs the Africa model, said that there had been between one million and 2.9 million excess deaths on the continent during the pandemic.
“It would be beautiful if Africans were spared, but they aren’t,” he said.
But many scientists tracking the pandemic on the ground disagree. It’s not possible that hundreds of thousands or even millions of Covid deaths could have gone unnoticed, they say.
“We have not seen massive burials in Africa. If that had happened, we’d have seen it,” said Dr. Thierno Baldé, who runs the W.H.O.’s Covid emergency response in Africa.
“A death in Africa never goes unrecorded, as much as we are poor at record-keeping,” said Dr. Abdhalah Ziraba, an epidemiologist at the African Population and Health Research Center in Nairobi, Kenya. “There is a funeral, an announcement: A burial is never done within a week because it is a big event. For someone sitting in New York hypothesizing that they were unrecorded — well, we may not have the accurate numbers, but the perception is palpable. In the media, in your social circle, you know if there are deaths.”
Dr. Demby, the Sierra Leone health minister, who is an epidemiologist by training, agreed. “We haven’t had overflowing hospitals. We haven’t,” he said. “There is no evidence that excess deaths are occurring.”
Which could be keeping the death rate lower?
Image
Credit...Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times
Image
Credit...Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times
While health surveillance is weak, he acknowledged, Sierra Leoneans have the recent, terrible experience of Ebola, which killed 4,000 people here in 2014-16. Since then, he said, citizens have been on alert for an infectious agent that could be killing people in their communities. They would not continue to pack into events if that were the case, he said.
Dr. Salim Abdool Karim, who is on the African Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Covid task force and who was part of the research team tracking excess deaths in South Africa, believes the death toll continentwide is probably consistent with that of his country. There is simply no reason that Gambians or Ethiopians would be less vulnerable to Covid than South Africans, he said.
But he also said it was clear that large numbers of people were not turning up in the hospital with respiratory distress. The young population is clearly a key factor, he said, while some older people who die of strokes and other Covid-induced causes are not being identified as coronavirus deaths. Many are not making it to the hospital at all, and their deaths are not registered. But others are not falling ill at rates seen elsewhere, and that’s a mystery that needs unraveling.
“It’s hugely relevant to things as basic as vaccine development and treatment,” said Dr. Prabhat Jha, who heads the Centre for Global Health Research in Toronto and is leading work to analyze causes of death in Sierra Leone.
Researchers working with Dr. Jha are using novel methods — such as looking for any increase in revenue from obituaries at radio stations in Sierra Leonean towns over the past two years — to try to see if deaths could have risen unnoticed, but he said it was clear there had been no tide of desperately sick people.
Some organizations working on the Covid vaccination effort say the lower rates of illness and death should be driving a rethinking of policy. John Johnson, vaccination adviser for Doctors Without Borders, said that vaccinating 70 percent of Africans made sense a year ago when it seemed like vaccines might provide long-term immunity and make it possible to end Covid-19 transmission. But now that it’s clear that protection wanes, collective immunity no longer looks achievable. And so an immunization strategy that focuses on protecting just the most vulnerable would arguably be a better use of resources in a place such as Sierra Leone.
“Is this the most important thing to try to carry out in countries where there are much bigger problems with malaria, with polio, with measles, with cholera, with meningitis, with malnutrition? Is this what we want to spend our resources on in those countries?” he asked. “Because at this point, it’s not for those people: It’s to try to prevent new variants.”
And new variants of Covid pose the greatest risk in places with older populations and high levels of comorbidities such as obesity, he said.
Other experts cautioned that the virus remained an unpredictable foe and that scaling back efforts to vaccinate sub-Saharan Africans could yet lead to tragedy.
“We can’t get complacent and assume Africa can’t go the way of India,” Dr. Jha said.
A new variant as infectious as Omicron but more lethal than Delta could yet emerge, he warned, leaving Africans vulnerable unless vaccination rates increased significantly.
“We should really avoid the hubris that all Africa is safe,” he said.
-
Just How Hard Were We Trolled?
Jeffrey A. Tucker
February 6, 2023
Commentary
What if Dr. Anthony Fauci co-authored an article on vaccines that would have gotten you and me blocked and banned at any point in the past three years? That just happened.
His article in Cell—“Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenzaviruses, and other respiratory viruses”—states it as plainly as possible: the COVID-19 vaccine didn’t work because it couldn’t work.
First some review from what we knew before this whole fiasco began.
Vaccines aren’t suitable for coronaviruses. Such respiratory viruses spread and mutate too quickly. This is why there has never been a vaccine for the common cold and why the flu shot is predictably suboptimal. Vaccines can only be sterilizing and contribute to public health when the virus is a stable pathogen, such as smallpox and measles. For coronaviruses, there’s really only one way forward: better antivirals, therapeutics, and acquired immunity.
The above paragraph has been repeated to me countless times in my life, especially after COVID-19 hit. Every expert was on the same page. There was simply no question about it. Anything that would be called a vaccine would lack the features of vaccines past. It wouldn’t stop infection or transmission, much less end a bad season for respiratory viruses. This is why the Food and Drug Administration has never approved one. It wouldn’t and couldn’t make it through trials, especially given the safety risks associated with every vaccine.
Maybe, maybe, there exists the possibility that you can come up with one variant, but it isn’t likely to be approved in time to be effective. It might provide temporary protection against severe outcomes from one variant, but it will be useless against further mutations. In addition, vaccine-induced protection isn’t as broad as natural immunity, so it’s likely that the person would get infected later. Boosting is likely only to pertain to last month’s mutation and raises dangers of itself: imprinting the immune system in ways that make it less effective.
Sadly, posting those three paragraphs on social media at any point in the past three years would likely get you censored or even banned. Normal science was suppressed. Common knowledge among experts was verboten. Everything we’ve learned for a century or even two millennia was thrown out. The job of censorship was tasked to a gaggle of ill-educated tech workers obeying the FBI overlords, so they went along.
And here we are two years after the vaccine rollout and the truth is rather well known. The vaccines were an enormous flop. At best. At worst, they caused tremendous amounts of injury and death as compared to any vaccine ever approved for the market. That they were forced on people in many professions—and backed by a Stalinesque media frenzy—is simply incredible. Several cities even locked themselves down for the vaccinated only. Even now, unvaccinated non-Americans can’t travel to the United States, unless they come across the southern border.
And yet only now does Fauci choose to lay out the science that we knew long ago. There’s nothing particularly interesting in his article. Only the timing is interesting: following trillions in pharma profits and millions displaced by mandates and suffering from injury all over the world. Now he says that there was really no chance that the vaccine would be either effective or necessarily safe.
This is a level of trolling that’s truly unthinkable and indescribable.
Here’s the summary of the article:
“Viruses that replicate in the human respiratory mucosa without infecting systemically, including influenza A, SARS-CoV-2, endemic coronaviruses, RSV, and many other ‘common cold’ viruses, cause significant mortality and morbidity and are important public health concerns. Because these viruses generally do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by themselves, they have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines.
“In this review, we examine challenges that have impeded development of effective mucosal respiratory vaccines, emphasizing that all of these viruses replicate extremely rapidly in the surface epithelium and are quickly transmitted to other hosts, within a narrow window of time before adaptive immune responses are fully marshaled.”
There are profound safety issues to consider, too. It takes a very long time to assure that. Fauci wrote:
“Considering that vaccine development and licensure is a long and complex process requiring years of preclinical and clinical safety and efficacy data, the limitations of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines remind us that candidate vaccines for most other respiratory viruses have to date been insufficiently protective for consideration of licensure …”
Further, vaccines certainly can’t improve on what even natural immunity can’t do:
“Taking all of these factors into account, it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines. This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines, to do so?”
This is why the flu vaccines “have never been able to elicit durable protective immunity against seasonal influenza virus strains, even against non-drifted strains. … Their effectiveness against clinically apparent infection is decidedly suboptimal, ranging from 14 percent to 60 percent over the past 15 influenza seasons.”
Now, it’s not as if Fauci admits that the vaccine was a complete flop. Of course, he has to engage in the usual incantations of the glories of the COVID-19 vaccination.
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid development and deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has saved innumerable lives and helped to achieve early partial pandemic control,” he wrote.
Note the word “innumerable.” It means there’s no number and no possibility of a number. Exactly. Also note “early partial”—weasel words to cover the reality of egregious failure.
If you click through the citation to this dubious claim, it’s from April 2021, early in the mutation process, when we hardly had any data at all to justify such celebration. Why is Fauci citing a two-year-old piece in defense of the vaccine? Because that’s all there is to cite: two-year-old hagiographies without meaningful data.
How precisely can we account for this fiasco? If they knew, and they did know, how is it that they put us through this horrible upheaval? The most dreadful theory is that they knew for sure that the virus would become endemic through exposure. But the point of “slowing the spread” and “flattening the curve” (lockdowns and masking) while trashing and nearly banning other therapeutics was to preserve the customer base for the new experimental product.
That product was mRNA, which is supposed to be a platform for future vaccines. This is why the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was taken off the market.
Under this theory, they wanted to prolong the pandemic for as long as possible so they could collect data on how well the vaccine worked. And they wanted to try it universally, which is why we didn’t hear much at all about the risk gradient of the vaccine itself. This also accounts for the deliberate drumming up of disease panic and forced distancing.
So let that sink in. They utterly smashed the world as we knew it—violating all human rights—in order to test out a new technology at great profit to themselves. In other words, they treated us all as lab rats.
An entire generation of politicians needs to be toppled from power all over the world. The same goes for media professionals, tech CEOs, and public-health officials. They all have to go. And we need a thorough accounting, not to mention guarantees, that nothing like this will ever happen again. As for Moderna and Pfizer, one could easily make a case for forcing their immediate end as corporate entities.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/huge-101-page-whistleblower-document-reveals-biden-pentagon-suppressed-concerns-covid-shot-side-effects-many-soldiers-suffered-horrifying-injuries-result/
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-death-injury-no-liability-and-now-a-part-of-the-child-vaccination-schedule-2659415690.html
-
you can post all you want
for me I am not longer reading this thread
the vaccine saved many lives like it or not
despite your obsession with it.
BTW Daniel Horowitz is a light weight
in my opinion.
-
you can post all you want
for me I am not longer reading this thread
the vaccine saved many lives like it or not
despite your obsession with it.
BTW Daniel Horowitz is a light weight
in my opinion.
You can avoid this thread, but none of us can avoid the deaths and damage done by the ClotShot.
-
GM, you can be kind of relentless sometimes , , ,
-
https://discernreport.com/world-series-poker-players-caught-on-hot-mic-talking-chest-pain-from-the-covid-vaccine/
If it wasn’t for the ClotShot, your chances of survival would have only been 99.9!
-
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/403184.php
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/what-was-the-point-of-denying-natural-immunity_5053980.html?utm_source=Opinion&src_src=Opinion&utm_campaign=opinion-2023-02-15&src_cmp=opinion-2023-02-15&utm_medium=email&est=KdL93uGSlXW7CefNqU3uR6I4wwdmWPqvDvl1YXV4XOhe9e5HukMUfpWiUVWSfUqkuybT
What Was the Point of Denying Natural Immunity?
People are being strongly encouraged to get vaccinated, even if they have natural immunity. (ronstik/Shutterstock)
By Jeffrey A. Tucker
February 13, 2023Updated: February 15, 2023
Commentary
On Nov. 13, 2020, just as the vaccine was being rolled out (surely a sheer coincidence that it was just after the election), the World Health Organization (WHO) made a hugely significant change to its website.
It pertained to the section on herd immunity—the concept theorizing how a new pathogen goes from pandemic to endemic, from socially disruptive to manageable. It’s about how a society gets back to normal. Previously, the website said it happens with immunity upgrades through exposure plus vaccines.
On that day, the WHO changed its website. The science hadn’t changed. But the body presuming to guard and govern world health changed anyway. The website suddenly struck out natural immunity and even put it down. The new text said, “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not exposing them to it.”
Wow, amazing news! You mean that for all viruses, we will now rely only on vaccines, even though natural immunity has been the way that humanity evolved with viruses from the beginning of time? And even though natural immunity and exposure are how infectious disease went from being possibly the No. 1 problem humanity faced over most of history to becoming a relatively minor problem in the modern age?
That’s right. The WHO announced that scientists and their potions would protect the whole of humanity from everything! Astounding. And unbearably false. It just so happened that this grand reveal happened just as COVID vaccines were about to hit the market.
There was a minor uproar online, but it was enough even to reach the inner chambers of the organization. And so by Jan. 4, 2021, the website of the WHO dialed back its absurdity a bit. Herd immunity “happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection,” the site then said. It added, however, in case there was any doubt, that the WHO “supports achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination.”
This is surely one of the most bizarre chapters in the history of public health. We’ve known about natural immunity for at least 2,500 years. It’s a basic concept without which there is no understanding of disease at all. To think that the WHO tried to wipe it out with a website change is beyond belief.
The month before the WHO came out with its preposterous claim, the British medical journal The Lancet had more-or-less trumpeted the same blather. As the Norfolk Group has written:
“In October 2020, a widely circulated Memorandum published in The Lancet, a top British medical journal, questioned infection-acquired immunity. It stated that ‘there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection,’ claiming ‘scientific consensus’ for this view. The Memorandum was co-authored by several senior US scientists, including Drs. Marc Lipsitch (Harvard), Ali Nouri (president, American Federation of Scientists) and Rochelle Walensky (Harvard).
“With extremely few reinfections at the time, clear evidence for the existence of infection-acquired immunity, and despite what we know about other coronaviruses, on what basis did these scientists question that infection with SARS-CoV-2 provided lasting protection from severe disease for recovered individuals and, early on, from reinfection? What was the rationale for The Lancet Editor-in-Chief Dr. Richard Horton’s decision to publish the Lancet Memorandum that questioned infection-acquired immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection without citing supporting data and which ran in opposition to well established immunologic principles?”
The memorandum in question was supposed to be a response to the Great Barrington Declaration. They called it the John Snow Memo. Today, it’s nothing if not embarrassing.
Of course, the evidence rolled in from all over the world over the coming months that natural immunity to this pathogen works exactly as one would expect. It’s robust and broad and lasting.
Simply incredible.
Then what happened? Something absolutely remarkable. It turned out that the vaccine failed to prevent infection or transmission. That is to say, vaccination turned out to make no contribution to herd immunity or public health. Not just some but none. Forget the idea that we would vaccinate our way out of this mess. Nope. Far from it. The pandemic would end the old-fashioned way, the same as every pandemic of the past—through natural exposure and recovery.
This fiasco has to rank among the most egregious failures of public health in history. The world’s most respected institutions actually opened themselves up to be major sources of massive disinformation for the entire planet Earth. And then, everything they promised turned out to be a complete lie.
Why did the WHO change basic immunological realities? I have my own theories. They’re so captured by industry and Big Pharma in particular that they WANTED the population to stay immunologically naïve and unprotected in order that they could market and test a new technology.
Again, that has to rank among the most egregious experiments in modern life, and it’s one that utterly and completely failed.
If you think about it, and if this is true, this accounts for nearly all the insanity of government for the better part of three years. It explains the deprecation of early treatments. It explains the relentless and bizarre demand to “flatten the curve” even though there was no threat to the healthcare system. The point was to preserve the non-immune state of the population as long as possible so that they could get shots in the arms of everyone, even those who didn’t want them or need them.
It explains the lockdowns. It explains the closures and capacity restrictions. It explains the travel restrictions. It explains the demand that we put ourselves under house arrest and avoid contact with anyone. If we had to go out, we were told to “socially distance” and mask up. It was all a plot to keep us vulnerable to the pathogen that the vaccines were supposed to magically whisk away, even though we’ve never in history had a vaccine for a widespread coronavirus respiratory infection that mutates quickly.
In fact, we’ve also long known that getting repeatedly vaccinated for a fast-mutating virus is itself a great danger due to “immunity imprinting” and “original antigenic sin”—making us sicker than ever. And not only that More and more mutations are also given strength by the vaccination itself, in which case the vaccination not only prolonged the pandemic but even added a new layer of unusual sickness on top of that.
They actually put profit and industrial capture ahead of matters of health. And they did it for the entire planet. They experimented with the world’s population to create a new platform technology for perpetual boosters not only for this virus but all diseases. This is the only possible explanation. It’s a scandal of epic proportions.
Once you understand this, if you were already angry about what has happened to us, you would add another layer of fury. Crucially, none of these errors in judgment have any justification in ignorance. They knew. They just decided to ignore science and experience and replace it with industrial propaganda, at great expense to the health of the population all over the world.
Will you ever regain your trust in public health? You shouldn’t, not until there’s full accountability and open admissions of wrongdoing.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/the-first-mandatory-vaccination-campaign
-
Fauci Changes His Public Tune on Covid Vaccines
Dr. Anthony Fauci speaks during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., July 20, 2021. (Stefani Reynolds/Pool via Reuters)
Share
591 Comments
Listen to article
By JOEL ZINBERG
February 16, 2023 6:30 AM
But the mandates he continued to promote when he knew the shots gave limited protection had disastrous effects.
Dr. Anthony Fauci has finally acknowledged that there had always been good scientific reasons to believe that vaccines against the respiratory virus that causes Covid-19 — SARS-CoV-2 — would provide limited protection against infection that would not be long-lasting. That is precisely what happened: It quickly became apparent that protection against transmission lasted just a few months, and initial effectiveness declined as each new viral variant proved more contagious than its predecessor. Yet Fauci insisted that repeated vaccines were needed for everyone and until recently pushed for vaccine mandates. This has resulted in shortages of essential workers, poorer educational outcomes, and diminished trust in public-health authorities.
Last month in an article in the journal Cell Host & Microbe, Fauci wrote that vaccines against respiratory viruses generally provide “decidedly suboptimal” protection against infection and rarely produce durable, protective immunity. The reason is that most of these viruses, such as influenza, which causes the flu, and SARS-CoV-2, have short incubation periods during which they infect the respiratory mucosa and rapidly replicate there without spreading systemically. Moreover, according to Fauci, the human immune system has evolved to tolerate respiratory viruses during short intervals of mucosal viral replication. This leads to illness and onward transmission without eliciting a systemic immune response.
These factors negate the effectiveness of vaccines, which typically rely on systemic responses to viral exposures. Respiratory viruses that replicate rapidly in the mucosa cause short-duration illnesses and transmission to others all before the immunologic defenses put in place by vaccines can be brought to bear. Vaccines against the influenza virus that causes the flu, for example, have averaged only 40 percent effectiveness against infection over the last 17 influenza seasons, ranging from 10 to 60 percent. And, as Fauci acknowledged, “the duration of vaccine-elicited immunity is measured only in months.”
There are a few successful vaccines against respiratory viruses with long incubation periods such as the ones that cause measles, mumps, and rubella. Unlike the short-incubation viruses, these viruses rapidly move from the mucosa to spread systemically so that they elicit strong immunologic responses and long-term immunity.
In addition, many respiratory viruses, including both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza, are more likely to mutate than the measles, mumps and rubella viruses, leading to more-rapid emergence of new variants. This makes production of vaccines with long-lasting protection difficult.
Fauci concluded that vaccines for most respiratory viruses such as influenza and SARS-CoV-2 “have common characteristics: they elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity.” Their primary utility is to reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death. As Dr. Paul Offit wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, “for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, a mucosal infection with a short incubation period, protection from severe disease is the only reasonable and attainable goal.”
Given this background, the poor effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines should have been reasonably foreseeable. In addition, Fauci noted that all of the vaccines that are successful against systemic respiratory viruses — generating broader and longer-lasting immunity — are systemically replicating live-virus vaccines that fully encounter the host mucosal and systemic immune system. None of the Covid-19 vaccines fall into this category.
Early reports claimed 90 percent effectiveness in preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2. Predictably, this effectiveness lasted for only a few months. And when variant SARS-CoV-2 strains emerged, “deficiencies in these vaccines reminiscent of influenza vaccines” became apparent, according to Fauci. During the Delta-variant surge in the summer of 2021, short-term vaccine effectiveness declined to 66 percent. The figures have steadily declined since with each successive variant.
When vaccines first became available in December 2020–January 2021, Covid cases were surging, and there were still large numbers of people who had not been infected and gained natural immunity after recovery. Vaccination requirements for health-care workers in hospitals and nursing homes could be justified to protect those essential workers and to protect the vulnerable people they cared for. But within a short time, it became clear that, while Covid vaccines continue to protect against severe illness and death, they had largely lost their ability to stop viral transmission.
Nevertheless, Fauci advocated vaccine mandates for schoolchildren under twelve in August 2021, more than a year after it was clear that this age group had virtually no risk of severe Covid disease or mortality. Months later he defended generalized mandates because “society needs to be protected. And you do that by not only protecting yourself, but by protecting the people around you by getting vaccinated.”
Fauci had to have known this statement was inaccurate based on the scientific factors he recounts in his recent article and on the evolving data showing declining vaccine effectiveness that he had access to. Whatever his motivations for making this erroneous assertion, the policies it inspired were disastrous.
Workers who were, perhaps ill-advisedly, willing to defy vaccine mandates and assume the risk of their own severe illness were fired, even though vaccines would protect neither them nor their co-workers from infection. Thousands of essential workers including firefighters, police officers, and military and medical personnel lost jobs and have yet to be replaced. Staffing shortages are common.
Schoolchildren whose parents understandably doubted the need to vaccinate them were excluded from school, compounding the loss in in-person classes from earlier school closures. The educational losses have been staggering and disproportionately affect already disadvantaged communities.
Booster shots, particularly the recently introduced bivalent boosters, have been promoted by Fauci and others with little or no experimental evidence that they reduce transmission for more than brief periods of time. Offit concluded that “booster dosing is probably best reserved for the people most likely to need protection against severe disease — specifically, older adults, people with multiple coexisting conditions that put them at high risk for serious illness, and those who are immunocompromised. . . . We should stop trying to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”
Perhaps the most serious side effect of Fauci’s prolonged reluctance to acknowledge the predictable and eventually widely known shortcomings of Covid vaccines has been to undermine trust in public-health authorities. Throughout the pandemic, health pronouncements from federal authorities have often been confusing and sometimes outright misleading. The most important factor in combating future pandemics will be people’s voluntary risk-avoidance behaviors, including their willingness to comply with reasonable public-health advice. If people have little faith in the advice they receive, the consequences could be calamitous.
JOEL ZINBERG is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the director of PARAGON HEALTH INSTITUTE’s Public Health and American Well-being Initiative, and an associate clinical professor of surgery at the Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine. He was general counsel and a senior economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers from 2017 to 2019
-
https://vaxxfacts.substack.com/p/vaxx-update-are-the-un-vaxxed-about
-
https://gatesofvienna.net/2023/02/resistance-begins-with-i-will-not-comply/
-
https://jessica5b3.substack.com/p/ahs-are-deleting-admission-records?utm_source=post-email-t
Good thing that can't happen here!
-
Although plausible, the fact is that there is absolutely nothing verifiable here-- not even the name of the person alleged to have had this happen to them.
-
Although plausible, the fact is that there is absolutely nothing verifiable here-- not even the name of the person alleged to have had this happen to them.
True. Canada wouldn't do that, right?
America certainly wouldn't, right?
-
The rhetorical questions are without purpose. I have already stated the notion is plausible-- but I would submit that a good general rule is to require something resembling actual evidence.
-
The rhetorical questions are without purpose. I have already stated the notion is plausible-- but I would submit that a good general rule is to require something resembling actual evidence.
Like the Wuhan lab leak?
Remember when that was just tinfoil hat lunacy?
-
We had an awful lot of good circumstantial evidence there.
Here there is but an anonymous post alleging anonymous facts. We live in a time of great lies and manipulations and need to take care that we are not manipulated.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/trials-should-have-been-stopped-rate-serious-adverse-events-closely-tracks-spike-post-vax
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/gsk-scientists-knew-about-zantacs-cancer-risks-forty-years
-
Birth Rates Plunge in Heavily Vaccinated Countries
HEALTH VIEWPOINTS
Feb 21 2023
In many countries, births dropped sharply nine months after peak COVID vaccine uptake. Let’s look at how this happens. And will these populations recover?
Vital Statistics–Hidden Data
Since the beginning of COVID, vital statistics as reported by governments around the world, are hard to come by. Spotty availability hinders analysis and understanding.
For example, even today in the United States, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and Washington are four of the states that, as of this writing, have not updated births data since 2019 [1] and 2020. [2] [3] [4]
Nineteen European Countries
By August 2022, Raimond Hagemann, Ulf Lorré, and Dr. Hans-Joachim Kremer had compiled data on birth rate changes in 19 European countries and produced an extremely important paper. [5] In country after country, the inflection point of reduced births is consistent at the end of the year 2021.
This was nine months after the spring zeitgeist to take the COVID vaccines. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia, as well as Iceland, Northern Ireland, Montenegro, Serbia—all show this pattern. Nine months after peak vaccine uptake—the births decline.
From R Hagemann, U Lorré, et al. Danish data (p 31):
The corresponding graph for each of the 19 countries has a similar pattern: peak uptake of COVID vaccines in spring of 2021, followed by precipitous birthrate declines beginning nine months later.
All of the nineteen countries studied saw accelerating declines in births in 2022, beginning at nine months after peak COVID vaccine uptake. Note the small p values in the following table, favoring temporal association of the two events. This, in turn, supports the Bradford Hill temporality criterion regarding causation of infertility, rather than a highly coincidental correlation between peak vaccination in spring of 2021 and sharply declining birth rates nine months later.
Sweden
Data analyst Gato Malo has noted, as have others, that too many countries are locking their vital statistics data away from public view, which pre-empts any valid analysis. Occasional glimpses are available.
Looking at Sweden, he found that if he overlaid month-to-month change in births, that the strong dip in births beginning in November—December 2021, lines up very tightly with the percentage of people who were unvaccinated 9 months earlier. [6] This was consistent with the R Hagemann, U Lorré, et al. findings. And births in Sweden have not yet shown signs of recovery from this decline.
Epoch Times Photo
(data scb.se, owid) boriquagato.substack.com
UK
At a similar time as in the above countries, we see births decline in the UK. After December 2021, the number of women giving birth is no longer in the forty thousands, but now crosses down into the thirty thousands, and stays there. [7] See the column “Women giving birth.”
From the UK Health Security Agency (p 18):
Epoch Times Photo
Comparing year-over-year decline, we might write this mean decline from the first two quarters of 2021 to the first two quarters of 2022, where b is births, as (Σ b1, 2021…b6, 2021) – (Σ b1, 2022…b6, 2022) = 256,785 – 227,302 = 29,483. This is a deficit of 4,913 births per month in the UK. Similarly to Sweden, the inflection point of decline is at a 9–11 month point following the months of peak vaccine uptake in the UK. [8]
From Johns Hopkins University, Our World In Data, peak vaccine uptake in the UK was in the first quarter of 2021:
Epoch Times Photo
Switzerland
Switzerland saw its largest drop in birth rates in 150 years, more than in each of the two World Wars, the Great Depression, and even the introduction of widely used oral contraceptives. [9]
Why Is This Happening?
Naomi Wolf explored menstrual irregularities reported following COVID vaccination, and even following contact with COVID-vaccinated people. As the first to discuss these problems publicly, and to gather data online from women who were experiencing these menstrual changes, she was criticized and censored on social media.
Her Daily Clout organization led a team of over 3,000 researchers, including Pierre Kory M.D., to dissect the documents released by Pfizer/FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] under court order regarding clinical outcomes of the 44,000-person clinical trial of the Pfizer COVID vaccines. The Daily Clout team summarized their findings in their book on Kindle: “Pfizer Documents Analysis Reports.” [10]
They report Pfizer’s findings of overwhelming injuries in their experimental group. Of the 22,000 individuals who had received the Pfizer vaccine, “Johns Hopkins University, Our World In Data.” [11]
The Daily Clout team explores in their book topics related to the COVID vaccines’ impacts on male and female fertility. As their team traced the data reported by Pfizer, it was found that 270 of the pregnant women in the Pfizer trial reported a vaccine injury. “ … but Pfizer only followed 32 of them and 28 of their babies died. This is a shocking 87.5% fetal death rate.” [12]
Pfizer logged over 158,000 separate adverse events during that clinical trial, under 1290 different types of adverse events, an enormous compendium of human suffering, as partially imaged below from the first part of the letter A. [13]
From Pfizer Worldwide Safety (p 30):
Epoch Times Photo
Wolf’s team notes that “If Pfizer had a TV commercial for its COVID vaccine listing the 158,893 adverse events reported in the first 12 weeks, the announcer would be reading them for more than 80 consecutive hours.” [14]
Even this exhaustive list could not be complete, because Pfizer could not account for the outcomes of 22 percent of participants. Pfizer does list 11,361 of the patients as “not recovered” at the time of their report. [15] This is 51.6 percent of their experimental group “not recovered” from adverse events.
No Liquid Will ‘Just Stay in the Shoulder/Arm.’
We have known, and Pfizer has confessed to, the transmission of spike proteins from one person to another by skin contact and exhalation. I cite and discuss that in the context of one adult to another in a community setting. [16]
Adverse effects on vaccinated breastfeeding mothers and their babies included a range of vomiting, fever, rash, partial paralysis, blue-green discolored breast milk, and other side effects.
Not surprisingly, the injected vaccine liquid passes from mother to nursing infant as well, in accordance with long-established physics principles of dispersal and diffusion of liquid introduced into a semi-solid (55–60 percent water) body, as well as centuries of basic, undisputed physiology and circulation of blood and lymph: Liquids introduced into the body diffuse throughout the body, as always.
It has also been known of lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery of medication—since its first development—that it, of course, enters the circulation. Those who alleged—and those who believed—that a liquid injection would “stay in the arm” had not even a junior high school student’s grasp of basic biology or physics.
But Pfizer knew. It advised male participants in the trial to avoid sexual contact with women of childbearing age or to use condoms.
Here is an overview of the impact of LNP-delivered substances on human male and female reproductive organs. [17]
Epoch Times Photo
From Wang R, Song B, et al. Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system
Male Infertility and the COVID Vaccines
mRNA vaccine ingredients are observed to disperse throughout the body, collecting in the testes, among other organs. [18] An adverse event of note in Pfizer’s list of 1290 such events post-vaccination is “anti-sperm antibodies.”
From Pfizer Worldwide Safety:
Epoch Times Photo
An Israeli study later confirmed damage to sperm, both in total numbers and motility, from the Pfizer vaccine. [19]
Epoch Times Photo
The word “temporarily” in the title is misleading because the researchers assumed sperm would recover after their three-month study period, although they ended their observation at that time. And they did not show any evidence that sperm did actually recover. So their word “temporarily” is so far unverified.
Pfizer did not test for male reproductive toxicity, [20] nor for the adverse effects that may be transmitted by vaccinated men’s semen on their children’s development.
One might think that male reproductive effects would have been tested for in Pfizer’s trial on rats. However, only the female rats were vaccinated; the male ones were not. [21] When Pfizer pronounced the male rats’ reproductive organs free of toxicity, they neglected to emphasize the earlier fine print: male rats had not been vaccinated at all.
But Pfizer did instruct human male study participants to avoid intercourse or to use a condom.
Harm caused by LNPs to male reproductive organs and ability had already been established years earlier. As seen in this 2018 study, such organs were known to be vulnerable to toxic influences from LNPs. [22] Besides lowered sperm counts and motility, researchers have found “folded amorphous spermatozoa, cells lacking or showing a small hook, and cells with undulating or elongated heads were the most frequent abnormalities found.” [23]
Moreover, toxic chemicals, such as phthalates and other endocrine disruptors, [24] were already abundant in the environment prior to the COVID vaccines. These have likely contributed to declining sperm number and quality for a half-century, [25] in which sperm counts have been dropping by about 1 percent per year since 1972. [26]
However, the COVID vaccines are making spermatogenesis even more rare. The problem is that most of the male reproductive cells, including spermatogonia and spermatozoa, express ACE-2, which is what spike proteins use for entry into human cells. Just as happens in blood vessels throughout the body, the spike protein arrival at the ACE-2 receptors was found to damage not only sperm, but also the blood-testis barrier, and to contribute to orchitis. At day 150, sperm concentration was 15.9 percent below baseline, below even the 75 to 120-day period, and had not begun to recover by the end of the study.[27]
Female Infertility and the COVID Vaccines
The World Health Organization had long taken an interest in “anti-fertility vaccines” and “fertility regulating vaccines,” as they wrote in 1992. “Chorionic gonadotropin is the one antigen that fulfils criteria for an ideal contraceptive vaccine.” [Emphasis mine.] [28]
Fetal death was so rampant among COVID-vaccinated pregnant women observed by the CDC in the V-Safe Surveillance System [29] that I compared the miscarriage rate to the “morning-after pill” in the abortive effect of those pregnancies for which outcomes were reported. [30] That is, between 80 to 90 percent abortive effect. This is comparable to what the Naomi Wolf/Daily Clout team found, 87.5 percent, as referenced above. However, that V-Safe data had been released too early for accurate tally of all pregnancy outcomes, simply because it included women still in their first two trimesters.
This paper examines the cohort of pregnant women in the second half (second 20 weeks) of their pregnancies. [31] However, it seems to be flawed by missing data. [32]
Miscarriages also show a dose-dependent response. The Pfizer vaccine is a 30 mcg dose and the Moderna vaccine is a 100 mcg dose. At an October 2022 CDC expert committee meeting (ACIP), the following data were presented:
12,751 women took the Pfizer vaccine, and 8,365 women took the Moderna vaccine. 422 Pfizer-vaccinated women, that is 3 percent of the Pfizer total, miscarried (lost their pregnancy by 20 weeks gestation), and 395 of the Moderna-vaccinated women, that is 4.7 percent of the Moderna total, miscarried. [33]
Epoch Times Photo
CDC. COVID-19 in pregnant people and infants ages 0–5 months. (pdf)
So this means that 42 percent more of the Moderna group miscarried than the Pfizer group. This large percentage difference in such large cohorts (in the thousands of participants) supports a dose-response relationship of the COVID mRNA vaccine with miscarriage, worsened with the more potent dosing. This dose response is another of the Bradford Hill criteria to establish cause and effect.
The documents that Pfizer sought to have concealed for 75 years, but instead was forced to release by court order, reveal the 1290 types of adverse events, and 158,000 total adverse events, noted above.
Also revealed in the same documents was that Pfizer excluded 21 groups of people from their trials, including “women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.” [34]
The vaccines had been tested on 44 pregnant rats over 6 weeks, as required by protocols of Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity studies, but they had not been tested on pregnant women. Ill effects were not reported from the rat study. [35]
However, nine of the ten study authors were employed by and held stock in Pfizer or BioNTech companies, as acknowledged in small print at the end of the article. Therefore, a highly-conflicted study of only 44 rats, studied over six weeks, was the sole research basis for the obstetric profession to urge pregnant women to be vaccinated.
Pfizer’s reporting of women in the trials who became pregnant following vaccination found 413 pregnant women, of whom 270 cases were considered to be serious and 146 to be non-serious. The serious cases included “spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies.” [36] A problem with the short 12-week trial is that nearly all of these new pregnancies were apparently in early gestation, first trimester, at trial end.
The Daily Clout research team determined after examining and comparing miscarriages following various vaccines over time:
“If you are pregnant, you are more likely to lose your baby in a miscarriage if you receive a COVID-19 vaccine than if you receive measles, mumps, flu, tetanus, or any other vaccine.” [37]
They found from the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that in VAERS’ 30-year history, through March 2022, a total of 4,693 had experienced miscarriage in all those years. 4,505 of those had received a single vaccine. 3,430 of those miscarriages were in women whose vaccinations included a COVID vaccine. Sixteen of those 3,430 had also received another vaccine near that time. So 3,430 – 16 = 3,414 miscarriages were after the COVID vaccine alone.
Compare this number with 4,505 for all single vaccines over the 30-year history of VAERS. Therefore, 3,414 / 4,505 = 76 percent of all miscarriages ever reported to VAERS occurred after the COVID vaccines, during the short time that they have been in use, December 2020 through March 2022.
Since at least 2010, it has been known that nano-particles were hazardous to the ovaries and to fertility generally, and bioaccumulation has been known. [38] [39]
In the case of spike proteins, it comes as no surprise that the ACE-2 receptor is the port of entry for spike proteins to gain access to ovarian cells, both granulosa and cumulus cells. [40] These are the ovarian cells that support the development of oocytes.
Congenital Malformations
The U.S. Defense Medical Epidemiology Database System (DMED) [41] is the largest database of health statistics of the generally young, healthy, and fit military population. That is until military service members were forced to take the COVID vaccines or to be dishonorably discharged, with loss of benefits. Few if any religious exemptions were permitted.
The DMED database reported when comparing 2021 to 2020, a 419 percent increase in female infertility reports, a 320 percent increase in male infertility reports, and an 87 percent increase in congenital malformations. The report shows a mean baseline rate of 10,906 cases per year, 2016 to 2020. Then part of 2021, not even the full year, showed 18,951 such cases. [42] This is a 74 percent increase over the 2016 to 2020 mean.
Prevention is massively easier than cure. Avoiding toxins such as LNPs, especially those that generate spike protein, such as the mRNA vaccines, is a necessary first step. Let’s hope that the coming years show the fertility crisis for both males and females to be reversible, as we learn how that may be accomplished.
Reposted from Colleen Huber’s Substack.
