Author Topic: The War with Medical Fascism  (Read 14040 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #450 on: June 27, 2022, 06:46:54 AM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
ET: Mercola: Vaxxes are Gene Therapy
« Reply #451 on: June 27, 2022, 12:14:14 PM »
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.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24012
    • View Profile
Re: ET: Mercola: Vaxxes are Gene Therapy
« Reply #452 on: June 27, 2022, 10:58:29 PM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24012
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24012
    • View Profile
Re: ET: Mercola: Vaxxes are Gene Therapy
« Reply #457 on: July 09, 2022, 09:14:32 PM »
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.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
NY Covid Quarantine Rules UnC'l.
« Reply #460 on: July 14, 2022, 08:08:05 AM »
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.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
FBI investigation
« Reply #462 on: July 16, 2022, 11:01:02 AM »
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.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24012
    • View Profile
Re: FBI investigation
« Reply #463 on: July 16, 2022, 09:07:54 PM »
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.



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24012
    • View Profile
Birx knowingly lied
« Reply #466 on: July 25, 2022, 07:59:54 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
Re: Birx knowingly lied
« Reply #467 on: July 25, 2022, 08:58:17 AM »
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.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24012
    • View Profile
Re: Birx knowingly lied
« Reply #469 on: July 25, 2022, 09:47:10 PM »
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.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
ET: Endless Boosting
« Reply #472 on: July 31, 2022, 08:42:10 PM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #474 on: August 11, 2022, 03:23:48 AM »
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.”

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24012
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24012
    • View Profile
The Meaning of Incredible
« Reply #476 on: August 19, 2022, 10:13:12 PM »
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?


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24012
    • View Profile
Crazyland
« Reply #477 on: August 23, 2022, 10:07:51 AM »
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.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
A touch of Schaudenfreude for Leana Wen
« Reply #479 on: August 24, 2022, 02:36:08 PM »
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.



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24012
    • View Profile
Kunstler: An Ill Wind
« Reply #482 on: August 27, 2022, 07:55:43 AM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #483 on: August 27, 2022, 11:52:54 AM »
Is this the right thread for that?  Maybe the Western Civ thread or the WW3 thread would be better.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #484 on: August 28, 2022, 06:58:16 AM »
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"

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24012
    • View Profile
Supported by...
« Reply #485 on: August 28, 2022, 07:42:41 AM »
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"

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Bereson
« Reply #486 on: August 29, 2022, 05:33:39 PM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
WSJ: Look who is rushing Vaxxes now?
« Reply #489 on: September 06, 2022, 03:29:40 AM »
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.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24012
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
ET: CA bans dissent by doctors!
« Reply #491 on: September 12, 2022, 04:40:10 PM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
ET: Judge orders Fauci to cough it up
« Reply #492 on: September 15, 2022, 07:24:29 AM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
NY Post: Continuing Covid Craziness
« Reply #493 on: September 19, 2022, 04:30:45 AM »
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

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14799
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #494 on: September 19, 2022, 06:39:54 AM »
Biden : "the pandemic is over!"

Dems/MSM : "HE CRUSHED IT! "

 :wink: