Throughout the pandemic, the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) published numerous false and misleading studies that bolstered national and international political goals and guided social media censorship. Three recent examples illustrate the issue.
1) Covid, kids and diabetes
A recent CDC study falsely suggested that covid increased the risk of type 1 or type 2 diabetes in children, see reviews here and here (the study didn’t consider obesity rates, for instance). The misleading CDC study was published in parallel to the ongoing covid child vaccination campaign.
In reality, it is covid vaccines that have been shown to cause, in some cases, elevated (pre-diabetic) blood sugar levels and life-threatening diabetic ketoacidosis, while ineffective lockdowns and school closures have led to an unprecedented increase in childhood obesity (and possibly diabetes).
2) Face masks in schools
In September, the CDC published a study falsely claiming that masks reduced coronavirus infections in schools, see reviews here and here (“profoundly misleading”, “very shaky science”).
In reality, face masks have had no impact at all on coronavirus infections; in fact, the official CDC school study from May 2021 confirmed this, but the result was never publicized.
More recently, the CDC has begun recommending N95/FFP2 masks to the general public, but data from Germany and Austria showed already in 2021 that these masks had no effect, either.
3) Natural immunity
In October, the CDC published a study falsely claiming that vaccine immunity was more robust than natural (i.e. infection-acquired) immunity, see reviews here and here (“highly flawed”).
In December, the CDC director publicly stated that “no safety problems” had been seen during the vaccination of young children (5-11), whereas the CDC’s own VAERS reporting system showed already numerous cases of serious cardiovascular, neurological and allergic adverse events in this age group at very low risk of severe covid (see image below).
Conclusion
In conclusion, pandemic guidance by the US CDC, as well as media reporting and social media censorship relying on it, have often turned out to be misleading and unjustified. To evade political misinformation campaigns, citizens should always double-check official claims.
MAINSTREAM media would have us believe that Britain is on the brink of ‘emerging’ from the pandemic, and that living with Covid-19, as we do with colds and flu, is an imminent reality.
What the State tannoy system is actually saying is that the public are now in a period of adjustment during which they are being encouraged not to live with Covid, but with the more authoritarian rule-base of the post-Covid era, hidden all along within the Trojan horse virus itself. The narrative is not crumbling, simply taking a break for tea and scones.
After all, masks are still ubiquitous – within classrooms their most dehumanising of applications. The NHS vaccine mandate is very much in situ, and the NHS itself – reinvented as an exclusive Covid-only members’ club staffed by people seemingly terrified of runny noses – paradoxically now presents more of a threat to many than the virus itself.
A hypochondriacal public still display an insatiable hunger for needless testing, and Grant Shapps appears resolute that foreign travel will remain forever contingent upon one’s digitally-certified vaccination status.
The forgotten vulnerable elderly, around whom the entire hoodwink once revolved, are still living in the prison of Lockdown One-esque care home protocols, and despite the still experimental nature of mRNA vaccines, the total lack of adequate safety data, the trail of unaddressed human devastation in their wake, and even the Twitter suspension of the technology’s inventor for strongly advising against their universal usage, a new coercive mainstream media campaign has kicked-off to cajole all pregnant women to go and get either their first jab or booster: unborn children officially incorporated now into what has become a sort of global, human-Russian-doll type medical experiment.
How can anyone believe that any aspects of Government’s Covid response will be reversed, discarded or even addressed in the coming weeks or months?
We haven’t even started the five-to-11-year-olds rollout, and we are likewise yet to have Johnson’s ‘national conversation’ on punitive measures for the unvaccinated.
The narrative is therefore parked, not crumbling, and is merely undergoing modification to suit the emerging scientific data that refutes it. Secretaries of State and officials are taking a well-earned breather after almost two years of flat-out tyranny and murder, with some even knighted for their gruesome services to Empire.
So when people speak to me of the turning of the tide, or that Great Britain, and England in particular, is somewhat of a benign international outlier compared with its more brazenly cruel allies, I haven’t the faintest idea what they are talking about.
Many fail to grasp that the world’s most powerful governments tend to work to long-term visions – they don’t just stumble from one crisis to the next, as the MSM would have us believe. Her Majesty’s Government in particular, don’t just have one eye on the global future: they are actively designing it, and this is how their most deceitful and cruel narratives – typically distasteful to a public not yet groomed to accommodate the bastardisation of morals necessary to accomplish them – are born.
‘We will move from defending the status quo within the post-Cold War international system to dynamically shaping the post-Covid order’, states emphatically the Integrated Review of March 16, 2021. A week later, and in accordance with the review’s long-term vision for Britain, Johnson opaquely informed the public during a coronavirus press conference that the pivot to a more interventionist approach to public health was a stratagem set to endure: ‘Exactly a year ago it seemed incredible that in the 21st century [lockdown] was the only way to fight a new respiratory disease, but we did it together to save lives.’
I don’t see a turning of the tide or a crumbling of the narrative, I see a strategic lull in the storm to allow a little of the dust of the last two years of psychophysical abuse to settle, and even if during this perceived period of ‘calm’ the thus-far-hesitant should decide they’ve finally had enough of the State’s interfering in the minutiae of their lives, they’ll have already adjusted to multiple aspects of the grubby new normal regardless, by which time the State – forever designing the future – will have covertly half-prepped their psyches for the next filthy gale of domestic crimes of aggression.
While we hear about Pan B and Plan C, Government are doubtless already on Plan W. Their corrupt narratives bleed one into the other, with most designed never to end.
