Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS)?
By Igor Chudov | September 24, 2022
Amazing news from Pfizer’s Albert Bourla.
“I have tested positive for COVID. I’m feeling well & symptom free. I’ve not had the new bivalent booster yet, as I was following CDC guidelines to wait 3 months since my previous COVID case which was back in mid-August. While we’ve made great progress, the virus is still with us.”
Mr. Bourla had his previous Covid infection in mid-August. Now he tested positive for Covid again, only a month after his previous illness. Albert is very lucky to be protected by his vaccine and previous booster doses!
Pfizer’s CEO says that he did not yet get the bivalent booster, because he wanted to wait 3 months after his most recent infection.
This is what the CDC said about this:
So, the CDC said that Bourla had a “low risk of reinfection” for three months after his last Covid — but Bourla got Covid a mere month after his previous infection.
Albert is not alone. Here’s a Redditor who is having his or her FIFTH Covid in 1.5 years:
Covid is not going anywhere.
Apparently, it is again rising strongly in the UK. The United States is usually about a month behind the UK. So, for now, the US is in the “Covid is over” phase.
Is Albert having VAIDS and is unable to get any kind of immunity?
He is definitely one person who I badly want to take his own 8-mouse booster as soon as possible.
By Paul Homewood | TCW Defending Freedom | September 23, 2022
ACCORDING to the BBC’s Environment Correspondent, Matt McGrath, Pakistan’s catastrophic floods last month were ‘likely made worse by global warming’.
This claim originated from the World Weather Attribution group, who regularly publish such claims every time there is some bad weather. They base their conclusions on computer models, not on real world data. If they had looked at the actual data, they might have come to different conclusions.
According to the Pakistan Meteorological Department, most of the excess rain in August arrived on 18th/19th and 25th/26th. In fact 41 per cent of the month’s rainfall fell on these four days:
Pakistan Meteorological Department
The cause of this heavy rain was two tropical storms, which had crossed from the Bay of Bengal – BOB 06 and BOB 07. (In the Indian Ocean they are categorised as a ‘depression’ and ‘deep depression’. in Atlantic storm terminology, these would be called a tropical depression and a tropical storm respectively).
Both storms followed identical routes west from Bengal, tracking over Rajasthan before hitting the province of Sindh, the region worst affected by flooding:
http://www.pmd.gov.pk/cdpc/home.htm
Unusually, these storms did not dissipate after landfall in Bengal so wreaked havoc for days afterwards. Pakistan, needless to say, is not immune to tropical cyclones. But for two storms to hit in the space of a week, at the same location, and during the wettest month of the year is an extremely rare combination of meteorological events.
Pakistan was already experiencing a wetter than normal monsoon, courtesy of La Nina, but those two storms pushed the rainfall into record territory, the wettest August since 1961.
There is no evidence that tropical cyclones are getting more frequent or intense in the Indian Ocean, so consequently there is also no evidence that last month’s rainfall had anything to do with climate change.
What is significant, though, is the chart of annual rainfall in Pakistan, published in the State of the Pakistan Climate 2021:
http://www.pmd.gov.pk/cdpc/home.htm
Annual rainfall was clearly much less during the 1960s and 70s, the direct result of global cooling at the time. Those years of drought were a disaster for Pakistan, and the country has welcomed the increase in rainfall since, just as they do across the border in India. The wetter, the better!
It is also significant that the seven-year moving average has barely changed since the 1980s, fluctuating up and down, but with no obvious long-term trend. If global warming was really bringing more extreme rainfall, we should expect to see evidence of this in the annual figures.
You will of course hear none of this from the BBC or the climate attribution industry, which was established to promote the climate change agenda, and which routinely publishes patently unsupportable claims.
Steve Koonin, President Obama’s climate scientist, puts it best: ‘Practitioners argue that event attribution studies are the best climate science can do in terms of connecting weather to changes in climate. But as a physical scientist, I’m appalled that such studies are given credence, much less media coverage. A hallmark of science is that conclusions get tested against observations. But that’s virtually impossible for weather attribution studies. It’s like a spiritual adviser who claims her influence helped you win the lottery – after you’ve already won it.’
Of course, like most of climate science, the climate attribution industry has little to do with science, and everything to do with money.
The Arctic ice scam
FOR years the ‘experts’ have been telling us that the Arctic would soon be ice-free in summer.
Al Gore notoriously warned us in 2009 that ‘there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.’
