Covid-19 vaccine propaganda is everywhere, and particularly shrill in the sanctified NHS. Reluctant care workers are given a chance to see the error of their thinking, through a teaching session attended with compliant colleagues. Take for example the webinar Vaccination Myth Busting Session for Care Staff, used for NHS and other health and social care staff in Hertfordshire.
The slides begin with results of an Ipsos MORI poll, which asked ‘how convincing are arguments for taking a coronavirus vaccine?’ Of the several items, ‘to protect other people from catching the coronavirus’ and ‘because it will reduce my risk of catching the coronavirus’ got 77% and 76% support respectively. This use of a public opinion poll is manipulative, enabling the educators to make a point without recourse to scientific evidence. In fact, the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission. As Peter Doshi explained in the British Medical Journal, trials could only measure mild symptoms, because hospitalisations and deaths were too few for statistical significance.
Also scoring 77% was ‘because vaccines have been very successful against other diseases’. This may be true, but would you agree to take an experimental pill because drugs work for other diseases? Trust in medicine is being exploited. While 66% agreed with the statement ‘because I trust scientists and other medical experts if they say I should take it’, there was also 45% support for following the advice of pharmaceutical companies, and 39% on government recommendation. This is troublingly naïve.
The next slide is on the World Health Organisation’s steps in vaccine development. No mention is made of the need for long-term safety assessment in the trial stages, as would normally be required. Instead, this is left to post-marketing surveillance. Yet the danger of insufficient time for testing was shown by the thalidomide scandal.
The purpose of vaccines is herd immunity, a state that is only reached ‘when most people in a community are vaccinated against a disease’. Naturalistic herd immunity has been conveniently forgotten. According to the slides, ‘vaccines train your immune system using a harmless form of the virus’. Fact check: false. The mRNA type, described in the slides as ‘genetic vaccines’, instructs cells to produce spike proteins. The adenovirus vector type does not use SARS-CoV-2 either, as the virus has never been properly isolated.
‘Single dose is not single dose’ is the illogical title of the next slide. Although there is ‘high efficacy after first dose’, the second dose gives more lasting protection. However, there is clearly not much confidence in immunisation because the webinar instructs staff to ‘behave as if everyone you meet outside your home is infected and you are too’. The status of sick until proven healthy, apparently, persists for the double-jabbed.
Thus everyone should wear face coverings I guess that ‘2 layers min, preferably three’ means the thickness of cloth rather than the number of masks, although Tony Fauci was telling people earlier this year to wear two masks. As with the vaccines, masking is presented as part of a package. Amusingly, a block of Swiss cheese analogises the various interventions: all slices are riddled with holes, but no hole goes through the entire block. None of these are optional: ‘if you want to get out of lockdown, your only real option is compliance’.
The threatening tone continues with the assertion that unvaccinated people will cause new variants to arise, and ‘vaccine escape’. Reference is made to the ‘Green Book’, which makes almost no exceptions to the vaccine regime. Based on advice from the British School for Allergy and Clinical Immunology, anyone who had an anaphylactic shock after a previous jab should be given the Astra Zeneca vaccine rather than Pfizer, and should have half an hour of monitoring afterwards.
The slides were produced before the authorities gave the green light for jabbing pregnant women, but there is little caution: expectant mothers ‘should be reassured that the vaccine does not contain live SARS-CoV-2 virus, and therefore cannot cause COVID-19 infection in her or in her baby’. So that’s all right then. The impact on fertility cannot be known, but the webinar glibly states: ‘current guidance is that the vaccination is safe for women of childbearing age’.
Lastly, the session considers side effects. It is accepted that all drugs can cause adverse reactions in some people. However, the covid-19 vaccine is not a treatment but an experimental intervention on the healthy. Thus the risk-benefit ratio is different from a medicine used to treat illness. The teaching session describes the common side effects of ‘a painful arm, feeling tired, headache, general aches and mild flu-like symptoms’, which disappear over a few days.
Then comes a leap of faith: ‘these symptoms are a sign that your body is building immunity’. Such information may explain why people experiencing adverse reactions say ‘at least I know it’s working’. But the reality is that many vaccine recipients feel very poorly after the jab, as known to healthcare providers due to the high level of staff sickness.
It is unethical and against the principles of the Hippocratic Oath to tell people that adverse reactions are normal. But this seems to be the message of the vaccine regime. A Guardian article this week advised people who are suffering nasty side effects: ‘don’t think of this as a bad sign – it’s exactly what’s expected from an effective but imperfect jab’. In this Orwellian newspeak, harm is safe.
The most egregious economy of truth in this teaching session is on the most serious adverse reaction of all – death. By the time that the slides were produced (27th January), millions of Britons had been jabbed. But this bold claim is made:
‘Nobody has died following having the vaccine in the UK or anywhere else in the world’.
In January covid-19 mortality surged, a pattern seen in most other countries after vaccine rollout. The likely reason is weakened immunity for two or three weeks after the jab. In the frail elderly, recovery of the immune system takes longer, exposing them to infection in the winter peak. This correlation is not proven, but numerous care homes had a spate of covid deaths after all residents were jabbed.
The blood clotting problem was also well known, with several reports of people dying shortly after vaccination. Again, causation has not been fully determined (although belatedly the authorities have added cardiovascular risks to the vaccine marketing information). But why have a Yellow Card system if reported adverse reactions are simply ignored?
The producers and presenters of this misinformation should be held to account. As the ‘no jab, no job’ mandate looms, it is time for professional practitioners to speak out. Indeed, their code of conduct demands they do so.
I HAD the pleasure of interviewing Dr Robert Malone, an industrial scientist and the authoritative voice on mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) technology since he invented it when he was a graduate student at the Salk Institute in 1988.
US-based Dr Malone is not a conspiracy theorist and he’s not an anti-vaxxer. He’s spent the past three decades building vaccines and vaccine technology.
He has more than 20 years of management and leadership experience in academia, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, as well as in governmental and non-governmental organisations.
The fact that he is now being ‘ghosted’ for speaking about the adverse effects of the mRNA vaccines reflects the dark era of censorship that we’ve been experiencing for far too long.
Even my interview with him was pulled off YouTube in the space of just three hours. Fortunately, I posted it on alternative video-sharing platforms, such as Rumble and BitChute.
Here are some of the highlights he revealed in the interview. Firstly, Dr Malone stated: ‘In the Security and Exchange Commission filings for both Pfizer and Moderna, there’s explicit statements that acknowledge that these are gene therapy-based (vaccines) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) perceives them as such.’
He brilliantly explained the science behind the vaccines by using the metaphor of an industrial robot used to build cars. The RNA in this metaphor is the code that a hacker is inserting into the bit stream to make these robots (your cells) make something they would not have otherwise made. In this case, it’s the spike protein that’s recognised by the immune system triggering a response.