They are never going to say ‘Sorry, we got the science wrong’, and Johnson, like Blair, will never be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Both men’s souls are stained by the deaths of innocent people; Johnson’s hands drenched in the blood of the tens of thousands denied known-effective and safe, penny-a-pop, early preventive treatment for Covid-19.
Yet with grating and insulting insistence he and his unhinged Cabinet drone on about national resilience and the great fortitude of the British people who will soon emerge from this crisis as if reborn.
In reality, when the State proselytises about ‘national resilience’ – particularly as we have come to understand it in its new public health guise – they mean not our fortitude as a nation in the face of external threats, but the stamina of the citizenry to endure the crippling duplicity of the most deadly of all threats – the State itself.
The UK isn’t closer to the end of the pandemic than most, as the MSM would have us believe: the engine of the narrative has simply gone in for a long overdue service. I mean, if Sir Tony Blair KG’s Iraq terror campaign warranted six years-plus of tuning at a cost of £9billion and 179 British casualties, then surely the maintenance of Johnson’s 22-month-and-counting, £400billion, 147,472 citizen-deaths pandemic equivalent, has only just begun, right?
In fact, I do have a personal life. My wife of of 42 years and I are actually pretty private. Sharing personal history is not something I do everyday. However, as many of you know – I was vaccinated with Moderna twice and had a pretty significant vaccine injury. This was pretty early in the roll-out of the vaccines. It was long before the FOIA Japanese pre-clinical trial data that had so many red-flags and irregularities, long before we learned of all the issues with the clinical trials, and long before the VAERs and adverse events began to be known.
To write it, I have never been an “anti-vax” person. I have spent my career working with vaccines. I also know that some vaccines are “hot,” and are less safe. Usually these types of vaccines are reserved for extremely dangerous viruses like Ebola or Yellow fever. Where the goal is to make the vaccine 100% effective. Other vaccines, that are distributed widely, like the flu vaccines need to be very safe. The trade-off being that they are less effective. There is a whole science and art to crafting vaccines to appropriately respond to the “threat.” So, I know to read the literature, do my own due- diligence, etc before taking an experimental product or any vaccine. That is what I thought I did. The government assured us that these vaccines were very safe. I could never imagine that clinical data would be corrupted and even falsified – as we now know it was.
Anyway, back to my story. I knew in the beginning of April, 2021, that I had to travel overseas and the word on the street was that the European Union was going to require full vaccination before entering any EU country by summer (that actually never happened BTW). I knew that a full vaccination protocol was a process of weeks – and that i had better get started! Furthermore, there was a lot of buzz around the idea that vaccination would help with “long-COVID.” I had already had COVID, and just couldn’t shake a number of chronic issues that I had developed after getting the disease. Frankly, I should have done more homework on that one- because this idea really didn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Be that as it may, in April, 2021, I got vaccinated. It was early enough in the cycle, that I had no choice but to take the Moderna vaccine, as that was available in my area The vaccine was distributed at a local college, with the Army Reserves administering the program.
The first shot was fine. No issues.
The second shot almost did me in. As in I almost died.
After the injection, I had the usual fatigue, muscle-ache and then the palpitations started, as well as shortness of breath. Within a couple days, it got worse – I am not someone who goes to the doctor easily, but luckily for me, I happened to have a routine appointment with my physician. She cuffed me and my systolic blood pressure was through the roof. As she is also a cardiologist, she had more tests run, started me on high blood pressure meds and we got it under control. I kind of feel like I owe her my life. A call out to the fantastic Dr. C. Bove.
Fast forward to today.
One of the people who comments on my Substack articles, pointed me to this website:
This site matches up vaccine batch codes with information from the VAERS system, which is the event reporting system run by the CDC. This site matches the vaccine batches to adverse drug reactions, death, disability and life threatening illnesses from the VAERS system
According to the website above, the data reported in VAERS, reproduced on the site, show that adverse events triggered by Moderna batches have varied widely.
5% of the batches appear to have produced 90% of the adverse reactions
Some Moderna batches are associated with 50 x the number of deaths and disabilities compared to other batches.
With that knowledge, I entered my batch code in the search box. The first injection had almost no significant adverse events associated with it. The second jab, frankly shocked me
Here are the results:
Now, I don’t know how many doses are in each batch. But I do know my batch was most definitely in the top 5%. So, not really a surprise in retrospect that I had such a serious adverse event profile.
I always felt I was lucky that I happened to be going to my physician that day, who is also a cardiologist (she is my internist – so I wasn’t seeing her for that specialty).
But just think- our government had this data way back when in the VAERs system -even last summer. This data is so compelling and yet… crickets. How many people could they have helped by releasing this data? People like me, who if I wasn’t a physician and hadn’t gone to my physician could have easily dropped dead.
What is wrong with our government that a site like this is not available from the CDC or the FDA?
People have the right to be given informed consent of risks and benefits of a medical procedure. Informed consent is not given, if the risks are hidden.
World renowned CV19 critical care and pulmonary expert Dr. Pierre Kory says the data is clear the CV19 injections are “not safe, not effective” and shows they are causing a huge number of deaths.
It’s going to get much worse if we don’t stop the shots. Dr. Kory warns,
“They already broke death records with these vaccines almost a year ago. Now, you are starting to see it in actuarial data with life insurance companies. The life insurance companies have been paying out claims like they never have before, and they are noticing the deaths cannot be explained by Covid. If you look at the actual morbidity and mortality from the CDC . . . 2019, 2020 and 2021 in the ages of 18 to 64
. . . you’ll see in America, starting in quarter two of the year 2021 (when the vaccines started), the mortalities started to rise, and it rose from 120 percent above normal to 140 percent above normal, and it’s far exceeded the death rates in 2020. The difference in 2020 and 2021, we had covid in both years. In 2021, we had the vaccines. They know the amount of deaths they are reporting cannot be explained by Covid.