◇ References:
[1] Annual Massachusetts Birth Reports. Screenshot taken Jan. 27, 2023. Mass.gov. https://www.mass.gov/lists/annual-massachusetts-birth-reports
[2] New York State Dept of Health. Vital statistics of New York State. Screenshot taken Jan 27, 2023. NY.gov. https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/vs_reports_tables_list.htm
[3] Birth Statistics. Screenshot taken Jan. 27, 2023. Illinois.gov. https://dph.illinois.gov/data-statistics/vital-statistics/birth-statistics.html
[4] Washington State Dept of Health. All births dashboard – ACH. Screenshot taken Jan 27, 2023. WA.gov. https://doh.wa.gov/data-statistical-reports/washington-tracking-network-wtn/birth-outcomes/ach-all-births-dashboard-0
[5] R Hagemann, U Lorré, et al. [Decline in birth rates in Europe; in German]. Aug 25, 2022. Aletheia Scimed. https://www.aletheia-scimed.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Geburtenrueckgang-Europe-DE_25082022_2.pdf
[6] El gato malo. Swedish birthrate data: November update. Jan 25, 2023. Substack. bad cattitude
[7] UK Health Security Agency. COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report. Week 5. Feb 2, 2023. P. 18. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1134076/vaccine-surveillance-report-week-5-2023.pdf
[8] Johns Hopkins University. Our World in Data. Daily number of people receiving a first COVID-19 vaccine, UK. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
[9] K Beck. Analysis of a possible connection between the COVID =19 vaccination and the fall in the birth rate in Switzerland in 2022. Sep 22, 2022. Univ of Lucerne. Quoted in R Chandler, Report 52: Nine months post-COVID mRNA “vaccine” rollout, substantial birth rate drops in 13 European countries, England/Wales, Australia, and Taiwan. Jan 16, 2023. Daily Clout. https://dailyclout.io/report-52-nine-months-post-covid-mrna-vaccine-rollout-substantial-birth-rate-drops/
[10] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout. Pfizer Documents Analysis Volunteers’ Reports eBook. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/
[11] Ibid, p 10.
[12] Ibid, p 10.
[13] Pfizer Worldwide Safety. 5.3.6 Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) received through 28 Feb 2021. Appendix 1: List of adverse events of special interest. Pp 30-38. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
[14] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout p 14. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/
[15] Pfizer Worldwide Safety, Table 1, p 7. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
[16] C Huber. Secondary vaccine effects. Feb 9, 2022. The Defeat Of COVID Substack.
[17] R Wang, B Song, et al. Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system. Dec 11, 2018. Int J Nanomedicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294055/
[18] Acuitas Therapeutics, Inc. A Tissue distribution study of a [3-H]-labelled lipid nanoparticle-mRNA formulation containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 following intramuscular administration in Wistar Han rats. Nov 9, 2021. p. 24. https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf
[19] I Gat, A Kedem, et al. COVID-19 vaccination GNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors. Jun 17, 2022. Andrology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209
[20] Gov.UK. Summary of the public assessment report for COVID-19 vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech. Jan 6 2023 update. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/summary-public-assessment-report-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine
[21] Acuitas Therapeutics, Inc. A Tissue distribution study of a [3-H]-labelled lipid nanoparticle-mRNA formulation containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 following intramuscular administration in Wistar Han rats. Nov 9, 2021. p. 29. https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf
[22] R Wang, B Song, et al. Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system. Dec 11, 2018. Int J Nanomedicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294055/
[23] Ibid. Wang.
[24] R Sumner, M Tomlinson, et al. Independent and combined effects of diethylhexyl phthalate and polychlorinated biphenyl 153 on sperm quality in the human and dog. Mar 4, 2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39913-9
[25] E Carlsen, A Givercman, et al. Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years. Sep 12, 1992. BMJ. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1393072/
[26] H Levine, N Jorgensen, et al. Temporal trends in sperm count: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of samples collected globally in the 20th and 21st centuries. Nov 15, 2022. Oxford: Human Reproduction Update. https://academic.oup.com/humupd/advance-article/doi/10.1093/humupd/dmac035/6824414?login=false
[27] I Gat, A Kedem, et al. COVID-19 vaccination GNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors. Jun 17, 2022. Andrology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209
[28] World Health Organization. Fertility regulating vaccines. Aug 17-18 1992. Geneva. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FKMhagpd6bRZJ8la96bgH7UwQ8CmFNnI/view
[29] T Shimabukuro, S Kim, et al. Preliminary findings of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines safety in pregnant persons. Jun 17, 2021. NEJM. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983
[30] C Huber. COVID vaccines may rival or exceed ‘the morning-after pill’ in abortion efficacy. Aug 2021. The Defeat of COVID Substack.
[31] L Zauche, B Wallace, et al. Receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and risk of spontaneous abortion. Se 8 2021. NEJM. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451181/
[32] Arkmedic. The curious case of the miscalculated miscarriages. Sep 14, 2021. Substack.
[33] CDC. COVID-19 in pregnant people and infants ages 0-5 months. Slide 32. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-10-19-20/02-03-04-COVID-Ellington-Kharbanda-Olson-Fleming-Dutra-508.pdf
[34] Pfizer Worldwide Safety. Annotated book for study design. Exclusion number 2.h, 11. p 33. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-sample-crf.pdf
[35] C Bowman, M Bouressam, et al. Lack of effects on female fertility and prenatal and postnatal offspring development in rats with BNT162b2, a mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. Aug 2021. Reprod Toxicol. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34058573/
[36] Pfizer Worldwide Safety, Table 6, p 12. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
[37] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/
[38] A Schadlich, S Hoffman, et al. Accumulation of nanocarriers in the ovary: A neglected toxicity risk? May 30, 2012. J Contr Release. 160 (1), PP 105-112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168365912000892?
[39] M Ajdary, F Keyhanfar, et al. P{otential toxicity of nanoparticles on the reproductive system animal models: A review. Nov 2021. J Reprod Immun. 148. 103384. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165037821001145
[40] F Luongo, F Dragoni, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection of human ovarian cells: A potential negative impact on female fertility. Apr 23, 2022. Cell. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9105548/pdf/cells-11-01431.pdf
[41] Health.mil. Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED). https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Health-Readiness/AFHSD/Data-Management-and-Technical-Support/Defense-Medical-Epidemiology-Database
[42] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout p 91.. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/
-
I am so old, I remember when a global soft genocide was just a conspiracy theory.
https://twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1619719430161993730
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is a veterinarian. Albert Bourla’s PhD thesis is about the control of fertility in sheep and goats.
I'm serious. You can't make this stuff up. You really can't.
Birth Rates Plunge in Heavily Vaccinated Countries
HEALTH VIEWPOINTS
Feb 21 2023
In many countries, births dropped sharply nine months after peak COVID vaccine uptake. Let’s look at how this happens. And will these populations recover?
Vital Statistics–Hidden Data
Since the beginning of COVID, vital statistics as reported by governments around the world, are hard to come by. Spotty availability hinders analysis and understanding.
For example, even today in the United States, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and Washington are four of the states that, as of this writing, have not updated births data since 2019 [1] and 2020. [2] [3] [4]
Nineteen European Countries
By August 2022, Raimond Hagemann, Ulf Lorré, and Dr. Hans-Joachim Kremer had compiled data on birth rate changes in 19 European countries and produced an extremely important paper. [5] In country after country, the inflection point of reduced births is consistent at the end of the year 2021.
This was nine months after the spring zeitgeist to take the COVID vaccines. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia, as well as Iceland, Northern Ireland, Montenegro, Serbia—all show this pattern. Nine months after peak vaccine uptake—the births decline.
From R Hagemann, U Lorré, et al. Danish data (p 31):
The corresponding graph for each of the 19 countries has a similar pattern: peak uptake of COVID vaccines in spring of 2021, followed by precipitous birthrate declines beginning nine months later.
All of the nineteen countries studied saw accelerating declines in births in 2022, beginning at nine months after peak COVID vaccine uptake. Note the small p values in the following table, favoring temporal association of the two events. This, in turn, supports the Bradford Hill temporality criterion regarding causation of infertility, rather than a highly coincidental correlation between peak vaccination in spring of 2021 and sharply declining birth rates nine months later.
Sweden
Data analyst Gato Malo has noted, as have others, that too many countries are locking their vital statistics data away from public view, which pre-empts any valid analysis. Occasional glimpses are available.
Looking at Sweden, he found that if he overlaid month-to-month change in births, that the strong dip in births beginning in November—December 2021, lines up very tightly with the percentage of people who were unvaccinated 9 months earlier. [6] This was consistent with the R Hagemann, U Lorré, et al. findings. And births in Sweden have not yet shown signs of recovery from this decline.
Epoch Times Photo
(data scb.se, owid) boriquagato.substack.com
UK
At a similar time as in the above countries, we see births decline in the UK. After December 2021, the number of women giving birth is no longer in the forty thousands, but now crosses down into the thirty thousands, and stays there. [7] See the column “Women giving birth.”
From the UK Health Security Agency (p 18):
Epoch Times Photo
Comparing year-over-year decline, we might write this mean decline from the first two quarters of 2021 to the first two quarters of 2022, where b is births, as (Σ b1, 2021…b6, 2021) – (Σ b1, 2022…b6, 2022) = 256,785 – 227,302 = 29,483. This is a deficit of 4,913 births per month in the UK. Similarly to Sweden, the inflection point of decline is at a 9–11 month point following the months of peak vaccine uptake in the UK. [8]
From Johns Hopkins University, Our World In Data, peak vaccine uptake in the UK was in the first quarter of 2021:
Epoch Times Photo
Switzerland
Switzerland saw its largest drop in birth rates in 150 years, more than in each of the two World Wars, the Great Depression, and even the introduction of widely used oral contraceptives. [9]
Why Is This Happening?
Naomi Wolf explored menstrual irregularities reported following COVID vaccination, and even following contact with COVID-vaccinated people. As the first to discuss these problems publicly, and to gather data online from women who were experiencing these menstrual changes, she was criticized and censored on social media.
Her Daily Clout organization led a team of over 3,000 researchers, including Pierre Kory M.D., to dissect the documents released by Pfizer/FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] under court order regarding clinical outcomes of the 44,000-person clinical trial of the Pfizer COVID vaccines. The Daily Clout team summarized their findings in their book on Kindle: “Pfizer Documents Analysis Reports.” [10]
They report Pfizer’s findings of overwhelming injuries in their experimental group. Of the 22,000 individuals who had received the Pfizer vaccine, “Johns Hopkins University, Our World In Data.” [11]
The Daily Clout team explores in their book topics related to the COVID vaccines’ impacts on male and female fertility. As their team traced the data reported by Pfizer, it was found that 270 of the pregnant women in the Pfizer trial reported a vaccine injury. “ … but Pfizer only followed 32 of them and 28 of their babies died. This is a shocking 87.5% fetal death rate.” [12]
Pfizer logged over 158,000 separate adverse events during that clinical trial, under 1290 different types of adverse events, an enormous compendium of human suffering, as partially imaged below from the first part of the letter A. [13]
From Pfizer Worldwide Safety (p 30):
Epoch Times Photo
Wolf’s team notes that “If Pfizer had a TV commercial for its COVID vaccine listing the 158,893 adverse events reported in the first 12 weeks, the announcer would be reading them for more than 80 consecutive hours.” [14]
Even this exhaustive list could not be complete, because Pfizer could not account for the outcomes of 22 percent of participants. Pfizer does list 11,361 of the patients as “not recovered” at the time of their report. [15] This is 51.6 percent of their experimental group “not recovered” from adverse events.
No Liquid Will ‘Just Stay in the Shoulder/Arm.’
We have known, and Pfizer has confessed to, the transmission of spike proteins from one person to another by skin contact and exhalation. I cite and discuss that in the context of one adult to another in a community setting. [16]
Adverse effects on vaccinated breastfeeding mothers and their babies included a range of vomiting, fever, rash, partial paralysis, blue-green discolored breast milk, and other side effects.
Not surprisingly, the injected vaccine liquid passes from mother to nursing infant as well, in accordance with long-established physics principles of dispersal and diffusion of liquid introduced into a semi-solid (55–60 percent water) body, as well as centuries of basic, undisputed physiology and circulation of blood and lymph: Liquids introduced into the body diffuse throughout the body, as always.
It has also been known of lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery of medication—since its first development—that it, of course, enters the circulation. Those who alleged—and those who believed—that a liquid injection would “stay in the arm” had not even a junior high school student’s grasp of basic biology or physics.
But Pfizer knew. It advised male participants in the trial to avoid sexual contact with women of childbearing age or to use condoms.
Here is an overview of the impact of LNP-delivered substances on human male and female reproductive organs. [17]
Epoch Times Photo
From Wang R, Song B, et al. Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system
Male Infertility and the COVID Vaccines
mRNA vaccine ingredients are observed to disperse throughout the body, collecting in the testes, among other organs. [18] An adverse event of note in Pfizer’s list of 1290 such events post-vaccination is “anti-sperm antibodies.”
From Pfizer Worldwide Safety:
Epoch Times Photo
An Israeli study later confirmed damage to sperm, both in total numbers and motility, from the Pfizer vaccine. [19]
Epoch Times Photo
The word “temporarily” in the title is misleading because the researchers assumed sperm would recover after their three-month study period, although they ended their observation at that time. And they did not show any evidence that sperm did actually recover. So their word “temporarily” is so far unverified.
Pfizer did not test for male reproductive toxicity, [20] nor for the adverse effects that may be transmitted by vaccinated men’s semen on their children’s development.
One might think that male reproductive effects would have been tested for in Pfizer’s trial on rats. However, only the female rats were vaccinated; the male ones were not. [21] When Pfizer pronounced the male rats’ reproductive organs free of toxicity, they neglected to emphasize the earlier fine print: male rats had not been vaccinated at all.
But Pfizer did instruct human male study participants to avoid intercourse or to use a condom.
Harm caused by LNPs to male reproductive organs and ability had already been established years earlier. As seen in this 2018 study, such organs were known to be vulnerable to toxic influences from LNPs. [22] Besides lowered sperm counts and motility, researchers have found “folded amorphous spermatozoa, cells lacking or showing a small hook, and cells with undulating or elongated heads were the most frequent abnormalities found.” [23]
Moreover, toxic chemicals, such as phthalates and other endocrine disruptors, [24] were already abundant in the environment prior to the COVID vaccines. These have likely contributed to declining sperm number and quality for a half-century, [25] in which sperm counts have been dropping by about 1 percent per year since 1972. [26]
However, the COVID vaccines are making spermatogenesis even more rare. The problem is that most of the male reproductive cells, including spermatogonia and spermatozoa, express ACE-2, which is what spike proteins use for entry into human cells. Just as happens in blood vessels throughout the body, the spike protein arrival at the ACE-2 receptors was found to damage not only sperm, but also the blood-testis barrier, and to contribute to orchitis. At day 150, sperm concentration was 15.9 percent below baseline, below even the 75 to 120-day period, and had not begun to recover by the end of the study.[27]
Female Infertility and the COVID Vaccines
The World Health Organization had long taken an interest in “anti-fertility vaccines” and “fertility regulating vaccines,” as they wrote in 1992. “Chorionic gonadotropin is the one antigen that fulfils criteria for an ideal contraceptive vaccine.” [Emphasis mine.] [28]
Fetal death was so rampant among COVID-vaccinated pregnant women observed by the CDC in the V-Safe Surveillance System [29] that I compared the miscarriage rate to the “morning-after pill” in the abortive effect of those pregnancies for which outcomes were reported. [30] That is, between 80 to 90 percent abortive effect. This is comparable to what the Naomi Wolf/Daily Clout team found, 87.5 percent, as referenced above. However, that V-Safe data had been released too early for accurate tally of all pregnancy outcomes, simply because it included women still in their first two trimesters.
This paper examines the cohort of pregnant women in the second half (second 20 weeks) of their pregnancies. [31] However, it seems to be flawed by missing data. [32]
Miscarriages also show a dose-dependent response. The Pfizer vaccine is a 30 mcg dose and the Moderna vaccine is a 100 mcg dose. At an October 2022 CDC expert committee meeting (ACIP), the following data were presented:
12,751 women took the Pfizer vaccine, and 8,365 women took the Moderna vaccine. 422 Pfizer-vaccinated women, that is 3 percent of the Pfizer total, miscarried (lost their pregnancy by 20 weeks gestation), and 395 of the Moderna-vaccinated women, that is 4.7 percent of the Moderna total, miscarried. [33]
Epoch Times Photo
CDC. COVID-19 in pregnant people and infants ages 0–5 months. (pdf)
So this means that 42 percent more of the Moderna group miscarried than the Pfizer group. This large percentage difference in such large cohorts (in the thousands of participants) supports a dose-response relationship of the COVID mRNA vaccine with miscarriage, worsened with the more potent dosing. This dose response is another of the Bradford Hill criteria to establish cause and effect.
The documents that Pfizer sought to have concealed for 75 years, but instead was forced to release by court order, reveal the 1290 types of adverse events, and 158,000 total adverse events, noted above.
Also revealed in the same documents was that Pfizer excluded 21 groups of people from their trials, including “women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.” [34]
The vaccines had been tested on 44 pregnant rats over 6 weeks, as required by protocols of Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity studies, but they had not been tested on pregnant women. Ill effects were not reported from the rat study. [35]
However, nine of the ten study authors were employed by and held stock in Pfizer or BioNTech companies, as acknowledged in small print at the end of the article. Therefore, a highly-conflicted study of only 44 rats, studied over six weeks, was the sole research basis for the obstetric profession to urge pregnant women to be vaccinated.
Pfizer’s reporting of women in the trials who became pregnant following vaccination found 413 pregnant women, of whom 270 cases were considered to be serious and 146 to be non-serious. The serious cases included “spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies.” [36] A problem with the short 12-week trial is that nearly all of these new pregnancies were apparently in early gestation, first trimester, at trial end.
The Daily Clout research team determined after examining and comparing miscarriages following various vaccines over time:
“If you are pregnant, you are more likely to lose your baby in a miscarriage if you receive a COVID-19 vaccine than if you receive measles, mumps, flu, tetanus, or any other vaccine.” [37]
They found from the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that in VAERS’ 30-year history, through March 2022, a total of 4,693 had experienced miscarriage in all those years. 4,505 of those had received a single vaccine. 3,430 of those miscarriages were in women whose vaccinations included a COVID vaccine. Sixteen of those 3,430 had also received another vaccine near that time. So 3,430 – 16 = 3,414 miscarriages were after the COVID vaccine alone.
Compare this number with 4,505 for all single vaccines over the 30-year history of VAERS. Therefore, 3,414 / 4,505 = 76 percent of all miscarriages ever reported to VAERS occurred after the COVID vaccines, during the short time that they have been in use, December 2020 through March 2022.
Since at least 2010, it has been known that nano-particles were hazardous to the ovaries and to fertility generally, and bioaccumulation has been known. [38] [39]
In the case of spike proteins, it comes as no surprise that the ACE-2 receptor is the port of entry for spike proteins to gain access to ovarian cells, both granulosa and cumulus cells. [40] These are the ovarian cells that support the development of oocytes.
Congenital Malformations
The U.S. Defense Medical Epidemiology Database System (DMED) [41] is the largest database of health statistics of the generally young, healthy, and fit military population. That is until military service members were forced to take the COVID vaccines or to be dishonorably discharged, with loss of benefits. Few if any religious exemptions were permitted.
The DMED database reported when comparing 2021 to 2020, a 419 percent increase in female infertility reports, a 320 percent increase in male infertility reports, and an 87 percent increase in congenital malformations. The report shows a mean baseline rate of 10,906 cases per year, 2016 to 2020. Then part of 2021, not even the full year, showed 18,951 such cases. [42] This is a 74 percent increase over the 2016 to 2020 mean.
Prevention is massively easier than cure. Avoiding toxins such as LNPs, especially those that generate spike protein, such as the mRNA vaccines, is a necessary first step. Let’s hope that the coming years show the fertility crisis for both males and females to be reversible, as we learn how that may be accomplished.
Reposted from Colleen Huber’s Substack.
◇ References:
[1] Annual Massachusetts Birth Reports. Screenshot taken Jan. 27, 2023. Mass.gov. https://www.mass.gov/lists/annual-massachusetts-birth-reports
[2] New York State Dept of Health. Vital statistics of New York State. Screenshot taken Jan 27, 2023. NY.gov. https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/vs_reports_tables_list.htm
[3] Birth Statistics. Screenshot taken Jan. 27, 2023. Illinois.gov. https://dph.illinois.gov/data-statistics/vital-statistics/birth-statistics.html
[4] Washington State Dept of Health. All births dashboard – ACH. Screenshot taken Jan 27, 2023. WA.gov. https://doh.wa.gov/data-statistical-reports/washington-tracking-network-wtn/birth-outcomes/ach-all-births-dashboard-0
[5] R Hagemann, U Lorré, et al. [Decline in birth rates in Europe; in German]. Aug 25, 2022. Aletheia Scimed. https://www.aletheia-scimed.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Geburtenrueckgang-Europe-DE_25082022_2.pdf
[6] El gato malo. Swedish birthrate data: November update. Jan 25, 2023. Substack. bad cattitude
[7] UK Health Security Agency. COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report. Week 5. Feb 2, 2023. P. 18. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1134076/vaccine-surveillance-report-week-5-2023.pdf
[8] Johns Hopkins University. Our World in Data. Daily number of people receiving a first COVID-19 vaccine, UK. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
[9] K Beck. Analysis of a possible connection between the COVID =19 vaccination and the fall in the birth rate in Switzerland in 2022. Sep 22, 2022. Univ of Lucerne. Quoted in R Chandler, Report 52: Nine months post-COVID mRNA “vaccine” rollout, substantial birth rate drops in 13 European countries, England/Wales, Australia, and Taiwan. Jan 16, 2023. Daily Clout. https://dailyclout.io/report-52-nine-months-post-covid-mrna-vaccine-rollout-substantial-birth-rate-drops/
[10] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout. Pfizer Documents Analysis Volunteers’ Reports eBook. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/
[11] Ibid, p 10.
[12] Ibid, p 10.
[13] Pfizer Worldwide Safety. 5.3.6 Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) received through 28 Feb 2021. Appendix 1: List of adverse events of special interest. Pp 30-38. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
[14] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout p 14. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/
[15] Pfizer Worldwide Safety, Table 1, p 7. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
[16] C Huber. Secondary vaccine effects. Feb 9, 2022. The Defeat Of COVID Substack.
[17] R Wang, B Song, et al. Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system. Dec 11, 2018. Int J Nanomedicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294055/
[18] Acuitas Therapeutics, Inc. A Tissue distribution study of a [3-H]-labelled lipid nanoparticle-mRNA formulation containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 following intramuscular administration in Wistar Han rats. Nov 9, 2021. p. 24. https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf
[19] I Gat, A Kedem, et al. COVID-19 vaccination GNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors. Jun 17, 2022. Andrology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209
[20] Gov.UK. Summary of the public assessment report for COVID-19 vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech. Jan 6 2023 update. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/summary-public-assessment-report-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine
[21] Acuitas Therapeutics, Inc. A Tissue distribution study of a [3-H]-labelled lipid nanoparticle-mRNA formulation containing ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 following intramuscular administration in Wistar Han rats. Nov 9, 2021. p. 29. https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M4_4223_185350.pdf
[22] R Wang, B Song, et al. Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system. Dec 11, 2018. Int J Nanomedicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294055/
[23] Ibid. Wang.
[24] R Sumner, M Tomlinson, et al. Independent and combined effects of diethylhexyl phthalate and polychlorinated biphenyl 153 on sperm quality in the human and dog. Mar 4, 2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39913-9
[25] E Carlsen, A Givercman, et al. Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years. Sep 12, 1992. BMJ. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1393072/
[26] H Levine, N Jorgensen, et al. Temporal trends in sperm count: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of samples collected globally in the 20th and 21st centuries. Nov 15, 2022. Oxford: Human Reproduction Update. https://academic.oup.com/humupd/advance-article/doi/10.1093/humupd/dmac035/6824414?login=false
[27] I Gat, A Kedem, et al. COVID-19 vaccination GNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors. Jun 17, 2022. Andrology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209
[28] World Health Organization. Fertility regulating vaccines. Aug 17-18 1992. Geneva. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FKMhagpd6bRZJ8la96bgH7UwQ8CmFNnI/view
[29] T Shimabukuro, S Kim, et al. Preliminary findings of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines safety in pregnant persons. Jun 17, 2021. NEJM. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983
[30] C Huber. COVID vaccines may rival or exceed ‘the morning-after pill’ in abortion efficacy. Aug 2021. The Defeat of COVID Substack.
[31] L Zauche, B Wallace, et al. Receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and risk of spontaneous abortion. Se 8 2021. NEJM. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451181/
[32] Arkmedic. The curious case of the miscalculated miscarriages. Sep 14, 2021. Substack.
[33] CDC. COVID-19 in pregnant people and infants ages 0-5 months. Slide 32. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-10-19-20/02-03-04-COVID-Ellington-Kharbanda-Olson-Fleming-Dutra-508.pdf
[34] Pfizer Worldwide Safety. Annotated book for study design. Exclusion number 2.h, 11. p 33. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-sample-crf.pdf
[35] C Bowman, M Bouressam, et al. Lack of effects on female fertility and prenatal and postnatal offspring development in rats with BNT162b2, a mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. Aug 2021. Reprod Toxicol. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34058573/
[36] Pfizer Worldwide Safety, Table 6, p 12. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
[37] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/
[38] A Schadlich, S Hoffman, et al. Accumulation of nanocarriers in the ovary: A neglected toxicity risk? May 30, 2012. J Contr Release. 160 (1), PP 105-112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168365912000892?
[39] M Ajdary, F Keyhanfar, et al. P{otential toxicity of nanoparticles on the reproductive system animal models: A review. Nov 2021. J Reprod Immun. 148. 103384. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165037821001145
[40] F Luongo, F Dragoni, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection of human ovarian cells: A potential negative impact on female fertility. Apr 23, 2022. Cell. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9105548/pdf/cells-11-01431.pdf
[41] Health.mil. Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED). https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Health-Readiness/AFHSD/Data-Management-and-Technical-Support/Defense-Medical-Epidemiology-Database
[42] A. Kelly, War Room / Daily Clout p 91.. https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/
-
https://jrnyquist.blog/2023/02/03/the-politics-of-biological-warfare-and-the-inversion-of-blame-part-i/
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/02/22/upenn-medical-school-forces-diversity-statement-on-teaching-applicants/
My statement would be something that Thomas Sowell might have written
Slavery, that was carried all over the world was and in some places a tragedy ,
Jim Crow was unconstitutional and morally abhorrent.
Today Blacks who work hard and meet qualifications can get into Medical just as easily as anyone who is not black.
look at the numbers of women in medical school . look at the number of Asians , middle easterners, Africans.
Broken families , lack of encouragement of education, and poverty , keeps people of all races from achieving academic success.
Blacks more so since the Great Society of the 60's, a well meaning but fundamentally flawed concept that has backfired substantially.
Time for leaders who teach Black history to correct this.
Not lower standards or base admissions in a reverse racist way .
Teach the value of the family unit, teach the value of education (like Jews have done for centuries) teach the truth about the failures of the liberal policies.
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/128/903/993/original/0d77b23f71d81111.jpeg
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/128/903/993/original/0d77b23f71d81111.jpeg)
Trust the experts! Trust the science!!!
-
All 50 states should establish expert groups to provide alternatives to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a Stanford University professor says.
“Every state should have their own second opinion of CDC policy and decision making,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford, told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program. The interview will premiere on Saturday, February 25 at 7:30pm ET.
Bhattacharya is one of the members of the Public Health Integrity Committee in Florida, formed in late 2022 by Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Overseen by Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, the committee of experts “will be able to assess recommendations and guidance related to public health and health care, but particularly being able to offer critical assessments of things that bureaucracies like the FDA, CDC, and NIH are doing,” DeSantis said during a roundtable with committee members.
The CDC has issued recommendations on masking, social distancing, and vaccination during the pandemic that have been widely followed, leading to school closures and vaccine mandates. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the COVID-19 vaccines and have not altered the authorizations despite the vaccines performing worse against newer variants and the risk-benefit calculus, especially among children, growing more uncertain, according to some outside experts. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has sought to suppress scientific ideas, including the advocation of focused protection of the elderly instead of locking down healthy people.
“The goal of the committee is essentially just to provide a second opinion when the CDC gets something wrong,” Bhattacharya told The Epoch Times. “Sometimes they’ll get the things right, we’ll say it. … But the the ultimate aim is to say, ‘look, the CDC says x, here’s our scientific view of it.”
Bhattacharya co-wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, a major challenge to the restrictions imposed and promoted by the federal government, and many state governments, during the pandemic. He’s joined on the committee by others, including co-author Martin Kulldorff; Dr. Tracy Hoeg, an epidemiologist whose study contradicted a CDC study on masking; and Dr. Joseph Fraiman, an emergency room doctor and scientist who helped lead a reanalysis of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials that concluded the vaccinated were at higher risk of serious adverse events.
DeSantis expressed optimism that other states would form similar commissions, but that has so far not been the case.
Bhattacharya said that other states should follow Florida’s lead.
“It’s not like the CDC is some miraculous power that knows best and can distinguish true from false. Let’s have a lot of voices, let’s have those commissions all over the country, all over the world. Let’s set up a institutional structure where you’re you are allowed to contradict the CDC when they get it wrong,” Bhattacharya said.
Critics of the CDC have noted that the agency spread misinformation about vaccines and natural immunity, and have often failed to correct the false statements. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC’s director, signed a memorandum that was crafted in response to the Great Barrington Declaration, that said in part that transmission of COVID-19 could be mitigated through the use of masks and isolation, and recently suggested lockdowns might be implemented again in the future.
The agency also hid from the public that it detected hundreds of safety signals for the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines.
Epoch Times Photo
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford University, at his home in California on April 17, 2021. (Tal Atzmon/The Epoch Times)
Clashes
Florida officials and the CDC have clashed multiple times, most recently over the explosion of adverse event reports following vaccination in the state.
Ladapo revealed a 1,700 percent increase in reports following COVID-19 vaccination, compared with a 400 percent increase in overall vaccine administration.
“Florida saw a 1,700% increase in adverse event reports after COVID-19 vaccinations. Does that sound safe and effective? I didn’t think so either. That’s why we released this health alert,” Ladapo said.
The CDC told the South Florida Sun-Sentinal that Ladapo’s statement was misleading.
An agency spokesperson pointed out that anyone can submit a report to the system, which the CDC co-manages, and that some of the reported events may not be related to vaccination.
The CDC did not mention that it verifies a number of the reports and that the system is described by officials as “an early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S. licensed vaccines.” It helped the CDC determine that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines cause heart inflammation, and that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine causes a severe condition called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia.
Ladapo urged people not to be confused by the CDC, noting that many of the reports are historically lodged by health care providers, who can be penalized if they don’t provide accurate information.
“Why are so many doctors and public health officials bending over backwards to defend the indefensible?” Ladapo said.
Epoch Times Photo
Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, speaks in Washington on June 16, 2022. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Rebuild Public Trust
Another goal of the Florida panel is restoring trust in public health, which, according to polls, has dropped during the pandemic.
“I think the public health works best when we reason with people. We don’t force people to do things. We tell people here’s what the evidence says, here’s where it’s strong, here’s where it’s weak,” Bhattacharya said. “So I want to be able to connect with people without getting deep into the weeds of technical stuff, but also being true to the technical stuff. Right? That kind of public health communication, when it’s effective is really, really powerful, persuasive in a way that that that doesn’t sort of run roughshod over your autonomy.”
Some officials, including Walensky, in 2021 infamously said that people who were vaccinated would not get sick and would not transmit the virus, even though the trials did not show 100 percent efficacy and did not, according to the FDA, provide sufficient evidence to determine efficacy against transmission.
The proper way to communicate is to present evidence from scientific studies and other data, Bhattacharya said. “I think that will be much more effective in the long run than where you make some pronouncement, ‘the vaccine, if you get the vaccine the COVID vaccine, you will not get COVID, you will not pass COVID on—it turns out to be false,” he said. “Now all of a sudden, who’s going to believe the person who said that?”
-
Three Years Late, the Lancet Recognizes Natural Immunity
The public-health clerisy rediscovers a principle of immunology it derided throughout the pandemic.
Allysia Finley
Feb. 26, 2023 1:07 pm ET
The Lancet medical journal this month published a review of 65 studies that concluded prior infection with Covid—i.e., natural immunity—is at least as protective as two doses of mRNA vaccines. The most surprising news was that the study made the mainstream press.
“Immunity acquired from a Covid infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds,” NBC reported on Feb. 16. The study found that prior infection offered 78.6% protection against reinfection from the original Wuhan, Alpha or Delta variants at 40 weeks, which slipped to 36.1% against Omicron. Protection against severe illness remained around 90% across all variants after 40 weeks. These results exceed what other studies have found for two and even three mRNA doses.
This comes after nearly three years of public-health officials’ dismissing the same hypothesis. But now that experts at the University of Washington have confirmed it in a leading—and left-leaning—journal, it’s fit to print.
The Lancet study’s vindication of natural immunity fits a pandemic pattern: The public-health clerisy rejects an argument that ostensibly threatens its authority; eventually it’s forced to soften its position in the face of incontrovertible evidence; and yet not once does it acknowledge its opponents were right.
The supposition that prior Covid infection could protect against future illness was deeply rooted in immunology before studies bore it out. Those who dismissed natural immunity argued it wasn’t known how long protection against reinfection would last. That’s true. We still don’t know exactly, and it seems to vary by person and variant.
Over their lifetimes people are frequently reinfected with viruses that cause respiratory illnesses, including other coronaviruses. But healthy people rarely get severely ill with a virus to which they’ve already been exposed. Infections generate antibodies in blood and the membranes of the upper respiratory tract that prevent reinfection in the short-term. They also generate and train B and T white blood cells that prevent serious illness after antibodies wane.
Repeat exposures train our immune systems to live with and fight off viruses as they become endemic. Think of it as peaceful coexistence. We tolerate viruses rapidly replicating in our upper respiratory passages, which allows them to transmit to other people, without mounting an overkill immune response that ends up harming ourselves.
Anthony Fauci and two co-authors explained this process last month in the journal Cell Host & Microbe. The concept of natural immunity isn’t scientifically controversial, yet it was disparaged by public-health officials who associated it with opposition to lockdowns and the Great Barrington Declaration in autumn 2020.
Recall that the declaration called for a new pandemic strategy with a focus on protecting the elderly and vulnerable while letting those at low risk for severe illness “live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection.” The aim was to minimize deaths and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
While the goal of herd immunity proved elusive as the virus mutated, the declaration’s central premise was correct: “As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all—including the vulnerable—falls.” This is what has happened over the past three years. Vaccines helped mitigate severe illness while people developed stronger natural immunity.
Although the virus has become more transmissible, we’ve built up what experts call an “immunity wall” that prevents it from spreading like a wildfire through a dense, dry forest, as happened in China after Beijing lifted its zero-Covid policy.
The public-health clerisy worried that acknowledging natural immunity would encourage people to get infected or discourage them from getting vaccines. The first concern was unsupported, and the second was no reason to deny scientific reality. Public-health officials in the U.S. nonetheless dug in and refused to provide exemptions from vaccine mandates for those with natural immunity, as many European countries did.
Meantime, tech companies suppressed discussions of natural immunity. Twitter flagged posts that claimed natural immunity was superior to vaccines as “misleading.” Facebook’s misinformation policy still restricts distribution of content that “implicitly discourages vaccination by advocating for alternatives” such as “natural immunity.”
The false denial of natural immunity caused vaccine skeptics to dig in and fueled suspicions that public-health officials were in the pocket of vaccine makers and dishonest about other things as well.
The Lancet study could serve a useful political purpose by giving public-health officials cover to relax vaccine mandates, which in turn could reduce resistance to vaccines. But this would require the clerisy to concede its opponents were right.
-
Dr. Fauci Comes Clean on Vaccines and Respiratory Viruses
(Mike Mareen/Shutterstock)
By David Bell
February 24, 2023Updated: February 27, 2023
“Attempting to control mucosal respiratory viruses with systemically administered non-replicating vaccines has thus far been largely unsuccessful.” —Dr. Anthony Fauci (former director of NIAID), 2023, commenting on vaccines for COVID-19.
The journal Cell Host & Microbe recently published one of the more important papers of the COVID era: “Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenza viruses, and other respiratory viruses.” This elicited surprisingly little fanfare considering its authorship and contents.
Firstly, the final author was Dr. Anthony Fauci, the recently retired director of the United States National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), normally a magnet for the media. Secondly, Dr. Fauci and his co-authors provide evidence that much of what those in authority have told the public regarding COVID vaccines was contrary to what they knew to be true.
Kudos to Dr. Fauci for coming clean on the basics of viruses and immunology. If leading medical journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet had employed editors with such knowledge three years ago, they might have contributed to public health rather than the gutting of society and global human rights. If those in authority had explained these truths and based their policies on them, things would also have been different.
Likewise for the entire medical establishment. Much death, poverty, and inequality might have been avoided. Trust may also have been maintained in the institutions within which they work.
The paper co-written by Dr. Fauci discusses the potential to develop coronavirus vaccines and vaccines for other fast-mutating respiratory viruses. It is best to step through the paper in three parts: reviewing the evidence provided by the authors, noting the residual dogma that persists despite being contrary to this evidence, and lastly considering the implications of the paper regarding the COVID public health response.
Reading the original paper is recommended, as this article only highlights extracts.
1. Poor vaccine efficacy and the superiority of natural immunity.
The review makes clear that vaccines against respiratory viruses such as influenza or coronaviruses (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, which is responsible for COVID) are highly unlikely to achieve the levels of effectiveness we expect from other vaccines. The authors note CDC data showing influenza vaccines, now pushed for all ages from 6 months upward, have an efficacy ranging from just 14 percent to a maximum of 60 percent since 2005 (extending back 17 years would have lowered this to 10 percent, with the average vaccine efficacy just below 40 percent). As Dr Fauci notes, “Our best approved influenza vaccines would be inadequate for licensure for most other vaccine-preventable diseases.”
Indeed, “It is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines.”
The authors provide clear explanations for this lack of efficacy: “The vaccines for these two very different viruses have common characteristics: they elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity.”
It is not just the high mutation rate that is a problem, but also the mode of infection: “They replicate predominantly in local mucosal tissue, without causing viremia, and do not significantly encounter the systemic immune system or the full force of adaptive immune responses, which take at least 5–7 days to mature, usually well after the peak of viral replication and onward transmission to others.”
As this honest appraisal notes, COVID vaccines were never expected to significantly reduce infection or transmission.
The authors explain what most infectious disease doctors and immunologists have known throughout the COVID outbreak: that circulating antibodies (IgG and IgM) play only a limited role in controlling infections such as COVID, whilst mucosal antibodies (IgA) in the lining of the upper respiratory tract, not stimulated by injected vaccines, play a far larger role: “The importance of mucosal secretory IgA (sIgA) in pathogen-specific responses against respiratory viral infections has long been appreciated for influenza viruses, RSV and more recently SARS-CoV-2.”