‘In a conventional vaccine you can precisely calculate how much protein goes into your shoulder because it’s fixed and predictable, but in the case of these genetic vaccines you can’t,’ he warned.
‘You can’t calculate how long it produces this protein and how much protein it makes and exactly what cells in your body the protein goes into. Conventional vaccines go around your cell, but for these gene therapy-based vaccines the target is your cell.’
When I asked whether he thought the UK (which was the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine on December 2, 2020) rushed through their approval of it, Dr Malone quickly responded: ‘I wouldn’t say maybe, I would say they did. You can’t take a process that normally takes a decade and push it down into nine months and not cut corners.’
He explained that regulatory agencies such as America’s FDA and Britain’s MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) have different safety check lists for vaccines and gene therapies. Typically, genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity studies are not done with vaccines, but are done with gene therapy products.
Dr Malone revealed that in the face of the crisis, apparently there was a global consensus with these regulatory agencies that they were going to suspend their gene therapy checklist, or if they were done, they were not done in a ‘vigorous’ way. He said this was the biggest mistake of the regulatory agencies.
Children are at very low risk of hospitalisation and death from Covid-19, Dr Malone confirmed. In their age group, the risks overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits from the vaccine.
The risks are the cardiotoxicity events (pericarditis and myocarditis) being recorded in the adverse event databases coming out of Israel, Norway and the Netherlands, to name but a few.
Given that the MHRA and FDA have approved the Pfizer vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds and have been actively encouraging the use of it across multiple age groups, Dr Malone likened this application to the situation where ‘if you give a three-year-old a hammer, everything becomes a nail’.
He talked intently on bioethics and whether it’s ethical to encourage the young (including children) who are currently healthy to take on the responsibility of being exposed to the risks associated with the vaccines in order to protect the vulnerable (the elderly and those with a compromised immune status).
For him, the answer was a categorical, no – it’s not ethical. When I asked him why there’s such a push to get children vaccinated, he answered: ‘A cynic might mention the financial compensation at stake.’
He raised more alarm bells by suggesting there’s bias in the data stating there’s no effect of the vaccine on pregnant women, causing spontaneous abortion. In fact, many of the women in those studies were in the third trimester, where the risk of miscarriage is much lower.
Dr Malone said if you took out the third trimester data and reanalysed it, just looking at those women in the first and second trimester, then the risk of spontaneous abortion jumps to above 50 per cent.
The topic of censorship was raised, as at the time of the interview the doctor had been ‘erased’ from LinkedIn and his full interview with Brett Weinstein and Steve Kirsch had been removed from YouTube.
One of the reasons LinkedIn gave him was because he mentioned that a chairman on the board at Reuters had links to Pfizer.
Dr Malone stressed that Reuters is a member of the Trusted News Initiative, led by the BBC, which was first formed to combat the spread of misinformation during the US presidential election, but now its attention is on combating vaccine misinformation.
Its other members include AFP, CBC/Radio-Canada, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, the Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft , Twitter, and the Wall Street Journal.
Dr Malone warned that ‘the only version of scientific truth that’s allowed to be discussed are those truths endorsed by large bureaucratic public health agencies’. He was very concerned about ‘this integration between Big Tech, government and biopharma’.
On a final note, he raised the insidious question of whether ‘there is a group of people that could be exploiting this window for their own purposes, whether it’s financial, political or power.’ That, he said, would be ‘a huge travesty’.
A new poll on the public’s views of Covid restrictions has been doing the rounds this week, and the results may come as a shock to many. They find that, of the people surveyed, 40% wished to continue with masks permanently, 26% were in favour of shutting casinos and clubs forever, and an astonishing 19% were in favour of a permanent 10pm curfew. Has Britain become a nation of authoritarians?
NEW: @ipsosmori polling for The Economist shows some Brits support anti-covid restrictions *permanently*, regardless of covid risk. Inc:
We’ve seen results like this before. Over the last 16 months, poll after poll has shown high levels of public approval for lockdowns and restrictions, which feels hard to square with the scenes of people emphatically celebrating the England victory on the streets this week.
That may be because, as a new study shows, the polling data is not all that it seems. Examining public attitudes towards restrictions, researchers at the Royal Society asked a sample of the public about their opinions on lockdown, twice over a 6 month period, first in June 2020, then again in December. Beyond standard questions about approval for lockdown and restrictions, they dug a little deeper, and asked participants what their views were on topics such as the side effects and trade-offs of restrictions, how they judged the threat of covid, and whether they felt this threat was mostly an individual threat, or a societal threat.
As anticipated, participants were in favour of lockdowns and almost all restrictions suggested. But when they were asked about their feelings about side effects (e.g. depression, obesity and abuse) of these policies, the picture changed. In fact, a majority of people appreciated that there were significant side effects and were generally unsure if the trade-offs were worthwhile. Essentially, a picture of ambivalence emerged.
There were some other interesting findings: public assessment of the risk of Covid was generally not related to individual threat, but to the threat to society as a whole. The fact that lockdown was considered necessary by the Government itself increased perception of the threat Covid posed to society. This in turn fed into public approval of lockdowns, essentially making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The researchers also found that this applied to support for restrictions. Due to the “apparent moralisation” (just this week, a WHO member accused the Government of “moral emptiness” for loosening restrictions) of the issue, there was more support for tighter measures. This then fed into participants’ responses, who in wishing to give socially acceptable answers, voiced support for restrictions.
It would therefore seem that public attitudes towards restrictions are far more complex than the headlines and polls suggest. Public feelings on restrictions are nuanced, and multifaceted — as one would expect, given the benefits, risks and huge trade-offs. Distilling complex issues into soundbites and simple figures only muddies the water further. So next time you see a poll claiming that nearly one-fifth of the population supports a permanent curfew, treat it with a heavy dose of scepticism. Journalists and politicians, that applies to you too.
Amy Jones is an anonymous doctor working in the NHS, who has a background in Philosophy & Bioethics.
Sociology professor Robert Dingwall has vowed to stop wearing a face mask in solidarity with children and the disabled, asserting that he won’t be lectured by mask proponents on the morality of not covering up.
England is set to exit all COVID restrictions on July 19, dubbed “freedom day,” although lockdown proponents are desperately scrambling to maintain levels of fear that would see mask mandates remain in place.
Dingwall, who sits on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, has vowed to set the example by ditching his face mask on that day.
The professor says he is doing so in order to show “solidarity” with “people with communication difficulties, whether auditory and unable to lip-read,” as well as “all the small children whose education has been disrupted by the lack of visual clues, especially in language development.”
While mask zealots who want mandates to remain permanently often vilify those who don’t cover up as selfish and immoral, Dingwall isn’t having any of it.
“I will not allow them to suggest that I am less moral or caring and I will expect them to respect my choices as I respect theirs,” the professor told Sky News.
He also expressed doubt that masks have any benefit whatsoever in stopping the spread of COVID-19, asserting that arguments in favor of wearing them “have always been uncertain because the quality of the evidence in both directions is so weak.”