He was, of course, just a politician. But a whole host of supposed Arctic scientists were all busy issuing similar warnings at the time. In 2007, for instance, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told us that northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just five to six years. In December that year, Jay Zwally of Nasa agreed, giving the ice till 2012. A year later, in 2008, Professor David Barber went one step further, saying the ice would all be gone that very summer.
For sheer persistence in getting it wrong, however, the prize must go to Peter Wadhams, Professor and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge:
• In 2012, he predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2015/16.
• In 2014, he thought it might last till 2020.
• In 2016, he confidently predicted the Arctic would be ice-free that summer (though curiously he now defined ‘ice-free’ as less than 1 million square kilometers).
All these pronouncements were designed for political propaganda purposes, not for scientific reasons, and were widely propagated by the gullible media.
For instance in an article in the Independent in June 2016 (complete with photos of a cute polar bear on a melting piece of ice) Wadhams confidently asserted: ‘My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year. Even if the ice doesn’t completely disappear, it is very likely that this will be a record low year. I think there’s a reasonable chance it could get down to a million this year and if it doesn’t do it this year, it will do it next year.’
Unfortunately for Professor Wadhams, the sea ice has not been melting away as ordained. On the contrary, it has been remarkably resilient. Arctic sea ice has just reached its minimum extent this week, just as it always does in September, and the provisional data shows that there is still 4.7million sq km of the stuff.
As can be seen from the chart below, this year and last had the largest extents since 2013 and 2014, and there is considerably more ice around this year than in 2007 and 2008.
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/data-and-image-archive
There was a climate shift in the Arctic in 2007, when warm Atlantic waters entered the Arctic basin and ocean currents pushed a lot of the thicker multi-year ice out through the Fram Strait, which lies between Greenland and Svalbard, into the open Atlantic Ocean, where unsurprisingly it melted. Since 2007, much of the ice has consequently been thinner, new ice, which naturally tends to melt in summer.
Climate scientists with an agenda to peddle jumped on the bandwagon and predicted that the ice would just carry on melting. However, they ignored the lesson of history. The Atlantic Ocean regularly goes through such cyclical events, with cold and warm phases lasting about 50 to 60 years. The cycle is called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO, and it is known to have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years.
In the 1970s, climate scientists were extremely concerned about the increase in sea ice in the Arctic, which occurred during the cold phase of the AMO. The leading climatologist of his day, H H Lamb, wrote in 1982: ‘A greatly increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for 50 years. In April-May 1968 and 1969, the island was half surrounded by ice, as had not occurred since 1888.’
Satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice began in 1979, at the depth of the cold period. The climate mafia always use this period as the baseline, pretending it was the ‘norm’. That way they can attempt to fool the public that the warming in the Arctic and loss of ice since then is due to man-made global warming.
What is astonishing is that these buffoons are still in a job and living off the taxpayer. In any other field of science, to be so consistently wrong for so long would have quickly led to a well-earned oblivion.
BY MORGAN BEGG | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | SEPTEMBER 22, 2022
The danger in the post-lockdown era is that in our rush to move on we forget the hard lessons that have been learned about this catastrophic public policy failure.
On the basis of alarmist modelling, often commissioned by governments and amplified by sensationalist media, panicked politicians discarded all basic ideas about proportionality and the rule of law to criminalise everyday life and exert unprecedented controls over the citizenry.
From the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, all Australian governments adopted the attitude that any public health mitigation measure was on the table, and little to no consideration was given to the costs of the measures that were adopted.
This is the subject of new research published by the Institute of Public Affairs, which for the first time in Australia calculates many of the costs of the nation’s Covid zealotry up to June 2022. In the report, Hard Lessons: Reckoning the Humanitarian, Economic, and Social Costs of Zero-Covid, we find that the total economic and fiscal cost of the Australian COVID-19 response was no less than A$938.4 billion (£550.6 billion) to June 2022. This report identifies:
The research also calculates how much children suffered in terms of schooling. Despite being the safest cohort in society when it comes to COVID-19, children were routinely sent home to learn remotely or not learn at all. We estimate children in the state of Victoria would have lost about 12 weeks of reading skills and 17 weeks of numeracy skills, something which for many will never be recovered.
Even on the most basic metric, lockdowns failed. In terms of the number of years of life, the costs of joblessness because of the initial nationwide lockdowns in March and April 2020 were about 31 times more costly than the maximum possible years of life saved by lockdowns throughout 2020 and 2021.