The significance here is that systemic vaccines, as the authors note, do not elicit mucosal IgA production.
The efficacy against severe COVID that systemic vaccines do provide to some unexposed people within a certain window is explained by the following observation: “IgA appears to be a better effector in the upper respiratory tract, whereas IgG is better in the lung.”
The early variants of SARS-CoV-2 were characterized by lung involvement. While the CDC showed that vaccination on top of natural immunity provides almost no added clinical benefit, the reduction in COVID mortality (as distinct from all-cause mortality) claimed for the vaccines between early potential immune suppression and later waning of efficacy has a reasonable immunological basis.
As the NIH acknowledged, T-cells are also a primary defense against coronaviruses, with cross-immunity against SARS-CoV-2 seen in many people not previously infected. Fauci et al. make the interesting observation that T-cell correlates for immunity are found after influenza infection, but not after influenza vaccination. This suggests a further mechanism to explain poorer efficacy of vaccines compared to natural infection, even against early SARS-CoV-2 variants.
In summary, both the coronavirus and influenza vaccines are poor: “The vaccines for these two very different viruses have common characteristics: they elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity.”
Clear, and succinctly put.
Struggling With the Dogma
The real value of the paper is in the way it contrasts COVID dogma against evidence. The authors start by noting that as many as 5 million people normally die globally every year from respiratory viruses. A comparison with the World Health Organization’s 6.8 million COVID deaths recorded over three years would have provided useful context (Note: is it important to distinguish deaths from COVID from death totals from the pandemic that include those from COVID and lockdown impact). However, such an acknowledgement would have fit poorly with their following statement:
“SARS-CoV-2 has killed more than 1 million people in the United States.”
This is, of course, false. It is based on deaths after a recent positive PCR result, with CNN’s COVID analyst now admitting the exaggerations involved. More strangely, the authors claim, “The rapid development and deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has saved innumerable lives and helped to achieve early partial pandemic control.”
That the vaccines appear to have saved too many lives for the authors to contemplate is surprising. Dr. Fauci felt able to contemplate numbers of deaths during the first year of the COVID outbreak, when the virus hit a population said to have no prior immunity. Recorded mortality was similar in the second year, after mass vaccination was imposed, despite severe disease being heavily concentrated in a relatively small, well-defined elderly minority who were prioritized by the vaccination program. It is therefore more plausible that the vaccines averted relatively few deaths. Such a lack of effect is fully in line with the expectations of the authors noted above.
Achieving “early partial epidemic control” is just strange for authors who have noted that the IgG response does not really kick in until after the peak of viremia and transmission. Putting dogma up against evidence is really hard when you have staked your reputation on the dogma, so the struggle apparent here is understandable.
In recognition of the impact of reality on the COVID vaccine program, we can accept the rather vague acknowledgement that despite vaccination, “significant numbers of fatalities [amongst the vaccinated] still occur.”
As the authors recognize, “Attempting to control mucosal respiratory viruses with systemically administered non-replicating vaccines has thus far been largely unsuccessful.”
The Importance of This Paper
The authors of this paper are not developing new hypotheses to explain why COVID vaccine performance was disappointing. They are simply restating previous knowledge. Predictions of high and sustained vaccine efficacy and of vaccination paving the “way out of the pandemic” were not expected to come true. These claims were a ploy to encourage adherence to a plan that would dramatically enrich certain corporate and public health figures. People with reasonable knowledge of the subject knew the rhetoric to be incorrect, though relatively few said so. The rest, presumably, were fooled.
Fauci and co-authors therefore make an important contribution to the COVID narrative, underlining the deception of the past two years. Claims that this deception promoted an overall good—that there was a “global pandemic” and compliance with mass vaccination would be for the population’s benefit—are refuted by Fauci et al.’s evidence. Mass vaccination, while very successful financially for a small but influential minority, was never expected to work.
Natural immunity was always going to be more effective than vaccines, and statements to the contrary such as the John Snow Memorandum promoted by the Lancet contradicted expert understanding and common sense. Denigration of those pointing out the relative superiority of natural immunity was slander. When the last author of this paper stated publicly that COVID-19 vaccines work much better than natural immunity to protect you against coronavirus, he knew that was highly unlikely to be true.
The public health community misled the public to promote injections with a new class of pharmaceutical. They had no long-term safety data, and the vaccines targeted a virus they knew posed little harm to the vast majority of those to whom they were speaking, while many or most already had more effective natural immunity.
The long-term outcomes of this deception are yet to play out, and they will include a loss of trust in public health and the practice of medicine. This is justified and can be argued to be a good thing. How each person reacts to confirmation that they have been fooled by those who promoted this narrative is an individual choice.
The most foolish reaction would be to pretend that the deception did not occur.
From the Brownstone Institute
-
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/america-we-have-a-problem
-
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/breaking-matt-hancock-asked-deploy-29375616?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target
Oh!
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fauci-prompted-scientists-fabricate-proximal-origins-paper-ruling-out-lab-leak-select
-
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1632409213166026752?s=20
-
Sent to me by a Dem doctor friend with whom I regularly go back and forth:
===================================================
House Select Subcommittee, GBD, and revisionism
KATELYN JETELINA AND GAVIN YAMEY
MAR 8
SAVE
▷ LISTEN
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has started to convene on everything from COVID-19 origins to vaccines. Last week, they called in four scientists to discuss policies, including lockdowns.
COVID-19 control measures are important to discuss. We still don’t know what policies worked best and why. Pandemic health protections had benefits AND harms. There were trade-offs, just like with any health policy. Governments around the world used a wide variety of policies before vaccines were developed.
However, a nuanced discussion of the trade-offs inherent in pandemic control measures was not achieved last week. The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), for example, dominated the conversation.
It looks like we are entering a new phase of the pandemic—revisionism.
Great Barrington Declaration
In October 2020, the GBD advocated for a distinct approach: isolate the vulnerable while allowing infections to spread among lower-risk members of the population. It claimed this would ultimately achieve herd immunity without the economic and social toll of lockdowns. The authors of the GBD didn’t include any scientific evidence or models, and it was never peer-reviewed.
The idea went viral. A few influential people listened. Trump met with the GBD authors in the Oval Office. Trump’s coronavirus czar, Scott Atlas, embraced and adopted the GBD—for example, he successfully curbed federal testing programs. Florida governor Ron DeSantis was advised by the GBD. But scientific consensus rejected the idea.
Two of the GBD authors were invited to testify last week. One congresswoman said: “History is proving [them] to be right.” But were they right?
The committee would have benefited from looking into the scientific evidence against the GBD and why, ultimately, public health dismissed their ideas.
Epidemiological problems with GBD
Last year mathematicians published epidemiological models to answer the question: What would it have looked like if we had actually deployed the GBD?
They found that in a town of 1 million people in England:
Doing nothing (i.e. no shielding of the vulnerable) would have resulted in 415 deaths per 100,000—equivalent to 230,795 total deaths in England.
This is likely a conservative measure, given that the model didn’t take into account the collapse of healthcare.
“Perfect shielding” (i.e. the GBD approach) would have resulted in 87.6 deaths per 100,000—equivalent to 50,000 total deaths among younger populations.
So, in theory, perfect shielding would save lives compared with no shielding. But theory is very different from practice. There are three major issues:
It is impossible to 100% shield vulnerable adults. In England, 3 in 4 vulnerable people live with other people. There is no “them,” there is only “us,” so shielding them would not be perfect. If shielding had been 80% effective (instead of 100%), the researchers found that there would be massive outbreaks among the vulnerable, resulting in 221.7 per 100,000 deaths. Shielding entire populations worked in some countries in the short term (averting mass death, hospitalization, and orphanhood). It also worked in some Alaskan villages in the 1918 flu pandemic. But trying to shield sub-populations would spark superspreader events. Research shows that infection in younger people led to infections and deaths in older people.
The GBD relied on large numbers of lower-risk individuals becoming infected to build up immunity in the population, yet many people would have likely still changed their behavior to avoid getting infected and sick. Even before England’s first lockdown, there were dramatic changes in behavior—people voluntarily reduced their contact with others. And if health services had been under strain, people would probably have reduced their contacts even further. This would make it even harder to reach herd immunity.
Herd immunity from infection would only have conferred indirect, temporary protection to the shielded vulnerable people. We see this today—although a large proportion of the population has immunity, older adults are still vulnerable to death.
Ethical and logistical problems with GBD
The modeling above assumes that it is actually logistically possible in the U.S. to somehow isolate tens of millions of Americans. This assumption has problems:
How would we have rapidly and accurately identified “the vulnerable”? The U.S. doesn’t have a universal healthcare system or registry.
How would we have cared for so many isolated people for such a long time? This would have been a LOT of people. Where exactly would they have gone? The GBD made some vague suggestions about “empty hotel rooms.” Did we really have enough rooms for around 100-130 million people?
What about long COVID-19 among the population with infections?
The need for better discussion
Many countries regrouped after the 2003 SARS pandemic, and it was incredibly helpful for their future preparedness and response. We do need to reflect on what went right during the pandemic, what went wrong, and how to do better in the future, like:
Did some states do better than others? What does “better” mean?
What steps should states have taken to mitigate the harms of shelter-in-place orders? Why didn’t all states provide generous food, social, and financial support to those living under such orders?
What is the decision framework for closing and reopening schools in future pandemics?
The discussion has to be serious, genuine, and balanced. Thus far, this has not been the case. It’s clear that achieving a healthier and smarter future isn’t the goal of this Subcommittee.
We should be very wary of those trying to rewrite history. As Zeynep Tufecki said:
“There's an attempt to relitigate 2020 under the comfort of 2023 vaccines, treatments, [and] population immunity by people… whose policy suggestions were catastrophically wrong. They're pretending 2023 exonerates the deaths they would cause (did cause). I find that awful.”
This Subcommittee is a huge use of resources, which, thus far, has not helped move the conversation forward. The outcome of these rabbit holes do not get us to a better place.
Bottom line
We need to learn lessons from the pandemic to be better and smarter next time. But discussions need to be balanced and informed. For example, recognizing the trade-offs must include recognizing the horrors of uncontrolled transmission. Epidemiological, ethical, and logistical details can’t be left out.
Can we please have a serious conversation about the COVID-19 pandemic and how to prepare for the future? Our lives depend on it.
Love, YLE and GMY
-
Nuremberg 2.0 is coming.
There WILL be accountability.
Sent to me by a Dem doctor friend with whom I regularly go back and forth:
===================================================
House Select Subcommittee, GBD, and revisionism
KATELYN JETELINA AND GAVIN YAMEY
MAR 8
SAVE
▷ LISTEN
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has started to convene on everything from COVID-19 origins to vaccines. Last week, they called in four scientists to discuss policies, including lockdowns.
COVID-19 control measures are important to discuss. We still don’t know what policies worked best and why. Pandemic health protections had benefits AND harms. There were trade-offs, just like with any health policy. Governments around the world used a wide variety of policies before vaccines were developed.
However, a nuanced discussion of the trade-offs inherent in pandemic control measures was not achieved last week. The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), for example, dominated the conversation.
It looks like we are entering a new phase of the pandemic—revisionism.
Great Barrington Declaration
In October 2020, the GBD advocated for a distinct approach: isolate the vulnerable while allowing infections to spread among lower-risk members of the population. It claimed this would ultimately achieve herd immunity without the economic and social toll of lockdowns. The authors of the GBD didn’t include any scientific evidence or models, and it was never peer-reviewed.
The idea went viral. A few influential people listened. Trump met with the GBD authors in the Oval Office. Trump’s coronavirus czar, Scott Atlas, embraced and adopted the GBD—for example, he successfully curbed federal testing programs. Florida governor Ron DeSantis was advised by the GBD. But scientific consensus rejected the idea.
Two of the GBD authors were invited to testify last week. One congresswoman said: “History is proving [them] to be right.” But were they right?
The committee would have benefited from looking into the scientific evidence against the GBD and why, ultimately, public health dismissed their ideas.
Epidemiological problems with GBD
Last year mathematicians published epidemiological models to answer the question: What would it have looked like if we had actually deployed the GBD?
They found that in a town of 1 million people in England:
Doing nothing (i.e. no shielding of the vulnerable) would have resulted in 415 deaths per 100,000—equivalent to 230,795 total deaths in England.
This is likely a conservative measure, given that the model didn’t take into account the collapse of healthcare.
“Perfect shielding” (i.e. the GBD approach) would have resulted in 87.6 deaths per 100,000—equivalent to 50,000 total deaths among younger populations.
So, in theory, perfect shielding would save lives compared with no shielding. But theory is very different from practice. There are three major issues:
It is impossible to 100% shield vulnerable adults. In England, 3 in 4 vulnerable people live with other people. There is no “them,” there is only “us,” so shielding them would not be perfect. If shielding had been 80% effective (instead of 100%), the researchers found that there would be massive outbreaks among the vulnerable, resulting in 221.7 per 100,000 deaths. Shielding entire populations worked in some countries in the short term (averting mass death, hospitalization, and orphanhood). It also worked in some Alaskan villages in the 1918 flu pandemic. But trying to shield sub-populations would spark superspreader events. Research shows that infection in younger people led to infections and deaths in older people.
The GBD relied on large numbers of lower-risk individuals becoming infected to build up immunity in the population, yet many people would have likely still changed their behavior to avoid getting infected and sick. Even before England’s first lockdown, there were dramatic changes in behavior—people voluntarily reduced their contact with others. And if health services had been under strain, people would probably have reduced their contacts even further. This would make it even harder to reach herd immunity.
Herd immunity from infection would only have conferred indirect, temporary protection to the shielded vulnerable people. We see this today—although a large proportion of the population has immunity, older adults are still vulnerable to death.
Ethical and logistical problems with GBD
The modeling above assumes that it is actually logistically possible in the U.S. to somehow isolate tens of millions of Americans. This assumption has problems:
How would we have rapidly and accurately identified “the vulnerable”? The U.S. doesn’t have a universal healthcare system or registry.
How would we have cared for so many isolated people for such a long time? This would have been a LOT of people. Where exactly would they have gone? The GBD made some vague suggestions about “empty hotel rooms.” Did we really have enough rooms for around 100-130 million people?
What about long COVID-19 among the population with infections?
The need for better discussion
Many countries regrouped after the 2003 SARS pandemic, and it was incredibly helpful for their future preparedness and response. We do need to reflect on what went right during the pandemic, what went wrong, and how to do better in the future, like:
Did some states do better than others? What does “better” mean?
What steps should states have taken to mitigate the harms of shelter-in-place orders? Why didn’t all states provide generous food, social, and financial support to those living under such orders?
What is the decision framework for closing and reopening schools in future pandemics?
The discussion has to be serious, genuine, and balanced. Thus far, this has not been the case. It’s clear that achieving a healthier and smarter future isn’t the goal of this Subcommittee.
We should be very wary of those trying to rewrite history. As Zeynep Tufecki said:
“There's an attempt to relitigate 2020 under the comfort of 2023 vaccines, treatments, [and] population immunity by people… whose policy suggestions were catastrophically wrong. They're pretending 2023 exonerates the deaths they would cause (did cause). I find that awful.”
This Subcommittee is a huge use of resources, which, thus far, has not helped move the conversation forward. The outcome of these rabbit holes do not get us to a better place.
Bottom line
We need to learn lessons from the pandemic to be better and smarter next time. But discussions need to be balanced and informed. For example, recognizing the trade-offs must include recognizing the horrors of uncontrolled transmission. Epidemiological, ethical, and logistical details can’t be left out.
Can we please have a serious conversation about the COVID-19 pandemic and how to prepare for the future? Our lives depend on it.
Love, YLE and GMY
-
(https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/c09a433a9ef11c25.png)
Nuremberg 2.0 is coming.
There WILL be accountability.
Sent to me by a Dem doctor friend with whom I regularly go back and forth:
===================================================
House Select Subcommittee, GBD, and revisionism
KATELYN JETELINA AND GAVIN YAMEY
MAR 8
SAVE
▷ LISTEN
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has started to convene on everything from COVID-19 origins to vaccines. Last week, they called in four scientists to discuss policies, including lockdowns.
COVID-19 control measures are important to discuss. We still don’t know what policies worked best and why. Pandemic health protections had benefits AND harms. There were trade-offs, just like with any health policy. Governments around the world used a wide variety of policies before vaccines were developed.
However, a nuanced discussion of the trade-offs inherent in pandemic control measures was not achieved last week. The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), for example, dominated the conversation.
It looks like we are entering a new phase of the pandemic—revisionism.
Great Barrington Declaration
In October 2020, the GBD advocated for a distinct approach: isolate the vulnerable while allowing infections to spread among lower-risk members of the population. It claimed this would ultimately achieve herd immunity without the economic and social toll of lockdowns. The authors of the GBD didn’t include any scientific evidence or models, and it was never peer-reviewed.
The idea went viral. A few influential people listened. Trump met with the GBD authors in the Oval Office. Trump’s coronavirus czar, Scott Atlas, embraced and adopted the GBD—for example, he successfully curbed federal testing programs. Florida governor Ron DeSantis was advised by the GBD. But scientific consensus rejected the idea.
Two of the GBD authors were invited to testify last week. One congresswoman said: “History is proving [them] to be right.” But were they right?
The committee would have benefited from looking into the scientific evidence against the GBD and why, ultimately, public health dismissed their ideas.
Epidemiological problems with GBD
Last year mathematicians published epidemiological models to answer the question: What would it have looked like if we had actually deployed the GBD?
They found that in a town of 1 million people in England:
Doing nothing (i.e. no shielding of the vulnerable) would have resulted in 415 deaths per 100,000—equivalent to 230,795 total deaths in England.
This is likely a conservative measure, given that the model didn’t take into account the collapse of healthcare.
“Perfect shielding” (i.e. the GBD approach) would have resulted in 87.6 deaths per 100,000—equivalent to 50,000 total deaths among younger populations.
So, in theory, perfect shielding would save lives compared with no shielding. But theory is very different from practice. There are three major issues:
It is impossible to 100% shield vulnerable adults. In England, 3 in 4 vulnerable people live with other people. There is no “them,” there is only “us,” so shielding them would not be perfect. If shielding had been 80% effective (instead of 100%), the researchers found that there would be massive outbreaks among the vulnerable, resulting in 221.7 per 100,000 deaths. Shielding entire populations worked in some countries in the short term (averting mass death, hospitalization, and orphanhood). It also worked in some Alaskan villages in the 1918 flu pandemic. But trying to shield sub-populations would spark superspreader events. Research shows that infection in younger people led to infections and deaths in older people.
The GBD relied on large numbers of lower-risk individuals becoming infected to build up immunity in the population, yet many people would have likely still changed their behavior to avoid getting infected and sick. Even before England’s first lockdown, there were dramatic changes in behavior—people voluntarily reduced their contact with others. And if health services had been under strain, people would probably have reduced their contacts even further. This would make it even harder to reach herd immunity.
Herd immunity from infection would only have conferred indirect, temporary protection to the shielded vulnerable people. We see this today—although a large proportion of the population has immunity, older adults are still vulnerable to death.
Ethical and logistical problems with GBD
The modeling above assumes that it is actually logistically possible in the U.S. to somehow isolate tens of millions of Americans. This assumption has problems:
How would we have rapidly and accurately identified “the vulnerable”? The U.S. doesn’t have a universal healthcare system or registry.
How would we have cared for so many isolated people for such a long time? This would have been a LOT of people. Where exactly would they have gone? The GBD made some vague suggestions about “empty hotel rooms.” Did we really have enough rooms for around 100-130 million people?
What about long COVID-19 among the population with infections?
The need for better discussion
Many countries regrouped after the 2003 SARS pandemic, and it was incredibly helpful for their future preparedness and response. We do need to reflect on what went right during the pandemic, what went wrong, and how to do better in the future, like:
Did some states do better than others? What does “better” mean?
What steps should states have taken to mitigate the harms of shelter-in-place orders? Why didn’t all states provide generous food, social, and financial support to those living under such orders?
What is the decision framework for closing and reopening schools in future pandemics?
The discussion has to be serious, genuine, and balanced. Thus far, this has not been the case. It’s clear that achieving a healthier and smarter future isn’t the goal of this Subcommittee.
We should be very wary of those trying to rewrite history. As Zeynep Tufecki said:
“There's an attempt to relitigate 2020 under the comfort of 2023 vaccines, treatments, [and] population immunity by people… whose policy suggestions were catastrophically wrong. They're pretending 2023 exonerates the deaths they would cause (did cause). I find that awful.”
This Subcommittee is a huge use of resources, which, thus far, has not helped move the conversation forward. The outcome of these rabbit holes do not get us to a better place.
Bottom line
We need to learn lessons from the pandemic to be better and smarter next time. But discussions need to be balanced and informed. For example, recognizing the trade-offs must include recognizing the horrors of uncontrolled transmission. Epidemiological, ethical, and logistical details can’t be left out.
Can we please have a serious conversation about the COVID-19 pandemic and how to prepare for the future? Our lives depend on it.
Love, YLE and GMY
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/scott-atlas-americas-covid-response-was-based-lies
-
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/403498.php
-
https://dailycaller.com/2023/03/10/house-unanimously-votes-to-declassify-covid-19-intelligence/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking&pnespid=t6Z3ByVbOqMKxaTZuG7uDs6cvUr_CpFtPOejy_0ztxpm4zzc31BCNTpHi.TdZljeh5p9.JYk
-
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/america-we-have-a-problem
https://drpanda.substack.com/p/emergency-at-30000-feet
-
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/america-we-have-a-problem
https://drpanda.substack.com/p/emergency-at-30000-feet
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21681055/veteran-british-airways-pilot-dies/
-
where does it say anything about this being due to vaccine?
so every sudden death is assumed to be vaccine related?
you plenty of fodder to past then for the rest of eternity
-
where does it say anything about this being due to vaccine?
so every sudden death is assumed to be vaccine related?
you plenty of fodder to past then for the rest of eternity
Why did the FAA change the EKG standard for pilots?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/worries-over-pilots-health-public-safety-soar-after-feds-change-heart-test-limit_5004258.html
-
you did not answer my point
you do not know the pilot death in the hotel has anything to do with vaccine
this is why they always have 2 pilots in commercial flights
-
you did not answer my point
you do not know the pilot death in the hotel has anything to do with vaccine
this is why they always have 2 pilots in commercial flights
I don't know, but I strongly suspect.
Why did the FAA change the EKG standard after the pilots were mandated to take the ClotShot to remain employed?
-
reports of myocarditis
-
reports of myocarditis
So, the ClotShot damaged the hearts of commercial pilots requiring the standards be lowered, otherwise we would have masses of pilots grounded and the global aviation system grinds to a halt.
-
reports of myocarditis
So, the ClotShot damaged the hearts of commercial pilots requiring the standards be lowered, otherwise we would have masses of pilots grounded and the global aviation system grinds to a halt.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-faa-has-very-quietly-tacitly
-
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/03/15/fauci-gop-attacking-me-because-i-fulfilled-my-responsibility-to-tell-the-truth-dont-know-what-theyre-talking-about-covering-up/
maybe he could think about this more if he sat in a jail cell for 5 yrs.
-
reports of myocarditis
So, the ClotShot damaged the hearts of commercial pilots requiring the standards be lowered, otherwise we would have masses of pilots grounded and the global aviation system grinds to a halt.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-faa-has-very-quietly-tacitly
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=840,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/132/110/307/original/5f542a3d17f9689b.png)
-
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1636060053269512194
-
Please stop with the raccoon dogs
ALEX BERENSON
MAR 17
SAVE
Last night, The Atlantic - of course it was The Atlantic - had BREAKING NEWS!
And by BREAKING NEWS I mean yet another migraine-inducing story purporting to show that Sars-Cov-2 emerged naturally, rather than leaking from a lab.
Before we get to the story, which takes about two seconds to debunk, it’s worth nothing that even Dr. Anthony S. Fauci is in the process of giving up on the natural origins theory for . On CNN on Sunday, he claimed that even if Sars-COV-2 escaped from a lab after scientists found it in a cave and transported it for research, he would consider that a naturally occurring outbreak.
SOURCE
What?
I say again, what?
Assume this version of events is true. It’s not. Chinese scientists were definitely performing “gain-of-function” research on coronaviruses in Wuhan, and the odds are overwhelming that it was one of those viruses that leaked. We know this for several reasons, including that Sars-Cov-2 has certain features that largely do not exist in wild bat coronaviruses but are common in engineered coronaviruses.
Further, Fauci’s theory makes no sense because if the Chinese had found Sars-COV-2 in a wild bat and transported it, they would have had every reason to go back to the cave where they’d found it the first time and get it again, thus PROVING it was naturally occurring. They’d know exactly where to get it! They wouldn’t have to look. They could have done so immediately (or after a couple of months had passed and they’d destroyed all the evidence that they’d ever found it before).
But let’s pretend Fauci’s theory makes sense. Let’s say that researchers found Sars-COV-2 in a wild bat, and brought it to a lab, where it leaked.
How can he, or anyone, call that a “natural occurrence”? The virus was stuck in a cave in a bat, like innumerable other coronaviruses since time immemorial. Where is the evidence it ever would have infected a human, much less caused a worldwide epidemic, had virologists not given it every possible opportunity to do so, by bringing it to the middle of a 10-million-person city and then trying to grow it?
If SARS-Cov-2 leaked from a lab, that’s a lab leak. Even Tony Fauci can’t spin that reality away.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-can-cause-permanent-disabilities-says-german-health-minister
-
https://slaynews.com/news/children-dying-highest-rate-decades-study-researchers-warn/
Sumos hardest hit!
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/132/484/140/original/5f7600bb7912f7e9.png
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/132/484/140/original/5f7600bb7912f7e9.png)
-
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2023/03/20/pfizer-cdc-withheld-evidence-of-myocarditis-after-covid-shots-new-documents-reveal/
-
Epidemic of Sudden Adult Deaths Finally Made News
Joseph Mercola
Mar 20 2023
Insurance industry research from 2016 showed that group life policyholders are considerably healthier than the general U.S. population. They tend to be younger, well-educated, and employed with Fortune 500 companies. So, what happened in 2021 to turn the tables so dramatically?
Story at-a-Glance
Former BlackRock fund manager Edward Dowd is bringing attention to the surge in deaths and disability that has occurred since the COVID-19 shot campaign rolled out.
Group life policyholders, who are typically healthier than the general population, experienced mortality spikes of 40 percent in 2021
Disability numbers among the workforce reached a high of 33.2 million in September 2022, with numbers still trending up—a highly unusual increase.
Central banks, pharmaceutical companies, Big Tech, and the media all benefited from the pandemic and have an interest in covering up what Dowd describes as a “large global murder scene.”
Dowd believes there’s enough alarming data to warrant the COVID-19 shot program being stopped immediately, as the death and disability from the shots could easily exceed that from COVID-19.
Former BlackRock analyst and fund manager Edward Dowd is one of the brave few who have been trying to get the word out about the dangers of COVID-19 shots. While I’ve interviewed him twice—once about the mathematical certainty of a financial collapse and a second time about his book, “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022,“—his information is finally getting mainstream media attention.
In an interview with Tucker Carlson, he explains that media outlets like Yahoo have picked up on the undeniable increase in deaths among young, healthy adults. However, they’re quick to state that such deaths are not due to COVID-19 shots.1 But Dowd isn’t deterred. As A Midwestern Doctor noted on Substack:2
“Ed Dowd has focused on utilizing a narrower set of evidence and tying it to one of the most persuasive arguments currently available for shifting the narrative. A statistically impossible spike in sudden deaths has occurred in the healthiest segment of the population and has happened in tandem with a spike in disability (this is why we are now having labor shortages).”
Dowd is intent on bringing global attention to this surge in deaths and disability that has occurred since the COVID-19 shot campaign rolled out, and he’s not willing to let anyone, or any entity, stop him. “We have the data. We have the evidence,” he says, “and there’s a large global murder scene that just occurred.”3
Insurance Company Data Reveal 40 Percent Death Surge
“Cause Unknown” details data showing the shots are a crime against humanity. Some of that data comes from private insurance companies, which love to sell group life insurance policies to large Fortune 500 corporations and mid-sized companies because they hardly ever have to pay out on a claim.
Workers at these corporations tend to be in good health, with industry data suggesting the group life policyholders have one-third the mortality rate of the general U.S. population. The death rates have historically been highly predictable among this group—until 2021. A report released by the Society of Actuaries4 found mortality spikes of 40 percent or more that year.
Insurance companies had sizable increases in payouts for death and disability. Dowd tweeted Feb. 1, 2022, that financial insurance company Unum reported a significant increase in their benefit ratio (payouts versus premiums) in their life segment. Dowd tweeted:5
“In 2021 they saw a 17.4% increase vs 2020. This is higher than the 13.3% increase vs 2019. So the higher payouts in 21 are occurring with a miracle vaccine & less virulent strains … In 2019 the unit had $266 million profit, last year a profit of $82 million & this year a loss of -$192 million. A swing of $458 million lower over 2 years. Important to remember these are employed working age folks.”
Dowd also reported data from funeral homes, including the company Carriage Services, which was flooded with business. He tweeted:6
“Business has been quite good since the introduction of the vaccines & the stock was up 106% in 2021. Curious no? Guys this is shocking as 89% of Funeral homes are private in US. We are seeing the tip of the iceberg.”
Steve Kirsch also published data on Substack7 showing that, among the COVID-jabbed aged 65 and younger, sudden death was the No. 1 cause of death in 2021 and 2022. The second was cardiac-related death and cancer was third. Importantly, the incidence of turbo-charged cancer among the jabbed was significant in this group, and myocarditis killed more than COVID-19.
In addition to sudden deaths, cardiac issues became a major cause of death in vaccinated young people under the age of 65. No myocarditis deaths were seen among unvaxxed people in the same age group.
Disability Numbers Skyrocket
Dowd also looked into the number of disabled people in the United States, using high-frequency data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The agency uses a monthly telephone survey that asks, “Are you or someone in your home disabled and not able to work?” Prior to COVID-19 shots, Dowd said, there were 29 million to 30 million disabled people on an absolute basis, a rate that remained steady for four or five years.
In February 2021, a trend change occurred, reaching a high of 33.2 million in September 2022, with numbers still trending up. That’s a three standard deviation rate of change since May 2021, which means that the chance of this happening is 0.03 percent—highly unusual.
Dowd explains, “Of the 3.2 million newly disabled Americans, 1.7 were employed but came from the employed population of the country.” This is significant, he says, because:8
“The employed people of this country are, generally speaking, by the very fact that they wake up in the morning, get in their car and drive to work, healthier than the general U.S. population.
“By the very nature of doing work, you’re healthier. And that’s a fact that’s never been challenged before. The health outcome for the employed has been disastrous. Since February 2021, their disability rate is up 31 percent … the general U.S. population’s disability rate is up 9 percent.”
Dowd believes this jump in disability among the workforce is the reason why there’s a labor shortage and you’re seeing “help wanted” signs much more than in the past. He also observed an interesting trend among people who quit or left the workforce during this time period—their disability rate didn’t jump like those still working, many of whom were likely subjected to shot mandates to keep their jobs:9
“More importantly, those not in the labor force—those who quit or got fired—their disability rate is only up 4 percent. And I suspect those are the people who either didn’t take the vaccine and were fired or quit and refused to take the vaccine. So those of us who have had the best health outcomes in the country since [COVID-19] vaccination began are those not in the labor force.”
‘There’s a Coverup’
Mass COVID-19 shots and mandates are the only factors that changed during that time that would make being employed a risk to your health, but the government isn’t investigating them. Why? “There’s a coverup, at the very least,” Dowd says, adding:10
“I don’t know that they’re protecting Pfizer, per se. They’re protecting all sorts of monied interests. When this COVID thing happened, there were a lot of beneficiaries from it. Central banks got off the hook from, what I saw, was a global slowdown, so they were able to print unprecedented amounts of money to cover up what we’re going to have eventually, a global sovereign debt default—it’s coming. So they got off the hook.
“You had the tech companies excited, licking their chops, for the new surveillance economy. They knew that was coming. So, they joyfully entered into partnership with the government to censor any dissent. And they were excited about those future cashflows of surveillance.
“Then you have the pharma companies who were going to be able to make money off of, what they saw, were unlimited vaccines, quarterly injections, that was the plan at the time … under the color of law. And then you have the media companies who were getting cashflows from pharmaceutical companies and also the government.
“We found out the government paid media companies to promote the vaccine … momentum built and there was a conspiracy of interests. Now that the vaccine is coming to light that it’s causing death and injury, they all have an interest to keep this thing under wraps.”
The More Vaxxed the Country, the Higher the Excess Deaths
Dowd believes the effects of COVID-19 shots appear to be cumulative, so he urges those who’ve already been injected to stop getting boosters. He also feels there’s enough alarming data to warrant the COVID-19 shot program being stopped immediately, as the death and disability from the shots could easily exceed that from COVID-19.
“This is the greatest crime scene I’ve ever seen in my life,” he says. “The greatest humanitarian toll we’re ever going to talk about. And it’s going to last with us for years to come. The economic ramifications are stark.”11
Dowd and colleagues have been tracking what they call Humanity Projects at their website, Phinance Technologies.12 There, you can see the data they’re tracking along with their related analyses. They state:
“We live in a world where regulatory institutions are captured by financial and political interests, either unwilling or unable to get to the truth of the issues they set out to investigate and regulate on behalf of the individuals in society.
“Without unbiased and comprehensive research, there is a risk of misguided policy decisions at best, and at worst, negligence and malpractice. Never has this been more apparent than during the Covid-19 pandemic. In this context, we need independent agents to act as gatekeepers of the public interest. We intend to be such agents, and to provide high-quality research to other individuals and institutions who seek similar outcomes.”
One trend they’ve found is that the more vaccinated the country, the higher the excess mortality. Denmark, which is one of the most highly vaccinated, stands out. “They had an interesting experience,” Dowd says.13
“Every age cohort experienced greater excess mortality year over year. So 2021 was over 2020, and 2022 was over 2021, across all age cohorts … their death rate was on the decline … and it’s going back up. So Denmark has experienced detrimental health outcomes. Curiously enough, while I was writing the book, they effectively banned the vaccine for [those] under 50, where they said, ‘We’d rather you get COVID than take the vaccine.'”
Health Agencies ‘in Coverup Mode’
Download Interview Transcript | Video Link
When asked why health agencies aren’t stepping in to investigate the surge in sudden deaths, Dowd suspects they’re all MIA [missing in action] because “they’re in coverup mode.” “I won’t rest until we stop what’s going on,” he says, adding that a lot of first responders are still facing mandates to get the shot and some universities still require it.
He’s hoping for more whistleblowers to come out and congressional hearings to break through the deafening “misinformation” narrative that’s still very much permeating society.
Critics of his data suggest the excess deaths are due to long COVID, but Dowd says he has yet to see a study showing this is the case—and there’s no definition of what long COVID actually is. Further, many “long COVID” symptoms mirror adverse reactions to COVID-19 shots.
If you or a loved one has been affected, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group’s I-RECOVER14 protocol can be downloaded in full,15 giving you step-by-step instructions on how to treat reactions from COVID-19 injections.16
Originally published March 18, 2023 on Mercola.com
◇ References:
1 Yahoo Feb. 4, 2023
2 Substack, A Midwestern Doctor Feb. 24, 2023
3 Bitchute, Tucker Carlson Interviews Ed Dowd Feb. 25, 2023, 10:00
4 SOA Research Institute, Group Life COVID-19 Mortality Survey Report, August 2022
5 Twitter Feb. 1, 2022
6 Twitter, Ed Dowd Feb. 2, 2022
7 Steve Kirsch Substack Dec. 27, 2022
8 Bitchute, Tucker Carlson Interviews Ed Dowd Feb. 25, 2023, 17:00
9 Bitchute, Tucker Carlson Interviews Ed Dowd Feb. 25, 2023, 19:22
10, 11 Bitchute, Tucker Carlson Interviews Ed Dowd Feb. 25, 2023, 21:30
12 Phinance Technologies, Humanity Projects
13 Bitchute, Tucker Carlson Interviews Ed Dowd Feb. 25, 2023, 29:00
14, 15 FLCCC Alliance, I-RECOVER
16 FLCCC Alliance, I-RECOVER, Post-Vaccine Treatment Protocol
-
second
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/health/fl-ne-letter-to-florida-surgeon-general-20230310-ni3gmpvf6bertmozhghdcqungu-story.html
-
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/generalinfectiousdisease/103595
-
Bill Gates Plots a Global Pandemic Prison State
By Jeffrey A. Tucker
March 21, 2023Updated: March 21, 2023
Commentary
An epic disaster like the COVID response, one might suppose, should inspire some humility and rethinking on how public health could have gone so wrong. They had their run at it but created a global disaster for the ages.
This is more than obvious to any competent observer. The next step might be to see if there are any places where matters went rather well, and Sweden comes first to mind. The educational losses were non-existent because they didn’t close schools. In general life went on as normal and with very good results.
One might suppose the Swedish way would be vindicated. Sadly, our leaders care nothing for evidence, apparently. Their concern is for power and money at any cost. As a result, we are witnessing a concerted effort not only to double down on errors the next time but make them even worse.
The top two exhibits emerged over the weekend.
New York Times: “We’re Making the Same Mistakes Again” by Bill Gates.
Wall Street Journal: “What Worked Against Covid: Masks, Closures and Vaccines” by Tom Frieden (former head of CDC).
Gates deploys his privileged place at the New York Times to agitate once again for a Global Health Emergency Corps, ensconced at the World Health Organization and managed by the same people who created the pandemic response this time around. In other words, it would be the core of the global government pushing more lockdowns for the world—lockdowns to wait for another round of vaccines.
If you can believe it, he has learned nothing from the last mess that he created. Indeed, he is completely shameless about it. In his view, the only problem is that we didn’t lock down fast enough, get vaccines out fast enough, and conduct enough research ahead of time to craft the perfect vaccine. And yes, this necessarily requires gain-of-function research.