Despite members of the mask cult insisting that they are helping save lives, the science on face masks is dubious at best.
Back in February 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted that a typical store-bought face mask “is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material.”
A peer-reviewed study in Denmark involving 6,000 participants found that “there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19,” the Spectator reported.
Indeed, forcing populations to wear masks, particularly in the UK, appears to have been more of a social engineering experiment by behavioral scientists to try to establish a form of collectivism in order to encourage mass compliance with lockdown rules in general.
No longer associated with Wikipedia as it now operates, its co-founder Larry Sanger called its original “neutral point of view” (NPOV) dead in a 2020 op-ed, explaining:
Its unacceptable new policy “endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what (Wiki) call(s) “false balance.”
The notion drove a stake through the heart of truth and full disclosure on all issues, especially on most important cutting-edge ones.
One of many political examples is Wiki material on Trump — a figure I sharply criticized for legitimate reasons, not invented ones.
One-sidedly bashing him, Wiki excludes supporting views, Sanger explained.
In stark contrast, “glowing Hillary” material extols the unprosecuted war goddess, racketeer, perjurer — a member of the notorious Clinton crime family with husband Bill and daughter Chelsea.
Sanger stressed the importance of neutrality, saying the following:
It’s vital on all things “political and many other topics because we want to be left free to make up our own minds” based on unfiltered facts, adding:
“Reference, news, and educational resources aimed at laying out a subject in general should give us the tools we need to rationally decide what we want to think.”
“Only those who want to force the minds of others can be opposed to neutrality.”
Corrupted by abandonment of neutrality bias, Wiki failed the test.
It falsely calls alternative medicine information based on science “pseudoscience (sic),” saying:
“Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility (sic) and is untested (sic), untestable (sic) or proven ineffective (sic).”
The above claim turned scientific truth-telling on its head in support of anti-science.
It’s notably true on all things related to flu/covid.
State-sponsored/media and Wiki-supported Big Lies and mass deception back the mother of all scams — genocide on an unparalleled scale. More on this topic below.
Sanger called for Wiki “to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV” in favor state-approved bias and suppression of what’s most important for everyone to know, adding:
“Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change.”
“They live in a fantasy world of their own making.”
What’s needed is “an independent and decentralized encyclopedia network, such as I proposed with the Encyclosphere” — free from bias and suppression of contrary views and dissent from the official fabricated narrative.
Days earlier, Sanger called Wiki “more one-sided than ever,” saying:
There’s “a crucial difference between propaganda and information that supports individual deliberation. The difference is neutrality.”
“So does Wikipedia meet its own ideals of neutrality? Hardly!
It fails dismally on all issues mattering most.
It defied reality by calling toxic flu/covid jabs “95%” effective (sic) — while slamming science-based views otherwise as “misinformation.”
It calls legitimate concern about their hazardous side effects “overblown.”
“(I)nformation from the many skeptical physicians and medical researchers” explaining otherwise is suppressed, said Sanger, adding:
Wiki “openly repudiates neutrality…”
Its “editors embrace their biases sometimes so fervently that their articles emerge more as propaganda than as reference material.”
Operating as “a kind of thought police,” unbiased truth and full disclosure is banned on its pages.
The official narrative message is featured exclusively on all issues mattering most.
A Final Comment
On Tuesday, Joseph Mercola reported that “Wikipedia scrub(bed) inventor of mRNA… technology (Robert Malone’s) scientific contributions” in response to its mass-jabbing dangers he explained on a YouTube posted podcast, now deleted.
He expressed concern “about government not being transparent about risks, and that people are being coerced into taking these experimental injections, which violates bioethics laws,” Mercola explained, adding:
Through mid-June, his “contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines’ Wikipedia page.”
They’re now deleted, along with his other scientific accomplishments.
Mercola explained that officially reported deaths from flu/covid jabs — the tip of an exponentially greater total — exceed numbers from “more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years…”
They’re “about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine…”
Flu/covid jab drugs were designed to harm health, not protect and preserve it as falsely claimed by US/Western dark forces, their press agent media and Wikipedia.
A new study out of England quantifies just how tiny the risk of death from coronavirus is for children. Two in a million — that is the number of children under the age of 18 killed by coronavirus in England over 12 months according to the study by scientists at University College London, and the Universities of York, Bristol, and Liverpool.
A report at the BBC regarding the study also notes that, of the total of 25 children the study found to have died from coronavirus, “[a]round 15 had life-limiting or underlying conditions, including 13 living with complex neuro-disabilities.” The BBC report further notes that the study found a relatively small number of children experienced severe illness from coronavirus, with only about 250 children in all of England having been placed in intensive care related to coronavirus.
The study results confirm, and put some numbers to, what was known since the early days of governments across the world placing extreme restrictions on children in the name of countering coronavirus: Coronavirus poses nearly zero risk of death or serious injury for children. Indeed, the risks are quite minimal for healthy non-elderly individuals as well.
Though this low risk to children was known, governments persisted in imposing restrictions on children month after month, including mask and “social distancing” mandates (pseudoscience-based mandates never demonstrated to reduce the spread of coronavirus for people of any age), school and other closings, gathering prohibitions, and lockdowns.
Given the small risk to children from coronavirus, it is particularly abominable to upturn their lives in the name of protecting them from coronavirus. Also abominable is pushing that children nearly impervious to coronavirus be given experimental shots that carry known — and likely unknown as well given the rushed process of bringing the shots into production — serious risks.
While governments should respect the right of individuals of all ages to live their lives as they choose no matter the risk of coronavirus, governments’ bossing around of children in the name of advancing “public health” does not even have the slightest connection to reality. It is pure destructive behavior pursued under obviously farcical pretext.
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, the organization co-founded by Dr. Pierre Kory in response to COVID-19, has in my opinion been one of the greatest displays of humanity during this situation. Through their work, inexpensive protocols that both prevent and treat COVID-19 have been developed and taken up by countless doctors worldwide, and have influenced the public health policies of many national and regional governments around the world. In this interview with Bret Weinstein, Kory describes his journey tackling COVID first-hand as a doctor, and the uphill battle it has been trying to get the world to accept protocols that actually work. https://flccc.net
FLCCC’s COVID Prevention & Treatment Protocols: https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/
Ivermectin for COVID-19, summary of the current research: https://ivmmeta.com/
Summary of the current results from COVID early treatment studies: https://c19early.com/
How to Get Ivermectin: https://covid19criticalcare.com/guide-for-this-website/how-to-get-ivermectin/
A British friend, recovered from COVID, decided to get vaccinated despite being naturally immune. This is the email he recently sent me:
“Marc I suffered a mild stroke on Wednesday 8 days after taking the Astrazeneca 2nd dose. Since I am a marathon runner I am a very ‘rare case’. I don’t smoke, have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, family history or come into any of the risk categories for blood clots…
You did warn me against taking the second dose and I wished I’d heeded your advice. I’ve taken a totally unnecessary risk with my life and I bitterly regret doing it.”