Even in the state of Victoria, whose Labor Government enthusiastically established a world-renowned Covid police state, politicians are no longer touting their pandemic response in the lead up to the state election in November.
Likewise, the former federal Liberal/Nationals Coalition Government, which was voted out of office earlier this year, rarely boasted of its Covid response.
Governments of the Covid era appear to have accepted the failure of the Covid-elimination approach, but rather than confront the reality of this failure are just pretending that it never happened.
This is not about living in the past, because the reality is we are still bearing the costs now. In terms of the resulting mental health crisis, lost learning, shuttered businesses, Government debt and inflation, we are not likely to know the full costs of the Covid response for many years to come.
Our future wellbeing as a society also demands that we remember the hard lessons of the Covid response.
We will need to deal with pandemics in the future, and it is critical to know what went wrong, and how these failures came to be.
Australians were subject to the harshest restrictions on their way of life in their history, and we should be demanding not that it should be forgotten, but that it should be remembered so that it doesn’t happen again.
Morgan Begg is the Director of the Legal Rights Program at the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, Australia.
The damage that lockdowns would cause was far too well known, uneven, and catastrophic to assume their chief instigators must have had good intentions.
By Michael P Senger | The New Normal | September 20, 2022
In the United States, some 2,000,000 people—over 1% of adult men—currently reside in prisons and jails. In America’s poorest cities, crime and law enforcement are intertwined with life to such a degree that many children grow up more familiar with the justice system than the education system. For kids who grow up in these circumstances, getting through school while staying out of jail is a feat worth celebrating.
Some of this is, of course, necessary to maintain a peaceful society in a country as open and unequal as the United States. But the American political-prison-industrial complex is also riddled with perverse incentives. As Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch put it: “We live in a world in which everything has been criminalized. And some professors have even opined that there’s not an American alive who hasn’t committed a felony under some state law.” We’ve even developed an Orwellian lexicon for this system; the term “crime of moral turpitude” is a tacit admission that America’s statutes are riddled with crimes that do not actually involve “moral turpitude”—it’s puzzling why these should be considered crimes at all.
Worse yet, an estimated 5% of convicts are actually innocent. That means there are currently some 100,000 Americans in prisons and jails who didn’t even commit the crimes for which they were charged. The sad truth is that just living in one of America’s poorest neighborhoods comes with some risk of incarceration; the more people around who are convicted, the greater the odds of becoming an innocent convict oneself. Juries do their best, but they’re beset by the usual human biases. Judges know all too well that verdicts often come down to such irrelevant factors as the defendant’s charisma, physical attractiveness, or even what the jury had for breakfast that morning.
Mass incarceration is one sad byproduct of inequality and community deterioration in the 21st century. But an even worse byproduct of that inequality is an entire caste of western elites who’ve begun to manipulate the system to exempt themselves and their supporters from the rule of law to a degree not seen since the rise of the fascist regimes of the 1930s. And in no instance has this been made more clear than in the promulgation of Covid lockdowns into policy in early 2020.
Lockdowns, or the shutting of businesses and community spaces with the force of law, were unprecedented in the western world prior to Xi Jinping’s lockdown of Wuhan and weren’t part of any democratic country’s pandemic plan; rather, these pandemic plans suggested only voluntary social distancing measures. While lockdowns bore some facial resemblance to the voluntary social distancing measures contemplated in pandemic plans, this similarity was no coincidence, as the concept of “social distancing” in its origin was lifted by the US CDC straight from the Chinese Communist Party policy of “lockdown” as imposed during SARS in 2003. Further, some leading federal officials have disclosed that at the time they recommended temporary social distancing measures for Covid, they did so with the intent that state governors would enforce them as indefinite forced lockdowns.
As former UN Assistant Secretary-General Ramesh Thakur has documented in scrupulous detail, the harms that lockdowns would cause were all well-known and reported at the time they were first adopted as policy in early 2020. These included accurate estimates of mass deaths due to delayed medical operations, a mental health crisis, drug overdoses, an economic recession, global poverty, hunger, and starvation.
Yet regardless, for reasons we’re still only beginning to understand, some key scientists, health officials, national security officials, media entities, international organizations, billionaires and influencers advocated the broad imposition of these unprecedented, devastating policies from the earliest possible date, ostensibly to stop or slow the coronavirus as the CCP claims to have done in Wuhan, while censoring any contrary opinions, spinning a false illusion of consensus amongst an unknowing public. A report later revealed that military leaders saw this as a unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on the public, shaping and “exploiting” information to bolster government messages about the virus. Dissenting scientists were silenced. Psyops teams deployed fear campaigns on their own people in a scorched-earth campaign to drive consent for lockdowns.