. . . There is something else driving a huge and extremely terrifying mortality signal in the U.S. population. To think that it is anything but the vaccines, if we get this wrong and if you keep saying they are safe, that line which is already in a significant and steep incline will continue the more we boost and the more we vaccinate. . . . This has to stop. We have to stop, people are dying.”
Meanwhile, the captured regulatory agencies like the CDC and FDA are trashing and cutting off proven scientific cures for Covid such as Ivermectin. Dr. Kory says Ivermectin has been proven effective in defeating Covid infections, and he says, “It is “one of the safest drugs ever brought to market.”
Dr. Kory also says the so-called experimental vaccines “are not safe and not effective.” So, why do government agencies push them anyway?
Dr. Kory says, “I have had a front row seat to see this.” . . . And he goes on to say government agencies are suffering from “regulatory capture” by big Pharma. Meaning, the FDA and CDC push ineffective and dangerous vaccines so Big Pharma can make money off them, while disregarding cheaper, safer and more effective drugs like Ivermectin.
Dr Kory gives a real-world example during the pandemic and explains,
“Prescriptions in this country (for Ivermectin) in August were hitting 90,000 per week. So many doctors were using it for Covid that it spooked the pharmaceutical companies. . . . In response to the massive uptake in the use of Ivermectin by physicians with prescriptions and pharmacists filling them, the CDC went on the attack.
They sent a bulletin to every state department of health which was full of propaganda and misinformation screaming the FDA has not approved Ivermectin (for treating Covid) and it’s not a proven drug, and it’s dangerous and there are overdoses and all of these things that were false.
It went to all state departments of health. But guess what happened next? The medical boards and the pharmacy boards started sending that to every licensed physician and pharmacist in the land. The average physician and pharmacist, I am sorry to say this, is not well read. They are not keeping up with data.
They are overwhelmed and they are easily influenced. That’s why in this country you have a war between the physicians that know that Ivermectin is effective . . . and are at war with the pharmacies.
A huge proportion of pharmacists will refuse to fill a decades-old safe drug for Covid because they have been threatened and manipulated by their boards. They are afraid to lose their licenses. It all smoke.
It’s all B.S. because you cannot lose your license for use of a safe drug. . . We need our doctors to do doctoring, and we need our pharmacists to do pharmacy and stop being influenced by propaganda by pharmaceutical companies who don’t want you to use this drug.
We have to stand up, and we have to resist on behalf of our patients. We are finding that with compounding pharmacies and small pharmacies we can still get access (to Ivermectin), but it is a battle and you do have to navigate.”
Former Pfizer VP Dr. Michael Yeadon said this week,
“Max vaccination is leading to mass death.” Dr. Kory agrees and explains, “It’s not only data from a life insurance company that came out this week that is based on CDC data that can’t be explained by Covid alone, there are huge increases of dying in this country this year. . . They have done huge analysis of the European mortality data as well as the U.S. mortality data and they controlled for vaccination status.
They found that for every age range that they looked at, the all-cause mortality of the vaccinated were increased over the unvaccinated. All-cause mortality and that means that you are more likely to die of something if you are vaccinated. . . All-cause mortality are coming out of actual databases by credible scientists.
You have life insurance companies showing the data, and you have our own federal government showing unexplained large rises in dying. . . Don’t you think a good scientific question and a good hypothesis to test would be ‘Could these be the vaccines?’
The answer is ‘the vaccines,’ and I cannot find a better fit to answering that hypothesis than that, it’s this mass explosion of this vaccination policy with single, double and booster shots. It’s going like wildfire through the population. If the mortality of the vaccinated is higher than the unvaccinated, you have the data that you can safely and confidently conclude the vaccines are associated with and causing death.”
In closing, Dr. Kory says, “What has happened in the last month or so is the data for adverse reactions and effects are no longer hidden and suppressed. They are coming out on servers . . . and actuarial tables.”
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Dr. Pierre Kory, one of the top Pulmonary and Covid Critical Care experts on the planet, who is co-founder of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (flccc.net). (There is much more in the nearly 59 min. interview)
After The Interview:
Dr. Kory has said in past interviews that history will also not be kind to Dr Fauci. Dr. Kory contends Dr. Fauci made nearly every decision in favor of Big Pharma and not the public.
All the information is free on Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance website flccc.net.
The Constitutional amendments I have excerpted below are the premier law of the land. States and state agencies are not allowed to abridge these rights, which have been granted to all US citizens. However, my state’s Medical Board is trying hard to abridge them. The Board has apparently realized they do not have the evidence to convict me of anything, so they are now going on a fishing expedition, asking for a list of every patient I have seen during the past six months, and much more.
The reason my story has gotten so much press is because the Board ordered a neuropsychological evaluation of me–which leads to mandatory reporting to a national physician database, and makes my case accessible to the media.
Since the Maine Medical Board wanted to “out” me publicly, I feel no compunction about telling my side of the story to the public, and I will continue to do so.
For those who feel there must be a fire where there is smoke, and that I may in fact be a danger to my patients, I would like you to know my history and the facts as I see them. I was probably one of the safest and most careful physicians in the state:
1. There has not been a single complaint to the Board by a patient in this case. Not one.
2. I have never been accused or charged with malpractice, in 41 years of practicing medicine.
3. I have only ever had one complaint to a Medical Board, about 15 years ago, and the complainant apologized to me after the investigation, once he learned my treatment was excellent. The Board found in my favor then.