Contrary to most, Tony was informed; he had been told about the power of natural immunity, about the long—if not lifelong—duration of immunity, of the risk inherent to any medical procedure (Yes, vaccination is a medical procedure!), as well as of the rising levels of adverse events. He admitted he hadn’t imagined it could happen to him…
Though it is hard to assess precisely the actual severity and breadth of vaccine-related adverse events, it is very clear that vaccination against COVID-19 isn’t as harmless4 as pharmaceutical companies, mainstream media, academia, health authorities and the medical community have been saying. And, in contrast to high risk individuals who are still susceptible, recovered people have no real benefit to balance the additional risks of vaccination.
2021 Adverse Events Reporting
VAERS US
EUROVIGILANCE EUROPE
YELLOW CARDS UK
Date
18/06/2021
04/06/2021
16/06/2021
Fully Vaccinated (Mn)
148.46
137.44
30.68
Deaths
6,136
4,572
1,356
Incidents
387,288
316,925
73,944
Death per 100,000
4.1
3.3
4.4
For over a year, mainstream media, health authorities as well as many “experts” have been downplaying the power of the immune system, dismissing natural immunity5 and proclaiming that immunity to COVID-19 was short-lived6. Simultaneously, vaccines have been portrayed as the silver bullet to this crisis, an incidental procedure with no risk whatsoever. The data shows a different picture and many are coming forward7 8, to challenge the official narrative. We will demonstrate that the official narrative is a dangerous fallacy.
The human immune system is one of the most sophisticated achievements of evolution. The survival of our species has depended on it for millenia. Today, we still very much rely on it. For the record, 99% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 recover without treatment. Only 1% of SARS-CoV-2 patients, who did not receive early home-based treatment, end up hospitalized9. In other words, the immune system overwhelmingly protects. Even vaccines are entirely dependent on the immune system: vaccines essentially teach our immune systems what viral markers to be prepared for, they are not cures per se. Without a functional immune system, there can be no effective vaccine10.
On the waning immunity fallacy
Once recovered, the immune response recedes, notably via a decrease in antibodies. It is not only natural; it is indispensable to restore the body to a normal, balanced state. Just as a permanent state of fever is harmful, a high number of targetless antibodies or T-cells constantly circulating throughout the body could create serious complications, such as autoimmune diseases11. Taking an evolutionary perspective, only those whose antibody and T-cell count waned post-infection survived. So, a decreasing number of antibodies and T-cells is reassuring, even healthy.
Antibody Levels during infection and post infection
Redline= antibodies – Blue-line= Memory B cells | Credit: Nature
But this decrease in T-cells and antibodies doesn’t mean that immunity is lost . It means the immune system has adapted to the new situation, and is now just on sentinel mode: Memory B- and T-cells, circulating in the blood and resident12 in tissues, act as vigilant13 and effective sentinels for decades:
survivors of the Spanish Flu epidemic were tested for their immunity to the 1918 influenza virus 90 years later –14,15 and still demonstrated immunity;
people who had recovered from the 2003 SARS infection demonstrated robust T-Cell responses seventeen years later16.
the wide-spread prevalence of high cross-immunity17,18,19— gained from past common cold infections—further demonstrates the resilience of natural immunity for coronaviruses.
Indeed, all recent studies show that specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity remains effective20,21,22,23, possibly for a lifetime24. Our immune system is a modular platform, it can combine in an infinite number of ways to address a multitude of threats in a variety of contexts. As such it is neutral to the viral threats it faces. In other words, there is absolutely no reason to believe that those recovered from Covid-19 would lose their immunity over the years, or even the decades25 to come.
On the reinfectionfallacy
You might have also heard of people becoming reinfected by SARS-CoV-2. Indeed, immunity, natural or vaccine-induced, isn’t the impenetrable shield described by many. Essentially harmless and asymptomatic reinfections do take place. That is, in fact, the very mechanism by which adaptive immunity is triggered.
However, symptomatic reinfections are very rare26,27. Like an army that adapts its response to the size and the progression of its enemy forces, adaptive immunity provides a specific, rapid and resource-optimized response. As such reinfections are mostly asymptomatic28 and recovered patients are protected from severe disease.
In fact, innocuous reinfections can play a positive public health role by acting as continuous immune updates29 for the population. They can help form a seamless and progressive adaptation to emerging variants and strains. And indeed a recent study showed that couples with children were more frequently asymptomatic than couples without, most likely because children act as natural and harmless immunisation vehicles. The most likely reason why high density countries mostly have very low death tolls is that they have asymptomatic reinfections that regularly and widely update the population’s immunity.
On the variant fallacy
As demonstrated by the low numbers of symptomatic reinfections mentioned above, and also by multiple studies31,32, variants have thus far not escaped acquired immunity. Just as Americans can speak and interact seamlessly in England, unhindered by a few word variants33, natural immunity is unhindered by variants, possibly more so than vaccine-induced immunity. There is ample evidence of the sophistication and breadth of the human immune system, and it is clear that a few minor gene changes in the virus cannot evade its arsenal .
Across the world34, multiple studies demonstrate high levels of pre-existing cross-reactive T-cells35 and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. In other words, many were already largely immune via other coronaviruses. This is the most likely explanation for the unexpectedly high level of asymptomatic infections during the pandemic. More importantly, this demonstrates that even with large genetic differences, prior immunity to related coronaviruses is sufficient to avoid severe COVID-19. Therefore, it is quite evident that variants are of no concern to the recovered population.
On the vaccine better-than-natural-immunity fallacy
You might have heard people stating that vaccines provide better protection than natural immunity. That is an interesting way of bending reality. How can a vaccine be more effective at immunisation than the disease it is trying to mimic?
Theoretically, there are several reasons explaining why natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced immunity:
Fewer immune targets: mRNA/DNA vaccines present only a fraction of the virus genetic code (5-10%). For example, they don’t utilize the ORF1 highly immunogenic epitopes36. Therefore, the immune system recruits a smaller number of T-cells by tapping into a narrower repertoire and consequently mounts a less effective response37. The logic: Imagine you lose a number of key players for a football tournament, you might still win, but it will be harder.
Longer immune trigger time: The smaller number of epitope targets also means that the alarm to the immune system will be delayed. This is a key driver of success in the COVID-19 battle. The wider the target repertoire, the faster the encounter between dendritic cells and identifiable antigens.
The logic: Like a party you go to, you can start partying much faster when you have ten friends there than when you have only one. They are just easier to find.
Inappropriate delivery location: The intramuscular delivery of current vaccines unfortunately doesn’t mimic viral penetration and propagation at all. Coronaviruses don’t enter the body via muscles. They do so via the respiratory tract, often infecting cell-to-cell. Contrary to muscle-delivered vaccines, natural immunity places a strong sentinel force of memory resident cells at the portals of entry38 and shuts the body entrance to the virus preemptively. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes perfect sense.