These early advocates of lockdowns inverted the definitions of key public health principles in sophisticated, Orwellian fashion. While the lockdowns they advocated were deliberately intended to overturn existing public health practices, they instructed the public to “follow the science,” leading the public to believe that their policies were grounded in established scientific practice. They used the rhetoric of equity and vulnerability to advocate policies that disproportionately harmed the most vulnerable and increased existing economic divides. They then retroactively cited the broad public support for lockdowns that had been sown by their own propaganda as justification for their propaganda in support of those lockdowns.
Ultimately, these lockdowns failed to meaningfully slow the spread of the coronavirus and killed tens of thousands of young people in every country in which they were tried. We now know the virus had already begun spreading undetected all over the world by fall 2019 at the latest and had an infection fatality rate under 0.2%.
However, the lockdowns caused the public to believe that the virus was hundreds of times deadlier than it really was. Simultaneously, the World Health Organization issued global PCR testing guidance—using tests later confirmed by the New York Times to have a false positive rate over 85%—pursuant to which millions of cases were soon discovered in every country. Additionally, the WHO issued new guidance on the use of mechanical ventilators to member nations; over 97% of those over age 65 who received mechanical ventilation in accordance with this guidance were killed.
Terrified by this surge of deaths and the psychological terror campaigns deployed by governments on their own people, populations across the western world proceeded to impose an ever-darker swathe of illiberal mandates including forced masking and digital vaccine passes for everyday activities. Young children, who were at virtually no risk from the virus, lost years of primary education in the worst education crisis since the end of the Second World War. An indefinite state of legal emergency was imposed which continues to this day. The global fight for human rights and the end of poverty was set back decades.
Over $3 trillion in wealth was transferred from the world’s poorest to a tiny number of billionaires and their supporters, predominantly in China and in the tech and pharmaceutical industries. Several key early lockdown proponents indicated that they saw Covid as an opportunity to “entrench a new idea of the left … reconstructing a cultural hegemony on a new basis.” Authoritarian regimes grew more autocratic, and democratic governments took on authoritarian characteristics.
Worst of all, a norm was grafted onto western democracy that the fundamental rights to movement, work, association, bodily autonomy, and free expression, for which our forebears fought so tirelessly, can be suddenly and indefinitely suspended, without precedent, analysis, or logic, based on nothing but vague promises that doing so will “save lives” — rendering them all but moot.
Meanwhile, the lockdowns and mandates led to the deaths of over 170,000 Americans and proportionate numbers in countries that imposed them across the western world. By 2021, lockdowns had killed over 228,000 children in South Asia. Studies of excess deaths indicate that lockdowns led to several million deaths in India and proportionate numbers in other developing nations.
A million here, a million there, pretty soon you’re talking real atrocities.
These numbers do not even begin to count the total damage that will ultimately ensue due to the economic devastation of lockdowns, which we will continue to witness for many years to come. Many early lockdown proponents may never be among the 2,000,000 Americans currently residing in jails and prisons, but we can be sure that thousands more would-be innocent children will one day be added to the prison rolls as a result of the economic destruction their policies unleashed.
Ladies and gentlemen, this case ultimately comes down to whether, unlike the other 2,000,000 Americans currently in state custody, we can be sure that by virtue of their socioeconomic position and the panic over a virus which panic they deliberately stoked with their own policies, this handful of key early lockdown proponents acted in good faith when they convinced the world to adopt these unprecedented, catastrophic policies based on the belief that China eliminated the virus from an entire country by shutting down one city for two months—so sure that the question demands no further inquiry. I leave that for you to decide.
By Carl Heneghan, Tom Jefferson, and Jason Oke | Trust the Evidence | September 21, 2022
Two weeks ago, we reported that EUROMOMO (the European mortality monitoring site) data showed an excess of 800 deaths for 2022 in children aged 0 to 14.
An eagle-eyed subscriber alerted us to a strange phenomenon: in the latest report (week 36), 355 excess deaths have seemingly disappeared. Note the numerical change on the vertical axis in the graphs below.
This is what it looked like two weeks ago – just above 800 (see here)
We emailed EUROMOMO asking to explain what happened in the two most recent reporting weeks to cause the “disappearance”.