In other words, in Gates’s view, we need to have research continue to fiddle around in labs with tricks that anticipate pathogens of the future, thus again raising the risk of lab leaks that then necessitate fixes that can only be produced and distributed by the pharmaceutical companies in which he has such heavy investments.
As a result, we have this hellish loop in play: gain-of-function research to anticipate the next pathogen by creating it and thus risking a lab leak that releases the pathogen that then has to be fixed by the vaccines themselves but the world has to lock down until they can be put into billions of arms.
And keep in mind that Gates isn’t just another bloke writing an op-ed. He is the de facto owner of the World Health Organization himself, so his push for a permanent pandemic bureaucracy carries a lot of weight. His dream bureaucracy would override national sovereignty to make sure that never again would there be another Sweden.
“It’s difficult for any one country to stop a disease from spreading on its own,” he writes “Many of the most meaningful actions require coordination from the highest levels of government.”
The model is always the same and it is taken from the world of computer science. There is a clean hard drive, analogized to the human body or whole societies. They are working fine but then an exogenous threat comes along in the form of malware. In order to defeat it, we need software that is updated. You clearly should not turn on your computer until you can get the hard drive cleaned up.
I’m serious here: Gates’s understanding of viruses is no more sophisticated than that. He has learned absolutely nothing in years. He is still repeating the ridiculous lines from his TED Talks from years ago.
In reality, this has nothing to do with biological viruses, which we evolved to manage through the immune system, a concept that is entirely lost on him. He finds it inconceivable that the best strategy for healthy people is to meet the virus and train the immune system. Indeed, he is appalled by that idea, favoring only more injectable substances designed to fight diseases.
Also lost on him is the way in which viruses—whether from labs or nature—all must obey the natural epidemiological dynamics of pathogenic spread. The more deadly they are, the less likely they are to spread. And the reverse is also true: the more prevalent they are, like COVID, the less severe they are.
The reason is simple: a pathogen needs a living host. Yes, there are other variables such as latency, which is how long the virus lives in the host before debilitating symptoms appear. Other than that, a lab cannot create anything that games its ways out of this matrix.
If you can understand that paragraph, I can promise you this. You now know far more about viruses than Bill Gates. And yet it is he who has the decisive influence over pandemic policy the world over. The reason is extremely crude: it’s his money. It certainly isn’t his intelligence. In fact, it is rather shocking how his money alone has managed to buy the silence of scientists the world over, who have shown themselves to be appallingly obsequious and deferential to the crankism that Gates has been peddling for decades.
A good example comes from Tom Frieden, the author of the above mentioned piece in the Wall Street Journal. For all the problems of the pandemic response, he writes, we know what works: masking, lockdowns, and vaccines (ideally mandated). The piece is infuriating to the point that it is frustrating even to write a response. And this is because his conclusion is already baked into the prose. He throws out a flurry of links to other studies in case you doubt his veracity, while carefully avoiding the huge numbers of studies that show otherwise.
So, yes, I spent too much time over the week actually looking at the evidence for his thesis. On masks, he cites preposterous studies from three years ago. One looked at masking in Arizona over three weeks and came up with a difference in infection rates. But that study was during the smallest initial wave from 2020 and is entirely invalidated by subsequent analyses of the same two counties, not to mention the many hundreds of quality studies that have shown absolutely no difference in viral spread contingent on masking.
Another study comes from a Navy ship in which people were asked to self-report. It’s not even serious science and yet this former head of the CDC cites it. That same study was pushed by the CDC to justify its own push for masks. It appeared in the MMWR series over three years that included some of the worst science ever distributed by a modern bureaucracy.
On the business closures, Frieden doesn’t even bother to cite a study in defense of them. He just asserts the right of governments to shut businesses if they want to. What these people never mention is that business closures also include the government’s right to shut your home to house parties and your church to worship services. In other words, this amounts to a massive attack on human rights hard won over 1,000 years.
Finally, on matters of vaccine efficacy, every study he cites is based on bogus computer models that can generate any conclusion one desires based on the parameters of the input variables. They are the types of models that serious scientists working, for example, in economics stopped using many decades ago. And yet the epidemiologists are still wallowing in them in order to make a case for their preferred policies.
Of course he ignores the many hundreds of studies from the United States and the world that show no relationship at all between government interventions and good health outcomes during the pandemic.
There is a reason to be deeply alarmed by these two articles. The authors speak for some of the world’s most powerful people. They are explaining exactly what they want to do. They are completely impervious to evidence. And they reveal every ambition to override, reverse, and effectively abolish everything once known as freedom.
Incredibly, they have the chutzpah to write this stuff in the midst of the carnage they created from last time. All of which reminds me of the famous summary of the Roman empire as written by the great historian Tacitus, paraphrasing Calgacus:
“These plunderers of the world, after exhausting the land by their devastations, are rifling the ocean: stimulated by avarice, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor; unsatiated by the East and by the West: the only people who behold wealth and indigence with equal avidity. To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.”
Bill Gates and Tom Frieden have made a desert and call it health.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
https://twitter.com/Michael_Yon/status/1638468254753767424?s=20
-
https://archive.fo/UYr7K
Not effective, but it’s safe!
Right?
-
Have not listened yet, but it comes well recommended to me.
https://kunstler.com/podcast/kunstlercast-372-a-conversation-with-dr-david-e-martin-prosecuting-covid-crimes/
-
"Must be obesity, or global warming"
went up 130%!
does not say what the overall number of cases
maybe was 10 now 23 .
could be they had silent corona infections
not unusual for people to not even know they had it.
lets get Batacharrya on here to tell us it is all covid shots
-
"Must be obesity, or global warming"
went up 130%!
does not say what the overall number of cases
maybe was 10 now 23 .
could be they had silent corona infections
not unusual for people to not even know they had it.
lets get Batacharrya on here to tell us it is all covid shots
So, the ClotShot was supposed to stop you from getting infected and stop the spread, right?
Now it’s Covid, not the ClotShot giving myocardial inflammation without making the victims noticeably Ill?
Are you aware of unvaccinated populations suddenly developing myocarditis?
Is that why all the Amish died off ?
-
are you aware that many at risk lives were saved with the vaccine?
yes or no.
I have already stated my thoughts on the matter on the board, indeed just recently .
-
I leave GM to answer your question as he will.
As for me, I get it. I took my then 89 year old mother to get her shot. She was in a high risk categories (age, diabetes) so it made sense.
Putting aside for the moment the bodily autonomy issue, OTOH it is quite a bit less clear to me that it made/makes sense medically speaking as people get younger. IMO it is anger provoking to promote that school children should get vaxxed (absent distinctive characteristics) and positively authoritarian to coerce it.
Quite a bit less clear to me that those with natural antibodies are better off in the long run vaxxing. Indeed, my choice has been not to vaxx.
Three questions for you CCP:
1) If I understand correctly, the vaxxes do not prevent transmission. If so, what basis for coercion?
2) If the vaxxes are effective, what basis for coercion?
3) Coercion, yes or no?
And, in answer to your question: "are you aware that many at risk lives were saved with the vaccine?" My personal answer is that it depends on the group.
Old, fat, diabetics with high blood pressure? OF COURSE!
School age children? NO!
Where the boundary between the two lies would be a matter to be determined by honest data-- which has been in short supply.
-
I already answered most of it
here is from the epidemics thread :
"I agree the vaccine is more dangerous (though rare) to children then the virus itself
also it is not from what I can tell preventing spread
though it does reduce severe infection which is really only a concern for those at higher risk."
your questions :
If I understand correctly, the vaxxes do not prevent transmission. If so, what basis for coercion?
we did not know that early on
remember the Trump vaccine was pushed out in record time.
you at least state you "get it" it for those at high risk
as for those who were at low risk I always questioned that
I did not go around at any time telling parents to have all their children vaxxed
as for GM he won't agree to anything
he will just post more death and destruction links
-
I already answered most of it
here is from the epidemics thread :
"I agree the vaccine is more dangerous (though rare) to children then the virus itself
also it is not from what I can tell preventing spread
though it does reduce severe infection which is really only a concern for those at higher risk."
your questions :
If I understand correctly, the vaxxes do not prevent transmission. If so, what basis for coercion?
we did not know that early on
remember the Trump vaccine was pushed out in record time.
you at least state you "get it" it for those at high risk
as for those who were at low risk I always questioned that
I did not go around at any time telling parents to have all their children vaxxed
as for GM he won't agree to anything
he will just post more death and destruction links
The same medical establishment that tells us "Gender confirmation surgery" saves lives tells us that the Covid mRNA therapy is safe and effective.
Is there reason to doubt that?
-
being suspicious of the medical establishment or questioning is good.
but when the evidence points to lower death rates for those vaccinated (like those unvaxxed who have had the infection )
seems to be clear.
you called the disruption the epidemic would have.
we debated choices - shut everything down or let things fly as they were.
We shut things down - yes recommended by "experts" who noted in the '18 flu pandemic some cities that closed down fared better then those that did not . seems sensible.
But when it seemed like the intended "fix" was causing so much economic havoc many including us here questioned is the fix worse then the disease.
others said we need to be stricter - with reports of overburdened hospitals and overflowing numbers of sick and dying overwhelming acute health services ( as well as doctors closing down their offices)
that did not seem to be unreasonable.
did distancing work did mask help
I have not taken the time to read about that but probably not much if at all.
did it make sense to close down public events schools businesses etc
No one really knew frankly
as for mask wearing it turned out to be much more impossible to prove it didn't work or did . My last read and can prevent transmission to a small extent but those who breath in the virus.
as for vaccines should they have been mandatory
no perfect answer
I think making them mandatory for some did seem reasonable
trying to make it so for everyone especially for those at low risk was not
health care workers people who work in NH
and yes - the military
and maybe airplanes
for public events hard to say
it seemed like a reasonable idea as opposed to cancelling events
the medical establishment seemed to be slow getting "data" but then there was data coming in from all places often contradictory so I don't know if more could have been done faster. the journals had endless studies in the beginning
so people were trying
and once it became clear the vaccines does not seem to prevent spread requirements should have been lifted sooner
this is the most objective I can be
rather then taking one side and everything else is bad or wrong etc
-
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1639701146141958148
-
everything in medicine is risk VS. benefit
a tylenol can kill
your post :
more myocarditis
in men "under 40" from shot then infection .
I think I posted many times I have for some time now posted
that the vaccine should not be given to those at low risk.
we did not know that early on did we .
the option was to study the vaccine longer and delay widespread use while epidemic is raging and killing people vs taking the risk and trying to limit it's damage to the economy and lives .
Trump certainly pushed for the latter .
PS
funny how the "vigilant fox" leaves out data for those at high risk
-
Thank you for the thoughtful posts CCP.
-
appreciate the reply CD
the medical establishment did not handle this well
the CDC clearly bungled it early on
but we meant well
no good answer
in the end after all said done and not done I wonder if we would have been off simply not doing anything - once the cat is out of the bag with such an epidemic it is already too late really it seems
From my company's CEO yesterday:
"The White House just announced that it plans to disband its COVID-19 response team, all three dozen staffers, this May. The government will now convene inter-agency groups to prep for the next pandemic. And the public health emergency (PHE) declared in response to the Covid pandemic will officially end May 11th (the monkeypox PHE expired in January and the opioid PHE is ongoing). "
I am really interested in what the next prep means . How do we "prep"
Do we follow a Bill Gates Orwellian approach ? ( I dread the thought)
Do we close the borders ? ( seems like best approach - but then we don't even keep or test illegals )
Do we shut everything and wipe out our economy for our descendants?
I do not know..
Very tough to figure it out.
One last thought , I had a problem seeing military personnel refusing direct orders to get the vaccine .
Of course I am not in the military so maybe easy for me to say
but if the brass order shots - I don't get why ok to refuse
Suppose our military refuses to go overseas because they might be hurt .....
-
"The medical establishment did not handle this well. The CDC clearly bungled it early on, but we meant well."
Readily granted that in the initial chaos, it was only natural that what hindsight would reveal to be errors would be made.
OTOH "meant well" does not cover the suppression of contrary data, the cancellation of serious people with serious resumes in the area, and firing vaxx resistors, and keeping unvaxxed children out of school. These were outright malicious, frequently corrupt, and thoroughly unAmerican.
-
"The medical establishment did not handle this well. The CDC clearly bungled it early on, but we meant well."
Readily granted that in the initial chaos, it was only natural that what hindsight would reveal to be errors would be made.
OTOH "meant well" does not cover the suppression of contrary data, the cancellation of serious people with serious resumes in the area, and firing vaxx resistors, and keeping unvaxxed children out of school. These were outright malicious, frequently corrupt, and thoroughly unAmerican.
https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/special-focus/doctors-trial/nuremberg-code
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
-
disagree
with regards to military
we need to be prepared for war
if half the army is out sick then we are not
I am familiar with Nuremberg .
we can agree on most other topics
and will just have to disagree on this
with respect ccp
-
The argument that the Army has the POWER to compel here is sound, but it is a distinct question whether it have exercised that power.
To lose super young fit tip of the spear warriors (the SEALs, others) who were quite unlikely to get seriously sick was a destructive act of bullying by the bureaucracy in the Pentagon; yet again backing the fukkery of the Progs.
The play here was a particularly destructive cost of the dishonesty in suppressing inconvenient truths; a tremendous display of truculent obstinacy of holding on to this coercion long after plausible claims of "following the science" should have expired. No different than the teachers unions fighting to coerce vaxxing of children so that they could stay out of work longer.
-
I have not heard a single opinion in retrospect assuming what we knew then and what we know now
what should have been done
should we have shut things down
bother with masks
vaccines
social distance
close business events
travel
so for all those who can criticize I do not hear one iota of what you would have done
medical community handling of it did not work well
but it may have slowed things down in the beginning and much was learned about the infection though stopping it was probably impossible
-
I'm going to disagree with that.
The Great Barrington Declaration, which DeSantis tended to follow, very much was a distinct, and superior, approach.
There is also the question of where on the timeline of it all we are focused. In the beginning, I agree with you-- but as the saying goes, when the facts change we need to change our mind. Instead, facts and different points of view were viciously suppressed, and compulsory vaxxes were expanded to less and less suitable age groups.
Question for you: Where do you stand on compulsory vaxxes for civilians?
-
".Great Barrington Declaration"
I don't remember this
it may have been a good place to start
was before vaccines
I don't take a stand on vaccines
I was for them and people getting them
as for being mandatory - no
I was never clear it made sense for those at low risk to get
they were not approved till later for those 12 - 18
and then younger after that but the benefit was essentially zero for children
so to give it to them to protect older was wrong
to give to get to some goal of population immunity was dubious to me
as Fauci and co. were pushing
but I understand some who advocated for. them if one wants to ride subway fly planes or keep our military prepared it was not unreasonable
could one say maybe only those at high risk should be encouraged to get ? sure
can I be dismissed from the witness stand?
am I guilty ?
-
".Great Barrington Declaration"
I don't remember this
it may have been a good place to start
was before vaccines
MARC: https://gbdeclaration.org/
I don't take a stand on vaccines
I was for them and people getting them
as for being mandatory - no
MARC: Good answer. I was opposed FOR ME because of my natural antibodies. I was, and am, deeply angry at the suppression of data about natural antibodies. If I did not have natural antibodies, at my age I have no idea what I would have done-- but I sure would have been angry had compulsion been tried.
I was never clear it made sense for those at low risk to get
MARC: Agree
they were not approved till later for those 12 - 18
and then younger after that but the benefit was essentially zero for children
MARC: FWIW my sense of things is that the various approvals as time went on were quite dishonest.
So to give it to them to protect older was wrong
MARC: AGREE!!!
to give to get to some goal of population immunity was dubious to me
as Fauci and co. were pushing
MARC:
Agree!
but I understand some who advocated for. them if one wants to ride subway fly planes or keep our military prepared it was not unreasonable
MARC: In the early days of the vaxx, this was plausible but as time went on there was a lot of cognitive dissonance. If the vaxx worked, then why care if others were not?
could one say maybe only those at high risk should be encouraged to get ? sure
MARC: AGREE
can I be dismissed from the witness stand?
MARC: Apologies if I came across like I was grilling you. Just honing in to determine areas of agreement and disagreement and in so doing it is revealed that you and I are in substantial agreement 8-) 8-) 8-)
am I guilty ?
-
yes sir, you are guilty of defending the natural rights and freedoms of all US citizens
you are guilty of working to protect truth, justice, and the American way.
And I therefore sentence you to pay the exact amount of $1 dollar to the charity or cause of your choice.
:-D
[a bit corny]
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/bombshell-vax-analysis-finds-147-billion-economic-damage-tens-millions-injured-or-disabled
-
https://summit.news/2023/03/27/videos-football-players-still-collapsing-having-heart-attacks-and-even-dying-on-the-pitch/
-
https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/a-miscarriage-of-statistics-the-thalidomide
-
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/health-canada-issues-advisory-for-face-masks-containing-graphene-1.5372822
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/134/323/198/original/6e56778dcb1411bb.png
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/134/323/198/original/6e56778dcb1411bb.png)
-
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/chinese-load-cows-milk-with-mrna-exosomes-successfully-immunize-mice-8d7a1236
-
I've not the time to read the site's privacy policies, so may I ask that you post the entire article?
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-medical-codes-covid-19-vaccination-status-used-track-people-cdc-confirms
Free country!
-
https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1644522041230368769
-
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1756038/vaccine-booster-covid-health-government-steve-barclay
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4572812/
-
yes
over 95% of published studies are of dubious value as I have posted here over the yrs
statisticians even try to make heads or tails of all these studies by concocting even more detailed analyses of aggregate evaluations of the studies to come up with some sort of
They try to tell us these Cochrane reviews or "meta- analyses " are very good and helpful
the methods used are so complicated
and often (despite what they say)
arbitrary (which past small study then accept and those they don"t)
i have strong doubts about these as well -DESPITE the claims and even peer review
many a data nerds try to promote their careers , their place in academia, quest for research dollars , with publication of these analyses
Most are in my view - BS or exaggerated
One journal I used to be member of had articles almost all consisting of these reviews promoting as best "available evidence "
data shows this or that
total BS
not always but I read these things and just throw up my hands
so some analyst could find a 20 % benefit of this test or that therapy
how can a sensible person who is not a robot believe or fall for this gobbly goop?
-
https://secure.anedot.com/liberty-justice-center/direct-mcdonaldvlawson?utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=23853018414940301&utm_content=open+-+35%2B_mcdonald_ad1&fbclid=IwAR276BvBCSFRxs23w_5g0_bT_Jh-LH4nCWazfEoGkN8oKu2mzHeccHXig8I
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-surprising-good-news-from-swiss-authorities-no-more-covid-19-vaccinations_5196086.html?utm_source=Opinion&src_src=Opinion&utm_campaign=opinion-2023-04-17&src_cmp=opinion-2023-04-17&utm_medium=email&est=1Sx0hzEv%2F%2FQLcshoSG8zZqxNIwpKYMqT1kQJnulxpPXchnC4URE0pX8hvZx%2BeeRG08Bo
-
Second
The Smoking Gun in the Senate Report on Covid Origins
On the menu today: Last week, the man who oversaw safety programs at the U.S. Army’s maximum-containment lab at Fort Detrick, Md., examined the way the Chinese government runs its labs and warned that, “It is very, very apparent that their biological safety training is minimal.” Yesterday, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released its full report, detailing the evidence that researchers affiliated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology started working on a vaccine for the virus that causes Covid-19 before the rest of the world had even heard about the virus. In this light, it is not surprising that most Americans agree with the FBI and Livermore Labs: The most likely cause of the Covid-19 pandemic was a lab accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
How Could the Wuhan Lab Research a Covid Vaccine before the Outbreak?
By 2019 the Wuhan Institute of Virology had collected, at a minimum, approximately 20,000 bat- and other animal-virus samples from field expeditions conducted all across China.
After going into caves and other locations to collect the samples and, in some cases, live bats, researchers would take the samples back to Wuhan, where they “routinely underwent initial evaluation in Biosafety Level 2 settings where they were first evaluated, usually by graduate students, for the presence of SARS-related beta coronaviruses. If viruses were present, researchers then attempted to isolate and sequence the virus.”
This information is in the full report on the origin of Covid-19 released yesterday by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The report is 300 pages and has 1,570 footnotes.
The information about the Biosafety Level 2 labs comes from a thesis on the “Geographic Evolution of Bat SARS-related Coronaviruses” submitted to the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences by Yu Ping, a graduate student pursuing a degree of Master of Natural Science in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, supervised by Professor Cui Jie and Professor Shi Zheng-Li, which was published in June 2019. You can read that thesis here. You may recognize the name Shi Zhengli, the Chinese virologist nicknamed “Bat Woman” for her work with that species, the one who told Scientific American early in the pandemic that when she first heard about the virus spreading through Wuhan, she initially wondered, “Could they have come from our lab?”
This is significant because the safety standards at Biosafety Level 2 labs are not as extensive and stringent as those at Biosafety Level 4 labs. Level 2 labs handle bacteria and viruses such as Lyme Disease and the standard flu; Level 3 labs handle more dangerous pathogens such as anthrax and HIV; and Level 4 labs handle the most dangerous viruses, such as Ebola.
Last week, the Washington Post published an excellent report examining the safety record of China’s government-run laboratories overall, not just focusing on the Wuhan Institute of Virology or the Wuhan Centers for Disease Control. The opening anecdote is terrifying:
In the summer of 2019, a mysterious accident occurred inside a government-run biomedical complex in north-central China, a facility that handles a pathogen notorious for its ability to pass easily from animals to humans.
There were no alarms or flashing lights to alert workers to the defect in a sanitation system that was supposed to kill germs in the vaccine plant’s waste. When the system failed in late July that year, millions of airborne microbes began seeping invisibly from exhaust vents and drifting into nearby neighborhoods. Nearly a month passed before the problem was discovered and fixed, and four months before the public was informed. By then, at least 10,000 people had been exposed, with hundreds developing symptomatic illnesses, scientific studies later concluded.
The events occurred not in Wuhan, the city where the coronavirus pandemic began, but in another Chinese city, Lanzhou, 800 miles to the northwest. The leaking pathogens were bacteria that cause brucellosis, a common livestock disease that can lead to chronic illness or even death in humans if not treated. As the pandemic enters its fourth year, new details about the little-known Lanzhou incident offer a revealing glimpse into a much larger — and largely hidden — struggle with biosafety across China in late 2019, at the precise moment when both the brucellosis incident and the coronavirus outbreak were coming to light.
Perhaps the most chilling quote in the article comes from biosecurity expert Robert Hawley, “who for years oversaw safety programs at the U.S. Army’s maximum-containment lab at Fort Detrick, Md.” Hawley told the Post he saw “‘imprudent’ lab practices in inspection reports obtained by a congressional oversight committee.”
“It is very, very apparent that their biological safety training is minimal,” Hawley said.
The closest thing to a smoking gun in the full Senate report is the evidence that researchers affiliated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology began working on a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, before almost anyone else in the world had heard of the virus:
November 2019 also appears to be the timeframe that PLA researchers began development of at least two SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Professor Zhou Yusen, Director of the 5th Institute at the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS), worked with the WIV, and possibly at the WIV, episodically, for several years prior to the pandemic. Zhou or AMMS researchers may have been working at the WIV no later than the Fall of 2019 conducting research for a paper that he coauthored with two WIV researchers, Shi Zhengli and Chen Jing, on a known adverse effect of SARS-related vaccines and antibody treatments. There is reason to believe Zhou was engaged in SARS-related coronavirus animal vaccine research with WIV researchers beginning no later than the Summer or early Fall of 2019. Zhou submitted one of the first COVID-19 vaccine patents on February 24, 2020.
The patent includes mouse-derived serological data from vaccine-related experiments which experts, consulted with during this investigation, assess could not have been completed unless Zhou’s team began work on vaccine development before the known outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in late December 2019. The research required both access to the sequence of and the live SARS-CoV-2 virus. Several experts assessed that Zhou likely would have had to start this vaccine development research no later than November 2019 to achieve the February patent submission date. Zhou later published transgenic mouse infection and vaccine challenge studies in mice, including humanized mice and non-human primates. The location(s) where Zhou’s animal vaccine challenge studies were performed was not disclosed. There is reason to believe that these vaccine experiments were performed at the original WIV’s downtown Wuhan campus and possibly at the Wuhan University Institute of Animal Models located approximately a mile from the WIV.
PLA AMMS Major General Wei Chen led a second, separate, effort to develop another candidate COVID-19 vaccine. Chen collaborated with the China state-owned biopharmaceutical company SinoPharm. Chen’s vaccine experiments with humanized mice, ferrets and non-human primates occurred at the Harbin veterinary research facility BSL-4 laboratory in northern China.124 Human clinical trials began in mid- March 2020. Chen submitted a patent for her vaccine March 18, 2020 Based on this timeline, experts believe Chen would have had to begin her vaccine efforts no later than early December 2019. Chen’s vaccine candidate was also dependent on the availability of SARS-CoV-2’s genetic sequence that would not be published until January 11, 2020. However, unlike Zhou, there is no evidence that Chen’s vaccine efforts were associated geographically or temporally with the initial COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan.
This is further evidence that the Chinese government knew it was dealing with a contagious virus and deliberately lied to the rest of world that there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission” up until January 20, 2020.
This is one of the many maddening aspects of this matter. Even if this all traces back to a natural transmission of someone ordering bat soup or grilled pangolin in a seafood market, or as Jon Stewart memorably characterized it, “Maybe a bat flew into the cloaca of a turkey and then it sneezed into my chili,” the Chinese government was still lying when the world needed the truth and lives were at stake. We all had years of our lives taken away from us because the Chinese government refused to acknowledge that there was a contagious virus spreading around their country and the world. In the month of January 2020, more than 1,300 flights from China arrived at 17 U.S. airports, carrying roughly 381,000 passengers.
When did the Covid-19 pandemic start? The Senate HELP committee report indicates that people in Wuhan were starting to notice an abnormal rate of viral infections in October and November:
Eyewitness accounts, media reports, epidemiological modeling and additional academic studies further support October 28 to November 10 as the window of emergence. Diplomats stationed at the U.S. Consulate General in Wuhan have attested to observations of what they believed at the time to be the early onset of a ‘bad flu’ season. The Deputy Consular Chief recalled: “By mid-October 2019, the dedicated team at the U.S. Consulate General in Wuhan knew that the city had been struck by what was thought to be an unusually vicious flu season. The disease worsened in November.” These observations were reported to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing during this period.
By one measure, the argument about the lab-leak theory, which has gone on for about three years, is effectively over. Those of us who suspect human error is the cause of one of the world’s greatest modern calamities have persuaded an overwhelming majority of the American public of that.
A Quinnipiac University poll conducted in March showed 64 percent of Americans think the pandemic was “caused by a laboratory leak” and just 22 percent believe it was “caused by a natural transmission from animals to humans.” Another poll taken a week earlier by Economist/YouGov showed an even stronger split in favor of a lab leak: 66 percent to 16 percent. If I were a meaner person, I would characterize the zoonotic origin as a fringe theory.
That Senate report also acknowledges the potential for a “zoonotic spillover” — after all, either this virus or its evolutionary precursor had to be in a bat at some point — but points out the frustrating lack of conclusive evidence:
To date, China has not acknowledged the infection or positive serological sample(s) of any susceptible animal prior to the recognized outbreak. Genetic analysis of published SARS-CoV-2 sequences from the early outbreak does not show evidence of genetic adaptation reflecting passage through a susceptible animal species such as a palm civet, raccoon dog or mink. To this end, no intermediate host has been identified.
Despite these facts, three data points do present themselves to support the zoonotic origin theory. First, approximately 33 percent of the earliest known human COVID-19 cases (with symptom onset dates in mid- to late-December 2019) were associated with the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. Second, several animal species susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 were sold live and in poor animal welfare conditions at the market. Finally, the identification of genetic sequences of raccoon dogs in samples taken from the market in early 2020 confirm that this susceptible intermediate host was at the market at the time of the outbreak. As noted, “there is no data . . . associating SARS-CoV-2 with the presence of any of these animals.” These data themselves, however, do not explain the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This Senate committee report was overseen by the now-retired North Carolina GOP senator Richard Burr. Back in November, the Charlotte Observer editorial board thundered that “Richard Burr, who typically keeps a relatively low profile, seems to be playing games on his way out of office.” The board referred to the lab-leak theory as “a Covid conspiracy,” contending that the interim report “fueled the fire of disinformation that has been blazing since the pandemic began. It also gives the COVID conspiracy theorists a new bone to chew on.”
Because Burr is usually “low profile” and isn’t a bomb-thrower, a frothing-at-the-mouth demagogue, or an unhinged conspiracy theorist, shouldn’t the editorial board sit up and take notice when he is putting his name behind a contention like this?
FBI director Christopher Wray is not a wide-eyed conspiracy theorist. The U.S. Department of Energy, and in particular the Livermore Labs’ “Z Division,” is not full of guys who believe lizard people walk among us and who insist they saw Elvis at their local convenience store. Former CDC director Robert Redfield is not some nut who believes in healing crystals and werewolves.
In the face of the biggest and most consequential mystery in modern history, some of us looked at the remarkable coincidence of a novel coronavirus most like those found in bats emerging near not one but two laboratories doing gain-of-function research on novel coronaviruses found in bats — going back to April 3, 2020, I remind you. And in response, we’ve gotten name-calling, sneers, and smears.
-
second
VERY URGENT: the FDA is raising the white flag on the mRNA Covid shots.
Unvaccinated adults will no longer be offered more than a single mRNA dose. (Tell that to the 230 million Americans who already took two.) And almost no one under 65 is eligible for a second booster.
ALEX BERENSON
APR 18
SHARE
The Food and Drug Administration just all-but-gave up on mRNA Covid jabs.
This afternoon, under the guise of “simplify(ing)” the Covid vaccination schedule, the FDA ended the two-dose mRNA vaccination regimen for unvaccinated people.
Americans who have not yet been vaccinated can now receive only a single dose of the newer “bivalent” vaccines, which supposedly work better against the Omicron strain -though real-world evidence of their improved effectiveness is nearly nonexistent.
—
(NOTHING IS OVER UNTIL WE SAY IT’S OVER. SUBSCRIBE NOW.)
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/135/611/273/original/101cff413ef48373.png
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/135/611/273/original/101cff413ef48373.png)
Oh!
-
Somehow the Pravdas are not mentioning this , , ,
Separately, here is this:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-compensates-people-injured-by-covid-19-vaccines-for-first-time_5200854.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-04-19&src_cmp=mb-2023-04-19&utm_medium=email&est=HmHs1ERGVZNSzX2%2FC951uZNlUEGN6BuwWUI7JiSdHt6nrgwewFXCYGXUY1Exh0Qn2l2d
Payouts seem a tad on the low side , , ,
-
https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/an-honest-doctors-experiences-on
Groupthink is a killer.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/twitter-files-dr-anthony-fauci
Fauci to be arrested in 3,2….never.
But he will have an awesome pension!
-
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/scientific-consensus-manufactured-consent/
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/136/085/667/original/4523d79ea2e3b27b.png
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/136/085/667/original/4523d79ea2e3b27b.png)
-
syphilis too
-
syphilis too
Syphilis is surging in Australia?
-
https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/new-government-line-of-defense-on?
-
Tangential observation: With Trump (as either nominee or president) this will all get swept back under the rug.
-
Tangential observation: With Trump (as either nominee or president) this will all get swept back under the rug.
Trump's hubris (and ours) has brought us to this point.
There will be no sweeping all the coming ClotShot deaths under the rug. "All these fit young people with heart attacks, strokes and aggressive cancers is global warming CLIMATE CHANGE!"
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/136/315/581/original/b33f8f031724d5af.png
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/136/315/581/original/b33f8f031724d5af.png)
They have credentials!
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/136/371/661/original/b2c10a1816e40ad4.png
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/136/371/661/original/b2c10a1816e40ad4.png)
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/136/371/661/original/b2c10a1816e40ad4.png
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/136/371/661/original/b2c10a1816e40ad4.png)
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/why-are-so-many-covid-authoritarians-suddenly-shifting-their-narratives
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/no-remorse-whatsoever-teachers-union-boss-weingarten-shredded-mass-school-shutdowns-during?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1454
-
Biden Administration Announces End to Federal COVID Vaccine Mandates
Zachary Stieber
By Zachary Stieber
May 1, 2023Updated: May 1, 2023
biggersmaller Print
The Biden administration is going to end a slew of COVID-19 vaccine mandates, including its requirement that foreign travelers provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination, officials said on May 1.
The mandate for noncitizen nonimmigrants arriving by air will end on May 12, as will mandates for federal workers and federal contractors, the White House stated.
The proof of vaccination required at U.S. land borders will also end on May 12, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Mandates for Head Start employees and health care facilities certified by federal regulators will also be wound down in the future, the administration stated, although no specific dates were given.
Mandates imposed by some agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, will remain in place for now, the White House told The Associated Press.
The mandates were imposed by President Joe Biden and top deputies in 2021 as the administration tried to increase the number of vaccinated Americans, despite a growing body of evidence that the vaccines bestow transient protection against symptomatic infection and hospitalization.
Some of the vaccination requirements have been blocked by court, including one for federal workers, after judges said they were likely illegal. One for large private employers was struck down by the Supreme Court, and another for members of the military was withdrawn because of a bill passed by Congress.
The White House stated that the mandates “helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” adding that the mandates “bolstered vaccination across the nation, and [the] broader vaccination campaign has saved millions of lives.”
A White House spokesperson pointed to a blog post from the Commonwealth Fund that was based on modeling.
“White House advisors were not smart. Initially, there was no proof that forcing a third party provided additional benefit to someone who was vaccinated. Then, it was clear by summer 2021 that vaccine cannot hold transmission. Ergo mandate always unethical,” Dr. Vinay Prasad, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote on Twitter.
Biden is among the officials who have made false claims about the vaccines, which don’t prevent transmission, infection, or severe illness.
“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations,” he said. Meanwhile, a top COVID-19 adviser falsely said in 2022 that there are no serious side effects of the shots.
Biden previously announced that the COVID-19 public health emergency is going to end on May 12. But it was unclear whether the mandates would be rescinded at the same time.
The COVID-19 national emergency, a similar declaration, ended this month after Biden signed a bill approved by Congress.
The emergency declarations underpinned many of the mandates.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), whose definition of “fully vaccinated” has forced millions of Americans to receive multiple doses of a Moderna or Pfizer vaccine or the single-shot Johnson & Johnson version, just said that foreign travelers would meet the mandated requirements if they received one shot of the unproven, updated Moderna and Pfizer formulations.
Some 81.3 percent of the U.S. population had received at least one vaccine dose as of April 26, according to the CDC. But just 16.8 percent of people had received an updated booster shot, an indication of how unpopular the vaccines have become.
The CDC stated that more than 1.1 million people have died with COVID-19 in the United States, although critics note that the deaths include people who had a different primary cause of death. For the week ending on April 26, though, the death toll was just 1,052—the lowest since March 2020.
“While vaccination remains one of the most important tools in advancing the health and safety of employees and promoting the efficiency of workplaces, we are now in a different phase of our response when these measures are no longer necessary,” the White House stated.
-
Search
NEWS
U.S. to Finally End COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements on May 11th
By Eric Lendrum
May 2, 2023
On Monday, the Biden White House announced that it will finally put an end to national COVID-19 vaccine mandates for federal employees and federal contractors.
As reported by Fox News, May 11th is also the date that the Chinese coronavirus public health emergency will expire, and the Biden Administration has no plans to renew it. The mandate for federal employees and contractors, as well as international air travelers, is the last national vaccine mandate that remained in place after legal challenges brought down similar mandates for private businesses.
“Additionally, HHS and DHS announced today that they will start the process to end their vaccination requirements for Head Start educators, CMS-certified healthcare facilities, and certain noncitizens at the land border,” the White House said in its statement. “In the coming days, further details related to ending these requirements will be provided.”
The Chinese coronavirus vaccine mandates were always the most controversial aspect of the American response to the pandemic. Although the three official vaccines – developed by Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson – were developed under the presidency of Donald Trump, President Trump never ordered or required vaccination at the federal level. Upon taking power, Joe Biden vowed to force all Americans to get vaccinated, and thus pursued vaccine mandates in every aspect of American life.
The most widely-opposed mandate that Biden attempted to implement would have forced vaccinations for every private business with 100 employees or more. However, the Supreme Court struck down that mandate as government overreach, noting that the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) did not have the authority to declare such a mandate without congressional approval. An additional mandate, forcing vaccinations for healthcare workers at facilities funded by Medicare and Medicaid, was also upheld by the Supreme Court alongside the mandate for federal employees.
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1136,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/136/706/048/original/fdbcf0e9e08bd0f1.png
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1136,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/136/706/048/original/fdbcf0e9e08bd0f1.png)
Unsolved mysteries!
-
https://dailyclout.io/bombshell-pfizer-and-the-fda-knew-in-early-2021-that-the-pfizer-mrna-covid-vaccine-caused-dire-fetal-and-infant-risks-they-began-an-aggressive-campaign-to-vaccinate-pregnant-women-anyway/
Nuremberg 2.0
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/136/085/667/original/4523d79ea2e3b27b.png
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/136/085/667/original/4523d79ea2e3b27b.png)
https://makismd.substack.com/p/turbo-cancer-leukemia-children-from
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/137/198/961/original/09b9a1c15ad08b4a.png
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/137/198/961/original/09b9a1c15ad08b4a.png)
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/its-2023-and-patients-are-still-being-denied-medical-treatment-because-of-covid-19-vaccines_5244345.html?utm_source=Opinion&src_src=Opinion&utm_campaign=opinion-2023-05-08&src_cmp=opinion-2023-05-08&utm_medium=email&est=V9G9xj2SUsxXNAmQgMSHJAeisZL2M4PcjkHBkWYFmz9zlu%2F0ZfZp8f5FJtIqAb3FLwIR
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mother-of-7-denied-kidney-transplant-for-refusing-covid-shot-in-georgia_5212353.html?ea_med=desktop_news&tmp=1&ea_src=ai_recommender_A_news
https://www.theepochtimes.com/covid-vaccine-mandates-for-patients-healthcare-workers-being-reversed-overturned-across-the-u-s_5248633.html?utm_source=News&src_src=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2023-05-08-2&src_cmp=breaking-2023-05-08-2&utm_medium=email&est=bYO3HUWk4s7qA7urCzfPDFoGXxf2faUMKP8Bn7KchuTB9SAw0A7b24Tvyz0QO9JaiqiS
https://patriotpost.us/memes/97045-confusing-priorities-2023-05-04?mailing_id=7477&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.7477&utm_campaign=humor
-
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/health/brits-dying-tens-thousands-dont-29955386
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-orders-fda-to-speed-up-release-of-covid-19-vaccine-trial-data-from-23-5-years-to-just-2_5263217.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-05-14&src_cmp=mb-2023-05-14&utm_medium=email&est=74HT22YV%2BAkZI9sJfA87X%2Fdd5v4fMPS8Hj17WlRtTAvPzbFhGnfLLrQL%2BphFYU8NilvS
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/137/882/362/original/5c9237f0f387fe01.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/137/882/362/original/5c9237f0f387fe01.jpg)
Global warming?