The logic: it’s much easier to stop an army coming through a narrow gorge than on the beaches of Normandy.
Recent research confirms this logic. One comparative study39 in Israel found the protection from severe disease to be 96·4% for Covid-19 recovered individuals but 94.4% for vaccinated ones, and concluded “Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.” Another reference comparative study40 by a team at New York University highlighted a faster, wider and more impactful humoral and cytotoxic reaction in recovered immunity versus vaccine-induced.
There is ample evidence that vaccinating people recovered from COVID-19 doesn’t bring any benefit. It quite possibly does the opposite, because of the risk of building tolerance to elements of the virus43 translating into reduced immune potency.
On the vaccine innocuity fallacy
Without denigrating the incredible contribution of vaccines to modern medicine and public health, one needs to acknowledge that vaccines are a medical procedure. As such, vaccines should never be considered lightly. They are neither neutral, nor trivial, all the more so when they are injected into billions of people.
By their very nature, vaccines tinker with the sophisticated balance of one’s immune system. That in itself demands respecting rigid safety protocols. Though we have made considerable progress in our understanding of immunology, we are still very far from understanding its intricacies and subtleties, especially when it comes to novel mRNA and DNA technologies. Because of the risk of anaphylactic44 shock, auto-immune diseases, unforeseen interactions, design flaws, deficient quality protocols, over-dosage, and so on, vaccines have traditionally been strictly regulated.
History teaches us to be watchful45 with vaccines, from the botched inactivation of polio vaccines that ended infecting 40,000 kids46 with polio in 1955, to the 1976 swine flu vaccine47 which caused 450 to develop Guillain-Barré syndrome, to the more recent vaccine-induced outbreak of polio in Sudan48. The recent rejection49 by Brazilian health authorities of the Bharat’s Covaxin is a clear reminder of how rigorous and independent our health authorities need to be if vaccines are to promote, not hinder, public health.
Map of Vaccine Symptoms
316,925 reports (date: 06/20/21)
credit: Wouter Aukema – source: CDC
After 6 months of vaccination and a year of research, a number of red flags should be alerting the would-be vaccinated and health authorities:
Wandering nanoparticles: The lipid nanoparticles, the carriers of the mRNA, were supposed to remain in the muscle, but ended up broadly distributed throughout the body50, notably in the ovaries51, the liver52 and possibly the bone marrow.
Anaphylactic PEG: A number of concerns had been raised regarding the novel use of PEG adjuvant53. Notably, prior research had raised the risk of cardiac anaphylaxis at second injection54.
Sensitive locations: ACE-2 receptors susceptible to binding to the spike protein are highly expressed in blood vessel lining cells of highly sensitive areas, such as the brain, the heart, the lungs, the liver and both male and female reproductive systems.
Toxic circulating spikes: The spike proteins induced by mRNA/DNA vaccines have been shown to be pathogenic55,56,57,58 and highly inflammatory59, notably because of the similarity of a spike sequence to that of Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B60. It has also been found to be directly causing blood clots through platelet activation61,62. One researcher said, “Our findings show that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein causes lung injury even without the presence of an intact virus”.
BBB disruption – A recent study highlights the risk of disruption of the blood-brain barrier63, a fundamental filter mechanism to protect the brain64,65. The spike protein has also been found to cross the BBB and create inflammation in the brain,.
High adverse events: Even though most likely under-reported66, the overall number of serious adverse events versus other traditional vaccines remains very high. The 6,000+ deaths67 seen [in the US] in six months exceed all the vaccine-related deaths in 30 years. This is quite disquieting, and tends to confirm the aforementioned red flags..
Children more at risk: The Covid-19 vaccines seem to be more harmful to children and teens, notably with a growing number of myocarditis68,69 events. The fact that vaccine doses are not adjusted for body weight is notably a cause for concern given the discovery of circulating nanoparticles and spike toxicity.
These are essentially just the short-term effects of these novel vaccines. There is no long-term clinical data regarding the implications of these vaccines, notably regarding autoreactive antibodies (antibodies that target one’s own body creating autoimmune diseases).
To conclude, we question why anyone healthy and recovered from COVID-19 would want or be advised to take any risk—even the most remote—in getting vaccinated given that:
those who have recovered from COVID-19 enjoy robust immunity,
natural immunity duration is decades-long, probably lifelong,
natural immunity effectiveness is better than vaccine-induced,
variants are not an immunological concern, presenting no risk of immune escape,
vaccines are medical interventions which should never be taken lightly, especially when still experimental,
there is no benefit for COVID-19 recovered and
COVID-19 vaccines are obviously not as safe as stated initially by the manufacturers.
The 2021 seasonal peak in Europe started down on January 22 when only 0.13% of the population was fully vaccinated.
“Comprehensive analysis of T cell immunodominance and immunoprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes in COVID-19 cases” by Alessandro Sette et al, Cell, February 2021
“No point vaccinating those who’ve had COVID-19: Findings of Cleveland Clinic study” by Dr. Sanchari Sinha Dutta, June 2021
“Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is “likely” responsible for deaths of some elderly patients, Norwegian review finds” by Ingrid Torjesen, British Medical Journal, May 2021
“Why COVID-19 Vaccines Offer Better Protection Than Infection” by Brian W. Simpson, John Hopkins School Of Public Health Expert Insights, May 2021
“Study Finds People Have Short-Lived Immunity to Seasonal Coronaviruses” by Dr. Francis Collins, CDC’s Director Blog, September 2020
“Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised? There are concerning trends on blood clots and low platelets, not that the authorities will tell you” by Joseph A. Ladapo and Harvey A. Risch, The Wall Street Journal, June 2021
“Why we petitioned the FDA to refrain from fully approving any covid-19 vaccine this year” by Peter Doshi et al, The British Medical Journal Opinion, June 2021
“Phase 3 trial shows REGEN-COV™ (casirivimab with imdevimab) …” show 4.1% of at risk Placebo (non treated) patients are hospitalized, or 1% of the general population
“Coronavirus vaccines may not work in some people. It’s because of their underlying conditions.” by Ariana E. Cha, The Washington Post, May 2021
“Determinants and outcomes of accelerated arteriosclerosis: Major impact of circulating antibodies” by Alexandre Loupy, Circulation Research, June 2015
“Peripheral and lung resident memory T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2” by Meritxell Genescà et al, Nature, May 2021
“Tissue-Resident Memory T Cells and Fixed Immune Surveillance in Nonlymphoid Organs” by Francis R. Carbone, Journal of Immunology, July 2015
“Flu survivors still immune after 90 years” by Ed Yong, National Geographic
“Neutralizing antibodies derived from the B cells of 1918 influenza pandemic survivors” by James E. Crowe Jr., Nature
“SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls” by Le Bert et al, Nature, July 2020
“Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals” by A.Sette et al, Cell, June 2020
“A majority of uninfected adults show pre-existing antibody reactivity against SARS-CoV-2” by Pascal M. Lavoie et al, JCI Insight, March 2021
“Cross-reactive antibody immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults” by Todd Bradley et al, Nature, May 2021
“Robust SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity is maintained at 6 months following primary infection” by Paul Moss, Nature Immunology, May 2021
“Naturally enhanced neutralizing breadth against SARS-CoV-2 one year after infection” by Michel C. Nussenzweig, Nature, June 2021
“A long-term perspective on immunity to COVID” by ” by A.Radbruch & H-D.Chang
“SARS-CoV-2 natural antibody response persists up to 12 months in a nationwide study from the Faroe Islands” by Peter Garred et al, 2021
“SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans” by Ali H. Ellebedy et al, Nature, May 2021
“Immunity to the Coronavirus May Last Years, New Data Hint” by Apoorva Mandavilli, New York Times, November 2020
“Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with protection against symptomatic reinfection” by Christopher J.A. Duncan, Journal of Infection, December 2020
“What we know about covid-19 reinfection so far” by Chris Stokel-Walker, British Medical Journal, January 2021
“Antibody Status and Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Health Care Workers” by Thomas G. Ritter, et al, New England Journal of Medicine, December 2020
“Development of potency, breadth and resilience to viral escape mutations in SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies” by Paul D. Bieniasz et al, March 2021
Get article on
“Comprehensive analysis of T cell immunodominance and immunoprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes in COVID-19 cases” by A.Tarke et al… – Cell – 16-02-2021
“Landscape of epitopes targeted by T cells in 852 individuals recovered from COVID-19: Meta-analysis, immunoprevalence, and web platform” by Matthew R. McKay et al, Cell, May 2021
“How Broad is Covid Immunity?” by M.Yeadon/M.Girardot, Panda, March 2021
Countries: Canada, Ecuador, Gabon, Germany, India, Singapore, Sweden, UK, USA, Tanzania, Zambia
“Cross-reactive CD4+ T cells enhance SARS-CoV-2 immune responses upon infection and vaccination” by Claudia Giesecke-Thiel, April 2021
“Profiling SARS-CoV-2 HLA-I peptidome reveals T cell epitopes from out-of-frame ORFs” by Pardis C. Sabeti, Cell, June 2021
“The landscape of antibody binding in SARS-CoV-2 infection” by Irene M. Ong et al, PLOS biology, June 2021
“Adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19” by Alessandro Sette & Shane Crotty, Cell, January 2021 – page 866
“Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel” by Amit Hupper et al, April 2021
“Discrete Immune Response Signature to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination Versus Infection” by Sergei Koralov, Cell, May 2021
“We observe striking expansion of circulating plasmablasts in COVID-19 patients relative to healthy volunteers”
“In COVID-19 (recovered) patients, we observed an expansion of cytotoxic populations and a dramatically elevated cytotoxic signature in NK cells, CD4 and CD8 T cells, and γδ T cells.”
“Differential Effects of the Second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine Dose on T Cell Immunity in Naïve and COVID-19 Recovered Individuals” by Jordi Ochando et al, Cell, March 2021
“Suspicions grow that nanoparticles in Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trigger rare allergic reactions” by Jop de Vrieze, Science, December 2020
“Historical Vaccine Safety Concerns”, CDC
“The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to a Growing Vaccine Crisis” by Michael Fitzpatrick, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2006
“The Public Health Legacy of the 1976 Swine Flu Outbreak” by Rebecca Kreston, 2013
“UN says new polio outbreak in Sudan caused by oral vaccine” by Maria Cheng, Associated Press, September 2020
“Anvisa denies certificate of good practice to Bharat Biotech, which produces Covaxin” by Enzô Machida and Murillo Ferrari, CNN, March 2021
“Organ bio distribution study undertaken by the Japanese regulator”
“Potential adverse effects of nanoparticles on the reproductive system”by Shao LQ, DovePress, September 2018
“Synthetic Lipid Nanoparticles Targeting Steroid Organs” by Bertrand Tavitian, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 2013
“PEGylated liposomes: immunological responses” by Tatsuhiro Ishida et al, Science and Technology of Advanced Materials Vol 20, 20219
“Pseudo-anaphylaxis to Polyethylene Glycol (PEG)-Coated Liposomes: Roles of Anti-PEG IgM and Complement Activation in a Porcine Model of Human Infusion Reactions” by János Szebeni et al, ACS Nano, 2019
“Superantigenic character of an insert unique to SARS-CoV-2 spike supported by skewed TCR repertoire in patients with hyperinflammation” by Ivet Bahar et al, PNAS, October 2020
“SARS-CoV-2 spike protein induces inflammation via TLR2-dependent activation of the NF-κB pathway” by Hasan Zaki et al, March 2021
“SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2” by John Y-J. Shyy, Circulation Reseacrh, MArch 2021
“Single intratracheal exposure to SARS-CoV-2 S1 spike protein induces acute lung injury in K18-hACE2 transgenic mice” by Pavel Solopov et al, The FASEB Journal, May 2021
“SARS-CoV-2 spike protein interacts with and activates TLR4” by Fuping You et al, December 2020
“Bacterial Toxins—Staphylococcal Enterotoxin” by Bettina C. Fries & Avanish K. Varshney
“A prothrombotic thrombocytopenic disorder resembling heparin-induced thrombocytopenia following coronavirus-19 vaccination” by Sabine Eichinger et al, The New England Journal of Medicine, April 2020
“Acquired Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura: a rare disease associated Acquired with BNT162b2 vaccine” by Dorit Blickstein et al, Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostatis, June 2021
“The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alters barrier function in 2D static and 3D microfluidic in-vitro models of the human blood–brain barrier” by Sergio H. Ramirez, Neurobiology of Disease, December 2020
“The S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood–brain barrier in mice” by William A. Banks et al, NAture Neuroscience, December 2020
“Guillain-Barré syndrome following ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19 vaccine” by Boby Varkey Maramattom et al, June 2021
“Underreporting of Side Effects to VAERS” by Vincent Iannelli, Vaxopedia, September 2017
Open VAERS data
“The C.D.C. is investigating nearly 800 cases of rare heart problems following immunization.” by Apoorva Mandavilli, New York Times, June 11, 2021
“Israel reports link between rare cases of heart inflammation and COVID-19 vaccination in young men” by Gretchen Vogel & Jennifer Couzin-Frankel, Science, June 2021
Gene research companies tend to come and go. They start out banging and popping like fireworks in the sky, and then they fade out—selling themselves to larger outfits who’ve hired better liars…
Once upon a time, it sounded easy. Start with a disease, find the gene responsible for the disease, and correct the problem.
Then, researchers wondered, was disease the result of one gene or a group of genes acting together?