The answer was, “as you can read in our weekly bulletin and on the webpage for “Graphs and maps”, Spain did not participate in the EuroMOMO output in week 36, due to an adjustment process related with mortality data source”.
We can rest easy then (well, sort of): 355 child excess deaths took place in Spain over a 1-2 week period, and the non-reporting accounted for the dramatic fall in excess mortality. Moreover, such a notable fall caused the readjustment of the Y axis on the graph (note from 800 to 400).
The Spanish government should investigate matters urgently. Or maybe, EUROMOMO data managers should look carefully at what they publish. We are puzzled over how many excess deaths in Europe occur in children. In the meantime, we’ll keep digging.
By Mike Campbell | The Counter Signal | September 21, 2022
A June interview with the Moderna Chief Medical Officer has surfaced where he concedes the spike protein from the COVID vaccine can interact with and damage heart cells, vindicating Dr. Byram Bridle, a Canadian doctor who warned about the vaccine over a year ago.
“We know so much more about myocarditis today than we did a year ago,” said Dr. Burton.
“I do believe that it is the spike protein . . . that either causes a little bit of direct damage to the heart, or antibodies that are produced that react with the heart cells,” he said.
Dr. Bridle, a defamed viral immunologist professor at Guelph University in Ontario, responded in his substack on Monday.
“Are people going to accuse the manufacturer of spreading misinformation?” he asked.
In June of 2021, Bridle expressed concerns that the spike protein in the COVID vaccine could travel throughout and damage the body.
Subsequently, “my life exploded into a storm of harassment, accusations, and censorship,” Bridle said.
Bridle is still unable to practice in his research lab at Guelph University. He must work from home and is an outcast at his university.
A slanderous website was launched to pop under search results for Bridle. The website claims “the mRNA vaccine is injected into the upper-arm (the deltoid) muscle. There is no spike protein in the mRNA vaccines.”
Canadian health officials accused experts who raised safety concerns about the COVID vaccine of spreading disinformation. Those claims went largely unchallenged by mainstream media, who pushed for more lockdowns and restrictions in their questioning.
Bridle said being vindicated with the Moderna admission comes with “mixed emotions” since he’s suffered “irreparable damage” to his career and reputation.
“I wonder if the naysayers will listen to the COVID-19′ vaccine’ manufacturers as they now confirm this 1.5-year-old message.”
In July, Ontario Chief Medical Officer Kieran Moore announced that a fourth vaccine is now available for everyone 18+ but said not everyone should get it due to the risk of myocarditis.
Vaccines continue to be recommended for healthy babies in Canada and children, even though many countries have stopped offering vaccines to kids.
New Japanese Study
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | September 19, 2022
Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) was an early concern for many scientists who weren’t fixated on giving Covid vaccines to everyone. However, anything suggesting that mRNA vaccines weren’t a gift from God was dismissed. Worse than that, it wasn’t even studied or looked at.
ADE occurs when suboptimal antibodies, acting almost like a Trojan Horse, bind a virus and enhance its entry into cells. This can happen in both natural infection and vaccination and can result in more severe disease.
Now, a new Japanese re-evaluation of ADE of infection in Nature Scientific Reports confirms that ADE could be causing adverse effects.
These novel mRNA vaccines have been developed to target the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S-protein). The authors say that whilst the preventative and therapeutic effects of vaccine antibodies are obvious, little attention has been paid to the influence of the remaining and dwindling anti-S-protein antibodies. They found that, whilst mRNA (Moderna) antibodies initially exhibited neutralising activity, a dominance of ADE activity was observed over time.
When examining how long neutralising or ADE activities lasted, they found that no neutralising activity was detected 27 days after first vaccination. The highest concentration of neutralising activity was detected on days 20 – 52 after the second vaccination.
ADE activity was also detected at diluted concentrations. After day 98 of the second vaccination, no neutralising activity was detected, however clear ADE activity was maintained.
Taken together, these results demonstrate that after vaccinations, neutralizing antibodies are induced and persist for a long time in some individuals, but ADE-causing antibodies also exist from the early stage and persist for a longer period than do neutralizing antibodies in some individuals. It is noteworthy that ADE observed at a higher concentration of serum, that is at low dilution (1/100), might mean a more vulnerable stage in terms of susceptibility to infection, because no neutralizing activity was detected.