4. I am well known for successfully treating very challenging cases of chronic, undiagnosed illnesses.
5. I am listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in the World for my accomplishments, which included the first scientific analysis of an epidemic that proved it was due to biological warfare.
6. I have spent most of my career trying to serve patients who were ‘left behind’ by the prevailing medical system. This included soldiers being forced to receive a dangerous anthrax vaccine, and those who were injured by it; veterans with Gulf War syndrome; patients with chronic fatigue syndrome; with Lyme disease; and patients with puzzling illnesses that other doctors were unable to diagnose and/or treat. I pivoted my practice to focus on the best care of COVID precisely because other doctors failed to prescribe treatments that would keep the vast majority of patients out of the hospital.
7. I charged a one-time fee of $60 to treat COVID–this included as much treatment as needed for no additional cost. I am flabbergasted that the Board is criticizing my charting of many text messages, phone calls and emails, and calling them “telemedicine visits” as if each one deserved a history and physical. Don’t other doctors chat briefly with their patients outside the office any more?
I spoke to patients nights and weekends, and made brief notes of these many encounters, which I think is exactly what other doctors do. The Board has tried to turn my exemplary care of patients and one missed phone call (the doc had left the hospital when I called back) into a charge of negligence. And then into a charge of cognitive decline or psychiatric illness.
It seems that if you do not support vaccinations that the CEOs of Pfizer and BioNTech have now deemed practically worthless, and you treat patients with usually effective, legal medicines like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, then you must be stopped, whatever it takes.
The Board wants to cut off these patients’ access to cheap, safe and effective COVID medicines, and deny them any choice. It even wants to cut off their access to treatment information.
I do not intend to roll over while the Board trashes the First Amendment, imposes government-designated medical care on patients, and destroys the sacred bond between patients and their physicians.
Meryl Nass
*Tony Fauci is the Director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Francis Collins just stepped down as the Director of the National Institutes of Health. Lawrence Tabak is the current Acting Director of the National Institutes of Health. All three are shown in numerous emails to have covered up the role of the NIH in funding research in Wuhan through a pass-through organization, created a fake scientific paper designed to kill the lab origin hypothesis (without disclosing their role), and worked to get articles published to destroy the Great Barrington Declaration and its 3 prominent authors. Fauci has also perjured himself to Congress on multiple occasions.
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
AMENDMENT IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
AMENDMENT XIV – Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Dr. Meryl Nass has been practicing medicine for over 40 years with a special interest in biological warfare.
An expert in this area, she discusses how epidemics have been launched in the past that were not natural, government lies surrounding these events and how we are undoubtedly facing a similar situation right now.
If you would like to support Zeee Media to continue raising awareness and improve production, you can donate via this link:
The Government should be your single source of truth
SEPTEMBER 4, 2020 – New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in Parliament: ‘I want to send a clear message to the New Zealand public: we will share with you the most up-to-date information daily. You can trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the Director-General of Health and the Ministry of Health . . . dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth.’
This is one of the most oft-repeated and misleading lies of Jacinda Ardern. Whistleblowers from within government departments including nurses, doctors and officials have reported that they have been instructed to refrain from revealing to the public the true extent of adverse events and deaths following vaccination, thus hiding the real risks. The excuse presented to employees by the government was that ‘a medical emergency’ justifies the expedient of hiding the truth. Moreover the risks of Covid itself have been consistently overblown to stoke the fear narrative. Based on this lie, the government has refused to acknowledge the import of published research.
The virus spreads because of the unvaccinated
October 4, 2021 – Jacinda Ardern quoted in Stuff: ‘The vast majority of New Zealanders eligible now are being vaccinated, but the virus is finding our unvaccinated individuals. A boundary is not an ironclad way of protecting ourselves against Covid; a vaccine is.’
The government failed to call out false information in articles published by the media and sponsored by vaccine interests pretending that Covid spreads 20 times more easily among the unvaccinated. This created unnecessary fear of the unvaccinated and overconfidence among the vaccinated. It has divided our nation. It has led to an economic disaster for businesses who are required to discriminate against the unvaccinated. It has caused personal hardship for thousands of highly qualified and experienced NZ professionals and greatly reduced the pool of qualified individuals in NZ. This lie was the false basis for mandates.
The vaccine is entirely safe
22 October 2021 – Jacinda Ardern quoted in the NZ Doctor: ‘The vaccine we are using in New Zealand is safe and effective.’
This lie has been repeated again and again in the saturation government advertising which has cost millions. Individuals known to be vulnerable to vaccination adverse effects including people with a history of anaphylactic shock, past reactions to vaccination etc, have been denied information which might enable them to make informed choices. They have also been denied exemption to vaccination. Young people who have very little risk of serious Covid outcomes, yet a relatively high risk of vaccine injury, have been left completely uninformed.
There is no need to require reporting of vaccine adverse events
December 15 2021 – Astrid Koorneeff, Director, National Immunisation Programme: ‘An accurate measurement of all adverse events [subsequent to vaccination] is not required.’
This is among the most damaging of lies. Faced with a novel vaccine with a short period of testing developed by a company with a history of medical harm lawsuits against it, the government refused to institute mandatory procedures which would correctly evaluate the extent of any adverse effects. Instead they continued with a voluntary system. A Medsafe website records that only 5 per cent of adverse effects are reported. This has enabled Jacinda Ardern and the government to deny the extent of adverse events and death following vaccination by pleading insufficient information.