-
https://sharylattkisson.com/2023/05/read-hhs-asked-to-to-lift-redactions-on-emails-about-ivermectin/
-
https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/16/biden-nih-pfizer-bertagnolli-research/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29912&pnespid=s_V6FCJfPrgVh_XFoy7oTMKQoBmwVJt0ILKj0bt09wBmx5RR8.d26EyWipxDOdWrxwoMkUXc
-
https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/16/biden-nih-pfizer-bertagnolli-research/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29912&pnespid=s_V6FCJfPrgVh_XFoy7oTMKQoBmwVJt0ILKj0bt09wBmx5RR8.d26EyWipxDOdWrxwoMkUXc
They all are.
-
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2023/05/17/doj-apple-engineer-stole-self-driving-vehicle-tech-for-chinese-company/
who knew ?
but
he could win a Pulizter since it matters not if a story is honest accurate of made up
as in the case of multiple left wing Pulizter winners
-
https://twitter.com/AntonioTweets2/status/1659587709717889024
-
Nice little piece of propaganda (not an insult).
-
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2023/05/23/can-you-name-5-unvaxxed-amish-who-died-from-covid-why-not-they-are-supposed-to-be-dying-in-droves/
-
Open in app or online
Some good news! (Really)
Yulia Hicks, the North Carolina girl denied a kidney transplant by Duke University surgeons because she was not vaccinated against Covid, will get her new kidney Thursday
ALEX BERENSON
MAY 23
SHARE
Finally, a happy ending.
In December, I wrote about Yulia Hicks, a 14-year-old North Carolina girl denied a lifesaving kidney transplant for the crime of being unvaccinated.
Transplant surgeons at Duke University Hospital told her parents that Yulia could not stay on the transplant list if she did not have a Covid shot, even though she had already had Covid.
The story, which Fox News picked up, led to a wave of publicity - and more than 30 potential donors stepped forward. Fortunately, one was a match.
Now, another North Carolina hospital has stepped up, and Yulia will receive a new kidney from a live donor tomorrow.
-
https://brownstone.org/articles/vax-gene-files-accidental-discovery/
-
The Vax-Gene Files: An Accidental Discovery
BY Julie SladdenJULIE SLADDEN MAY 27, 2023 VACCINES 6 MINUTE READ
In 1928 scientist Alexander Fleming returned to his laboratory after a 2-week holiday. A petri dish of bacteria accidentally left on the lab bench, somehow became cross-contaminated with Penicillium notatum mould. Fleming noticed the mould inhibited the growth of the bacteria. This accidental discovery marked the dawn of the antibiotic era and a turning point in medical, and perhaps human history.
Recently, another accidental discovery has scientists wondering whether we have turned another corner in history.
The story begins with Kevin McKernan, a scientist with 25 years experience in the genomic field and a leading expert in sequencing methods for DNA and RNA. He has worked on the Human Genome Project and more recently in medicinal genomics involving DNA sequencing.
In the process of trying to sort out a sequencing problem, McKernan used anonymously sent, Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 bivalent vaccines to act as mRNA controls.
‘Somebody sent me these thinking, this is the perfect control… It should be pure. So, if you get this to work, you’ll sort out your mRNA sequencing problems,’ McKernan explains in a recent interview. ‘They were right about that. It did sort out our problems. But what we discovered in the process is that they weren’t pure mRNA. They actually had a lot of DNA in the background.’
McKernan was shocked, ‘It’s not what we were looking for… I had this hunch that the new modified nucleotides they have in the mRNA may have a higher error rate, and therefore we would see more mistakes in the mRNA. So, I knew we would have to sequence like a millionfold deep… over and over again to find these mistakes. When we did that DNA popped up and I thought “Oh, that’s a bigger problem. We have to focus on that.” … I kind of went into panic mode, realizing that I didn’t budget any time to look into this, and the world has to know about it.’
Let’s pause here and look at what we’re told about the Covid-19 mRNA injections. We’re assured:
The injections are safe. Meanwhile, adverse event reporting systems around the world record previously unseen rates of adverse events and injuries;
The injections are effective. We would ask: Effective for what? Not stopping transmission. We’re not sure about preventing serious illness either evidenced by recent data and New South Wales Health reports which show a disproportionate number of hospital and ICU admissions amongst the vaccinated.
The injection materials stay at the injection site. Recently released documents obtained under FOI show the lipid nanoparticles become widely distributed – notably to the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, ovaries, and testes;
The injections won’t change your DNA.
Let’s look at that last one a little bit closer.
The Australian TGA states you can find reputable information about Covid-19 vaccines on their ‘Is it true’ section of the website. It is worth a look. In answer to the question ‘Can COVID-19 vaccines alter my DNA?’ the TGA is clear: ‘No, COVID-19 vaccines do not alter your DNA.’
They explain, ‘mRNA vaccines use a synthetic genetic code called RNA to give our cells instructions about how to make the coronavirus’ unique spike protein. When our body has made the protein encoded by the mRNA vaccine, it then recognises the spike protein as being foreign and launches an immune response against it. The RNA from the vaccine does not change or interact with our DNA in any way.’
Phew. Well, that’s ok then, right?
Possible routes for mRNA to convert to DNA (including a process known as reverse transcription) were discounted. Until the publication of an annoying little paper in 2022 by Alden et al, an in vitro study involving human liver cells which showed Pfizer’s mRNA was expressed as DNA within six hours.
At the time, this was assumed due to reverse transcription of the mRNA. However, in light of McKernan’s discovery, there’s a whole new possibility to consider. What if the vaccines already contained DNA? Then arguments about whether the mRNA could reverse transcribe into DNA become irrelevant.
Let’s return to McKernan and take a closer look at what he found. In addition to the expected mRNA, he also found mRNA fragments, other pieces of RNA, and two forms of DNA: linearised and circular. The significance of the circular – or plasmid – DNA is important. The plasmid DNA is the ‘complete recipe’ used to program bacterial cells to mass produce the mRNA. This DNA should not be there. Further investigation by McKernan showed the plasmid DNA contained in the vaccines was indeed viable and capable of transformation in bacterial cells.
So, the Pfizer and Moderna vials of bivalent vaccine that McKernan tested were contaminated with DNA. DNA encoding the spike gene and potentially capable of inserting into the genome of an organism.
The question is, does this DNA have the potential to become part of the genome of a human organism and if so what might be the consequences? This would have required looking at ‘genotoxicity,’ something Australia’s TGA says the (Pfizer) injections were not tested for, and the TGA did not ask for.
In case you are wondering, there are strict guidelines about DNA contamination levels in mRNA products. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and FDA stated limits are 330 nanograms of DNA per milligram of RNA. In Australia, the TGA says it should be no more than 10 nanograms per dose.
(It’s unclear how these limits were decided. Personally, we’d be hoping for zero DNA in our mRNA injections.)
This means that DNA should not be more than 0.033 per cent of the total nucleic acids in the dose. But McKernan’s analysis demonstrated DNA contamination of up to 35 percent in the bivalent injection samples. This is up to 1,000 times higher than deemed to be ‘acceptable’ by the regulating authorities.
Next, McKernan analysed the monovalent (earlier) injections. The Pfizer monovalent injections were also found to be contaminated with DNA, though not as much. The levels of DNA in the Pfizer monovalent injections were 18-70 times higher than the EMA limit.
So, what happens now?
These results are in the process of being further verified by the scientific community. In the essence of speed, McKernan published his findings and methods publicly on Substack and online. He explains, ‘The publication system, during the pandemic, is politicised. So, that’s probably not going to get the word out very quickly. I had to do my best to document this all and make the data public.’
If McKernan’s findings are verified, the implications are serious. Widespread DNA contamination would bring into question the quality of the entire mRNA injection manufacturing process, safety systems, and regulatory oversight. In addition, DNA might not be the only contaminant.
This contamination discovery begs a question. What does Australia’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) know about the safety of these mRNA injections? And what discussions have occurred between the TGA and the OGTR regarding the safety of these injections?
Some of these questions are being asked and will hopefully get answers. Soon, we hope.
Another question weighs heavily. What does this ‘accidental discovery’ mean for those who’ve had the mRNA injections, in terms of their health, their offspring, and future of the human genome?
Scientists and genomics experts are shocked by the discovery. McKernan too, ‘I didn’t expect to find Pfizer’s entire blueprint for how they manufacture this thing sitting in the vial.’
Neither did we.
Author
Julie Sladden
Dr Julie Sladden is a medical doctor and freelance writer with a passion for transparency in healthcare. Her op-eds have been published in both The Spectator Australia and The Daily Declaration. In 2022, she was elected as a Local Government Councillor for West Tamar in Tasmania.
-
https://twitter.com/Plandemic3Movie/status/1660799437004783617
-
https://twitter.com/LarryMitch53674/status/1662772804725403652
-
https://thegooddoctor.substack.com/p/a-crucible-of-madness
-
My post of
7.26.21
"hundred + million vaccinated and 7 months into it and people are not dropping like flies from the vaccine The Left is making hay about how so many cases are now in Florida and the vast majority of hospitalized ones are in unvaccinated Anyway, somehow I suspect we are nearing the tail end of the pandemic and the waves will burn out over the next 1 or 2. in 1918 the flu came in waves now identified to persist in smaller less severe pockets of outbreaks until 1921 to1923 ish of course just a hunch."
corona seems to be following the path of the 1918 epidemic
finally just fizzles out over couple yrs
and just as the flu became less virulent then corona so far is heading in that direction
perhaps my hunch then is more accurate then the know it alls - Bill Gates etc,
:-D
-
And of the vax injuries/deaths?
My post of
7.26.21
"hundred + million vaccinated and 7 months into it and people are not dropping like flies from the vaccine The Left is making hay about how so many cases are now in Florida and the vast majority of hospitalized ones are in unvaccinated Anyway, somehow I suspect we are nearing the tail end of the pandemic and the waves will burn out over the next 1 or 2. in 1918 the flu came in waves now identified to persist in smaller less severe pockets of outbreaks until 1921 to1923 ish of course just a hunch."
corona seems to be following the path of the 1918 epidemic
finally just fizzles out over couple yrs
and just as the flu became less virulent then corona so far is heading in that direction
perhaps my hunch then is more accurate then the know it alls - Bill Gates etc,
:-D
-
".And of the vax injuries/deaths?"
I don't read anything about any; must be a cover up
I am still alive after 4 doses ......
-
".And of the vax injuries/deaths?"
I don't read anything about any; must be a cover up
I am still alive after 4 doses ......
Yeah, they’d never cover up ClotShot injuries!
-
".And of the vax injuries/deaths?"
I don't read anything about any; must be a cover up
I am still alive after 4 doses ......
Yeah, they’d never cover up ClotShot injuries!
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/statistics-canada-reports-27-jump-in-excess-deaths-in-citizens-under-44-in-2022/
-
https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1657021799652024324
-
https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1657021799652024324
Guns made the difference.
-
".And of the vax injuries/deaths?"
I don't read anything about any; must be a cover up
I am still alive after 4 doses ......
Yeah, they’d never cover up ClotShot injuries!
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/statistics-canada-reports-27-jump-in-excess-deaths-in-citizens-under-44-in-2022/
https://twitter.com/toobaffled/status/1663536547097100288
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/may/31/wuhan-virus-lab-got-more-us-money-previously-repor/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=4n83RJ2PwhWzvT1nrope5B1yygRHVr%2BH9biDkrd7I3Z2yO3%2FYUeiwZJstFJjZCQE&bt_ts=1685614161520
-
"That $1.3 billion is the low-end, given how difficult it is to track where federal research money ultimately ends up"
:x :x :x
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/repeated-covid-19-vaccination-weakens-immune-system-study
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/repeated-covid-19-vaccination-weakens-immune-system-study
https://twitter.com/LeadingReport/status/1664805123975966720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1664805123975966720%7Ctwgr%5E1464c1852967a1927d72b54ec9f3044fa83e4046%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.revolver.news%2Fnewsfeed%2F
-
And here is the study:
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/5/991
-
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/disturbing-rise-in-cognitive-problems
Safe and effective, just like gender affirmation surgery on children!
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/covid-19-created-wuhan-lab-through-classified-chinese-bioweapons-program-us-investigators
When does Fauci get indicted?
-
around the same merrick appoints a true independent counsel
on Biden -
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/06/11/dershowitz-of-course-there-is-enough-evidence-for-impeachment-inquiry-of-biden-for-bribery/
problem is too many lawyers are crats
-
Zuckerberg: Establishment Asked to Censor COVID-19 Posts That Ended Up Being True
HEALTH NEWS
Zachary Stieber, Reporter
Jun 10 2023
Big Tech firms were asked to censor COVID-19 information that ended up being true, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has assessed.
“Just take some of the stuff around COVID earlier in the pandemic where there were real health implications, but there hadn’t been time to fully vet a bunch of the scientific assumptions,” Zuckerberg, whose company is the parent of Facebook and Instagram, said during a discussion with podcaster Lex Fridman that was released on June 8.
“And unfortunately, I think a lot of the kind of establishment on that kind of waffled on a bunch of facts and asked for a bunch of things to be censored that, in retrospect, ended up being more debatable or true,” he added. “That stuff is really tough, right? Really undermines trust.”
U.S. officials pressured Facebook and Instagram to censor posts, emails disclosed in court cases and through Freedom of Information Act requests have shown.
Rob Flaherty, a White House official, pressured Facebook to take action against “mis- and -disinformation” as well as “hesitancy-inducing content,” one email showed.
One Facebook official said in one of the messages that the company’s goal was “to help organizations to get their safety message out to the public, remove misinformation, and support overall community efforts in areas where we can be of help.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), meanwhile, showed executives with Facebook and other social media companies specific posts that were described as misinformation.
“There were a lot of things circulating that were not accurate information about COVID,” Carol Crawford, a CDC official, said during a deposition. “I didn’t believe we were asking them to remove content specifically,” she added later.
Facebook’s actions included shutting down groups aimed at supporting people injured by the COVID-19 vaccines over alleged misinformation, according to a lawsuit filed this month by people with suspected or confirmed vaccine injuries. Facebook told Flaherty in early 2021 that the company was removing groups that contained “often-true content” that “can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.”
Meta did not respond to a request for comment on Zuckerberg’s new remarks, including a request for examples of censored information that turned out to be true.
Zuckerberg elsewhere in the interview said he is “very pro-freedom of speech” and that Facebook was aimed at allowing people to “express as much as possible” while describing government requests to censor content as “obviously bad” and that, ultimately, “it’s Facebook’s call” on how to handle such requests.
Zuckerberg also said that some of the censorship requests were “punitive or vengeful,” as in “I want you to do this thing, and if you don’t, then I’m going to make your life difficult in a lot of ways.”
Casey Norman, a lawyer with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a group of lawyers representing the injured plaintiffs in the new case, said Zuckerberg’s remarks were contradictory.
“Zuckerberg’s remarks in this interview came off to me as evasive and as an attempt to appease all sides without actually providing any meaningful answers or responses to specific issues and instances of censorship and viewpoint moderation of protected speech at the government’s behest,” Norman told The Epoch Times via email.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who has experienced censorship on Twitter, said that Facebook’s censorship “enabled school closures, vax mandates, toddler masking, and much else.”
“Glad to see some humility here,” he said of Zuckerberg’s remarks.
Meta properties have in recent months restored some users that were banned, including presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., though others remain banned.
Zuckerberg said that when it comes to deciding what information to take action on, “it’s best to generally boil things down to the harms that people agree on,” listing examples such as “sexual exploitation of children.”
“You want to reserve the censorship of content to things that are of known categories that people generally agree are bad,” he said.
Zuckerberg’s interview was released on the same day an investigation of Instagram found its algorithms helped connect a network of pedophiles.
A Meta spokesperson told The Epoch Times that the company works to fight child pornography on its platforms and has dismantled dozens of pedophile networks in recent years.
“Predators constantly change their tactics in their pursuit to harm children,” the spokesperson said, “and that’s why we have strict policies and technology to prevent them from finding or interacting with teens on our apps, and hire specialist teams who focus on understanding their evolving behaviors so we can eliminate abusive networks.”
-
https://twitter.com/ramzpaul/status/1670270282785759233/photo/1
Will we ever figure it out?
-
https://twitter.com/ramzpaul/status/1670270282785759233/photo/1
Will we ever figure it out?
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/140/710/147/original/254f04ffff87724a.png
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/140/710/147/original/254f04ffff87724a.png)
-
Hello all,
Here is a book that was recently released on Pfizer’s knowledge and suppression of severe adverse events caused by their COVID vaccine and brought to my attention by Dr. Naomi Wolf, who has been doing podcasts about this issue for some time now.
Also, I have included a link to an article from The New York Sun, where Elon Musk and others have offered to donate $100,000 to charity if a prominent pro-vaccine author agrees to debate RFK Jr. on this subject. RFK Jr. has been talking about this for some time as well, and went on Joe Rogan’s podcast for an interview about it and other subjects. RFK Jr. has also written a book about this. (link below)
Pfizer is immunized against all liability for harm from these vaccines, which are experimental and never had proper clinical trials. They were released under the Emergency Use Authorization Act. There have been THOUSANDS of reports of serious adverse effects from the vaccines, and I for one will NEVER get another COVID booster.
Mark
https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/ref=sr_1_1?crid=LG4ZO82I3S6D&keywords=naomi+wolf+books+pfizer+documents&qid=1687194710&sprefix=naomi+wolf%2Caps%2C93&sr=8-1
https://www.nysun.com/article/joe-rogan-elon-musk-challenge-prominent-vaccine-booster-to-debate-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-safety-of-covid-vaccines
https://www.amazon.com/Letter-Liberals-Censorship-American-Childrens-ebook/dp/B0B43N1BTM/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3JJ3VPX4N0H6X&keywords=robert+f+kennedy+jr+books&qid=1687195405&sprefix=robert+f%2Caps%2C119&sr=8-2
-
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/404960.php
-
https://nypost.com/2023/06/15/we-now-know-the-first-3-people-to-get-covid-worked-in-the-wuhan-lab-will-the-us-government-act/?fbclid=IwAR26gKM4UnE5aqCZmomuJf-tjoz8Rpq37tqJv6ntjS11kPqLcndxbOuVoCw
-
In the early days of the Wuhan Virus we spoke of such things here.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/do-wuhan-institute-of-virology-scientists-often-fall-from-the-buildings-roof/
-
In the early days of the Wuhan Virus we spoke of such things here.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/do-wuhan-institute-of-virology-scientists-often-fall-from-the-buildings-roof/
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/404963.php
-
This is what the arguments for the other side look like:
============
When (and how) do we debate vaccine science?
KATELYN JETELINA AND KRISTEN PANTHAGANI, MD, PHD
JUN 20
Over the weekend, a vaccine brawl took place. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—presidential candidate and longtime spreader of old, tired vaccine rumors— had a conversation with Joe Rogan on his podcast. The conversation bled onto social media in which Rogan ultimately challenged Dr. Peter Hotez—a Nobel Prize-nominated vaccine scientist—to debate RFK Jr. about vaccine rumors that have already been addressed dozens of times.
Everyone chimed in: from Elon Musk amplifying the conversation to Mark Cuban calling Rogan a bully to stalkers confronting Hotez at his house and pressuring him to debate.
Through the noise, Hotez held his ground; he didn’t go for the bait. He’s not going to debate. But he did propose an alternative: he will go on Rogan’s show to talk about vaccines but without RFK Jr.
Hotez 100% made the right move.
This is why. (Brought to you from our experience in the trenches.)
The dilemma
There is no doubt that rumors and falsehoods on social media impact behavior. As a scientist, it’s really tempting to address them because we are deeply entrenched in the data. We can help, right?
But the toughest part of addressing these rumors is deciding when to actually do it. There are benefits but also great risks:
It can create a false sense of equivalence. When scientific experts debate those promoting fringe, demonstrably false views, it can create a false impression of a genuine scientific controversy where none exists, misleading the public.
Backfire effect. It’s very easy for these discussions to get heated, which can lead to psychological defense mechanisms being triggered, making it even more challenging for people to learn. People don’t think as logically when they’re angry or insulted.
It takes a lot of time. “A lie can go around the world before the truth gets its pants on.” Scientists’ time and energy are finite, and many scientists who address these rumors volunteer their free time to do so. Choosing which debates are worth the time is important.
May be personally dangerous. Presenting yourself to a hostile audience can become physically dangerous. A close scientist friend of YLE pushed against Rogan during the pandemic, and their family had to flee after the FBI picked up death threats.
Live debate rewards charm, not data
We understand why live debates are preferred by many—they are more accessible and more entertaining than the slow work of careful science.
While scientists are great professional arguers (in fact, debate is ingrained into the definition of science), scientific debate is not usually done in the same way as political debate between candidates vying for your vote or high school debate teams.
Instead, scientific debate is typically done in writing and focuses on very specific scientific questions. This allows for careful presentation of data and citation of sources. It can be slow and boring, but it is much more effective.
Live debates can easily be hijacked when arguers use logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks that give the appearance of “winning,” but in reality are a path to nowhere. Both of us have experienced being on the receiving end of these types of dead-end debates:
Moving the goalpost: As soon as one question is adequately answered with data, the goal post is moved and a new excuse is found why the answer is unsatisfactory. This is done ad nauseum so no amount of answers or data are ever deemed “enough.”
“Firehosing”: Throwing so many different rumors at the scientist all at once that it is impossible to address them all.
Unfalsifiable hypotheses: Assertions that are impossible to prove wrong, not because the assertions are correct but because they are untestable. No amount of inquiry will ever lead to an answer.
Rapid topic switching: When one claim is satisfactorily addressed, instead of acknowledging it and learning, a new topic is rapidly introduced.
Ad hominem attacks: Instead of discussing specifics of data and scientific claims, the scientist is attacked. (Calling them a pharma shill is a particularly common one.)
Misunderstanding standards of evidence: For a successful debate on science to occur, both parties must be in agreement about how much weight different types of evidence are given (anecdotes vs. observational trials vs. randomized-controlled trials, etc.). When one party holds an anecdote as more informative than a randomized-controlled trial, it’s very difficult to have a useful discussion.
“Debates” like these are often harmful. They don’t help people discover what’s true; they confuse and divide.
Some debates are worthwhile
How do you tell the difference?
One easy check: are participants willing to change their minds if a valid argument is presented? These folks are definitely worth the time to talk to. But if someone is repeating the same tired rumor, despite it having being studied and addressed over and over and repeatedly found to be without merit, chances are a debate with that person is not going to be particularly helpful.
Also, subject matter is important. Beyond vaccines, it’s important that the science is not politically and/or religiously polarized. One study found debating GMOs (something that hasn’t been linked to politics or religion) can change minds, for example, but a debate on evolution (which has been religiously linked) or climate change (which has been politicized) is much less effective.
Many people are genuinely seeking answers
Hundreds of thousands of people really wanted this vaccine debate. Why?
A combination of things: severe loss of trust, anger against pharma, anger against the pandemic, anger against scientists, tribalism, and some people truly have unanswered questions.
Legitimate concerns exist. In fact, the vast majority of people who have questions or doubts about vaccines don’t outright deny vaccines as beneficial. They are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
The continuum of vaccine hesitancy. Credit: MacDonald and the WHO SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy.
Answering people with valid questions needs to be scientists’ priority. We need to meet them where they are, answer their questions from a place of empathy not condescension, equip trusted messengers, and anticipate concerns so we can prevent information voids that will otherwise be filled with false rumors.
The goal should always be to foster a society that values critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the dissemination of accurate scientific information. In order to do this, scientists need to get our own house in order. We need to make science more accessible, entertaining, and more down to earth while still staying true to the standards of scientific integrity.
Bottom line
Hotez made the right call. “Debate me or you’re a coward” will not help move knowledge forward. And, typically, it will not help those in the middle whose concerns will still not be addressed. Deeply ingrained beliefs, hostile environment, and a lack of expertise makes it counterproductive and dangerous in the worst case scenario. Given our limited time and resources, we need to focus on where we can really makes a difference.
Love, YLE and KP
In case you missed it:
The science (and buisness) behind disinformation. And what to do about it.
COVID-19 vaccines and sudden death: Separating fact from fiction.
Kristen Panthagani, MD PhD, is an emergency medicine physician at Yale. In her free time, she is the creator of the medical blog You Can Know Things. You can subscribe to her newsletter here.
-
Bullsh*t excuses. This is sciencism, not science.
This is what the arguments for the other side look like:
============
When (and how) do we debate vaccine science?
KATELYN JETELINA AND KRISTEN PANTHAGANI, MD, PHD
JUN 20
Over the weekend, a vaccine brawl took place. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—presidential candidate and longtime spreader of old, tired vaccine rumors— had a conversation with Joe Rogan on his podcast. The conversation bled onto social media in which Rogan ultimately challenged Dr. Peter Hotez—a Nobel Prize-nominated vaccine scientist—to debate RFK Jr. about vaccine rumors that have already been addressed dozens of times.
Everyone chimed in: from Elon Musk amplifying the conversation to Mark Cuban calling Rogan a bully to stalkers confronting Hotez at his house and pressuring him to debate.
Through the noise, Hotez held his ground; he didn’t go for the bait. He’s not going to debate. But he did propose an alternative: he will go on Rogan’s show to talk about vaccines but without RFK Jr.
Hotez 100% made the right move.
This is why. (Brought to you from our experience in the trenches.)
The dilemma
There is no doubt that rumors and falsehoods on social media impact behavior. As a scientist, it’s really tempting to address them because we are deeply entrenched in the data. We can help, right?
But the toughest part of addressing these rumors is deciding when to actually do it. There are benefits but also great risks:
It can create a false sense of equivalence. When scientific experts debate those promoting fringe, demonstrably false views, it can create a false impression of a genuine scientific controversy where none exists, misleading the public.
Backfire effect. It’s very easy for these discussions to get heated, which can lead to psychological defense mechanisms being triggered, making it even more challenging for people to learn. People don’t think as logically when they’re angry or insulted.
It takes a lot of time. “A lie can go around the world before the truth gets its pants on.” Scientists’ time and energy are finite, and many scientists who address these rumors volunteer their free time to do so. Choosing which debates are worth the time is important.
May be personally dangerous. Presenting yourself to a hostile audience can become physically dangerous. A close scientist friend of YLE pushed against Rogan during the pandemic, and their family had to flee after the FBI picked up death threats.
Live debate rewards charm, not data
We understand why live debates are preferred by many—they are more accessible and more entertaining than the slow work of careful science.
While scientists are great professional arguers (in fact, debate is ingrained into the definition of science), scientific debate is not usually done in the same way as political debate between candidates vying for your vote or high school debate teams.
Instead, scientific debate is typically done in writing and focuses on very specific scientific questions. This allows for careful presentation of data and citation of sources. It can be slow and boring, but it is much more effective.
Live debates can easily be hijacked when arguers use logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks that give the appearance of “winning,” but in reality are a path to nowhere. Both of us have experienced being on the receiving end of these types of dead-end debates:
Moving the goalpost: As soon as one question is adequately answered with data, the goal post is moved and a new excuse is found why the answer is unsatisfactory. This is done ad nauseum so no amount of answers or data are ever deemed “enough.”
“Firehosing”: Throwing so many different rumors at the scientist all at once that it is impossible to address them all.
Unfalsifiable hypotheses: Assertions that are impossible to prove wrong, not because the assertions are correct but because they are untestable. No amount of inquiry will ever lead to an answer.
Rapid topic switching: When one claim is satisfactorily addressed, instead of acknowledging it and learning, a new topic is rapidly introduced.
Ad hominem attacks: Instead of discussing specifics of data and scientific claims, the scientist is attacked. (Calling them a pharma shill is a particularly common one.)
Misunderstanding standards of evidence: For a successful debate on science to occur, both parties must be in agreement about how much weight different types of evidence are given (anecdotes vs. observational trials vs. randomized-controlled trials, etc.). When one party holds an anecdote as more informative than a randomized-controlled trial, it’s very difficult to have a useful discussion.
“Debates” like these are often harmful. They don’t help people discover what’s true; they confuse and divide.
Some debates are worthwhile
How do you tell the difference?
One easy check: are participants willing to change their minds if a valid argument is presented? These folks are definitely worth the time to talk to. But if someone is repeating the same tired rumor, despite it having being studied and addressed over and over and repeatedly found to be without merit, chances are a debate with that person is not going to be particularly helpful.
Also, subject matter is important. Beyond vaccines, it’s important that the science is not politically and/or religiously polarized. One study found debating GMOs (something that hasn’t been linked to politics or religion) can change minds, for example, but a debate on evolution (which has been religiously linked) or climate change (which has been politicized) is much less effective.
Many people are genuinely seeking answers
Hundreds of thousands of people really wanted this vaccine debate. Why?
A combination of things: severe loss of trust, anger against pharma, anger against the pandemic, anger against scientists, tribalism, and some people truly have unanswered questions.
Legitimate concerns exist. In fact, the vast majority of people who have questions or doubts about vaccines don’t outright deny vaccines as beneficial. They are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
The continuum of vaccine hesitancy. Credit: MacDonald and the WHO SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy.
Answering people with valid questions needs to be scientists’ priority. We need to meet them where they are, answer their questions from a place of empathy not condescension, equip trusted messengers, and anticipate concerns so we can prevent information voids that will otherwise be filled with false rumors.
The goal should always be to foster a society that values critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the dissemination of accurate scientific information. In order to do this, scientists need to get our own house in order. We need to make science more accessible, entertaining, and more down to earth while still staying true to the standards of scientific integrity.
Bottom line
Hotez made the right call. “Debate me or you’re a coward” will not help move knowledge forward. And, typically, it will not help those in the middle whose concerns will still not be addressed. Deeply ingrained beliefs, hostile environment, and a lack of expertise makes it counterproductive and dangerous in the worst case scenario. Given our limited time and resources, we need to focus on where we can really makes a difference.
Love, YLE and KP
In case you missed it:
The science (and buisness) behind disinformation. And what to do about it.
COVID-19 vaccines and sudden death: Separating fact from fiction.
Kristen Panthagani, MD PhD, is an emergency medicine physician at Yale. In her free time, she is the creator of the medical blog You Can Know Things. You can subscribe to her newsletter here.
-
Agreed, but good to know what the arguments used are so as to be ready to answer.
Otherwise we wind up looking like Hannity trying to lay a glove on Newsome.
-
Agreed, but good to know what the arguments used are so as to be ready to answer.
Otherwise we wind up looking like Hannity trying to lay a glove on Newsome.
Hannity is a moron. He could just run b-roll of Californian cities.
-
Which still would not answer Newsome's glib citation of GOP states with worse data.
-
Which still would not answer Newsome's glib citation of GOP states with worse data.
Those states former Californians move to ?
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/vax-pushing-debate-dodger-linked-chimeric-cronavirus-creation-wuhan
Bullsh*t excuses. This is sciencism, not science.
This is what the arguments for the other side look like:
============
When (and how) do we debate vaccine science?
KATELYN JETELINA AND KRISTEN PANTHAGANI, MD, PHD
JUN 20
Over the weekend, a vaccine brawl took place. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—presidential candidate and longtime spreader of old, tired vaccine rumors— had a conversation with Joe Rogan on his podcast. The conversation bled onto social media in which Rogan ultimately challenged Dr. Peter Hotez—a Nobel Prize-nominated vaccine scientist—to debate RFK Jr. about vaccine rumors that have already been addressed dozens of times.
Everyone chimed in: from Elon Musk amplifying the conversation to Mark Cuban calling Rogan a bully to stalkers confronting Hotez at his house and pressuring him to debate.
Through the noise, Hotez held his ground; he didn’t go for the bait. He’s not going to debate. But he did propose an alternative: he will go on Rogan’s show to talk about vaccines but without RFK Jr.
Hotez 100% made the right move.
This is why. (Brought to you from our experience in the trenches.)
The dilemma
There is no doubt that rumors and falsehoods on social media impact behavior. As a scientist, it’s really tempting to address them because we are deeply entrenched in the data. We can help, right?
But the toughest part of addressing these rumors is deciding when to actually do it. There are benefits but also great risks:
It can create a false sense of equivalence. When scientific experts debate those promoting fringe, demonstrably false views, it can create a false impression of a genuine scientific controversy where none exists, misleading the public.
Backfire effect. It’s very easy for these discussions to get heated, which can lead to psychological defense mechanisms being triggered, making it even more challenging for people to learn. People don’t think as logically when they’re angry or insulted.
It takes a lot of time. “A lie can go around the world before the truth gets its pants on.” Scientists’ time and energy are finite, and many scientists who address these rumors volunteer their free time to do so. Choosing which debates are worth the time is important.
May be personally dangerous. Presenting yourself to a hostile audience can become physically dangerous. A close scientist friend of YLE pushed against Rogan during the pandemic, and their family had to flee after the FBI picked up death threats.
Live debate rewards charm, not data
We understand why live debates are preferred by many—they are more accessible and more entertaining than the slow work of careful science.
While scientists are great professional arguers (in fact, debate is ingrained into the definition of science), scientific debate is not usually done in the same way as political debate between candidates vying for your vote or high school debate teams.
Instead, scientific debate is typically done in writing and focuses on very specific scientific questions. This allows for careful presentation of data and citation of sources. It can be slow and boring, but it is much more effective.
Live debates can easily be hijacked when arguers use logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks that give the appearance of “winning,” but in reality are a path to nowhere. Both of us have experienced being on the receiving end of these types of dead-end debates:
Moving the goalpost: As soon as one question is adequately answered with data, the goal post is moved and a new excuse is found why the answer is unsatisfactory. This is done ad nauseum so no amount of answers or data are ever deemed “enough.”
“Firehosing”: Throwing so many different rumors at the scientist all at once that it is impossible to address them all.
Unfalsifiable hypotheses: Assertions that are impossible to prove wrong, not because the assertions are correct but because they are untestable. No amount of inquiry will ever lead to an answer.
Rapid topic switching: When one claim is satisfactorily addressed, instead of acknowledging it and learning, a new topic is rapidly introduced.
Ad hominem attacks: Instead of discussing specifics of data and scientific claims, the scientist is attacked. (Calling them a pharma shill is a particularly common one.)
Misunderstanding standards of evidence: For a successful debate on science to occur, both parties must be in agreement about how much weight different types of evidence are given (anecdotes vs. observational trials vs. randomized-controlled trials, etc.). When one party holds an anecdote as more informative than a randomized-controlled trial, it’s very difficult to have a useful discussion.
“Debates” like these are often harmful. They don’t help people discover what’s true; they confuse and divide.
Some debates are worthwhile
How do you tell the difference?
One easy check: are participants willing to change their minds if a valid argument is presented? These folks are definitely worth the time to talk to. But if someone is repeating the same tired rumor, despite it having being studied and addressed over and over and repeatedly found to be without merit, chances are a debate with that person is not going to be particularly helpful.
Also, subject matter is important. Beyond vaccines, it’s important that the science is not politically and/or religiously polarized. One study found debating GMOs (something that hasn’t been linked to politics or religion) can change minds, for example, but a debate on evolution (which has been religiously linked) or climate change (which has been politicized) is much less effective.
Many people are genuinely seeking answers
Hundreds of thousands of people really wanted this vaccine debate. Why?
A combination of things: severe loss of trust, anger against pharma, anger against the pandemic, anger against scientists, tribalism, and some people truly have unanswered questions.
Legitimate concerns exist. In fact, the vast majority of people who have questions or doubts about vaccines don’t outright deny vaccines as beneficial. They are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
The continuum of vaccine hesitancy. Credit: MacDonald and the WHO SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy.
Answering people with valid questions needs to be scientists’ priority. We need to meet them where they are, answer their questions from a place of empathy not condescension, equip trusted messengers, and anticipate concerns so we can prevent information voids that will otherwise be filled with false rumors.
The goal should always be to foster a society that values critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the dissemination of accurate scientific information. In order to do this, scientists need to get our own house in order. We need to make science more accessible, entertaining, and more down to earth while still staying true to the standards of scientific integrity.
Bottom line
Hotez made the right call. “Debate me or you’re a coward” will not help move knowledge forward. And, typically, it will not help those in the middle whose concerns will still not be addressed. Deeply ingrained beliefs, hostile environment, and a lack of expertise makes it counterproductive and dangerous in the worst case scenario. Given our limited time and resources, we need to focus on where we can really makes a difference.
Love, YLE and KP
In case you missed it:
The science (and buisness) behind disinformation. And what to do about it.
COVID-19 vaccines and sudden death: Separating fact from fiction.
Kristen Panthagani, MD PhD, is an emergency medicine physician at Yale. In her free time, she is the creator of the medical blog You Can Know Things. You can subscribe to her newsletter here.
-
"Which still would not answer Newsome's glib citation of GOP states with worse data."
"Those states former Californians move to?"
IIRC he cited Mississippi and other deep south states.
-
"Which still would not answer Newsome's glib citation of GOP states with worse data."
"Those states former Californians move to?"
IIRC he cited Mississippi and other deep south states.
https://www.cato.org/study/overview-poverty-inequality-california#covid-19
-
Not seeing how that is responsive to the question presented in this moment.
-
Not seeing how that is responsive to the question presented in this moment.