Next, the authors of the paper examined the effect of vaccination against Omicron. They found that whilst some samples maintained neutralising activity against the original strain on day 175 after vaccination, there was no neutralising activity against Omicron. One sample still exhibited ADE activity.
It is suggested that the rapid spread of Omicron around the world may be in part due to the lack of cross-neutralisation against Omicron and some ADE activity after vaccination.
They conclude by saying that their study shows that mRNA vaccination targeting the S-protein has potential to cause ADE. Their experiments show that the opposing activities of neutralisation and ADE are exhibited by the same antibodies.
Interestingly, the amount of virus seemed to be unrelated to the development of ADE. Infection was enhanced even with an extremely low dose of virus. They also suggest that ADE-causable antibodies are not the only critical factor that results in the development of ADE.
Whilst it is plausible that unfavourable ADE causing antibody concentrations may not be reached until the virus has been cleared from the body, the authors say it is still important to pay attention to the possible adverse effects caused by remaining or diminishing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.
Furthermore, due to the protective effects of T-cell immunity it might make it more difficult to recognise ADE in reinfections.
Antibodies raised by double vaccination (at least on day 175 after the second vaccination) are less effective against Omicron as reported, and suggest that the Omicron strain has acquired the ability to escape attack by pre-existing anti-SARS-CoV-2 Abs and in part can utilize infection-enhancing mechanisms, possibly including ADE, as a means of survival.
It leads one to wonder how many people experienced ADE after vaccination from small amounts of virus, which would not have caused a problem if they had remained unvaccinated. How many people may have died as a result of ADE? All speculation but speculation which is supported by this Japanese study. Speculation, which if left uninvestigated, may cause similar or worse problems in future vaccination campaigns.
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 20, 2022
Just when you thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration couldn’t possibly get any worse, they prove you wrong. Here are two recent COVID booster campaign messages tweeted out by the FDA:
“It’s time to install that update! #UpdateYourAntibodies with a new #COVID19 booster.”1 “Don’t be shocked! You can now #RechargeYourImmunity with an updated #COVID19 booster.”2
FDA Now Pushes Transhumanist Pipe-Dream
That’s right. The FDA now wants you to believe that your immune system is something that needs to be “recharged,” as if it were a battery, or “updated” with mRNA injections like a piece of software.
This is transhumanist lingo that has no bearing on real-world biology or physiology, and proves beyond doubt that the FDA is fully onboard with the transhumanist ideas of technocracy pushed by the globalist cabal. The human body is basically viewed as nothing more than a biological platform equipped with genetic software that can be altered and updated at will.
The problem, of course, is that your body doesn’t work that way. You cannot turn your body into a “bioreactor”3 or an internal “vaccine-production facility”4 and expect it to work as intended. The massive increase in disability and sudden death among COVID jab recipients is a testament to the fact that allowing Big Pharma to play God is a bad idea.
Transhumanism as a whole is a pipe-dream, as it fails to take into account just about everything that actually makes us human, including the nonlocality of consciousness, which they irrationally believe can be uploaded to a cloud-based system and merged with AI, or downloaded into an artificial body construct, such as a synthetic body.
False Advertising
The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for addressing fraudulent advertising. According to law, an ad must be “truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.”5 The FDA itself also requires drug ads to be “truthful, balanced and accurately communicated.”6
“Balanced” refers to promotional materials that include efficacy and benefit claims, which must include a balance between benefit information and information about risks. In my view, the FDA’s most recent COVID booster ads are clear examples of false advertising, because:
Was No-Test Drug Approval the Plan All Along?
While I cannot prove it, I suspect Operation Warp Speed (OWS) — devised in the spring of 2020 by a dozen top officials from then-President Trump’s health and defense departments to expedite the development of a COVID-19 vaccine8 — may have been intended to normalize the approval of drugs without proper testing.
Even if the normalization of expedited drug approval wasn’t originally intended, it certainly has been used and abused to that aim since. In June 2022, the FDA quietly implemented a “Future Framework” scheme9 to speed up the delivery of COVID boosters. This is what allows for the authorization of reformulated COVID shots without human trials.10,11,12
The FDA basically rewrote the rules on the fly, deciding that mRNA gene therapies are equivalent to conventional influenza vaccines and can be updated and released without testing.
The idea here is that the safety of the mRNA COVID shots has already been proven by the original shots, which they claim have harmed or killed no one. Hence, safety is a given, and the effectiveness of reformulated boosters can be assessed simply by checking the antibody levels in a few mice, which is what Pfizer and Moderna did.