Heart disease affects only 3 out of 100,000 vaccinated individuals
15 December 2021 letter – Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health: ‘In New Zealand, the true incidence of vaccine-associated myocarditis is unknown as the onset of symptoms occurs in the first few days after vaccination and is potentially under-reported. However, the overall rate of this event in New Zealand is reported to be around 3 per 100,000 vaccinations.’
How can any rational person say in the same paragraph that incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis is underreported in NZ, but also assert an absurdly low rate for incidence? In fact a new study puts the risk of myocarditis to be higher among vaccinated males under 40 than from Covid itself. The latest careful assessment of incidence of perimyocarditis in the published literature puts the incidence as high as 1 in 2,000, not 3 in 100,000.
Multiple reports from individuals reveal that it is common practice to turn away recently vaccinated individuals experiencing symptoms of myocarditis from NZ general practices and hospitals without treatment or a report of cardiac problems. This is mediated by another myth that myocarditis is a ‘mild’ disease that is short-lived. That’s a frightening lie. The damage to the heart from acute viral myocarditis is typically permanent, and the three- to five-year survival rate for myocarditis has historically ranged from 56 per cent to 83 per cent.
Whistleblowers from emergency rooms around NZ report that facilities are being overwhelmed with cardiac cases among vaccinated individuals.
Taken together, the misinformation effort by the NZ government led by Jacinda Ardern has irreparably changed the character of our society and caused needless suffering for thousands.
The following is adapted from a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on November 7, 2021, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on “The Great Reset.”
Is the Great Reset a conspiracy theory imagining a vast left-wing plot to establish a totalitarian one-world government? No. Despite the fact that some people may have spun conspiracy theories based on it—with some reason, as we will see—the Great Reset is real.
Indeed, just last year, Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF)—a famous organization made up of the world’s political, economic, and cultural elites that meets annually in Davos, Switzerland—and Thierry Malleret, co-founder and main author of the Monthly Barometer, published a book called COVID-19: The Great Reset.
In the book, they define the Great Reset as a means of addressing the “weaknesses of capitalism” that were purportedly exposed by the COVID pandemic.
But the idea of the Great Reset goes back much further. It can be traced at least as far back as the inception of the WEF, originally founded as the European Management Forum, in 1971. In that same year, Schwab, an engineer and economist by training, published his first book, Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering.
It was in this book that Schwab first introduced the concept he would later call “stakeholder capitalism,” arguing “that the management of a modern enterprise must serve not only shareholders but all stakeholders to achieve long-term growth and prosperity.” Schwab and the WEF have promoted the idea of stakeholder capitalism ever since. They can take credit for the stakeholder and public-private partnership rhetoric and policies embraced by governments, corporations, non-governmental organizations, and international governance bodies worldwide.
The specific phrase “Great Reset” came into general circulation over a decade ago, with the publication of a 2010 book, The Great Reset, by American urban studies scholar Richard Florida. Written in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Florida’s book argued that the 2008 economic crash was the latest in a series of Great Resets—including the Long Depression of the 1870s and the Great Depression of the 1930s—which he defined as periods of paradigm-shifting systemic innovation.
Four years after Florida’s book was published, at the 2014 annual meeting of the WEF, Schwab declared: “What we want to do in Davos this year . . . is to push the reset button”—and subsequently the image of a reset button would appear on the WEF’s website.
In 2018 and 2019, the WEF organized two events that became the primary inspiration for the current Great Reset project—and also, for obvious reasons, fresh fodder for conspiracy theorists. (Don’t blame me for the latter—all I’m doing is relating the historical facts.)
In May 2018, the WEF collaborated with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security to conduct “CLADE X,” a simulation of a national pandemic response. Specifically, the exercise simulated the outbreak of a novel strain of a human parainfluenza virus, with genetic elements of the Nipah virus, called CLADE X.
The simulation ended with a news report stating that in the face of CLADE X, without effective vaccines, “experts tell us that we could eventually see 30 to 40 million deaths in the U.S. and more than 900 million around the world—twelve percent of the global population.” Clearly, preparation for a global pandemic was in order.
In October 2019, the WEF collaborated with Johns Hopkins and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on another pandemic exercise, “Event 201,” which simulated an international response to the outbreak of a novel coronavirus. This was two months before the COVID outbreak in China became news and five months before the World Health Organization declared it a pandemic, and it closely resembled the future COVID scenario, including incorporating the idea of asymptomatic spread.
The CLADE X and Event 201 simulations anticipated almost every eventuality of the actual COVID crisis, most notably the responses by governments, health agencies, the media, tech companies, and elements of the public. The responses and their effects included worldwide lockdowns, the collapse of businesses and industries, the adoption of biometric surveillance technologies, an emphasis on social media censorship to combat “misinformation,” the flooding of social and legacy media with “authoritative sources,” widespread riots, and mass unemployment.
In addition to being promoted as a response to COVID, the Great Reset is promoted as a response to climate change. In 2017, the WEF published a paper entitled, “We Need to Reset the Global Operating System to Achieve the [United Nations Sustainable Development Goals].” On June 13, 2019, the WEF signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations to form a partnership to advance the “UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
Shortly after that, the WEF published the “United Nations-World Economic Forum Strategic Partnership Framework for the 2030 Agenda,” promising to help finance the UN’s climate change agenda and committing the WEF to help the UN “meet the needs of the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” including providing assets and expertise for “digital governance.”
In June 2020, at its 50th annual meeting, the WEF announced the Great Reset’s official launch, and a month later Schwab and Malleret published their book on COVID and the Great Reset.
The book declared that COVID represents an “opportunity [that] can be seized”; that “we should take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to reimagine our world”; that “the moment must be seized to take advantage of this unique window of opportunity”; and that “[f]or those fortunate enough to find themselves in industries ‘naturally’ resilient to the pandemic”—think here of Big Tech companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon—“the crisis was not only more bearable, but even a source of profitable opportunities at a time of distress for the majority.”
The Great Reset aims to usher in a bewildering economic amalgam—Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism—which I have called “corporate socialism” and Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has called “communist capitalism.”
In brief, stakeholder capitalism involves the behavioral modification of corporations to benefit not shareholders, but stakeholders—individuals and groups that stand to benefit or lose from corporate behavior. Stakeholder capitalism requires not only corporate responses to pandemics and ecological issues such as climate change, “but also rethinking [corporations’] commitments to already-vulnerable communities within their ecosystems.”
This is the “social justice” aspect of the Great Reset. To comply with that, governments, banks, and asset managers use the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) index to squeeze non-woke corporations and businesses out of the market. The ESG index is essentially a social credit score that is used to drive ownership and control of production away from the non-woke or non-compliant.
One of the WEF’s many powerful “strategic partners,” BlackRock, Inc., the world’s largest asset manager, is solidly behind the stakeholder model. In a 2021 letter to CEOs, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink declared that “climate risk is investment risk,” and “the creation of sustainable index investments has enabled a massive acceleration of capital towards companies better prepared to address climate risk.” The COVID pandemic, Fink wrote, accelerated the flow of funds toward sustainable investments:
We have long believed that our clients, as shareholders in your company, will benefit if you can create enduring, sustainable value for all of your stakeholders. . . . As more and more investors choose to tilt their investments towards sustainability-focused companies, the tectonic shift we are seeing will accelerate further.
And because this will have such a dramatic impact on how capital is allocated, every management team and board will need to consider how this will impact their company’s stock.
Fink’s letter is more than a report to CEOs.
It is an implicit threat: be woke or else.
In their recent book on the Great Reset, Schwab and Malleret pit “stakeholder capitalism” against “neoliberalism,” defining the latter as “a corpus of ideas and policies . . . favouring competition over solidarity, creative destruction over government intervention, and economic growth over social welfare.” In other words, “neoliberalism” refers to the free enterprise system. In opposing that system, stakeholder capitalism entails corporate cooperation with the state and vastly increased government intervention in the economy.
Proponents of the Great Reset hold “neoliberalism” responsible for our economic woes. But in truth, the governmental favoring of industries and players within industries—what used to be known as corporatism or economic fascism—has been the real source of what Schwab and his allies at the WEF decry.
While approved corporations are not necessarily monopolies, the tendency of the Great Reset is toward monopolization—vesting as much control over production and distribution in as few favored corporations as possible, while eliminating industries and producers deemed non-essential or inimical. To bring this reset about, Schwab writes, “[e]very country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.”
Another way of describing the goal of the Great Reset is “capitalism with Chinese characteristics”—a two-tiered economy, with profitable monopolies and the state on top and socialism for the majority below.
Several decades ago, as China’s growing reliance on the for-profit sectors of its economy could no longer be credibly denied by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), its leadership approved the slogan “socialism with Chinese characteristics” to describe its economic system. Formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the phrase was meant to rationalize the CCP’s allowance of for-profit development under a socialist political system.
The CCP considered the privatization of the Chinese economy to be a temporary phase—lasting as long as 100 years if necessary—on the way to a communist society. Party leaders maintain that this approach has been necessary in China because socialism was introduced too early there, when China was a backward agrarian country. China needed a capitalist booster shot.
Stripped of its socialist ideological pretensions, the Chinese system amounts to a socialist or communist state increasingly funded by capitalist economic development. The difference between the former Soviet Union and contemporary China is that when it became obvious that a socialist economy had failed, the former gave up its socialist economic pretenses, while the latter has not.
The Great Reset represents the development of the Chinese system in the West, but in reverse. Whereas the Chinese political class began with a socialist political system and then introduced privately held for-profit production, the West began with capitalism and is now implementing a Chinese-style political system. This Chinese-style system includes vastly increased state intervention in the economy, on the one hand, and on the other, the kind of authoritarian measures that the Chinese government uses to control its population.
Schwab and Malleret write that if “the past five centuries in Europe and America” have taught us anything, it is that “acute crises contribute to boosting the power of the state. It’s always been the case and there is no reason it should be different with the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The draconian lockdown measures employed by Western governments managed to accomplish goals of which corporate socialists in the WEF could only dream—above all, the destruction of small businesses, eliminating competitors for corporate monopolists favored by the state. In the U.S. alone, according to the Foundation for Economic Education, millions of small businesses closed their doors due to the lockdowns.
Yelp data indicates that 60 percent of those closures are now permanent. Meanwhile companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google enjoyed record gains.
Other developments that advance the Great Reset agenda have included unfettered immigration, travel restrictions for otherwise legal border crossing, the Federal Reserve’s unrestrained printing of money and the subsequent inflation, increased taxation, increased dependence on the state, broken supply chains, the restrictions and job losses due to vaccine mandates, and the prospect of personal carbon allowances.
Such policies reflect the “fairness” aspect of the Great Reset—fairness requires lowering the economic status of people in wealthier nations like the U.S. relative to that of people in poorer regions of the world.
One of the functions of woke ideology is to make the majority in developed countries feel guilty about their wealth, which the elites aim to reset downwards—except, one notices, for the elites themselves, who need to be rich in order to fly in their private jets to Davos each year.