In 2019, before the pandemic, almost 7 million Californians lived below the poverty level, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure. That is roughly 17.2 percent of the state’s population. This gave California the highest poverty rate in the nation, considerably higher than states such as Louisiana and Mississippi that are typically associated with high levels of poverty (see Figure 1).
-
https://www.piratewires.com/p/let-them-eat-crack
-
"In 2019, before the pandemic, almost 7 million Californians lived below the poverty level, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure. That is roughly 17.2 percent of the state’s population. This gave California the highest poverty rate in the nation, considerably higher than states such as Louisiana and Mississippi that are typically associated with high levels of poverty (see Figure 1)."
Well, that is certainly a relevant response to Newsome's slippery assertions! Simple, concise, usable by an interviewing reporter or an opponent in debate.
BTW, I am realizing that as interesting as this is, this is not the thread for it. We should be in the Newsome and/or the 2024 threads.
-
"In 2019, before the pandemic, almost 7 million Californians lived below the poverty level, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure. That is roughly 17.2 percent of the state’s population. This gave California the highest poverty rate in the nation, considerably higher than states such as Louisiana and Mississippi that are typically associated with high levels of poverty (see Figure 1)."
Well, that is certainly a relevant response to Newsome's slippery assertions! Simple, concise, usable by an interviewing reporter or an opponent in debate.
BTW, I am realizing that as interesting as this is, this is not the thread for it. We should be in the Newsome and/or the 2024 threads.
https://www.theburningplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FzFJZa5XsBMc5XN.jpg
(https://www.theburningplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FzFJZa5XsBMc5XN.jpg)
-
AGAIN, this is the wrong thread for such a meme, as tasty as it is. Please respect thread coherency!
-
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/404999.php
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/randi-weingarten-appointed-to-dhs-school-safety-advisory-council/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=31869993
-
"Randi Weingarten Appointed to DHS School Safety Advisory Council"
just another shyster -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randi_Weingarten
total insult to Americans
but they don't care :x
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/randi-weingarten-appointed-to-dhs-school-safety-advisory-council/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=31869993
Dybbuk helping another Dybbuk destroy.
As usual.
-
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2023/06/21/cancer-taking-off-like-wildfire-unsettling-insights-from-pathologist-dr-ryan-cole/#more-306248
-
https://www.theflstandard.com/vaccine-pushing-celebrity-doctor-is-a-chinese-agent-says-retired-u-s-army-colonel/
-
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/confidential-eu-documents-deaths-pfizer-biontech-shots/
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/disgusted-new-zealand-surgeons-now-required-consider-ethnicity-patients?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1601
-
https://www.newsmax.com/us/security-police-mark-zuckerberg/2023/07/08/id/1126409/
costs jacked up for
tax write off?
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/11/bodyguard-security-cost-kim-kardashian-brad-pitt#:~:text=Depending%20on%20the%20customer%2C%20those,at%20risk%20of%20being%20stolen.
:-o
+ the cameras the alarms multiple homes family
office private jet
boat
etc
IT team to monitor and maintain the cameras etc ............................
he must have 50 or more security personel
but why,
I thought he is an ass kicking mixed martial arts killer ?
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/cdc-used-journal-to-promote-face-masks-despite-unreliable-and-unsupported-data-new-analysis_5396186.html?utm_source=Health&src_src=Health&utm_campaign=health-2023-07-17&src_cmp=health-2023-07-17&utm_medium=email
-
a professor told us 40 yrs ago
a lot of what we doctors do is not well supported by good evidence
a lot falls into what one would call the category of common sense
it seems like common sense to use.a mask
but maybe they don't work
or only for some things
-
https://twitter.com/vigilantfox/status/1683994523872161792?s=61&fbclid=IwAR3KpqIneujdDT1SrJT2VEKfmMwF8pv9Fk6_RKBlmt_Z5MCQFpIJt4QL6T4
-
It does not sound like Ice Cube is a friend of Jews however:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Cube
scroll down to "anti semitism allegations"
FWIW:
he was good in "Boys N the Hood" movie
as was Cuba Gooding circa '91.
He did ok in anaconda though not a highly rated movie
Not sure what that means that he does interview with Tucker ........
-
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Cube
scroll down to "anti semitism allegations""
This does not surprise.
Nor does it surprise that Tucker would bridge build by making connection where connection can be had.
-
The Covid Lab-Leak Deception
Scientists who signed a paper claiming a natural origin turn out not to have believed it themselves.
By Matt Ridley and Alina Chan
July 26, 2023 2:55 pm ET
The controversy over the origins of Covid-19 refuses to die, despite efforts early in the pandemic to kill it. It was natural to doubt it was a coincidence that an outbreak caused by a SARS-like coronavirus from bats began in Wuhan, China, the only city where risky experiments were being done on diverse and novel SARS-like coronaviruses from bats. The Chinese Communist Party did its utmost to dismiss such suspicions, but so did a group of influential Western scientists.
On March 17, 2020, the journal Nature Medicine published a paper by five scientists, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” that dismissed “any type of laboratory based scenario” for the origin of the pandemic. It was cited by thousands of news outlets to claim that the virus emerged naturally. But Slack messages and emails subpoenaed and released by the House Oversight Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic suggest that some of the authors didn’t believe their own conclusions. Before, during and even after the publication of their paper, they worried privately that Covid-19 was caused by a laboratory escape, perhaps even of a genetically engineered virus.
The lead author, evolutionary biologist Kristian Andersen of the Scripps Institution, told the journal’s chief editor, João Monteiro, that he would edit the paper “to make clearer that this [virus] does have a natural origin” (emphasis in original). The paper stated boldly: “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
Shortly after publication, Francis Collins, then director of the National Institutes of Health, wrote on the NIH website that “this study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19.” Anthony Fauci, then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said from the podium of the White House that the paper showed that the data were “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.” In private, the authors celebrated the traction their paper was gaining despite angry emails from the public. “We RUUUUUUULE. That’s tenure secured, right there,” Mr. Andersen wrote.
The mainstream media frequently cited the paper in ridiculing any discussion of a lab leak as a conspiracy theory favored by racists and right-wing extremists. Facebook censored the topic for a year. Yet now the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Energy Department—the U.S. intelligence agencies with the strongest scientific expertise—have assessed that the pandemic likely had a research-related origin.
Mr. Andersen’s messages confirm that senior scientists who controlled the purse strings of large funding bodies prompted them to draft the paper after a conference call on Feb. 1, 2020. They were Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins and Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust. Shortly before their paper went public, evolutionary biologist and virologist Edward Holmes of Sydney University reported to his fellow authors that “Jeremy Farrar and Francis Collins are very happy” with the final draft. Two of the authors wrote in private messages that they had rushed their paper out under pressure from unidentified “higher-ups.” The role of these senior scientists went unacknowledged in the paper.
When asked at a July 11 subcommittee hearing—before the latest release of messages—about the contrast between their public and private opinions, one of the authors, virologist Robert Garry of Tulane University, replied: “I was doing what scientists often do, and that is take a devil’s advocate position.” Mr. Andersen said that changing your mind in the light of new evidence “is simply the scientific process.”
Yet the newly revealed messages show that the scientists didn’t change their minds. They continued to advocate privately for the devil even after a preliminary version of the paper went online on Feb. 16, 2020. On Feb. 20, Mr. Andersen wrote to an editor at Nature (which was offered the paper first but passed it to Nature Medicine) that new data from pangolins didn’t help refute a lab origin, adding that “we all really, really wish that we could do that (that’s how this got started), but unfortunately it’s just not possible given the data.” Another author, evolutionary biologist Andrew Rambaut of Edinburgh University, wrote: “I literally swivel day by day thinking it is a lab escape or natural.”
On April 16, a month after publication, Mr. Andersen wrote that “I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved” and “we also can’t fully rule out engineering”—i.e., that the virus not only was released from the lab but had been genetically manipulated there. He worried about the Wuhan lab’s research on live SARS-like viruses from bats at low biosafety levels: “it’s definitely concerning work, no question about it.”
So why did they publish a paper denying that laboratory origin was plausible? The answer may lie in their messages. In early February 2020, Mr. Rambaut wrote: “Given the s— show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possibly distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content to ascribing it to natural processes.”
Mr. Andersen replied: “I totally agree that that’s a very reasonable conclusion. Although I hate when politics is injected into science—but it’s impossible not to.” On Feb. 19, the group became aware that Mr. Farrar had signed a public letter in the Lancet “to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”
To adjust the conclusions in a scientific paper for political reasons isn’t part of the scientific process. The world was misled with serious consequences. If experts hadn’t shut down the rational possibility of a laboratory origin of Covid-19, a credible investigation might have taken place (it still has not), the World Health Organization might not have taken Chinese government assurances at face value, and governments might have done more to detect and deter laboratory-based outbreaks in the future.
Mr. Ridley and Ms. Chan are the authors of “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.”
-
agree
all this demonstrated to me and everyone the near limitless power Fauci being the source of vast amount of money for research.
the academics who do the research rely on the grants to make their own careers
so if they don't get grants , they don't do research, and their careers do not advance.
this one tiny little man controlled everything.
-
ccp: "if they don't get grants , they don't do research, and their careers do not advance.
this one tiny little man controlled everything."
- (Doug) All of this and something more, something much deeper is wrong. Like our pathological science thread and all the lying and exaggerating about global warming and climate change, people are afraid to take a dissenting view, and people who do take a dissenting view are crushed, just destroyed. That whole phenomenon is the opposite of science. It isn't that new, Galileo faced it too.
The regime of China was in cover-up mode. Why were we defending them when they were acting nothing but guilty. Fauci was tied up in it having funded that same lab. And then there was the no gain of function testimony. No consequence for lying to Congress, no consequences for 7 million people dead. No consequences for causing a global shutdown
The oddest thing about the fear of taking on the vaccine risks and the overuse of them, was that Trump was at the center of creating them. Wouldn't you think the political sides would be reversed?
Wouldn't you think the New England Journal of Medicine (and the Scientific American) would be non-political? With all these different sources now available, it's harder than ever to know what is true.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/article/biden-admin-admits-no-evidence-behind-6-covid-booster-shots-a-year-recommendation-5449289?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-08-08&src_cmp=mb-2023-08-08&utm_medium=email&est=UNtLHOBB0LkP2Rpm79IgX7mSshpnfrr2GDFkCCWFjlRZFEnZMBTgsnMGczxNbKXLUMmm
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fda-drops-ivermectin-bombshell
-
https://twitchy.com/samj/2023/08/13/unredacted-records-show-the-experts-hellooo-fauci-made-some-serious-bank-n2386254
-
325 million ?
I doubt this ........
-
I'm not seeing that $325M number , , ,
-
"top COVID 'experts' including Dr. Anthony Fauci and former NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins cashed in on $325 million through royalty checks from the COVID-19 pandemic."
-
TY.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/health/secret-letter-to-cdc-top-epidemiologist-suggested-scientific-misrepresentation-used-to-support-mask-narrative-5477015?utm_source=Health&src_src=Health&utm_campaign=health-2023-08-23&src_cmp=health-2023-08-23&utm_medium=email&est=ax9cJOLysBcG%2B8Koif8ZXSZd7YnJFH%2B0n4wWJKYWVIhb30XELeVB36a23pX%2BYMfNw4Vr
-
https://twitter.com/thechiefnerd/status/1694463391958524076?s=46&t=hlhKk_gT679q1x1M_fRvBA&fbclid=IwAR2Gsbcda5IJoeydj3IGAqKnIRMc4s9OOGwNDXntRcGCkx_MJXAQEn-aO9o
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/florida-doctor-reinstated-after-losing-board-certification-for-criticizing-covid-19-vaccines-5480957?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-09-04&src_cmp=mb-2023-09-04&utm_medium=email&est=9PiP%2BzpyI7caqvthYj8o2XjyT%2F9Tjhu0atIOMziQZaFWyJUEAOR6uCXmFPHydtbqDfWw
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/fda-cdc-hid-data-on-spike-in-covid-cases-among-the-vaccinated-documents-5483439?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-09-05&src_cmp=mb-2023-09-05&utm_medium=email&est=5vZ%2Fmaec8GnkFN2zgwAI9Z2ioq07teejZMcX4b3MG8PsXjj4y6A8GjO9bCL8AphRzftO
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/covid-19-mrna-vaccines-reduce-immune-response-to-other-infections-potential-concern-of-immune-deficiency-5486433?utm_source=Health&src_src=Health&utm_campaign=health-2023-09-07&src_cmp=health-2023-09-07&utm_medium=email&est=gUePj7NK1TBcPMbELiNGxaWPnxSjdqfsOiPjUybneQYZgkos9Z%2FcBJsI07n%2FKzVcz07Y
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/government-gave-millions-to-american-college-of-obstetricians-and-gynecologists-to-promote-covid-19-vaccines-to-pregnant-women-5486432?utm_source=Health&src_src=Health&utm_campaign=health-2023-09-08&src_cmp=health-2023-09-08&utm_medium=email&est=pDud4TsnCP0QusHx%2B9PxAU30Hr%2BuJUzd8ky9VYqfeSsyn%2BQPLlawsXZujFPRoKoOwJ9k
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/judge-rules-teachers-can-get-jobs-back-with-back-pay-after-refusing-covid-19-vaccine-5488305?utm_source=Health&src_src=Health&utm_campaign=health-2023-09-12&src_cmp=health-2023-09-12&utm_medium=email&est=KHJ3Vs7TTSQoVofXt3i%2Br5IWvcYs9i74EEVp%2F201BcemVpPyC4%2BfuJSwPLvYH0vP7wuU
-
https://dailycaller.com/2023/09/12/cia-bonus-coronavirus-covid-origin-investigation-cover-up/?pnespid=tOJ8EidWbakcy_WY_zKmE82QtQO0RIJ3Meqm2LM0pBlmeMPx_yt3eQd9aCTzaxkWS6JAQpkH
-
https://twitchy.com/justmindy/2023/09/24/fauci-desantis-inciting-violence-against-him-n2387684
-
https://twitter.com/Resist_05/status/1702323206982602896
-
second
https://frontline.news/post/un-approves-pandemic-declaration-at-general-assembly
-
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/aaron-rodgers-travis-kelce?utm_source=LWCBlasts&utm_medium=email
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/cdc-ends-covid-19-vaccination-cards-5504367?utm_source=Goodevening&src_src=Goodevening&utm_campaign=gv-2023-10-05&src_cmp=gv-2023-10-05&utm_medium=email&est=zYR6UkjOFQsHhpP%2Bh8743q6huJ%2BW1JgyPu%2FVXHvftVxBEPJb8tomgrcL2MrASbOmm9t7
-
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
Memory-Holing the Apocalypse
Some crimes seem to be too big to talk about, let alone punish
N.S. LYONS
OCT 12
Recently we learned thanks to a senior-level whistleblower that not only was disgraced bureaucrat Dr. Anthony Fauci smuggled into CIA headquarters during the pandemic to influence the Agency’s supposedly apolitical analysis on the origins of Covid-19, but that CIA analysts were also bribed with “significant” cash bonuses to alter their conclusions on the matter. According to the whistleblower, six of the seven-member team set up to assess the question had concluded that the coronavirus most likely “originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China," but then changed their position to favor a natural-origin hypothesis after Fauci’s visit and the alleged assurance of “Exceptional Performance Awards,” which they then duly received.
Now, it wouldn’t normally be a matter of surprise or concern for the nation’s premier intelligence agency to consult the opinion of the nation’s then-top public health official on such an issue, though bribery to change analytic conclusions certainly would be (especially after the Agency’s infamous Iraqi weapons of mass destruction perfidy). But in this case we also happen to know that Fauci was at the time engaged in a sweeping behind-the-scenes effort to cover up the rather obvious origin of the virus and his own role in it. This included secretly directing the fabrication by his associates of the influential “Proximal Origins” paper, published in the prestigious journal Nature in March 2020, which deliberately and knowingly lied about the plausibility of a lab-origin scenario. Facui then used the paper as a weapon, falsely citing it as authoritative independent analysis and leveraging it not only to publicly attack dissenters as “conspiracy theorists” but also to pressure technology platforms to engage in mass censorship of any alternative scientific views on the subject.
This was of course only one part of a pattern of similar behavior by the good doctor and his colleagues, such as then-National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins, who coordinated with Fauci a “quick and devastating published takedown” of the expert authors of the “Great Barrington Declaration,” an open letter that disputed the wisdom of using widespread lockdowns to combat the spread of the virus. (The Declaration and its authors were then duly hit-jobbed, hounded, censored, and suppressed.)
At this point it is clear that Fauci and co. by and large succeeded in mobilizing and weaponizing nearly the whole apparatus of the Western scientific establishment and managerial state toward their ends. Though evidence for the lab-leak scenario eventually piled up to such a degree that it became impossible to entirely deny its plausibility any longer, to this day government and mainstream media studiously avoid further discussion of the issue. And, most importantly, no one involved, least of all Fauci, has been or ever will be held accountable for their actions in any way.
But before the whole saga is completely stuffed down the memory-hole, I think it would be worthwhile for us to take a moment to step back and try to really think through the reality of what just occurred, and what it means if true. In my view the sheer scope of it can be hard to wrap one’s head around, raising as it does some pretty fundamental questions about some of the most cherished beliefs and institutions of our world today. This is, I suspect, the real reason why so many people (both elites and commoners alike) would much prefer to just continue to pretend, even to themselves, that none of it ever happened at all...
-
" Recently we learned thanks to a senior-level whistleblower that not only was disgraced bureaucrat Dr. Anthony Fauci smuggled into CIA headquarters during the pandemic to influence the Agency’s supposedly apolitical analysis on the origins of Covid-19, but that CIA analysts were also bribed with “significant” cash bonuses to alter their conclusions on the matter. "
WHAT! :x
is this true for sure?
-
Not the first I've seen of this.
To the best of my knowledge, this is true.
-
Only 7 million Americans have sought jab version eleventeen point oh or whatever we’re up to. Jeepers, I wonder why?
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/10/only-seven-million-americans-have-received-updated-covid-vaccines/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=only-seven-million-americans-have-received-updated-covid-vaccines
-
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/masked-ball-cowardice
-
Doubling BBG's post here as well
Paul the junior has a new book out exposing Fauci & other Covid bad actors:
https://pjmedia.com/columns/john-stossel/2023/10/25/covid-deception-n1737712
-
Reason mag talks w/ Rand Paul re his new book:
https://reason.com/2023/10/25/america-funded-it-rand-paul-blasts-fauci-and-the-media-for-suppressing-the-lab-leak-theory/?fbclid=IwAR3l6Up4qNjzG_nTOWOpgJEjho07txJD8Gvkz783kUtJujLTSZkQl6YLSPY
-
https://wgme.com/news/nation-world/professor-wants-forgiveness-for-people-who-pushed-covid-lockdowns-we-were-doing-our-best-scott-galloway-real-time-with-bill-maher-hbo-covid-coronavirus-mask-mandates-schools-children-remote-learning#
Next up: Cancellations, firings, and censorship.
-
This reads like National Enquirer level stuff, but I did click through to the cited paper and it appears to support this piece. For those that don’t recall, Covid entered the US stage in full hysteria a in early 2020, about a week after I had major surgery and a couple weeks before just about all “elective” surgery was shut down across the nation. With that in mind, why was Fauci playing w/ bats & Covid in 2018?
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/fauci-nih-lab-infected-bats-wuhan-coronavirus-obtained-zoo-near-camp?utm_medium=social_media&utm_source=facebook_social_icon&utm_campaign=social_icons&fbclid=IwAR3jiyOZS-4X0FrWSkVPaoFd5_y1HL7UmmN3tR1rJ-_VWG6kCHc2cYWblqk
-
https://amgreatness.com/2023/10/30/son-of-former-wef-honcho-calls-for-the-arrests-of-bill-gates-klaus-schwab-and-other-globalist-leaders/
-
A thorough exploration of the failure of lockdowns. I do have a bone to pick with this piece, however, as it notes one of the reasons Democrats resisted Trump’s calls for a return to normalcy was because they didn’t believe anything he said by that point in his administration. More like there wasn’t any Trump utterance the left and MSM wouldn’t try to politicize for political ends. Making it about mistrust understates the deliberate nature of the reflexive undermining Trump was contending with:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/covid-lockdowns-big-fail-joe-nocera-bethany-mclean-book-excerpt.html?fbclid=IwAR1kd21v8ypHGrSsMv6dyGnY7vGLFW95NZuEXVrYtvM2PJ4Y3po_61eVzWQ
-
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/un-moves-to-advance-pandemic-treaty-and-regulations-signaling-urgent-need-for-public
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12721561/Senators-probe-Fauci-run-virus-lab-Montana-Lawmakers-demand-answers-Daily-Mail-revealed-scientists-tinkering-Covid-like-viruses-years-pandemic.html
-
Emails Show Surgeon General and Facebook Coordinating Covid Censorship
We received 14 pages of emails between U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and top Facebook executives in 2021 regarding the censorship of user posts about Covid controversies. The emails show Facebook leadership seeking to “better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.”
These emails confirm that Facebook censored Americans at the direction of the Biden White House and Biden’s Surgeon General’s political operation. This is a massive violation of the First Amendment.
We received these emails in response to our January 13, 2023, FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:23-cv-00113)) for:
All records, including, but not limited to, electronic mail, texts, memoranda, and handwritten notes, of, regarding, referring, or relating to any efforts of Vice Admiral Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, U.S. Surgeon General, to contact any employee of Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, YouTube, LinkedIn, Tumblr, and Pinterest concerning COVID-19 or COVID-19 vaccines.
On July 15, 2021, Murthy issued “Confronting Health Misinformation,” a 22-page document addressing his concerns in multiple areas. These included social media, for which it offered a number of suggestions to address misinformation:
[M]ake meaningful long-term investments … including product changes. Redesign recommendation algorithms to avoid amplifying misinformation, build in “frictions”—such as suggestions and warnings—to reduce the sharing of misinformation, and make it easier for users to report misinformation.
***
Platforms should also address misinformation in live streams, which are more difficult to moderate due to their temporary nature and use of audio and video.
***
Prioritize early detection of misinformation “super-spreaders” and repeat offenders. Impose clear consequences for accounts that repeatedly violate platform policies.
***
Amplify communications from trusted messengers and subject matter experts. For example, work with health and medical professionals to reach target audiences. Direct users to a broader range of credible sources, including community organizations.
The newly obtained records show that on July 16, 2021, the next day, Nick Clegg, vice president of Communications and Global Affairs at Facebook, emails Murthy:
Dear Vivek,
Reaching out after what has transpired over the past few days following the publication of the misinformation advisory, and culminating today in the President's remarks about us. I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.
In our previous conversations I've appreciated the way you and your team have approached our engagement, and we have worked hard to meet the moment - we've dedicated enormous time and resources to fighting this pandemic and consider ourselves to be partners in fighting the same battle. Certainly we understand (and have understood for some time) that there is disagreement on some of the policies governing our approach and how they are being enforced - even as your team has acknowledged the unprecedented scale of our efforts to provide authoritative information to millions of Americans and to help them get vaccinated. But I thought the way we were singled out over the past few days has been both surprising and misleading, and I believe unproductive to our joint efforts too.
I would appreciate the opportunity to speak directly to discuss a path forward with you and how we can continue to work toward what I sincerely believe are shared goals.
Murthy responds on July 19:
Thanks for reaching out and for sharing your concerns. I know the last few days have been challenging. I'd be happy to speak directly about how we move forward. Let me know the best way to schedule some time later this week and we'll make it happen.
On July 23, Brian Rice, director of public policy for Facebook, emails Clegg and Murthy:
Including this week's updated report here. Look forward to scheduling our next working session. As always please let us know if you have any questions.
Also on July 23, Clegg writes to Murthy:
Dear Vivek (if I may),
Thanks again for taking the time to meet earlier today. It was very helpful to take stock after the past week and hear directly from you and your team, and to establish our next steps.
We talked about the speed at which we are all having to iterate as the pandemic progresses. I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well as steps taken to further address the “disinfo dozen”: we removed 17 additional Pages, Groups, and Instagram accounts tied to the disinfo dozen (so a total of 39 Profiles, Pages, Groups, and IG accounts deleted thus far, resulting in every member of the disinfo dozen having had at least one such entity removed).
We are also continuing to make 4 other Pages and Profiles, which have not yet met their removal thresholds, more difficult to find on our platform. We also expanded the group of false claims that we remove, to keep up with recent trends of misinformation that we are seeing.
We hear your call for us to do more and, as I said on the call, we're committed to working toward our shared goal of helping America get on top of this pandemic. We will reach out directly to DJ to schedule the deeper dive on how to best measure Covid related content and how to proceed with respect to the question around data. We'd also like to begin a regular cadence of meetings with your team so that we can continue to update you on our progress. You have identified 4 specific recommendations for improvement and we want to make sure to keep you informed of our work on each.
I want to again stress how critical it is that we establish criteria for measuring what's happening on an industry-wide basis, not least to reflect the way platforms are used interchangeably by users themselves. We believe that we have provided more transparency, both through CrowdTangle (the flaws of which we discussed in some detail) and through our Top 100 report, than others and that any further analysis should include a comprehensive look at what's happening across all platforms--ours and others - if we are going to make progress in a consistent and sustained manner.
Finally, we will be sending you the latest version of our Top 100 report later today, per our regular schedule. Brian will do the honors this week as it will likely be completed at our end later today East Coast time. We really do hope that we can discuss our approach to this data set in greater detail during our next session with DJ, as we genuinely believe it is an effective way of understanding what people are actually seeing on the platform.
Once again, I want to thank you for setting such a constructive tone at the beginning of the call. We too believe that we have a strong shared interest to work together, and that we will strive to do all we can to meet our shared goals.
On October 28, 2021, Clegg writes to Murthy with the subject line “Our announcement:”
Dear General Murthy,
I hope you are well. It's been a while since we connected. I know our teams have remained in close contact with respect to our work to provide authoritative information about the vaccine and we are working on how we can partner in this next push to vaccinate children. We appreciate the opportunity to partner with your team.
***
I also recognize the intense debate that's been prompted by the documents that have been disclosed by a former employee. You and I have touched on the subject of wellbeing in our previous conversations and I know it's an area of concern for you and for the White House. I would welcome the opportunity to meet again to hear from you and to address the claims that have been made against the company.
This is an apparent reference to France Haugen, a pro-censorship former Facebook product manager.
On March 3, 2022, Max Lesko, the surgeon general’s chief of staff, emails Clegg and others, “Please see the attached letter from the U.S. Surgeon General for Mark Zuckerberg.” The letter is not included in the documents Judicial Watch received. He continues by asking Clegg and Rice to let him know how he can be helpful with respect to the “Request for Information” which had been sent to the Federal Register.
Some of the subject matter in these documents is discussed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case Missouri v. Biden, Murthy, et al. (No. 23-30445), which the Biden administration lost. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court as Murthy, et al. v. Missouri, et al. (No. 23A243).
In April 2023, we filed two lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal agencies for communications between the agencies and Facebook and Twitter regarding the government’s involvement in content moderation and censorship on the social media platforms.
In June 2023, we sued DHS for all records of communications tied to the Election Integrity Partnership. Based on representations from the EIP (see here and here), the federal government, social media companies, the EIP, the Center for Internet Security (a non-profit organization funded partly by DHS and the Defense Department) and numerous other leftist groups communicated privately via the Jira software platform developed by Atlassian.
In February 2023, we sued the U.S. Department Homeland Security (DHS) for records showing cooperation between the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) and social media platforms to censor and suppress free speech.
In January 2023 we sued the DOJ for records of communications between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and social media sites regarding foreign influence in elections, as well as the Hunter Biden laptop story.
In September 2022, we sued the Secretary of State of the State of California for having YouTube censor a Judicial Watch election integrity video.
In May 2022, YouTube censored a Judicial Watch video about Biden corruption and election integrity issues in the 2020 election. The video, titled “Impeach? Biden Corruption Threatens National Security,” was falsely determined to be “election misinformation” and removed by YouTube, and Judicial Watch’s YouTube account was suspended for a week. Judicial Watch continues to post its video content on its Rumble channel (https://rumble.com/vz7aof-fitton-impeach-biden-corruption-threatens-national-security.html).
In July 2021, we uncovered records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which revealed that Facebook coordinated closely with the CDC to control the Covid narrative and “misinformation” and that over $3.5 million in free advertising given to the CDC by social media companies.
In May 2021, we revealed documents showing that Iowa state officials pressured social media companies Twitter and Facebook to censor posts about the 2020 election.
More documents on this dangerous censorship are being processed now by Judicial Watch so expect more revelations soon!
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8930195/Joe-Biden-coronavirus-adviser-Dr-Zeke-Emanuel-argued-not-worth-living-past-75.html?fbclid=IwAR2VuX4HMVM3gPVq7OG9YegNLkn8xkuXPfhhkJmmVsF-Ezu1FqF7lHSU2W0
-
I forgot Zeke said this.
I admit that would fix Medicare and Social Security. :wink:
That would also be a way to get rid of Trump which knowing his family's politics he would like.
Lets see that article was 3 yrs ago so he is 66.
What is ironic he was a practicing oncologist whose goal is to save and extend life.
-
https://slaynews.com/news/top-cardiologist-testifies-covid-shots-not-safe-human-use/
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/top-fda-officials-accepted-jobs-with-moderna-after-playing-key-roles-in-the-licensure-of-covid-19-vaccines-5526390?utm_source=News&src_src=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2023-11-14-2&src_cmp=breaking-2023-11-14-2&utm_medium=email&est=Lv78BHW%2FTp6%2FxQ2As15t2%2Bn5NFlhq9Mef5VXsMicj1ZWzG0TLQWvph9SzmpjfhzZbgj8
-
Those that have abandoned the tenets of science putatively to address existential issues like AGW have ill prepared us for the day when the tools of science are indeed needed to address a true potential existential threat:
https://www.samizdata.net/2023/11/ten-years-ago-brian-mickelthwait-predicted-the-response-to-covid-19/
-
https://amgreatness.com/2023/11/21/hochul-administration-wins-appeal-in-lawsuit-over-quarantine-camps-in-ny/
-
https://twitter.com/Travis_in_Flint/status/1727173630646198368
-
Movie suggestion:
'Panic in the Streets' with Richard Widmark and Jack Palance - early 50's.
About a plague outbreak and how it was handled.
-
https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/george-m-borrello/statement-congressman-mike-lawler-senator-george
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/new-cdc-director-defends-vaccine-mandates-school-closures-5539170?utm_source=News&src_src=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2023-12-01-1&src_cmp=breaking-2023-12-01-1&utm_medium=email&est=u4DUVaB5n6qASANwKGB8kwUZp4eXpoyS7kmG67AOrh1vukZqdjVnajEGLdAAotQ%2BUgr2
-
https://youtu.be/I73sf1s4-aM?si=52ZbOw0sWonxD03N
-
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/auditor-general-new-brunswick-covid-19-pandemic-response-education-health-justice-1.7058576
-
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1727552610800992584
-
I never saw a dime for recommending any vaccine that I know of though if I gave them in the office I would get a small payment to store the vaccine and administer the shot.
Since doing telemedicine beginning Jan '16 I would recommend vaccines since I did urgent care but never see anything for doing so.
I still recommend flu shots
I let patients themselves decide whether or not to get covid shots and have stopped taking them myself.
RSV vaccine is recommended for those over 60
and shingles shot I recommend for all those who have had chicken pox and are over 50.
If only I got kickbacks for recommending shots - I could probably buy another BTC :))
However, I never knew doctors were being provided bonuses so interesting to see the Anthem data.
I thought patients might get a discount or incentive to get ........ :-o
-
New NYT reporters book on Covid misstates much, ignores the obvious, and blames the rich profiteers:
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-big-fail-failed-a-review/?fbclid=IwAR2wJSvnim9WJX0fu0k-9sNsTreT3escFBdKCaiv3zKzXQMyo9eWkofdoL8
-
Five minutes:
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1745581351498060019?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
-
States he "can't remember" over a hundred times while testifying about sundry Covid era claims:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/01/dr-anthony-cannot-recall-much-about-covid-origins-pandemic-responses/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dr-anthony-cannot-recall-much-about-covid-origins-pandemic-responses
-
DNA Contaminants in COVID Vaccines Are ‘Beyond the Pale’: Florida Surgeon General Explains the Call for Vaccine Halt
Dr. Jospeh Ladapo sat down with EpochTV’s ‘American Thought Leaders’ host Jan Jekielek to explain his reasoning for calling a stop to the use of the vaccines.
DNA Contaminants in COVID Vaccines Are ‘Beyond the Pale’: Florida Surgeon General Explains the Call for Vaccine Halt
Florida Surgeon Gen. Dr. Joseph Ladapo speaks during an event in a file photograph. (Chris O'Meara/AP Photo)
Marina Zhang
Jan Jekielek
By Marina Zhang and Jan Jekielek
1/15/2024
Updated:
1/18/2024
On Jan. 3, the office of Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo issued a statement calling for the halt in the use of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, citing the recent discovery of DNA contaminants in the vaccine vials.
On the Jan. 12 episode of EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders,“ Dr. Ladapo explained why he called for a halt, saying that while there are also safety concerns with the COVID mRNA vaccines linking them to a multitude of adverse events, the recent discovery is ”beyond the pale.”
“DNA is a common contaminant of many biological products,” he told the show’s host, Jan Jekielek. “We can use DNA to produce different drugs like insulin, other biologics—and that’s a wonderful innovation, and normally, that DNA doesn’t pose a problem.”
Human cells are resistant to DNA entry, and this prevents harming the integrity of the cell’s DNA.
However, since the mRNA vaccines use lipid nanoparticles, which deliver mRNA into the cells directly, DNA contaminants could also be able to enter the cells. Some scientists, like Dr. Ladapo, are concerned that the DNA from the vaccine may integrate with the human genome.
Prominent officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) disagree.
In his letter, he asked if there have been risk assessments of the vaccine DNA integrating into human DNA, especially regarding the controversial SV40 promoter/enhancer region found in Pfizer’s vaccine.
Other questions included whether risk assessments have been done on DNA integration in reproductive cells and if the current levels of DNA residuals are acceptable under the FDA’s standards.
Dr. Joseph Ladapo: Why I Issued Guidance to Halt the Vaccines | ATL:NOW
Play Video
Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, replied to Dr. Ladapo on Dec. 14.
“We’ve gotten ... lengthy responses that don’t answer the question,” Dr. Ladapo said.
In his response, Dr. Marks wrote that DNA integration “is quite implausible,” adding that animal studies show “no evidence indicative for genotoxicity.”
No tests were mentioned that would assess if DNA integration is occurring.
Dr. Ladapo believes it would be reckless not to test for DNA integration, a potential risk once DNA enters the cell.
“Their position is, oh, no, it’s fine. Everything’s fine; safe and effective. That’s not only not good enough, but it’s completely unacceptable,” Dr. Ladapo said. “And that’s why I made that determination, and it’s absolutely the correct call.”
DNA Contamination: The SV40 Promoter Controversy
Both Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines contain DNA contaminants, but only the Pfizer vaccines have also been found to contain SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA, which has since become a topic of debate.
SV40, or simian vacuolating virus 40, is a DNA virus that sometimes causes cancer in animals.
However, the SV40 promoter/enhancer found in the vaccines is only a tiny section of the DNA; it is not equivalent to the entire SV40 virus or its protein.
Promoter-enhancers are sections of DNA that can control the activity of other DNA.
“With DNA, there are different regions that tell other parts of DNA whether to be active or not,” Dr. Ladapo said. “This type of control process is very important ... The absence of control can, for example, lead to cancer ... [and] other metabolic abnormalities.”
In his letter to the FDA, Dr. Ladapo asked about the additional risk of the SV40 promoter/enhancer region’s DNA integration.
Dr. Marks answered that there were no genes for SV40 proteins nor SV40 proteins themselves present in the vaccine.
But Dr. Ladapo believes Dr. Marks is intentionally not answering the question.
“No one’s talking about SV40 protein ... we talked about the promoter/enhancer region. They have to be doing it intentionally,” Dr. Ladapo said.
The Risks of DNA Integration
It is currently unknown whether DNA introduced into the body is being integrated into the cell’s human genome; and if it’s integrated, what impact will it have.
Only around 1 percent of the human DNA produces protein; the job of the other 99 percent of DNA is mostly unknown.
“There’s ... a lot of uncertainty about our genome—what it does, how it supports life and creates life, and creates the miracle of each individual human being,” Dr. Ladapo said. “What we do understand is that some of the potential risks of DNA integration include development of cancers, because ... of the regulation of different aspects of DNA and cell growth.
“Other possibilities include the disruption of the normal expression of some proteins, which then subsequently could lead to disruption of normal human function.”
Since biodistribution studies in rats have shown that the mRNA vaccines can accumulate in the reproductive organs, Dr. Ladapo’s letter expressed concern that there may also be DNA integration of reproductive cells.
“We are the most complex beings—the most complex machines, if you will—living machines that exist on this Earth. So I do believe that our genome is part of our connection to God. So that is to say that there’s quite a lot at risk in terms of not taking proper precautions and sensible precautions, with maintaining the integrity to the best that we can—life ain’t perfect, but to the best that we can with our human genome.”
Marina Zhang
Author
Marina Zhang is a health writer for The Epoch Times, based in New York. She mainly covers stories on COVID-19 and the healthcare system and has a bachelors in biomedicine from The University of Melbourne. Contact her at marina.zhang@epochtimes.com
-
Covid vaccine link to heart issues cat out of the bag?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/exclusive-email-reveals-why-cdc-didnt-issue-alert-on-covid-vaccines-and-myocarditis-5571675?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2024-01-26&src_cmp=mb-2024-01-26&utm_medium=email&est=%2BPrVeCY9bAIs5%2Fx1p3pWRZx2EuCgDIWy6SMgg1sUE0roHSFNcQiQd8w62QWgem08%2FH1B
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/disease-itself-wont-be-the-real-weapon-in-next-pandemic-dr-richard-urso-5570015?utm_source=Healthtop5&src_src=Healthtop5&utm_campaign=htop5-2024-01-28&src_cmp=htop5-2024-01-28&utm_medium=email&est=igD91F1jTeU%2BDKvTIyvEe5DIikamCIyvnilxC98mRrr4d%2BiLycJ90J0VCS4ba4qztWUM
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/disease-itself-wont-be-the-real-weapon-in-next-pandemic-dr-richard-urso-5570015?utm_source=Healthtop5&src_src=Healthtop5&utm_campaign=htop5-2024-01-28&src_cmp=htop5-2024-01-28&utm_medium=email&est=igD91F1jTeU%2BDKvTIyvEe5DIikamCIyvnilxC98mRrr4d%2BiLycJ90J0VCS4ba4qztWUM
:x Whoa, scary stuff.
-
His thought crimes? Dissing climate alarmism & transgender issues. Appeal court lets this move forward:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/01/canadian-bureaucrats-forcing-dr-jordan-peterson-to-submit-to-re-education-for-criticizing-gender-ideology-and-climate-change/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=canadian-bureaucrats-forcing-dr-jordan-peterson-to-submit-to-re-education-for-criticizing-gender-ideology-and-climate-change
-
https://notthebee.com/article/in-newly-resurfaced-interview-dr-fauci-claims-when-you-make-it-difficult-for-people-by-making-the-vaccine-a-requirement-they-lose-their-ideological-bull-and-get-vaccinated?utm_source=Not+The+Bee+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=01292024
-
Evil. Coercive paternalism jumped the gate and Big Brother Government went on exponential steroids.
A defining question in personal political philosophy I have asked people, "Do you think Dr. Fauci should be in or out of jail?
What ever happened to that testimony he gave Congress and Rand Paul, no gain of function research? Isn't that exactly what was happening in that lab, with our funding, under his direction and control, without proper precautions and oversight?
Largest genocide and largest economic catastrophe in human history. Hard to exaggerate this.
-
… and blames big pharma and all the pols and regulators in pharma’s pocket. I’ve excerpted the conclusion below.
Conclusions
Careful, objective evaluation of COVID-19 mRNA product safety is crucial for upholding ethical standards and evidence-informed decision-making. Our narrative review concerning the registrational trials and the EUA’s aftermath offers evidence-informed insights into how these genetic vaccines were able to enter the market. In the context of the two pivotal trials, safety was never assessed in a manner commensurate with previously established scientific standards either for vaccines or for GTPs, the more accurate classification of these products. Many key trial findings were either misreported or omitted entirely from published reports. The usual safety testing protocols and toxicology requirements were bypassed by the FDA and vaccine manufacturers, and the premature termination of both trials obviated any unbiased assessment of potential SAEs due to an insufficient timeframe for proper trial evaluation. It was only after the EUA that the serious biological consequences of rushing the trials became evident, with numerous cardiovascular, neurological, reproductive, hematological, malignant, and autoimmune SAEs identified and published in the peer-reviewed medical literature. Moreover, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines produced via Process 1 and evaluated in the trials were not the same products eventually distributed worldwide; all of the COVID-19 mRNA products released to the public were produced via Process 2 and have been shown to have varying degrees of DNA contamination. The failure of regulatory authorities to heretofore disclose process-related impurities (e.g., SV40) has further increased concerns regarding safety and quality control oversight of mRNA vaccine manufacturing processes.
Since early 2021, excess deaths, cardiac events, strokes, and other SAEs have often been wrongly ascribed to COVID-19 rather than to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations. Misattribution of SAEs to COVID-19 often may be due to the amplification of adverse effects when mRNA injections are followed by SARS-CoV-2 subvariant infection. Injuries from the mRNA products overlap with both PACS and severe acute COVID-19 illness, often obscuring the vaccines’ etiologic contributions. Multiple booster injections appear to cause immune dysfunction, thereby paradoxically contributing to heightened susceptibility to COVID-19 infections with successive doses. For the vast majority of adults under the age of 50, the perceived benefits of the mRNA boosters are profoundly outweighed by their potential disabling and life-threatening harms. Potential harms to older adults appear to be excessive as well. Given the well-documented SAEs and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.
https://www.cureus.com/articles/203052-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-lessons-learned-from-the-registrational-trials-and-global-vaccination-campaign#!/
-
https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2024/02/03/dad-loses-custody-for-refusing-to-trans-son-n4926091
:x :x :x
I suppose the crazy mother has the custody.....
-
I've seen various “mega-vitamin” fads over the years and so always look at similar claims askance, but this piece notes various studies that appear to support his testimony. With this said, the conclusion in particular is a damning indictment of the West’s Covid response, particularly the end of the piece.
Subscribe
PROFESSOR IAN BRIGHTHOPE
MB. BS., Dip.Ag.Sci., FACNEM.
Fellow Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine
Opening Statement: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Reference Committee.
Covid Royal Commission
Background
My name is Ian Ernest Brighthope. I graduated in medicine and surgery from Monash University in 1974. In 1978 I established a medical practice in Hampton, Victoria and subsequently 3 other treatment centres. In 1982 I became a co-founder and the founding president of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (ACNEM). I remained as president for the next 26 years.The College has continued to train medical practitioners in Nutritional and Environmental Medicine to Fellowship standard for the past 39 years. The training involves the scientifically based use of diet, nutrition and complementary medicines (vitamins, minerals and herbal medicines etc) for the prevention and treatment of all human conditions and diseases, including degenerative diseases, infectious diseases and mental illness. Intravenous therapies are an integral part of the training.
Pandemic Management
The lockdowns, masking, social distancing, hygiene, testing, tracking and tracing were introduced based on flawed science. This approach is essentially ineffective, dangerous to the health of the population, extremely costly and is a reflection of the failure to fully research, train in, understand, plan and manage infectious diseases. Waiting and hoping for effective, safe vaccines and antiviral drugs has proven to be farcical. The question must be asked ‘are we going to continue to wait for vaccines and drugs when the next, and possibly highly lethal virus strikes? Are they going to be ineffective and unsafe. Already a new and very dangerous virus has been created in a lab and directed at the human ACE receptor, killing 100% of the experimental animals. The best way to manage a pandemic is to ensure everyone has the best defences and a strong immune system as described below. Here, individuality is crucial because a one size fits all approach is doomed to failure.
The Human Immune System
Currently, the innate strength of the human immune system is completely ignored by the medical profession. It is the most powerful defence we have against coronaviruses, influenza and virtually every other pathogenic microbe.The function of the immune system depends mostly on the individual’s genetic make-up, co-morbidities and nutritional status. It’s the basic building blocks of amino acids, fatty acids, fat and water soluble vitamins, minerals and trace elements such as zinc and selenium that determine how powerful the immune system will respond to an infectious agent such, as a virus, bacteria or fungus. Any deficiency or imbalance of a single critical nutrient will weaken the response and permit invasion, infection, multiple organ damage, severe disease and death. All of this has been completely ignored by the authorities, despite many attempts to speak with them at the highest levels of government.
The Practice of Nutritional Medicine
Doctors practicing nutritional medicine understand how important the diet, nutritional supplementation and the elimination of excesses such as sugar, alcohol and saturated fats are at preventing most diseases. For decades now, nutritional medicine (NM) experts have been quietly defeating infectious diseases especially when orthodox medicine has failed. They have been successfully preventing and treating influenza, severe herpes simplex, coronavirus infections, intractable bacterial infections and pneumonia for over 5 decades using nutrients that are essential for improving the immune response and suppressing the viral load, including killing the viruses responsible.
Nutritional Immunology
The experience gained from the use of High Dose Intravenous Vitamin C (HDIVC) and many other nutrients in the prevention of infectious diseases became practical testimony to the scientific literature supporting the clinical use of nutritional immunology. This despite the fact that the general medical profession preferred to ignore the science and insist only on the evidence of randomised studies limited to the use of pharmaceuticals. From the early 1980’s, over 200,000 HDIVC infusions were given to patients during numerous influenza outbreaks and other serious conditions. Severely Ill patients suffering from Swine Flu and placed on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO- extracorporeal Life Support) and who were destined to pass away, have been saved using HDIVC.
Management
The principles for the management of Covid-19 patients are the same as for any acute severe viral respiratory infection as the treatment is non-specific and immuno-supportive. The successful management of Covid in many centres around the world since the outbreak of the pandemic has been achieved using nutraceuticals such as vitamins C, D and Zinc and including the repurposed medications Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin.
The CD-ZINC Campaign
January 2020 saw the commencement of the ‘CD-Zinc Campaign’. It consisted of public health recommendations for the entire population to take Vitamins C and D and the trace element Zinc, the most critical, effective, safe and readily available nutrients for optimal immunity and personal virus control. The government could have subsidised them at a fraction the cost of the pandemic lock-downs and vaccines. The entire population could have continued living as normal following a short sharp lockdown if necessary.
All infections significantly impact on vitamin C levels due to enhanced inflammation and metabolic requirements. Supplementation with vitamin C both prevents and treats respiratory and systemic infections. The most important supplements are oral vitamin D, oral and injectable vitamin C and zinc. The proper use of vitamin D by taking the blood levels of the entire population to 120 and preferably 150 nmol/L will remediate deficiency and protect everyone against severe illness and death.
Vitamin C has many functions for COVID-19 prevention and treatment, including the above mentioned complications. Vitamin C can reduce the incidence and severity of all viral infections. Vitamin C increases white blood cell activity, reduces the replication of viruses, increases the production of interferons, enhances killer and helper cell proliferation and increases antibody formation. It is a very powerful antioxidant that protects cells and tissues. Its anti-viral effects have been demonstrated in influenza, herpes viruses, pox viruses and coronaviruses. Vitamin C can ameliorate the hyperoxia-induced Acute Lung Injury and attenuate hyperoxia-induced white blood cell dysfunction. Vitamin C prevents the cytokine surge damaging the lungs. Vitamin C eliminates alveolar fluid by preventing the activation and accumulation of neutrophils, which are specialised white blood cells. It is thus close to being the ideal agent for prevention and treatment of Covid.
High dose intravenous Vitamin C (HDIVC) is instrumental in recovery from influenza and ARDS and other serious complications of serious viral infections. Patients on life support (ECMO) with a poor prognosis have been rapidly and successfully recovered using HDIVC, with no evidence of lung fibrosis . IV Vitamin C use in septic shock reduces mortality. Septic shock occurs in very sick Covid patients. It also reduces the length of stay in ICU and significantly shortens the duration of mechanical ventilation. It probably also helps to reduce the damage caused by intubation. HDIVC does not cause kidney stones or kidney damage, a pathetic excuse used by opponents to justify refusal to use the treatment. A rare side effect is preventable break down of some red blood cells.
Vitamin D is the sunlight vitamin. When ultraviolet light falls on the skin, it manufactures a precursor of vitamin D that passes to the liver then kidneys that then make active vitamin D; more accurately a hormone called calcitriol. Deficiency of vitamin D results in rickets in children, bone disease in adults such as osteomalacia and a greatly weakened immune system. Deficiencies are associated with increased cancers and neurological disorders. Incidentally, cod liver oil is a rich source of vitamin D. It was used extensively for children in the past during winters to protect against colds and flus. This ‘sunlight’ Vitamin is essential for strong anti-infective immunity. Lack of exposure to sunlight in winter increases the prevalence of Vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency as does living further away from the equator, indoor existence and the minimisation of skin exposure to the sun with clothing. The seasonal increase in Vitamin D deficiency amplifies the risk from respiratory viruses, including the Covid-19 coronavirus. This is one of the main reasons we see these infections in winter and early spring. Lockdowns reduce the population exposure to sunlight thus increasing susceptibility.
Clinical Trials on Vitamin D A large number of clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory tract infections have been conducted over the last 2 decades. Many randomised controlled trials have showed an overall protective effect of vitamin D supplementation against acute respiratory tract infections including influenza and coronaviruses. In fact, the benefit from supplemental vitamin D is greater in those receiving daily vitamin D than the benefits from influenza vaccinations. The protective effects against acute respiratory tract infections are strongest in those with profound vitamin D deficiency. Those with low levels of vitamin D have greater protection from infections with supplementation. People with vitamin D deficiency are much more likely to suffer serious outcomes and death from exposure to respiratory viruses than people with optimal Vitamin D levels. Those with insufficient levels are very susceptible to serious illness and hospitalisation but at less risk of having to go into ICU and death. Elderly people, especially those in aged-care, are at very high risk from the consequences of Vitamin D deficiency, unless given adequate Vitamin D supplementation to maintain optimal levels. Others who cannot manufacture enough include people of colour, people restricted to indoors, the obese, diabetics and others with one or more chronic diseases.
Vitamin D Supplementation and Public Health Policies. The Nordic countries have public health policies of Vitamin D supplementation and food fortification. They also have among the lowest mortality rates attributed to Covid. Thus, Vitamin D adequacy in the general population allows for a much lower mortality. Countries that do not have any public health policy of Vitamin D supplementation in winter and spring create at risk groups to viral respiratory infections. Accordingly, surges in cases and deaths from influenza-like viruses including Covid-19 occur. Public health programmes of vitamin D supplementation protect elderly people and healthcare workers from serious illness and death and allow for lock-down free situations, effective minimal quarantine and much less economic destruction. In fact overall, it leads to greater productivity and economic gains. Vitamin D supplementation is extremely safe, effective, cheap and readily available. No toxicity has been reported with doses of 10,000 iu per day or less. In some individuals the dose required to meet protective levels is higher. Blood tests must be performed to measure the levels of vitamin D and to achieve the optimal dose/levels. The myriad of mechanisms of action of Vitamin D are well understood. In fact, it has now been reclassified as a hormone. Its proper name is calcitriol. Logically, if it is to be regarded as a hormone, then routine testing of people at risk of insufficiency or deficiency should be conducted. If the level of calcitriol is low, it should be medically corrected with supplementation, just as is done with insulin in diabetes and thyroid hormone in hypothyroidism. If vitamin D was a drug and knowing all of it’s mechanisms of action, it would be readily and extensively prescribed by a better informed medical profession. (Change the name of vitamin D to calcitriol and let’s see what happens). The immediate introduction of public health measures to improve vitamin D status in individuals globally is paramount. The priority should be in settings where insufficient levels and profound vitamin D deficiency is common.
Zinc Finally, to zinc, a critical trace element in the fight against Covid-19 and future pandemics. It plays a fundamental role in protecting us against invaders. It is like the moat, turrets, gates and locks to a fort. Without it we are unprotected.
Zinc significantly influences immune function. The following explains the the biological basis of altered resistance to infections when zinc is deficient. Approximately 30 percent of the community have insufficient or deficient levels of zinc, leaving them susceptible to infection.
Zinc is known to play a central role in the immune system and zinc-deficient persons experience increased susceptibility to a variety of pathogens. Zinc affects multiple aspects of the immune system and is crucial for the normal development and function of cells mediating nonspecific immunity such as the white blood cells and natural killer cells.
Zinc deficiency also affects the development of acquired immunity, the activation of T lymphocytes and B lymphocytes. It helps B lymphocyte development and antibody production, particularly immunoglobulin G. Zinc deficiency adversely affects the function of macrophages.
The impact of zinc supplementation on COVID-19 is very well known and the experience of its use by thousands of physicians world wide supports its routine use in Covid prevention and treatment. Zinc deficiency results in altered numbers and the dysfunction of all the immune cells. Suboptimal zinc increases risk for infectious diseases, autoimmune disorders, and some cancers.
The WHO assumes at least one third of the world’s population is affected by zinc deficiency and in Europe, 10 to 20% of the population are zinc deficient.
It is responsible for approximately 16% of all deep respiratory infections world-wide.
Supplementation is safe, effective, cheap and readily available with minimal to no side effects.
Supplementation with zinc could reduce mortality in the Covid-19 patient. Successful supplementation studies focusing on respiratory tract infections in most cases showed prophylactic zinc supplementation was more effective than other therapeutic proceedings. Low serum zinc levels are regularly observed in COPD, bronchial asthma, cardiovascular diseases, autoimmune diseases, kidney diseases, dialysis, obesity, diabetes, cancer, atherosclerosis, liver cirrhosis, immunosuppression, and known liver damage.
57.5% of the elderly and nursing home residents in the U.S. have a significantly decreased zinc intake. Zinc supplementation is able to reconstitute immune function in the elderly and zinc deficient individuals. The Journal of Infectious Diseases has documented poor outcomes in Covid patients with zinc deficiency. These zinc deficient patients develop more complications, and the deficiency is associated with a prolonged hospital stay and increased mortality.
Zinc creates a virus killing mucous mask lining our airways from the nose to the airway’s final passages. It holds our lining cells together. Without zinc, our white cells cannot produce antibodies and our genes cannot express and repair themselves for any viral onslaught. It has been shown to be effective in Covid-19, as has vitamin s C and D and these 3 nutrients are extremely synergistic.
Ivermectin There was overwhelming evidence of its effectiveness in preventing and treating covid. It has been shown to be effective in treating long covid. The successful use of ivermectin in the prevention and early treatment of Covid-19 by my colleagues overseas, is indisputable. The home management using ivermectin of patients who would have been admitted to hospital and ICU is clearly evident. I have witnessed this in various zoom conferences with my colleagues in, for example, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Ivermectin at higher doses is also used in hospitalised patients and patients in ICU.
Moderate to severe covid infections Should there be individuals who do develop a breakthrough and moderate to severe infection, on admission to hospital they should be administered High Dose Intravenous Vitamin C immediately and if their vitamin D is insufficient or deficient, an injection of calcifediol should be administered to achieve optimal vitamin D status. These procedures will effectively prevent deterioration and complications including inflammation, thrombosis, ARDS, ALI and opportunistic bacterial and viral infections. This also applies to other acute, severe, viral respiratory infections including coryza, influenza and coronaviruses. It is the best non-specific defensive management of the patient.
Global Health It is imperative for the global health authorities to execute CD-Zinc supplementation and repurposed medicine programs world-wide. There is no excuse to deny the people of the world proven effective, extremely safe, cheap, readily available scientifically-based approaches to be pandemic and pandemonium free. We cannot wait for all the clinical studies to emerge about a specific strain of virus and it’s attendant vaccine when the experience based on the best of the current science of nutritional medicine is proof.
CONCLUSION In summary, Covid-19 posed very little risk to people of good health. The use of the tri-nutrient repurposed medicines approach can significantly reduce the incidence and severity of infections, the requirement for hospitalisation and, if commenced early, will prevent admission to ICU in severely ill patients. Covid patients should be managed initially by trained, qualified and experienced medical practitioners, nurse practitioners and scientists utilising nutritional immunology. The entire population should be educated as to the value of these nutrients and it should not be a difficult task. We could be pandemic free in six to to eight weeks if these approaches were adopted. Furthermore, other serious issues that have arisen from the poor management of the pandemic are the coercion to force vaccinate, the lack of informed consent provided to patients, the attacks on doctors and healthcare workers who spoke out about their concerns regarding the toxicity of the vaccines and lost their jobs, the very high levels of vaccination injuries and deaths and in particular the vaccine-induced deaths of Australian children, and the government’s refusal to withdraw the vaccines. All powerful reasons for a broad-based Royal Commission.
I speak on behalf of all the medical practitioners and health care workers who are trained in nutritional therapeutics, who understand the power of the above mentioned approaches and who know they work from the available science and experience, but, are too afraid of speaking out.
Professor Ian Brighthope
1st. February, 2024
Subscribe
PROFESSOR IAN BRIGHTHOPE
MB. BS., Dip.Ag.Sci., FACNEM.
Fellow Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine
https://ianbrighthope.substack.com/p/covid-all-australian-governments
-
Now with ignored subpoenas! Imagine if a Republican staffer had done the same, or if a Republican administration had advised a staffer to ignore a subpoena. The squeals of indignation would leave our ears bleeding:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/02/05/exclusive-amazon-bowed-white-house-pressure-suppress-books-skeptical-covid-19-vaccine/
-
https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/04/mary-rooke-covid-vaccine-mandate-texas-republican-primary-dade-phelan-house-of-representatives/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29912&pnespid=r_RpBHpeM74R36XCvDfqDJCTp0yyT5Esdbbhw_pvtwZm3zEFBV7gaDQbwpp1yurnzV3kU_HL
-
Damage award to Australian civil servant mandated by his job to receive the Covid jab that was subsequently injured by it:
The writer is in Australia.
LAWFARE isn’t just the preserve of the elites and the insider class. The broad progressive movement and all its operating divisions – whether it is the woke, the climateers (just ask Mark Steyn), the me-too sexual assault accuser class, the anti-Trumpers – have mastered the art of silencing and punishing opponents by deft use of the law. But sometimes the good guys can use the law to achieve justice and policy goals, too.
One headline this week caught the attention of Australia’s covid dissidents. The Epoch Times reported: ‘Australian Employer Ordered to Pay Compensation for Vaccine Injured in ‘Significant Precedent’.’
It is difficult to recall more than one or two isolated cases of the law standing up for Australian citizens’ rights during the lockdowns, the vicious thuggery of our police forces, the abandonment of parliamentary democracy, the illegal border closures, the curtailment of overseas travel rights, the army helicopter-enforced curfews, the vaccine mandates, and the Government-led prohibition of safe and effective drugs to treat Covid.
A travesty. The system failed us. The rule of law proved chimeric. Human Rights Commissions? They were MIA during Covid, when massive and obvious human rights infractions were occurring all over the place, on an hourly basis.
Yet there is new hope for revenge, I mean justice. Senator Gerard Rennick, one of Australia’s ‘Covid Five’ in the Commonwealth Parliament (with Alex Antic, Matt Canavan, Malcom Roberts and Ralph Babet) has noted: ‘Employers are now going to think twice about forcing people to get a vaccine.’
The case concerns a South Australian public servant, Daniel Shepherd, a child and youth support worker with South Australia’s Department of Child Protection.
Mr Shepherd, now 44, received two covid vaccinations on August 19, 2021, and September 9, 2021, according to documents submitted to the South Australian Employment Tribunal.
After both jabs he experienced aching joints, cold, and flu symptoms, and minor chest pain for one to two weeks.
Section 25 of South Australia’s Emergency Management Act in January 2022 which required support and healthcare workers to receive a third dose of the vaccine to continue working and Mr Shepherd was told by his employer that he would lose his job if he did not comply.
He received his third booster dose on February 24, 2022, and subsequently developed pericarditis.
He filed a claim for compensation against his employer, the State of South Australia. The state acknowledged that the third dose caused Mr Shepherd’s pericarditis and incapacity to work, but denied responsibility for the injury, arguing that it did not arise from Shepherd’s employment, but from a lawful State Government Public Health Order (PHO), issued under the Emergency Management Act 2004 (EMA).
Tribunal judge Mark Calligeros rejected those arguments and ruled that because the injury arose as a result of both the state-directed vaccination mandate and his employment, Mr Shepherd was entitled to workers compensation. The judge saw through the slipperiness and chicanery of the State. This is significant.
The redoubtable Rebekah Barnett of Dystopian Down Under has been on the case. She explains that many Australian employers have sought to deflect responsibility for injuries incurred under workplace covid vaccine directives on the basis that they were simply following state government orders.
This case means that the workplace is liable if employment is ‘a significant contributing cause of the injury’, regardless of whether other factors contributed.
The future trajectory of the Shepherd case is uncertain: the Covid State will certainly fight back to hold the terrain it has won. But the mighty Rennick is right – tens of thousands of vaccine-forced and vaccine-injured will be pondering the possibilities.
The inadequacy of compensation options available to Australians injured by the covid vaccines prompted a Whitsundays GP, Dr Melissa McCann, to initiate a covid vaccine injury class action, which filed in the Federal Court in April 2023, and is still taking on members.
The action seeks to hold the regulatory Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to account for alleged ‘negligence, breach of statutory duty and misfeasance in public office’ in its failure to properly approve and monitor the covid vaccines, resulting in harms to Australians.
Anyone paying attention to the activities and strategies of the massed forces of the global ruling elite, as is the journalist Seamus Bruner, author of the recently released book, Controligarchs, will know that these people play for keeps. Theirs is a long game. And they do not like pushback.
The counter-revolution will need to deploy many weapons. The law, might, just might, be one of these weapons. There must be a few judges out there who can see what has been going on these past years. Watch this space.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/one-victory-for-the-covid-resistance-in-australia-could-lead-to-a-lot-more/
-
Where Did Covid Come From?
New documents bolster the theory that it not only escaped from a laboratory but was developed in one.
By Nicholas Wade
Feb. 28, 2024 12:47 pm ET
In the four years since the SARS-CoV-2 virus was unleashed on the world, data have steadily accumulated supporting the hypothesis that it emerged from a laboratory. The latest information, released last month, makes a formidable case that the virus is the product of laboratory synthesis, not of nature.
This startling fact will probably take some time to sink into the national consciousness, given the mainstream media’s sustained inability to report the issue objectively. Editors have failed to think beyond the extreme politicization that requires liberals to oppose the lab-leak hypothesis. Science journalists are too beholden to their sources to suspect that virologists would lie to them about the extent of their profession’s responsibility for a catastrophic pandemic.
Here are some salient facts that haven’t been clearly reported to readers of the mainstream press:
In March 2018 a team of American and Chinese virologists applied to the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as Darpa, seeking a $14 million grant to manipulate viruses related to SARS-CoV-1, the bat virus that caused a minor epidemic in 2002. Their goal was to identify bat viruses in Asia with the highest potential for jumping to people and to immunize bats so they wouldn’t infect soldiers in the region.
The proposal for Project DEFUSE specified that the viruses’ infectivity would be enhanced by inserting into them a genetic element known as a furin cleavage site. Depending on the starting viruses, this protocol could have produced SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, which has a distinctive furin cleavage site.
In 2022 three biologists, Valentin Bruttel, Alex Washburne and Antonius VanDongen, guessed that if SARS-CoV-2 had been generated in a lab by a standard method, it would have been assembled from six sections of lab-synthesized DNA with the help of a biological agent called BsmBI. On analyzing the virus’s structure, they found evidence for the seams between sections and other distinctive marks of the assembly process.
Their paper was derided as “kindergarten molecular biology” by the virologists who are favorites of the mainstream press for their opposition to the lab-leak hypothesis. But a batch of documents reveal new details about the DEFUSE proposal and confirm that the three authors were on target. Emily Kopp of U.S. Right to Know obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request from the Interior Department, having noticed that a researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey was a member of the DEFUSE team.
The new documents, which are background planning papers and drafts for the DEFUSE proposal, call for assembling SARS-like viruses from six sections of DNA, and include a cost estimate for purchase of the BsmBI restriction enzyme—exactly as the three authors had inferred. This clearly strengthens, perhaps conclusively, their contention that the virus is synthetic. Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, says it raises “to the level of a smoking gun” the genetic evidence that the virus was manufactured.
Other strong indicators of the virus’s laboratory birth include the furin cleavage site, possessed by none of the other more than 1,500 members of its viral family with which in nature it might swap genetic material. The codons—“words” used by the genetic code to specify the units of proteins—that define the cleavage site are those preferred by humans, not coronaviruses, pointing to their likely origin in a lab kit. And whereas most viruses require repeated tries to switch from an animal host to people, SARS-CoV-2 infected humans out of the box, as if it had been preadapted while growing in the humanized mice called for in the DEFUSE protocol.
The authors of the proposal were a team led by Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York, Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina. Although Mr. Baric is the leading expert on the technology, Mr. Daszak intended for much or most of the work to be done in Ms. Shi’s laboratory, despite giving a different impression to Darpa. He writes in the recently discovered documents that “I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team. Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan.”
Ms. Shi did most of her work with SARS-type viruses in the minimal-containment condition known as BSL2, whereas Mr. Baric, who regarded the viruses as seriously dangerous, worked in a more secure lab known as BSL3. Mr. Daszak noted that the lower-security labs would save money: “The BSL-2 nature of work on SARSr-CoVs makes our system highly cost-effective relative to other bat-virus systems.” Mr. Baric replied to this comment that the viruses might be grown under BSL2 safety conditions in China, but “US researchers will likely freak out.”
Mr. Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance last year asserted that the DEFUSE project was never implemented: “The proposal was not funded and the work was never done, therefore it cannot have played a role in the origin of COVID-19.” But science is a competitive business. After Darpa turned down the DEFUSE proposal in February 2019, the researchers in Wuhan might have secured Chinese government funding and gone ahead by themselves. Viruses made according to the DEFUSE protocol could have been available by the time Covid-19 broke out, sometime between August and November 2019. This would account for the otherwise unexplained timing of the pandemic along with its place of origin. (Mr. Daszak, Mr. Baric and Ms. Shi didn’t respond to emails seeking comment. Chinese officials have demanded that the U.S. “stop defaming China” by raising the possibility of a lab leak.)
One piece is missing from the puzzle—the identity of the parent viruses from which SARS-CoV-2 was derived. The Chinese authorities have rigorously suppressed all information about the viruses being kept in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But the documentary and scientific evidence already assembled seems sufficient to understand the genesis of the pandemic that killed millions.
Mr. Wade is a former science editor of the New York Times.
-
Particularly among young females:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-03-antidepressant-young-people-rose-faster.html
ETA, in likely related news, alcohol related deaths among women also rising:
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2024/02/29/alcohol-related-deaths-rise/3571709231062/
-
Who says Covid didn’t cause a spike in needless deaths?
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/03/cdc-almost-500-deaths-a-day-occurred-from-excessive-drinking-during-covid-pandemic/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=cdc-almost-500-deaths-a-day-occurred-from-excessive-drinking-during-covid-pandemic
-
I like Cong. Chip Roy but is it C'l to do this retroactively?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/new-bill-would-strip-covid-19-vaccine-manufacturers-of-liability-protection-5601711?utm_source=Health&src_src=Health&utm_campaign=health-2024-03-07&src_cmp=health-2024-03-07&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYvAqcwcVzc7PzLYPrHFRB710wA0AIj31kx5JTWZu9FddhEg4S8RP
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/harvard-ends-covid-19-shot-mandate-5602038?utm_source=News&src_src=News&utm_campaign=breaking-03-07-2024-1&src_cmp=breaking-03-07-2024-1&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYvAqcwcVzc7PzLYPrHFRB710wA0AIj31kx5JTWZu9FddhEg4S8RP
-
Tales like this illustrate just how far into fascist territory Harvard, the US government, and all the various sycophants that blindly parroted the party line. They should be lining up to apologize to this author. The fact they are not suggests they will instead seek to better control the narrative the next time around, an eventuality that should scare us all:
Harvard Tramples the Truth
When it came to debating Covid lockdowns, Veritas wasn’t the university’s guiding principle.
Mar 11 2024
I am no longer a professor of medicine at Harvard. The Harvard motto is Veritas, Latin for truth. But, as I discovered, truth can get you fired. This is my story—a story of a Harvard biostatistician and infectious-disease epidemiologist, clinging to the truth as the world lost its way during the Covid pandemic.
On March 10, 2020, before any government prompting, Harvard declared that it would “suspend in-person classes and shift to online learning.” Across the country, universities, schools, and state governments followed Harvard’s lead.
Yet it was clear, from early 2020, that the virus would eventually spread across the globe, and that it would be futile to try to suppress it with lockdowns. It was also clear that lockdowns would inflict enormous collateral damage, not only on education but also on public health, including treatment for cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health. We will be dealing with the harm done for decades. Our children, the elderly, the middle class, the working class, and the poor around the world—all will suffer.
Schools closed in many other countries, too, but under heavy international criticism, Sweden kept its schools and daycares open for its 1.8 million children, ages one to 15. Why? While anyone can get infected, we have known since early 2020 that more than a thousandfold difference in Covid mortality risk holds between the young and the old. Children faced minuscule risk from Covid, and interrupting their education would disadvantage them for life, especially those whose families could not afford private schools, pod schools, or tutors, or to homeschool.
What were the results during the spring of 2020? With schools open, Sweden had zero Covid deaths in the one-to-15 age group, while teachers had the same mortality as the average of other professions. Based on those facts, summarized in a July 7, 2020, report by the Swedish Public Health Agency, all U.S. schools should have quickly reopened. Not doing so led to “startling evidence on learning loss” in the United States, especially among lower- and middle-class children, an effect not seen in Sweden.
Sweden was the only major Western country that rejected school closures and other lockdowns in favor of concentrating on the elderly, and the final verdict is now in. Led by an intelligent social democrat prime minister (a welder), Sweden had the lowest excess mortality among major European countries during the pandemic, and less than half that of the United States. Sweden’s Covid deaths were below average, and it avoided collateral mortality caused by lockdowns.
Yet on July 29, 2020, the Harvard-edited New England Journal of Medicine published an article by two Harvard professors on whether primary schools should reopen, without even mentioning Sweden. It was like ignoring the placebo control group when evaluating a new pharmaceutical drug. That’s not the path to truth.
That spring, I supported the Swedish approach in op-eds published in my native Sweden, but despite being a Harvard professor, I was unable to publish my thoughts in American media. My attempts to disseminate the Swedish school report on Twitter (now X) put me on the platform’s Trends Blacklist. In August 2020, my op-ed on school closures and Sweden was finally published by CNN—but not the one you’re thinking of. I wrote it in Spanish, and CNN–Español ran it. CNN–English was not interested.
I was not the only public health scientist speaking out against school closures and other unscientific countermeasures. Scott Atlas, an especially brave voice, used scientific articles and facts to challenge the public health advisors in the Trump White House, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci, National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins, and Covid coordinator Deborah Birx, but to little avail. When 98 of his Stanford faculty colleagues unjustly attacked Atlas in an open letter that did not provide a single example of where he was wrong, I wrote a response in the student-run Stanford Daily to defend him. I ended the letter by pointing out that:
Among experts on infectious disease outbreaks, many of us have long advocated for an age-targeted strategy, and I would be delighted to debate this with any of the 98 signatories. Supporters include Professor Sunetra Gupta at Oxford University, the world’s preeminent infectious disease epidemiologist. Assuming no bias against women scientists of color, I urge Stanford faculty and students to read her thoughts.
None of the 98 signatories accepted my offer to debate. Instead, someone at Stanford sent complaints to my superiors at Harvard, who were not thrilled with me.
I had no inclination to back down. Together with Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, I wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, arguing for age-based focused protection instead of universal lockdowns, with specific suggestions for how better to protect the elderly, while letting children and young adults live close to normal lives.
With the Great Barrington Declaration, the silencing was broken. While it is easy to dismiss individual scientists, it was impossible to ignore three senior infectious-disease epidemiologists from three leading universities. The declaration made clear that no scientific consensus existed for school closures and many other lockdown measures. In response, though, the attacks intensified—and even grew slanderous. Collins, a lab scientist with limited public-health experience who controls most of the nation’s medical research budget, called us “fringe epidemiologists” and asked his colleagues to orchestrate a “devastating published takedown.” Some at Harvard obliged.
A prominent Harvard epidemiologist publicly called the declaration “an extreme fringe view,” equating it with exorcism to expel demons. A member of Harvard’s Center for Health and Human Rights, who had argued for school closures, accused me of “trolling” and having “idiosyncratic politics,” falsely alleging that I was “enticed . . . with Koch money,” “cultivated by right-wing think tanks,” and “won’t debate anyone.” (A concern for those less privileged does not automatically make you right-wing!) Others at Harvard worried about my “scientifically inaccurate” and “potentially dangerous position,” while “grappling with the protections offered by academic freedom.”
Though powerful scientists, politicians, and the media vigorously denounced it, the Great Barrington Declaration gathered almost a million signatures, including tens of thousands from scientists and health-care professionals. We were less alone than we had thought.
Even from Harvard, I received more positive than negative feedback. Among many others, support came from a former chair of the Department of Epidemiology—a former dean, a top surgeon, and an autism expert, who saw firsthand the devastating collateral damage that lockdowns inflicted on her patients. While some of the support I received was public, most was behind the scenes from faculty unwilling to speak publicly.
Two Harvard colleagues tried to arrange a debate between me and opposing Harvard faculty, but just as with Stanford, there were no takers. The invitation to debate remains open. The public should not trust scientists, even Harvard scientists, unwilling to debate their positions with fellow scientists.
My former employer, the Mass General Brigham hospital system, employs the majority of Harvard Medical School faculty. It is the single largest recipient of NIH funding—over $1 billion per year from U.S. taxpayers. As part of the offensive against the Great Barrington Declaration, one of Mass General’s board members, Rochelle Walensky, a fellow Harvard professor who had served on the advisory council to NIH director Collins, engaged me in a one-directional “debate.” After a Boston radio station interviewed me, Walensky came on as the official representative of Mass General Brigham to counter me, without giving me an opportunity to respond. A few months later, she became the new CDC director.
At this point, it was clear that I faced a choice between science or my academic career. I chose the former. What is science if we do not humbly pursue the truth?
In the 1980s, I worked for a human rights organization in Guatemala. We provided round-the-clock international physical accompaniment to poor campesinos, unionists, women’s groups, students, and religious organizations. Our mission was to protect those who spoke up against the killings and disappearances perpetrated by the right-wing military dictatorship, which shunned international scrutiny of its dirty work. Though the military threatened us, stabbed two of my colleagues, and threw a hand grenade into the house where we all lived and worked, we stayed to protect the brave Guatemalans.
I chose then to risk my life to help protect vulnerable people. It was a comparatively easy choice to risk my academic career to do the same during the pandemic. While the situation was less dramatic and terrifying than the one that I faced in Guatemala, many more lives were ultimately at stake.
While school closures and lockdowns were the big controversy of 2020, a new dispute emerged in 2021: the Covid vaccines. For more than two decades, I have helped the CDC and FDA develop their post-market vaccine safety systems. Vaccines are a vital medical invention, allowing people to obtain immunity without the risk that comes from getting sick. The smallpox vaccine alone has saved millions of lives. In 2020, the CDC asked me to serve on its Covid-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group. My tenure didn’t last long—though not for the reason you may think.
The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the Covid vaccines were not properly designed. While they demonstrated the vaccines’ short-term efficacy against symptomatic infection, they were not designed to evaluate hospitalization and death, which is what matters. In subsequent pooled RCT analyses by vaccine type, independent Danish scientists showed that the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) did not reduce short-term, all-cause mortality, while the adenovirus-vector vaccines (Johnson & Johnson, Astra-Zeneca, Sputnik) did reduce mortality, by at least 30 percent.