In reality, however, millions of people around the world have been harmed and killed by the original shots, the human trials for those shots were riddled with fraud, antibody levels tell us nothing about the jab’s ability to protect against infection, and the two technologies (conventional flu vaccines and mRNA gene therapy) have no common ground.
I have no doubt this “Future Framework” will also, over time, be widened to include other vaccines and drugs that drug makers may want to tinker with. It may even lower standards for drug trials in general, which historically have required at least 10 years of multiphase testing.13 The dangers of this trend really cannot be overstated.
Analysis of US Booster Policy
In a September 12, 2022, article, Kaiser Health News raised several questions about the FDA’s authorization of the new bivalent COVID boosters:14
“… in the real world, are the omicron-specific vaccines significantly more protective — and in what ways — than the original COVID vaccines so many have already taken? If so, who would benefit most from the new shots? Since the federal government is purchasing these new vaccines … is the $3.2 billion price tag worth the unclear benefit? …
The FDA could have requested more clinical vaccine effectiveness data from Pfizer and Moderna before authorizing their updated omicron BA.5 boosters. Yet the FDA cannot weigh in on important follow-up questions: How much more effective are the updated boosters than vaccines already on the market? In which populations?
And what increase in effectiveness is enough to merit an increase in price (a so-called cost-benefit analysis)? Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, perform such an analysis before allowing new medicines onto the market, to negotiate a fair national price …
As population immunity builds up through vaccination and infection, it’s unclear whether additional vaccine boosters, updated or not, would benefit all ages equally … The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices considered limiting the updated boosters to people 50 and up, but eventually decided that doing so would be too complicated.”
Shocking Jab Study Decimates Safety Claims
In related news, a shocking risk-benefit analysis15 looking at the impact of booster mandates for university students concluded that:
That means mandating a third COVID shot for university students will result in “a net expected harm.” The authors also stress that “Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favorable.” The authors go on to state that “University booster mandates are unethical because:”16
“1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group;
2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
4) U.S. mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and
5) mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialization and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support.”
Government Study Reveals COVID Jab Problems
A small observational study17,18 led by neurology researchers at the National Institutes of Health also brings bad news, as they found “a variety of neuropathic symptoms” occurring within three to four weeks of COVID injection:
“We studied 23 patients (92% female; median age 40 years) reporting new neuropathic symptoms beginning within 1 month after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. 100% reported sensory symptoms comprising severe face and/or limb paresthesias, and 61% had orthostasis, heat intolerance and palpitations …
Biopsies from randomly selected five patients that were evaluated for immune complexes showed deposition of complement C4d in endothelial cells. Electrodiagnostic test results were normal in 94% (16/17). Together, 52% (12/23) of patients had objective evidence of small-fiber peripheral neuropathy …
This observational study suggests that a variety of neuropathic symptoms may manifest after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and in some patients might be an immune-mediated process.”
FDA Refuses to Release Key COVID Jab Safety Analyses
In July 2022, The Epoch Times asked the FDA to release “all analyses performed by the agency for the COVID-19 vaccines using … Empirical Bayesian data mining, which involves comparing the adverse events recorded after a specific COVID-19 vaccine with those recorded after vaccination with non-COVID-19 vaccines.”19
The FDA has so far refused, claiming the data is tied to “internal discussions protected by law.” September 10, 2022, The Epoch Times reported:20
“According to operating procedures laid out by the agency and its partner in January 202121 and February 2022,22 the FDA would perform data mining ‘at least biweekly’ to identify adverse events ‘reported more frequently than expected following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines.’ The agency would perform the mining on data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
In a recent response, the FDA records office told The Epoch Times that it would not provide any of the analyses, even in redacted form. The agency cited an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act that lets the government withhold inter-agency and intra-agency memorandums and letters ‘that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.’
The agency also pointed to the Code of Federal Regulations, which says that ‘all communications within the Executive Branch of the Federal government which are in written form or which are subsequently reduced to writing may be withheld from public disclosure except that factual information which is reasonably segregable in accordance with the rule established in § 20.22 is available for public disclosure.’
It’s not clear why the FDA could not produce copies of the analyses with non-factual information redacted. The Epoch Times has appealed the determination by the records office.”
CDC Also Refuses to Release Its Safety Analyses
According to the VAERS standard operating procedures cited above, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is also required to perform data mining analyses, using Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining. PRR23 measures how common an adverse event is for a specific drug compared to all the other drugs in the database.