Either way, the proof would be in devising cures for diseases using gene therapy. “Not yet, but soon…”
And regardless, the major need was: money. Lots and lots of money.
This need required good PR people. “We have to pump up the idea that we’re on the edge of tremendous breakthroughs. We’re always on that edge…”
This hype also needed to obscure the fact that there wasn’t (and isn’t) ANY gene cure for ANY disease.
As time passed, lack of cure could be a problem. In fact, it could mean curing disease was not a genetic undertaking at all. What about environment? Toxicity? Malnutrition? Poverty? In order to raise money, those factors would have to be pushed back out of view.
Instead, the PR people would need to flood the news with positive glow around the subject of gene research. Also known as exaggeration. Or bullshit.
You can spot the key terms in these articles. POSSIBLE, SHOULD, COULD, EXPECTED TO, SEEMS, ON THE HORIZON, MAY BE, COULD LEAD TO, EVENTUALLY, and of course, the ever-popular BREAKTHROUGH.
I dug back in my files and found a piece I wrote in 2011. As you’ll see, the “breakthroughs” touted then haven’t panned out so far. You don’t read about them in the press these days. The PR pros have moved on to other exaggerations.
The first 2011 article I cited was from Reuters, headlined: SCIENTISTS FIND “MASTER SWITCH” GENE FOR OBESITY. Here are a few choice tidbits. Note the key terms I just mentioned.
“… and say it should help the search for treatments…”
“… the regulating gene could be [a] target for drugs to treat…”
“… seems to act as a master switch…”
“We are working hard… to understand these processes and how we can use this information to improve treatment…”
Sure. You bet.
Zero results.
Next, a 2011 blockbuster piece in the Financial Times. The headline read: SCIENTISTS FIND GENETIC LINK TO DEPRESSION.
Standard trumpet blaring.
Here are the text nuggets. Again, note key terms.
“The discovery… is expected to lead to a better biological understanding of the condition and eventually to more effective antidepressants…”
“… as possibly for the first time we have found a genetic locus for depression.”
“… is likely to pin down the gene responsible…”
“… which may be the basis for designing more effective antidepressants…”
Sure. You bet.
Zero results.
Moving ahead in time—From immunology.org :
“On 17 December 2015, the journal Science voted [gene-editing tool] Crispr-Cas9 ‘Breakthrough of the Year’, saying that it had ‘matured into a molecular marvel’. It is already being used in cancer immunotherapy to edit a patient’s own T-cell genome in order to remove the gene that ‘tells’ these immune cells not to target cancerous tissue.”
It’s already being used—but where are the cures? Nowhere.
Anybody out there want to partner with me in launching a new company? This is a major winner. It covers a very broad area. Actually, there is no human endeavor it doesn’t cover. The name of the company? MAYBE COULD BE INC.
“We’re always on the edge and the frontier. We’re always breaking through. We’re always raising money. We’re always pumping our stock. We’re always ready to sell the company to a sucker with deep pockets.”
Let’s look at another type of gene research organization. This one happens to be the largest single medical research outfit in the world. It’s part of the US government: the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Their PR is different. They’re hedging their bets and covering their bases in every possible way. They’re saying YES, NO, AND MAYBE all at once. Of course, they can get away with it, because they run on taxpayer money. Their annual budget is a formidable $30 billion. Grit your teeth and read through their text that explains “genetic diseases”:
“A genetic disorder is a disease caused in whole or in part by a change in the DNA sequence away from the normal sequence. Genetic disorders can be caused by a mutation in one gene (monogenic disorder), by mutations in multiple genes (multifactorial inheritance disorder), by a combination of gene mutations and environmental factors, or by damage to chromosomes (changes in the number or structure of entire chromosomes, the structures that carry genes).”
“As we unlock the secrets of the human genome (the complete set of human genes), we are learning that nearly all diseases have a genetic component. Some diseases are caused by mutations that are inherited from the parents and are present in an individual at birth, like sickle cell disease. Other diseases are caused by acquired mutations in a gene or group of genes that occur during a person’s life. Such mutations are not inherited from a parent, but occur either randomly or due to some environmental exposure (such as cigarette smoke). These include many cancers, as well as some forms of neurofibromatosis.”
That is a DON’T BLAME US statement. “Don’t blame us if a disease we thought was genetic turns out to be something else. Don’t blame us if it’s 65.34 percent environmental, 4.52 percent genetic, and 30.14 percent who knows what. Don’t blame us if toxicity triggers genetic malfunctions and, in the absence of the toxicity, there would be zero cases of the disease. Don’t blame us if a disease has nothing to do with genes. We’re ready to jump in any direction. We may not know much, but we’re sitting on a pile of cash. Don’t blame us if we don’t have any solid genetic cures for anything. We’re working hard. That’s all you can ask us to do.”
If there is one disease the public tends to believe can be cured by gene therapy, it is sickle cell anemia. The PR pros have done a good job there. However, sicklecellanemianews.com states: “Gene therapy is an experimental technique that aims to treat genetic diseases by altering a disease-causing gene or introducing a healthy copy of a mutated gene to the body.”
Experimental. Aims to. Not an established cure. The confusion arises because, as with a number of diseases, the researchers and the PR flacks claim they’ve definitely traced the illness to a gene or two. They’ve struck gold. But, as you read further, you discover they’re just not ready to cure the patient. Clinical trials are underway. More work in the lab is necessary. The pudding is there, but the proof of it isn’t. They claim to know the cause; they just don’t know what to do with it.
In science, that’s known as a hypothesis. Or more simply, a speculation. You say you’ve found an answer, but you can’t apply it. This means: you don’t have an answer.
“There is no doubt. We went down into the mine and we found evidence of extraordinary amounts of gold. We just don’t know how to get it out. What’s that? You want to see the gold? No, I’m sorry. The public isn’t allowed down there. Only the professionals can enter. But don’t worry. We’re very close to a breakthrough. The gold will emerge soon. Trust us.”
Trust you? Sure. How much do you need to finish the job? Fifty million? A hundred million? Let me call my broker and sell some stock. I’ll write you a check. Just put a plaque with my name on the wall. Let me know how I’ll profit on this venture. I’m in. I’ve always wanted to invest in MAYBE COULD BE INC.
In case you need to be reminded, the RNA COVID vaccines are genetic treatments. The PR pros tell us they are working quite well. And they’re remarkably safe.
If you’re buying that line, I have electric cars for sale. And they have wings. One charge in your garage, and they’ll get you from Earth to Mars in just under two hours.
The EUA expansion1 for Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine for kids aged 12–15 was done after it failed (as I will show below) its pro-forma clinical trial2.