The Great Reset’s corporate stakeholder model overlaps with its governance and geopolitical model: states and favored corporations are combined in public-private partnerships and together have control of governance. This corporate-state hybrid is largely unaccountable to the constituents of national governments.
Governance is not only increasingly privatized, but also and more importantly, corporations are deputized as major additions to governments and intergovernmental bodies. The state is thereby extended, enhanced, and augmented by the addition of enormous corporate assets. As such, corporations become what I have called “governmentalities”—otherwise private organizations wielded as state apparatuses, with no obligation to answer to pesky voters.
Since these corporations are multinational, the state essentially becomes globalist, whether or not a one-world government is ever formalized.
As if the economic and governmental resets were not dramatic enough, the technological reset reads like a dystopian science fiction novel. It is based on the Fourth Industrial Revolution—or 4-IR for short. The first, second, and third industrial revolutions were the mechanical, electrical, and digital revolutions. The 4-IR marks the convergence of existing and emerging fields, including Big Data, artificial intelligence, machine learning, quantum computing, genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics.
The foreseen result will be the merging of the physical, digital, and biological worlds, which presents a challenge to the ontologies by which we understand ourselves and the world, including the definition of a human being.
There is nothing original about this. Transhumanists and Singularitarians (prophets of technological singularity) such as Ray Kurzweil forecasted these and other revolutionary developments long ago. What’s different about the globalists’ vision of 4-IR is the attempt to harness it to the ends of the Great Reset.
If already existing 4-IR developments are any indication of the future, then the claim that it will contribute to human happiness is false.
These developments include Internet algorithms that feed users prescribed news and advertisements and downrank or exclude banned content; algorithms that censor social media content and consign “dangerous” individuals and organizations to digital gulags; “keyword warrants” based on search engine inputs; apps that track and trace COVID violations and report offenders to the police; robot police with scanners to identify and round up the unvaccinated and other dissidents; and smart cities where residents are digital entities to be monitored, surveilled, and recorded, and where data on their every move is collected, collated, stored, and attached to a digital identity and a social credit score.
In short, 4-IR technologies subject human beings to a kind of technological management that makes surveillance by the NSA look like child’s play. Schwab goes so far as to cheer developments that aim to connect human brains directly to the cloud for the sake of “data mining” our thoughts and memories. If successful, this would constitute a technological mastery over decision-making that would threaten human autonomy and undermine free will.
The 4-IR seeks to accelerate the merging of humans and machines, resulting in a world in which all information, including genetic information, is shared, and every action, thought, and motivation is known, predicted, and possibly precluded. Unless taken out of the hands of corporate-socialist technocrats, the 4-IR will eventually lead to a virtual and inescapable prison of body and mind.
In terms of the social order, the Great Reset promises inclusion in a shared destiny. But the subordination of so-called “netizens” implies economic and political disenfranchisement, a hyper-vigilance over self and others, and social isolation—or what Hannah Arendt called “organized loneliness”—on a global scale.
This organized loneliness is already manifest in lockdowns, masking, social distancing, and the social exclusion of the unvaccinated. The title of the Ad Council’s March 2020 public service announcement—“Alone Together”—perfectly captures this sense of organized loneliness.
In my recent book, Google Archipelago, I argued that leftist authoritarianism is the political ideology and modus operandi of what I call Big Digital, which is on the leading edge of a nascent world system. Big Digital is the communications, ideological, and technological arm of an emerging corporate-socialist totalitarianism. The Great Reset is the name that has since been given to the project of establishing this world system.
Just as Schwab and the WEF predicted, the COVID crisis has accelerated the Great Reset. Monopolistic corporations have consolidated their grip on the economy from above, while socialism continues to advance for the rest of us below. In partnership with Big Digital, Big Pharma, the mainstream media, national and international health agencies, and compliant populations, hitherto democratic Western states—think especially of Australia, New Zealand, and Austria—are being transformed into totalitarian regimes modeled after China.
But let me end on a note of hope. Because the goals of the Great Reset depend on the obliteration not only of free markets, but of individual liberty and free will, it is, perhaps ironically, unsustainable. Like earlier attempts at totalitarianism, the Great Reset is doomed to ultimate failure. That doesn’t mean, however, that it won’t, again like those earlier attempts, leave a lot of destruction in its wake—which is all the more reason to oppose it now and with all our might.
About the author: Michael Rectenwald is the chief academic officer for American Scholars. He has a B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh, an M.A. from Case Western Reserve University, and a Ph.D. in Literary and Cultural Studies from Carnegie Mellon University. He has taught at New York University, Duke University, North Carolina Central University, Carnegie Mellon University, and Case Western Reserve University. He is the author of numerous books, including Nineteenth-Century British Secularism: Science, Religion, and Literature; Google Archipelago; Beyond Woke; and Thought Criminal.
They promised a booster would work – despite obvious evidence it wouldn’t. Not years ago. Months ago. Sometimes WEEKS ago. Don’t let them gaslight you. Don’t let them forget.
In August, when Israel became the first country to push Covid vaccine boosters, I warned that the evidence for them verged on nonexistent and they were unlikely to last more than a few months.
This was, to say the least, not the consensus view in the elite media or the public health establishment.
Lots of vaccines required boosters, they said! A third dose several months out simply fixed the rushed scheduling of the second dose, they said!
And no one pushed this view more aggressively than Dr. Anthony Fauci – who went so far as to promise that the third dose would do what the first two had not and confer long-lasting immunity:
….
Those stories are from early September.
And America’s Doctor (TM) got his way. Within weeks regulators had approved boosters – and as the fall went on they opened the spigots ever-wider.