I have spent decades studying drug and vaccine adverse reactions without taking any money from pharmaceutical companies. Every honest person knows that new drugs and vaccines come with potential risks that are unknown when approved. This was a risk worth taking for older people at high risk of Covid mortality—but not for children, who have a minuscule risk for Covid mortality, nor for those who already had infection-acquired immunity. To a question about this on Twitter in 2021, I responded:
Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.
At the behest of the U.S. government, Twitter censored my tweet for contravening CDC policy. Having also been censored by LinkedIn, Facebook, and YouTube, I could not freely communicate as a scientist. Who decided that American free-speech rights did not apply to honest scientific comments at odds with those of the CDC director?
I was tempted just to shut up, but a Harvard colleague convinced me otherwise. Her family had been active against Communism in Eastern Europe, and she reminded me that we needed to use whatever openings we could find—while self-censoring, when necessary, to avoid getting suspended or fired.
On that score, however, I failed. A month after my tweet, I was fired from the CDC Covid Vaccine Safety Working Group—not because I was critical of vaccines but because I contradicted CDC policy. In April 2021, the CDC paused the J&J vaccine after reports of blood clots in a few women under 50. No cases were reported among older people, who benefit the most from the vaccine. Since there was a general vaccine shortage at that time, I argued in an op-ed that the J&J vaccine should not be paused for older Americans. This is what got me in trouble. I am probably the only person ever fired by the CDC for being too pro-vaccine. While the CDC lifted the pause four days later, the damage was done. Some older Americans undoubtedly died because of this vaccine “pause.”
Bodily autonomy is not the only argument against Covid vaccine mandates. They are also unscientific and unethical.
With a genetic condition called alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, which leaves me with a weakened immune system, I had more reason to be personally concerned about Covid than most Harvard professors. I expected that Covid would hit me hard, and that’s precisely what happened in early 2021, when the devoted staff at Manchester Hospital in Connecticut saved my life. But it would have been wrong for me to let my personal vulnerability to infections influence my opinions and recommendations as a public-health scientist, which must focus on everyone’s health.
The beauty of our immune system is that those who recover from an infection are protected if and when they are re-exposed. This has been known since the Athenian Plague of 430 BC—but it is no longer known at Harvard. Three prominent Harvard faculty coauthored the now infamous “consensus” memorandum in The Lancet, questioning the existence of Covid-acquired immunity. By continuing to mandate the vaccine for students with a prior Covid infection, Harvard is de facto denying 2,500 years of science.
Since mid-2021, we have known, as one would expect, that Covid-acquired immunity is superior to vaccine-acquired immunity. Based on that, I argued that hospitals should hire, not fire, nurses and other hospital staff with Covid-acquired immunity, since they have stronger immunity than the vaccinated.
Vaccine mandates are unethical. The RCTs mainly enrolled young and middle-aged adults, but observational studies showed that Covid vaccines prevented Covid hospitalizations and deaths for older people. Amid a worldwide vaccine shortage, it was unethical to force the vaccine on low-risk students or those like me who were already immune from having had Covid, while my 87-year-old neighbor and other high-risk older people around the world could not get the shot. Any pro-vaccine person should, for this reason alone, have opposed the Covid vaccine mandates.
For scientific, ethical, public health, and medical reasons, I objected both publicly and privately to the Covid vaccine mandates. I already had superior infection-acquired immunity; and it was risky to vaccinate me without proper efficacy and safety studies on patients with my type of immune deficiency. This stance got me fired by Mass General Brigham—and consequently fired from my Harvard faculty position.
While several vaccine exemptions were given by the hospital, my medical exemption request was denied. I was less surprised that my religious exemption request was denied: “Having had COVID disease, I have stronger longer lasting immunity than those vaccinated (Gazit et al). Lacking scientific rationale, vaccine mandates are religious dogma, and I request a religious exemption from COVID vaccination.”
If Harvard and its hospitals want to be credible scientific institutions, they should rehire those of us they fired. And Harvard would be wise to eliminate its Covid vaccine mandates for students, as most other universities have already done.
Most Harvard faculty diligently pursue truth in a wide variety of fields, but Veritas has not been the guiding principle of Harvard leaders. Nor have academic freedom, intellectual curiosity, independence from external forces, or concern for ordinary people guided their decisions.
Harvard and the wider scientific community have much work to do to deserve and regain public trust. The first steps are the restoration of academic freedom and the cancelling of cancel culture. When scientists have different takes on topics of public importance, universities should organize open and civilized debates to pursue the truth. Harvard could have done that—and it still can, if it chooses.
Almost everyone now realizes that school closures and other lockdowns, were a colossal mistake. Francis Collins has acknowledged his error of singularly focusing on Covid without considering collateral damage to education and non-Covid health outcomes. That’s the honest thing to do, and I hope this honesty will reach Harvard. The public deserves it, and academia needs it to restore its credibility.
Science cannot survive in a society that does not value truth and strive to discover it. The scientific community will gradually lose public support and slowly disintegrate in such a culture. The pursuit of truth requires academic freedom with open, passionate, and civilized scientific discourse, with zero tolerance for slander, bullying, or cancellation. My hope is that someday, Harvard will find its way back to academic freedom and independence.
Martin Kulldorff is a former professor of medicine at Harvard University and Mass General Brigham. He is a founding fellow of the Academy for Science and Freedom.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/harvard-tramples-the-truth?fbclid=IwAR0fcOXOEtNoDERQ5Mj8VYjKr6LVr8y-93BLba_e2eHi72gqujeA7NkMA5Q
-
For some reason I have Paul Craig Roberts mentally filed under the heading of crackpot scumbag, but are his facts here accurate?
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/03/14/us-navy-medic-shut-down-for-releasing-unclassified-dod-data-showing-a-937-increase-in-heart-failure-among-vaccinated-us-military-personnel/
-
Rule justifying redactions pertains to pending legal action, which makes for some interesting dots to connect:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/03/cdc-releases-over-100-blank-pages-in-response-to-foia-request-on-myocarditis-data-for-covid-vaccinations/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=cdc-releases-over-100-blank-pages-in-response-to-foia-request-on-myocarditis-data-for-covid-vaccinations
-
It's coming out now that there were a lot of foolish decisions that were made that in hindsight may have caused more damage than helped. Consequences of the vaccine, isolation, ect.
It is a combination of COVID being made a political issue (I wish that had never happened) and the pharmaceutical industry driving everyone off a cliff in the name of profits. Similar things happened in the past with different consequences (the opioid epidemic, the culprits just now coming to public attention via movies, ect.).
I spent about a year in the Caucasus region and they were doing just fine without the vaccine, and the people seemed a lot less miserable.
-
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/03/14/tucker-rips-open-the-curtain-on-allegedly-safe-and-effective-covid-vaccine-and-death-rate-1445157/?utm_campaign=bizpac&utm_content=Newsletter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Get%20Response&utm_term=EMAIL
-
For some reason I have Paul Craig Roberts mentally filed under the heading of crackpot scumbag, but are his facts here accurate?
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/03/14/us-navy-medic-shut-down-for-releasing-unclassified-dod-data-showing-a-937-increase-in-heart-failure-among-vaccinated-us-military-personnel/
Likewise, I was thinking he was someone once great who later renounced supply side economics, but that wasn't it. That was Reagan's budget director. Hard to write off a fact based science. From Wikipedia it was foreign policy where he ventured off but no details there. Was accused of antisemitism by ADL, which might or might not have meaning. I think he wrote something appearing to side with Saddam when I wrote him off but I really can't remember.
On this, he is repeating something out there. Impossible to verify as DOD hides the data.
Mostly a fiction writer now it appears on his website.
-
Convincing piece re the many benefits of ivermectin, you know the stuff the media and “experts” had kittens over when people started reporting success treating Covid w/ it:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2024/03/16/vit-i-long-covid-vexxine-injury-virus-cfs/
-
One of the more galling elements of life in the US these days are the number of folks that embraced some Deep State party line—often at the top of their lungs and dripping with disdain for all that failed to march in lockstep w/ the dictate du jour—who then not only stand mute when their certainty proves to be anything but, who then also fail to allow their dubious track record to inform the vigor with which they jump on the next bandwagon the feds, media, whomever on the left then next rolls out.
Here the FDA is removing ivermectin warnings from the website despite past certain proclamations it was “horse medicine.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fda-settles-ivermectin-case-agrees-remove-controversial-stop-it-post?fbclid=IwAR2Aqc9o9HB9gF9oI97uVEpwQCw4ZHnj53jwXMCGmdpvU_sx7VBir36uzSU
-
Less critical patients moved up the kidney transplant list due to DEI considerations:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/03/dei-priorities-create-havoc-in-kidney-transplant-system/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dei-priorities-create-havoc-in-kidney-transplant-system
-
if this is true this is a real outrage!!!
creatinine measurements have nothing to do with it.
If one's kidneys fail it doesn't matter white or black.
the Person needs dialysis or they die.
then wait and pray for a transplant.
I can't imagine this would win in court
to think certain races might be moved ahead of others is despicable.
I am very hopeful and praying this works:
https://www.popsci.com/health/gene-edited-pig-kidney-transplant/
Get DEI the hell out of medicine !
So many feel the way I do and we get intimidated to keep quiet.
-
Another thing dragging Biden/Dems down at the poll:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/the_red_pill_of_obamacare.html
-
England’s Emergency Crisis Led To 14,000 Deaths Last Year, Report Says
Katherine Hignett
Senior Contributor
I write about U.K. health policy. The figure comes from research conducted by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, which estimates 14,000 extra deaths would have been linked to delays in emergency care in 2023.
The staggering research reflects the continued toll of a sector that’s been in crisis for at least two years. Last year, a similar analysis found excessive waits for emergency care could have caused around 280 deaths per week.
Where Do These Numbers Come From?
To find out how many extra deaths were likely to have been caused by long waits, RCEM researchers began by looking at how many people spent long periods of time waiting to be admitted from an emergency department to a hospital bed.
Around 1.5 million people are known to have waited 12 hours or more in emergency rooms in England 2023. According to the RCEM, around 65% of these patients went on to be admitted to hospital.
Researchers tplugged these figures into what’s known as the “standard mortality ratio”: an estimate of how many patients are likely to die when their emergency care is delayed.
The RCEM estimates there will be one extra death for every 72 waits of 8 to 12 hours before admission, according to the ratio, which comes from on a study of English emergency care from 2016 to 2018. The data includes deaths from any cause within 30 days of admission to hospital.
For 2023, this works out at 14,000 extra deaths in 2023, or 268 per week.
England’s Emergency Care Crisis Explained
England’s emergency services have been under extreme pressure for at least two years, with numerous factors like short staffing, inadequate social care provision and an increase in patient demand and acuity (how sick people are) fuelling the crisis.
An ageing population, coupled with care backlogs that have swollen during the pandemic, mean more people need care — and more intense care at that. But investment in healthcare has not kept pace with a growing need that’s been excacerbated by Covid-19.
In parallel, a lack of capacity in adult social care — think nursing homes and care workers that visit frail patients at their own residence — leaves some vulnerable patients languishing in hospitals as they wait for the community support they need to become available.
This drives high bed occupancy in hospitals, making it hard to admit patients from the emergency department. This leads to overcrowding inside and queues of ambulances outside and slows down ambulance response times.
Bed occupancy remains consistently at around 94%, according to the RCEM. This is far in excess of a “safe occupancy level” of 85%. Some 11,000 more staffed beds would be needed to meet this level, the College stated.
‘Patients Deserve So Much Better’
Royal College of Emergency Medicine present Dr Adrian Boyle said it was “vital to remember that each one of these deaths was of a person with loved ones and families.”
It also left clinicians across the country in an “awful position,” dealing “with the realities of trying to provide the best possible care in such difficult and unacceptable circumstances.”
Government initiatives launched to try and reduce the emergency care crisis should be scrutinized and assessed, he added “so we can establish what is working and what needs adapting.”
“Despite good intentions,” the country’s plants have thus fare failed to be effective or result “in any consequential improvement,” he said.
“What is needed is substantial investment and a commitment to resuscitating emergency care both for the clinicians battling with a struggling system and the patients who deserve so much better. We cannot continue with these inequalities in care, avoidable delays, and deaths.”
A spokesperson for the National Health Service, which provides public healthcare in England, told The Independent: “We have seen significant increases in demand for A&E services, with attendances in February up 8.6 per cent on last year and emergency admissions up 7.7 per cent.”
Data showed the organisation’s efforts to recover urgent and emergency care performance were “delivering improvements,” while ongoing work with community and social care partners to help discharge those who are medically fit was “freeing up beds for other patients.”
Excess deaths, the spokesperson added are “down to several factors” under continued analysis by the country’s Office for National Statistics.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehignett/2024/04/01/englands-emergency-crisis-led-to-14000-deaths-last-year-report-says/?sh=5efc388a2563
-
And all the (heavy handed) responses were failures. The aggregate cost by one measure? Enough to wipe out the national debt:
New Report Details Horrifying Cost of Fauci’s Failures
BY Ian MillerIAN MILLER APRIL 2, 2024 ECONOMICS, MASKS 6 MINUTE READ
SHARE | PRINT | EMAIL
In the post-pandemic period of Covid, there’s now a concerted effort to comprehend and explain the damage that was caused by our capitulating to the hysterical overreaction and overreach of the ‘experts.’ There’s a long list of policy failures to examine; mask mandates were a disaster that accomplished absolute nothing of value, but instead led to tremendous harms, many of which continue today.
Children were forced into masks for years on end, millions of people still wear masks when traveling or inside stores and restaurants, permanently convinced of the deliberate falsehood that masks are effective prevention tools. Perhaps most disturbing is that healthcare workers in blue cities are often still required to mask. Some hospitals have required masking continuously since 2020, while others are now enforcing rolling mandates based on the delusions of administrators and expert authorities.
Research into the economic cost of many of our Covid policies and mandates is still ongoing, but a new, extremely detailed report on school closures has created a horrifying context for just how damaging Anthony Fauci’s advocacy was during the pandemic.
All of Our Covid Policies Failed
The research begins with an obvious acknowledgment of the failures which occurred due to Covid mandates. Despite wildly different policies, there was virtually no difference in outcomes between countries.
“From the available evidence, it is difficult to identify the specific responses to the pandemic that led to better outcomes,” they write. “Countries clearly responded to the challenges in very different ways, from essentially no school closures (Sweden) to multiple years of closures (Uganda and Indonesia). Yet, simple statistics such as the length of school closures or overall health policies cannot explain much of the variance in outcomes.”
Lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine passports…none of it mattered, nor does it explain the variance in outcomes between countries. Why? The obvious answer is that none of these policies had the slightest chance of preventing transmission of a highly infectious respiratory virus.
Instead, the likely explanation for variance in outcomes comes down to differences in accounting for Covid cases and deaths, underlying health and age demographics, or pre-existing immunity from exposure to similar coronaviruses, which was almost certainly the reason why countries in Asia performed much better than Western countries during the early part of the pandemic, but was conveniently ignored in favor of “experts” maintaining the wishful thinking that “mask culture” was responsible.
Regardless of the explanation, the fact that there is no consistent factor to attribute better outcomes to is in itself an indictment of our Covid policies and mandates. If it’s impossible to define why a country did better or worse than another country, there should be no justification for continued restrictions. If only someone had told Fauci or his allies in the public health establishment in 2020-2021, but instead they forcefully criticized any opposition who understood the reality, such as Florida governor Ron DeSantis.
School Closures Caused Unimaginable Harms
The researchers spent most of their time attempting to assess the many harms caused by one of the pandemic’s most inexcusable policies: school closures. And the results of their estimates are jaw-dropping.
“Based on the available research on lifetime earnings associated with more skills, the average student in school during the pandemic will lose 5 to 6 percent of lifetime earnings,” they found. “Because a lower-skilled workforce leads to lower economic growth, the nation will lose some $31 trillion (in present value terms) during the twenty-first century. This aggregate economic loss is higher than the US GDP for one year and dwarfs the total economic losses from either the slowdown of the economy during the pandemic or from the 2008 recession.”
That’s not a misprint: $31 trillion.
Teachers unions, Fauci, the CDC, and politicians have all ensured that the American economy will be decimated in the next century because they refused to admit they were wrong about all of it. As cost of living skyrockets thanks to rampant inflation, also caused by our incompetence and malicious, purposeful ignorance, children forced to learn under school closures will be irreparably set back, which will cost them hundreds of thousands if not millions of earned income throughout their lives.
It’s easy to suggest that maybe these harms may be erased or mitigated over time. The researchers addressed that too, yet they failed to provide much hope for the future.
“Finally, we provide a few observations about recovery from the learning losses. History suggests that these losses are likely to be permanent unless the schools become better than they were before the pandemic,” they conclude.
With wholly incompetent political activists like Randi Weingarten controlling schools, disgraceful DEI policies infiltrating every aspect of public education, the lack of acknowledgment from Fauci and other organizations that Covid mandates were a failure, and the complete ideological capture of the education system, it’s impossible to reasonably expect that schools will ever “become better than they were.”
The damage they caused is locked in – forever.
Once Again, Florida Provides the Alternative
Importantly, the results of school closures varied per region. In far-left states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois, school closures persisted well into 2021.
But Florida was one of the few states, and perhaps the only large one, to make reopening schools a priority, despite the objections of teachers unions and media outlets that attempted to label the governor as “DeathSantis.”
And it’s going to pay off, relatively speaking. A figure presented in the research shows that Florida’s economic state loss in GDP is nearly equal to Pennsylvania, despite a population that’s nearly 75% bigger than Pennsylvania. And California’s estimated losses, roughly $1.3 trillion, are more than 116% higher than Florida, much larger than the population difference. Similarly, New York’s economic losses far exceed Florida’s, despite a smaller population.
DeSantis followed the actual science, listened to competent outside expert advisors, and as a result, when compared to other major states, Florida is set to massively benefit in the future. It is yet again another clear indictment of the blue states that chose to follow the Fauci blueprint into economic disaster.
And make no mistake, this is a disaster.
No Accountability for Failure
The researchers compared the learning loss train wreck to the 2008 recession, showing that the Covid response is responsible for substantially more damage than even that economic cycle.
“The lopsided attention to the business-cycle losses from the 2008 recession and from the pandemic is startling once we see the comparable pandemic learning loss figures,” they wrote. “The economic losses from the loss of human capital are fully six times the total losses from the 2008 recession, which was labeled the largest recession since the Great Depression.”
This is staggering. Six times the total losses from the 2008 recession, already considered one of the worst in modern economic history. All because Fauci and his band of “experts” seized an opportunity to enforce their agenda of control onto a compliant society. And also because they refused to admit failure when many were desperately trying to expose them.
It’s an inexcusable, historic set of decisions with lasting consequences both in soft cultural terms and harder economic ones. A $31 trillion loss is the loss of GDP exclusively from school closures. That doesn’t even account for the loss of business income, the years-long setback in terms of new business, or the loss of GDP from adults who gave up on career plans or other pursuits out of despair or lack of opportunity.
The damage the “experts” caused is incalculable. But the attempts to calculate it has resulted in absolutely horrifying estimates.
And not one of those responsible is willing to acknowledge it.
Republished from the author’s Substack
https://brownstone.org/articles/new-report-details-horrifying-cost-of-faucis-failures/?fbclid=IwAR0R8xrWJUYv9QcCZ6lYpzRatdjuxFG5dJJaNyaocYIyY00UTTErL2Rum1Y
-
Per the piece, the entire complexion of the US Covid response was based on one behind the scenes appointee that, having worked on the HIV response in Africa overlayed that resulting model atop the American response to Covid:
Coordinating Chaos
Rob Montz joins John Tierney to discuss his documentary It Wasn’t Fauci: How the Deep State Really Played Trump.
Audio Transcript
John Tierney: Welcome back to the 10 Blocks podcast. This is John Tierney, a contributing editor to City Journal. Joining me on the show today is Rob Montz, who has just released an important and riveting documentary on YouTube. It’s about the Covid fiasco and is titled, “It Wasn’t Fauci: How the Deep State Really Played Trump.” Now, Rob was a journalist, and he’s the CEO and co-founder of Good Kid Productions. Two years ago, before the rest of the country discovered that deficiencies of Harvard president Claudine Gay, Rob wrote about it in Quillette and also released a documentary exposing how she and other Harvard officials unfairly punished and suspended Roland Fryer, a brilliant economist at Harvard, whose research on policing and schooling contradicted progressive dogma on racism. Now, Rob has taken on a much bigger scandal: the useless and devastatingly harmful Covid lockdown, school closures, and other mandates that were imposed on America and copied in the rest of the world.
I’ve written a lot about these issues at City Journal, how these terrible measures were imposed against the longstanding advice of the best experts on dealing with pandemics and against the best scientific evidence about these measures. Now, this was, I think, the costliest and worst mistake ever made in the history of public health. Probably the worst public policy blunder ever made during peacetime in America. And like a lot of people, I’ve wondered, how could we be so stupid? Well, Rob answers that question in his new documentary, and the answer will be news to the many people who put all the blame on Anthony Fauci.
Now, there’s no question that Fauci bears a lot of responsibility. He was the public face of Covid. He was the darling of the gullible reporters in the mainstream media who bought his version of “the science.” And because his agency controlled so much of the research funding into infectious diseases, scientists depended on that funding, were afraid to contradict them, and therefore there was a silence from people who knew better. But as Rob shows in his documentary, it was another veteran federal bureaucrat who actually orchestrated these terrible measures and conned Donald Trump and the White House into going along with it. Her name is Deborah Birx. Could you tell us about her, Rob?
Rob Montz: Yeah, and for most people at best, they have a vague recollection of that name because Fauci was held up as the great counterbalance to Trumpism. He’s the guy who gets all the glowing New Yorker profiles. He’s the dude who gets the Time 100 nominations. And Birx was there, and people maybe vaguely remember her scarves, and maybe they remember that she was on the receiving end of that hyper viral Trump news conference in the early stages of the pandemic in which he suggested using ultraviolet light and bleach to fight Covid. Other than that, she’s basically been lost to history, which is just so funny about the nature narrative making in politics. You really get to see how warped and artificial historical storytelling is once you actually dig into the power of things. Yeah, you’re right. I get the sense that a lot of Americans want to move on. In part they really, really, really don’t want to hear the answer to was all that sacrifice of the lockdowns worth it?
They don’t really want to be told that it actually wasn’t worth it at all. There was no nobility to it. The cousin of yours that died of a drug overdose didn’t die for a good reason. The fact that your nine-year-old still can’t read. It’s not for any particularly good reason. The fact that you had to shutter your family business, there was no good reason. So people just want to move on, even though, as I’m sure your audience knows, there’s been a lot of pretty rigorous investigations into the efficacy of the lockdowns, and they’ve essentially proven that they had no impact whatsoever on cases or death rates.
John Tierney: Just tell us a little bit about Birx’s background and what led her to adopt these policies against the advice of the best epidemiologist in the world before this. It was against the plan of the CDC and other national health agencies before the pandemic. She did all this, despite all this. So tell us a little bit about her background.
Rob Montz: And it’s so funny because the ways that lockdowns became the default policy prescription in America, it’s so pedestrian. It’s like Alex Jones-style conspiracy theorizing has all these grand forces and complicated machinery and all these complex variables, but then you dig into how Birx got power and it’s the most mundane thing imaginable, and the mistakes she made is the most mundane thing in imaginable, and that became the default policy prescription for nearly 400 million Americans. So she immediately, in the wake of Covid hitting American shores in 2019, early 2020, the White House forms a special Covid task force. Importantly, Trump gives Pence complete control of the task force. He essentially outsources the whole Covid task force portfolio to Pence. And as they’re assembling this group, they’re frantically looking around for a public health expert that can bring some level of scientific rigor to their policy prescriptions for the rest of the country. And through a complicated set of connections, someone within the Trump administration recommends Deborah Birx. Her background importantly is in fighting AIDS in Africa.
John Tierney: She was also an old crony. I mean, she’d worked very closely with Fauci and with Robert Redfield, right?
Rob Montz: Oh, yeah. They all know each other. They’ve been working together for decades. They’re all part of the same swamp stew. So her background is in HIV-AIDS. And again, the important things are, there actually was an internal inspector’s general report that came out about her management style of PEPFAR, like literally just a matter of weeks.
John Tierney: And PEPFAR was this international AIDS program to combat AIDS.
Rob Montz: And it comes out, and this thing, which is mostly based upon surveys with municipal and public health officials in African countries that have been working with Deborah Birx, is a barnburner of an indictment on her management and leadership. It’s insane. I mean, anybody can read it. It’s not difficult to find. It’s just nobody did read it because nobody’s curious about it.
John Tierney: Right. This is the first I’ve seen of it, and it really is a barn burner showing what a horrible administrator she was.
Rob Montz: Everyone’s like she’s a dictator. She doesn’t listen to feedback. She very quickly becomes myopically committed to a particular paradigm and doesn’t change it based upon the facts on the ground. She’s dictatorial.
John Tierney: Draws the wrong conclusions, you say?
Rob Montz: Yeah. She draws conclusions that lead down the wrong path. And this is the person who then gets brought up to be part of this elite group of, it’s only like 10 people that are principals on the Covid task force, and she’s the chief scientist on the task force. That’s the woman. Somehow the mechanics of history are such that she’s the person that gets to write the guidelines. And what she does, and again, I don’t want to give away everything in the documentary, I want people to have a reason to go watch it, is she essentially makes this 75 IQ instinctual parallel between Covid and AIDS. She makes a certain set of assumptions that the Covid virus and HIV/AIDS virus are the same. And from those parallel assumptions come a certain set of policy prescriptions, including getting to zero cases at any cost, treating Covid as an equal opportunity killer, focusing on children and shutting down schools. This is all based on an HIV/AIDS paradigm.
John Tierney: Right, where every case is potentially fatal.
Rob Montz: Exactly. I don’t know. This is not a hot contrarian take to be like, “Yo Covid’s not like HIV/AIDS.” Not at all. It’s extremely different. They’re radically different diseases. We get into a bunch of the particulars, not least of which, and again, it’s still shocking how few Americans seem to appreciate this. It’s mostly because of the thematic misinformation fed to them by the corporate establishment media, that there’s this really, really sharp age gradient for Covid death where it’s a serious disease if you’re 74, and it’s not a serious disease at all if you’re 20. And that reality needs to be reflected in your policy interventions. And it wasn’t. Then the central mystery also that we try to solve, Trump initially had okayed the lockdown and very famously cut off air transportation from China. He greenlit a couple weeks to slow the spread, and then a couple more weeks.
And then he pretty famously turns against lockdowns right around like June or July of 2020 and starts criticizing them. He very famously gets Covid and then afterwards tells the American public not to be afraid, doesn’t wear a mask. He berates governors for excessively, overly aggressively closing down schools. But even after the president himself turns against lockdowns, the official policy prescription from his White House all the way through the election is still pro-lockdown. And you’re like, that’s interesting. How did that happen? I don’t think the schoolhouse rock conception of American government is an efficient explanation for how it is that a president could be saying one thing and the actual policy coming from his White House could be the exact opposite. There must be some complexity or nuances here that I didn’t learn in my ninth grade U.S. government class. Deborah Birx is the linchpin for how it is that that dissidence could have occurred.
John Tierney: Right. Scott Atlas, who’s featured in your documentary, who was one of the early heroes of the pandemic speaking out, and he was invited finally, someone in the White House, Scott, he was appearing on television and saying the lockdowns are going to kill more people than the virus. The school closures are devastating. And so he got in there and he tried to do something on the task force, but he was completely stymied by Birx and Robert Redfield, head of the CDC, and Fauci on the task force were these veteran bureaucrats who’d all worked together. Fauci had worked on the failed attempt to do an AIDS vaccine, but they made a secret pact because the New York Times later revealed that if any one of them was fired, they’d all quit. So they basically knew how to play the bureaucratic game. And there was also, you point out in the documentary that Jared Kushner, he was terrified of the political implications of standing up to Fauci.
Rob Montz: But my reporting mostly indicates that she was able, Birx in particular, was able to systematically stymie and marginalized Atlas, not because of her close alliance with Fauci and Redfield, but because of her close alliance with Mike Pence. Remarkable, right?
John Tierney: And he really emerges as another villain. He was supposedly in charge of the task force, but he just bowed to her at every turn. He was afraid to stand up to her. Right?
Rob Montz: Well, it’s not exactly, I don’t really know his motivations. From a distance, before I’d gotten into this, he’d always struck me as the paradigmatic hollow man elected politician. He just seems like he was grown in a lab and is a soulless political automaton, and he just regurgitates on command GOP Christianist talking points. Are you even a person? Do you have a subjective experience of reality, or are you just a non-player character? So I don’t really know what his motivations were. I don’t really know.
John Tierney: I think Scott Atlas said that Pence just deferred to her and everything, and she basically ran the—I mean, he was the head of it, but she really, I think, set the agenda. And then, as you say in the documentary, she’s the one who was writing all the official White House guidance.
Rob Montz: Right. She was writing it almost alone. This is again, something that I think the broader American public needs to appreciate that it was a single woman with a couple of junior staffers that was writing. Again, they were recommendations, so they weren’t mandates, so governors didn’t have to follow them. But certainly in the early stages of the pandemic, governors that defied federal guidelines were risking insane legal liability, and it was just her, it was not a group project at all. And so Scott Atlas is brought in right around the time that Trump changes his mind. It turns out he was right about everything. Really everything about just the complete, the catastrophic human consequences of lockdowns and other parts of life. There’s this age gradient that needs to be taken into consideration, how shutting down schools who basically everybody now agrees it was a catastrophic event.
John Tierney: Everybody knew that early on too. I mean, it was very clear early on.
Rob Montz: He’s right about everything. But what’s funny, and this, I don’t want to give it away too much though. It’s also funny to see that Birx again is able to enact, in part enabled by Trump’s epic executive incompetence. And again, he doesn’t get off lightly in this at all. She’s able to enact this kind of casual coup of him, and it didn’t require a shot fired, and it was mostly done with an email inbox and an edit function. It’s the most pedestrian office space tactics imaginable. And it ends up having these unbelievably catastrophic consequences for hundreds of millions of people. And it’s the most casual, bland office drone stuff you can imagine in terms of what she actually has to do to circumvent a president. And again, I do want to emphasize this is a deeply anti-Trump piece as well, because stuff happened on his watch because of his incompetence and chaos. For large portions of his presidency, even before Covid, he was acting like somebody else’s president, and he was just the guy that tweeted things out.
John Tierney: Right. Scott Atlas tried, and I want to talk about what he tried to do with bringing another scientist, but a really striking story in Scott Atlas’s book about this, A Plague Upon Our House, is when he first meets Deborah Birx, he goes in and she’s pushing the mask mandate, of course. And they were even pushing the absurdity of masks outside even, and they kept that forever. But he says that he asked her, “Where do you think the evidence is for a mask mandate? Because the best remote, randomized controlled trials before it, people said, don’t have mass mandates. There’s no evidence that they work.” And she says, well, and she cites this what she called a study in one hair salon in Mississippi that was a joke. And then he realizes that she just has no conception of the science and no interest in it. He used to bring in all the studies to the meeting.
She and Fauci never looked at it, never discussed it, refused to do it. And then you show the documentary how Atlas finally tries to go around her and brings in some real scientists who actually know how to deal with pandemics. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford, Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, and Joe Ladapo, who was at UCLA. He brings them, he arranges a White House meeting for these scientists who’d done the great Barrington Declaration saying we should protect older people, we should not be locking down, we should not be closing schools. We should focus protection. So he brings them in for a meeting, and he invites Birx with Trump, invites her there. So what happens then?
Rob Montz: Yeah, so he brings in people. This is like pre-Great Barrington Declaration, but again, a group of genuine, highly credentialed, mostly Ivy League professors of epidemiology. Again, Deborah Birx is not a researcher. She’s not even an epidemiologist. She’s a bureaucrat. She was overseeing the dispersal of AIDS medicine. She wasn’t doing foundational research into the nature of the HIV/AIDS virus or whatever. So again, real hardcore Harvard, Stanford gold-plated credentials people that are basically trying to come in to provide an intellectual architecture for Trump’s guerrilla instincts that the lockdowns are bad and are counterproductive and come with a huge human toll. Atlas puts together this meeting in the White House. It’s him and a couple of these other heavy hitters. And it’s specifically scheduled so that Deborah Birx can attend. They make a point to schedule it so that she can be there and she can make her case in front of the president. And she at the last minute says, “I’m not going to be there because it would look bad for me.” She refuses to deign to give them her attention or her time, which is the most horribly unscientific way—
John Tierney: And also because she can’t possibly argue with them because they know so much more than she does.
Rob Montz: But it’s amazing that she has since publicly admitted she doesn’t even pretend to engage with the substance of their critiques. I know this from having suffered from my sins and watched everything that she’s ever said about the time in the White House.
John Tierney: My condolences.
Rob Montz: She doesn’t even attempt to engage with it analytically. She just calls it a heresy, and then openly admits to using her bureaucratic intrigue powers to censor and silence her critics. We talk about it in the doc that she, shortly after that meeting with the president, between the president and these professors, goes to the media team at the White House and tells them, “You can’t put Scott Atlas on national news anymore.” And they say, “Yeah.” The most grotesque censorship imaginable. And she’s openly admitting to it because she isn’t thinking anything’s wrong with it.
John Tierney: She’s proud of it. One of my favorite lines, and you got some great sound clips from her talking, I think at the Aspen Institute maybe, of talks where she was speaking to a friendly audience and really opened up and admitted what happened. And one of her things, and she talked about that meeting and said, “Now you’re sort of outgunned,” she says, “if you’re against these professors from Harvard and Stanford.” But she says, “Now, but I’m not outvoiced. You just don’t allow yourself to be outvoiced.” It’s a real high point in the documentary, and that’s a bureaucrat. They may be right on the science, but I’m going to outvoice them. I’m going to do the bureaucratic channels to manipulate things.
Rob Montz: And again, Deborah Birx has been raised and thrived in and mastered like the dark arts of federal administration. I mean, she’s been doing it for decades upon decades. Her expertise is not in epidemiology or any hard scientific fields. Her expertise is in navigating bureaucracy and in kind of petty power politics in federal government. So when she’s losing clearly the scientific debate, she resorts to the tactics and the tools that she knows, which is the back end, dark arts, bureaucratic power. So she knows which levers to press and who to go to and how to talk to them to silence her critics. And that’s exactly what she does. And what that does is it enables her to continue to impose her completely garbage, broken, unscientific lockdown policies on the country well through the end of 2020 in open defiance of President Trump.
John Tierney: Exactly.
Rob Montz: But again, this is very instructive about him in that he gets labeled as a fascist. And again, I’m not going to defend Trump, but it is interesting that when he actually had power, he so willingly gave it away, and it was so easy to snatch it from him. It’s like, this is not some Mussolini dude. It’s like, you got to be kidding me. It was so goddamn easy to steal enormous amounts of power from him. And that’s not a fascist. Again, that tends to substantiate the story of Trump as more of a theater experience like a clown, like someone who can pretend to be the alpha man of action.
John Tierney: And there’s another really nice moment in the documentary where Pence is talking. You show Pence saying, “We drain the swamp, we’re going to do it.” And then you show right before that, you show how Birx, after the White House has said, “Our official policy is we’re against lockdowns,” she, the veteran bureaucrat, discovers that they don’t really read what she writes. As long as she doesn’t put it at the beginning, they just skim it. And so she basically just keeps saying, “Close bars, outdoor masks, close schools, close churches.” She just keeps putting that out as a guidance. She travels the country telling governors to do this, and nobody at the White House is stopping her. And she even goes to Pence and says, and I think you say that. She says to Pence, “You know that I’m doing exactly the opposite of what the president is saying?” And Pence just says to her, “Do what you need to do.”
Rob Montz: Ice cold, man. Ice cold, I know bro. And it’s so simple. And it’s not without a shot fired, not really some sophisticated game. If this was an episode of Game of Thrones, it wouldn’t even fill an episode, like a single episode, because there’s so few narrative storytelling points in it. It didn’t take much at all to topple a president. It was remarkably simple. And so the reason we did the documentary, and again, this is kind of the reason that our whole company exists, is to tell these stories that just get missed by corporate cathedral media. It’s remarkable that this was the biggest story in the last 50 years in America. And this one particular story about how it is that we got this particular policy response, it’s just never been told.
John Tierney: Well, it was good for you doing. I mean, it really is so telling, and it needs to be told, because the big fear, of course, is that nobody wants to admit how wrong they were. So the next time a virus comes along, it’ll be, whoa, that’s our policy. We work. And there’ll be another Deborah Birx in there who knows how to manipulate the system. So I hope the documentary gets a lot of views, that people really find out about what Birx did and how disastrous this all was. And I hope that our listeners will check this out. Again, the documentary, It Wasn’t Fauci: How The Deep State Really Played Trump. It’s available on YouTube. You can also check out my articles about Scott Atlas and about other issues that Rob covers in the documentary. You can find us at city-journal.org, also on X @CityJournal, and on Instagram @CityJournal_MI. And as always, if you like what you’ve heard on the podcast, give us five-star rating on iTunes. Thanks again, Rob, for joining us and for producing a great documentary.
Rob Montz: John, thanks so much for having me. And again, people can watch the documentary in full, at least for now, on our YouTube page at Good Kid Productions.
John Tierney: Excellent.
https://www.city-journal.org/multimedia/chaos-coordinators
-
Hospitals are using demographic diktats to determine, in part, which vendor wins a solicitation for goods or services. In the ed biz the term used is SWaM, for Small business, Women and Minority ownership of a supplier. Generally when evaluating a vendor’s bid SWaM accounts for up to 5% of a potential score. In the instances noted below, it appears a similar metric is good for up to 20% of a solicited bid.
Perhaps I’m old fashioned, but when it comes to healthcare I more traditional criteria such as quality, scalability, supply levels, delivery resources, and such ought to trump demographic desires. Indeed, in my experience just about every respondent know checking the SWaM box is good for an automatic 5% and so find a way to juke that requirement.
Anyhoo, next time you are laying on a table surrounding by folks wearing surgical masks and asking you to count backwards from ten, rest assured you are being treated with supplies furnished by vendors that are apt when it comes to identity politics:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/04/hospitals-embracing-identity-politics-in-selection-of-outside-vendors/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hospitals-embracing-identity-politics-in-selection-of-outside-vendors