Abysmal Safety
Only 1,131 kids received at least one injection of the experimental vaccine. Most of them experienced side effects. Within a few days after the second shot, 66% of the kids developed fatigue, 65% developed headaches, 42% developed chills, and so on. The first shot was tolerated only slightly better. Symptoms varied from mild to severe. More than half of the kids had to resort to painkillers or antipyretics after the second injection. Given such frequency and severity of adverse effects, the sponsor had to either stop the trial because of safety, or to significantly increase its size to exclude high likelihood of death. At the trial size, if the risk of immediate death were 1 per 1,000, the trial had only a 32% probability of missing it. We are lucky that this is not the case.
From 1, Table 17. Frequency of Solicited Systemic Adverse Events Within 7 Days After Each Dose, by Maximum Severity, Participants 12 Through 15
Event
BNT162b2 Dose 1, N=1127 n (%)
BNT162b2Dose 2, N=1097n (%)
Fatigue, any
677 (60.1)
726 (66.2)
Fatigue moderate or severe
399 (35.4)
494 (45.1)
Headache, any
623 (55.3)
708 (64.5)
Headache moderate or severe
262 (23.3)
406 (37.0)
Chills
311 (27.6)
455 (41.5)
Chills moderate or severe
116 (10.2)
234 (21.3)
Fever (≥38.0°C)
114 (10.1)
215 (19.6)
Muscle Pain
272 (24.1)
355 (32.4)
Muscle Pain moderate or severe
147 (13.1)
203 (18.5)
Joints Pain
109 ( 9.7)
173 (15.8)
Joints Pain moderate or severe
43 ( 3.8)
82 ( 7.5)
Efficacy was not Shown
The media heralded 100% efficacy in COVID-19 prevention because 16 kids (1.5%) in the placebo group had putatively developed COVID-19 within 2 months after the second shot, while no kids in the experimental group had. The study reported no severe cases in the placebo group. At closer look at the definition of a case and the conduct of the trial, very mild disease or even a positive test associated with non-specific symptoms were counted as cases.
“For the primary efficacy endpoint, the case definition for a confirmed COVID-19 case was the presence of at least one of the following symptoms and a positive SARS-CoV-2 NAAT within 4 days of the symptomatic period: • Fever; • New or increased cough; • New or increased shortness of breath; • Chills; • New or increased muscle pain; • New loss of taste or smell; • Sore throat; • Diarrhea; • Vomiting.”
Add to this that the trial was in winter and the researchers solicited answers about COVID-19 symptoms, encouraging kids to keep e-diaries. Thus, a kid getting a sore throat or fever for any reason and a positive PCR test within four days of each other was counted as a case. Solicitation leads for excessive reporting of symptoms. We do not know how many of the “cases” would be more correctly classified as asymptomatic infection if not for symptoms solicitation. Also, only 1.5% of the placebo group has got adverse symptoms, compared with at least 90% in the vaccinated group. Where is efficacy?
Further, “The efficacy analysis for the 12-to-15-year-old cohort was planned as a descriptive analysis because the number of cases that would occur in the age subgroups was unknown.” Thus, this trial was a fiction from the beginning—an excuse for the HHS to start injecting 12-year-olds.
The conclusion: the COVID-19 vaccine FAILED in both safety and efficacy for 12–15-year-olds.
Possible Errors in the Trial
There are indications of other errors in the study. With the rate of treatment adverse effects close to 100%, maintaining placebo blinding was very unlikely. If a kid comes home after an injection with an unusual fatigue and headache, what parent would believe he had received placebo?
An interesting detail is that, within the first 2 months after the 2nd shot, 1.5% of the placebo group had a COVID-19 case, but only 0.3% had it within the next 2+ months. This is not necessarily an indication of foul play. It is another demonstration of uselessness of COVID-19 vaccination for kids.
The way in which PCR testing was used in the trial raises additional questions. COVID-19 PCR tests are notorious for their inaccuracy and ease of manipulation, including by selecting the amplification cycles number. The Supplemental Appendix2 says:
“The central laboratory NAAT [nucleic acid amplification test] result was used for the case definition. If no result was available from the central laboratory, a local NAAT result could be used if it was obtained using either the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR test, or the Abbott Molecular/RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay.”
This sounds like an open door for cherry-picking testing facilities on case-by-case basis.
Legal Aspects
Now this study is used to coerce and/or trick kids and young adults into getting vaccinated against COVID-19. Luckily, we have a legal recourse. Government-sponsored medical procedures require informed consent of the patients – see In re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation, 874 F. Supp. 796 – Dist. Court, SD Ohio 1995. Otherwise, they violate the due process clauses of the XIV and V Amendments. Deceit (including denying futility of COVID-19 vaccines for 12–15-year-olds, denying effectiveness of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment and prophylaxis, or failure to disclose the risk of future ADE) and coercion (including blocking access to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine) invalidate the apparent consent. For minors, consent of the parents is also mandatory. Medical procedures that involve no more than trivial risk might be an exception, but COVID-19 vaccines are certainly not such a case.
The vaccination of the young people is not just government-sponsored, but almost entirely conducted by the government. The government cannot bypass the Constitution by relying on the opinion of the FDA, which is itself a government agency. Truth matters.
The cherry on top of the cake: government officials carry personal responsibility for their actions in violation of this principle. They cannot assert qualified immunity.
Reference
1. FDA re-Amendment. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Amendment Review Memorandum 05262021. Published online May 10, 2021.
2. Robert W. Frenck J, Klein NP, Kitchin N, et al. Safety, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine in Adolescents. New England Journal of Medicine. Published online May 27, 2021. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2107456
“New Normal Newspeak” is a new series of short articles highlighting how our language has come under assault in the past eighteen months.
***
Ever since the beginning of the “pandemic”, and its transition into the clear “New Normal” (or “Great Reset) agenda, the English language itself has become a battleground. Words and phrases are being stretched and twisted into new, bizarre or contradictory meanings, or weighted with implications that never existed before.
“New Normal Newspeak” is our attempt to catalogue these changes, and stop the real meaning of words being memory-holed forever.
Our first example is a very, very literal one.
The phrase “Herd Immunity” has existed for decades, and most of us had probably come across it at some point prior to March 2020. It had a clear meaning, which was available from (among other places) the World Health Organization website:
Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”
However, after the “pandemic” hit, this erstwhile totally uncontroversial theory became the subject of fierce debate, and proponents of it suddenly found themselves described as “genocidal”.
It was at this point that the WHO changed their website, updating their definition of “herd immunity” to totally remove the concept of “natural immunity”:
‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.
Vaccination has never before been considered the only path to herd immunity and adding that you can’t create immunity through exposure is completely unscientific, flying in the face of centuries of medical knowledge.
Changing this definition during an alleged pandemic, just before experimental and untested vaccines were about to be released, is a clear sign that they were pushing an agenda.
Professor Harvey Risch talks with author John Leake about how hydroxychloroquine — a safe, effective, and inexpensive drug — was fraudulently misrepresented and suppressed by public health agencies, academic journals, and the mainstream media. This propaganda campaign has resulted in the preventable deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 