When The Epoch Times asked the CDC to release its results, it too refused. According to The Epoch Times, the CDC “has also twice provided false information when responding to questions”:24
“The agency initially said that no PRR analyses were done and that data mining is ‘outside of th[e] agency’s purview.’ The agency then said that it did perform PRRs, starting in February 2021. Later, the agency acknowledged that wasn’t true.
The agency did not begin performing PRRs until March 2022, a spokesperson told The Epoch Times. Roger Andoh, a records officer, gave the initial response, citing the CDC’s Immunization and Safety Office. Dr. John Su, a CDC official, gave the second response.
It remains unclear with whom the information originated. The Epoch Times has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for internal emails that may provide answers.”
So far, the FDA has insisted the data show no evidence of serious adverse effects from the COVID jab. The only possible signal they’d found through April 16, 2021, was for raised body temperature. In the article, The Epoch Times cites several papers in which the FDA and/or CDC claim their data mining efforts have come up empty handed.
But if that’s true, why the reluctance to release the data? Don’t they want us to be reassured that these shots are as safe as they claim them to be? Why sit on exculpatory evidence? Unless, of course, the data proves the FDA and CDC have been lying all along.
Senators Calling for Special Grand Jury
In other related news, naturopath Henry Ealy and two Oregon state senators, Kim Thatcher and Dennis Linthicum, have been trying since March 2022 to compel the impaneling of a special grand jury to investigate decisions by federal officials that “significantly compromise[d] the accuracy and integrity of COVID-related data.”25
According to the March 7, 2022, petition,26,27 filed in Portland, Oregon, the 30 defendants manipulated statistics to create “a significant hyperinflation of COVID-19 case, hospitalization and death counts,” which in turn resulted in $3.5 trillion in fraudulent taxpayer expenditures.
Defendants specifically named28 are former CDC director Robert Redfield and current CDC director Rochelle Walensky, former Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary Alex Azar, HHS director Xavier Becerra, and National Center for Health Statistics director Brian Moyer.
As explained by Ealy in the video update above, the defendants were given 60 days to reply to the March 7 petition. As it happened, the U.S. Attorney for Oregon, Scott Asphaug, was assigned by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to be the defending attorney — an interesting choice, considering Ealy, Thatcher and Linthicum had in 2021 asked Asphaug to investigate the listed defendants, which he refused to do.
Asphaug immediately filed for an extension, which gave them another 60 days. The defendants now had until August 26, 2022, to respond. Suddenly, July 13, the DOJ reassigned Asphaug to Nairobi, Kenya. Asphaug resigned from his post as U.S. attorney, effective July 17, at which point U.S. Attorneys Natalie Wight and Dianne Schweiner took over the CDC’s defense.
When the defendants missed the August 26 deadline, Ealy, Thatcher and Linthicum filed for default judgment.29 Two days later, August 29, Wight and Schweiner opposed default judgment.30
Schweiner’s excuse for missing the deadline was that she’d been busy caring for her acutely sick dog. As noted by Linthicum in his newsletter,31 “no self-respecting sci-fi editor would allow something this outlandish past his desk when trying to make a story about integrity and transparency sound believable.”
Ealy is now convinced the CDC is feeling the heat, and urges Americans to sign Stand for Health Freedom’s petition to convene a special grand jury to investigate the CDC’s conduct during COVID-19.
The more signatures there are on this petition, the stronger the argument that the court must order a grand jury investigation, as it demonstrates that this investigation is important to the American public, and isn’t just some pet grievance by Ealy, Thatcher and Linthicum.
As noted by Ealy, the CDC has committed criminal data fraud. There are laws prohibiting data manipulation by federal agencies, and laws meant to prevent it from happening in the first place.
The CDC violated those laws, not just once, but repeatedly, and those in charge must be held accountable. We cannot have a public health agency flouting data laws in order to justify harming the public. So, please, add your name to the grand jury petition.
Sources and References
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Dr Bouthaina Shaaban | February 23, 2017
A recently declassified CIA document prepared in 1983, and released on 20 January 2017, shows that the United States had at the time encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Syria, which would have led to a vicious conflict between the two countries, thus draining their resources.
The report, which was then prepared by CIA officer Graham Fuller, indicates that the US tried adamantly to convince Saddam to attack Syria under any pretense available, in order to get the two most powerful countries in the Arab East to destroy each other, turning their attention away from the Arab-Israeli conflict. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 