Needless to say the media asked its usual critical questions. (Have a barf bag handy as you scroll.)
AMONG MANY widely embraced illusions about the history of the Middle East and American diplomacy in general is that Dr. Henry A. Kissinger is or ever was a brilliant statesman.
What Kissinger has always been, and remains at age 98, is a brilliant self-promoter. His more than 3,000 pages of self-aggrandizing published memoirs—a record unmatched in the annals of American diplomacy—reflect an ego trip befitting a man famous for his “shuttle diplomacy.”
Millions of Americans have been taken in by Kissinger’s Harvard credentials, his deft manipulation of the news media and his gravelly Old World-accent that supposedly resonates the wisdom of the ages. The latest of Kissinger’s easily duped admirers is the Israeli apologist Martin Indyk, the author of the recent book Master of the Game: Henry Kissinger and the Art of Middle East Diplomacy. In this astonishingly shallow book, as well as a recent webinar sponsored by the Middle East Institute, Indyk lauds Kissinger for his step-by-step approach to Middle East diplomacy, which he credits with giving rise to the Oslo “peace process.” The Oslo framework—a fraud that has enabled the ongoing and illegal settler occupation of Palestine—has been thoroughly discredited, yet Indyk argues with a straight face that it offers the only viable path to peace. None of this is a surprise, as Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, has long been a member in good standing of the Israel lobby and a cheerleader for Zionist state aggression and the repression of Palestinians. One can expect nothing less—he was first executive director of AIPAC’s think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).
Even Indyk admits that when Kissinger entered the Nixon White House, he was a Eurocentric “Orientalist” who “didn’t know anything about the Arab world by his own admission.” On the other hand, Kissinger was a dedicated Zionist, which had led him to visit Israel six times prior to his executive appointment. Kissinger—like Indyk and a series of U.S. diplomats, from Dennis Ross to Secretary of State Antony Blinken today—sided unequivocally with Israel and against justice for Palestinians.
Indyk showers credit on Kissinger for bailing out Israel in the October 1973 war and for his subsequent much glorified shuttle diplomacy, while glossing over the fact that Kissinger had sabotaged Secretary of State William Rogers’ peace plan based on U.N. Resolution 242, in the aftermath of the June 1967 war. By pushing Rogers aside, the ever-opportunistic Kissinger took over his job in the Nixon and later Ford White Houses.
Indyk chides Kissinger for not pursuing a “Jordanian solution” to the Palestine conflict, but Kissinger had no interest in Palestine, which, as he explained in 1974, was “not an American interest, because we don’t care if Israel keeps the West Bank if it can get away with it. So, we won’t push it.” Here we see the real Kissinger—utterly disdainful of the U.N., the Palestinian quest for peace, justice and human rights, just as he disdained the cause of other dark-skinned peoples across the world, including millions of Asians, Latin Americans and Africans.
In 1975, Kissinger expressed regret albeit privately, explaining, “I am sorry that I did not support the Rogers effort” to forge a peace accord. He acknowledged that a diplomatic agreement with Egypt could have been negotiated that “would have prevented the 1973 war.” Kissinger thus admitted that his ignorance and disdain for the Arab and Palestinian position had precluded a peace accord and brought on a major war. Failing to prevent war and further militarizing the Middle East conflict were the hallmarks of Kissinger’s failed statesmanship.
Both Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford made sporadic attempts to act as honest brokers in the Middle East, occurrences that left Kissinger caught between the administrations and Israel. When Israel and the lobby publicly criticized Kissinger amid a dispute over military resupply during the short-lived Ford administration, Kissinger in a “crying voice” prostrated himself before the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Simcha Dinitz, pleading that he “was a Jew before I was an American and now you are making me the scapegoat.” He added—in a vivid example of the extent of Israeli influence over American diplomacy—“I showed you messages, telegrams and wires from the Soviet Union and Egypt,” only to be criticized publicly in return.
In addition to his bungling Middle East diplomacy, Kissinger infamously green-lighted the undermining of Chilean, Argentinian and other Latin American democracies; bolstered apartheid in southern Africa; signed off on a murderous Indonesian assault on East Timor; and gave a thumbs up to Pakistan’s genocidal attack on Bangladesh. Even the much ballyhooed and long overdue détente with Russia and China, for which Kissinger has claimed enormous credit, stemmed from a misguided hope that the great powers could compel the North Vietnamese to grant the United States “peace with honor” amid the massive, failed Indochina intervention. Nixon and Kissinger prolonged the Vietnam War for four years, achieving nothing but a wider degree of death and destruction in the process.
Upon his death, Kissinger no doubt will be lauded, his mythical overseas accomplishments celebrated for days on end. But beneath the veneer of statesmanship the actual historical record reveals the true Kissinger: a deeply flawed diplomat who nurtured utter contempt for justice, human rights and peace. (Even Indyk admitted Kissinger had “quite a jaundiced view of peace,” but so does Indyk, so that wasn’t a big problem for him.)
So, Henry, when the time comes, may you rest in peace—despite the utter disregard you showed for it throughout your life.
History’s Shadows, a regular column by contributing editor Walter L. Hixson, seeks to place various aspects of Middle East politics and diplomacy in historical perspective. Hixson is the author of Architects of Repression: How Israel and Its Lobby Put Racism, Violence and Injustice at the Center of US Middle East Policy and Israel’s Armor: The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict (available from Middle East Books and More), along with several other books and journal articles. He has been a professor of history for 36 years, achieving the rank of distinguished professor.
Ever since the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant emerged in December 2021, all the signs indicated that it was the mildest and least lethal variant yet. Not a single death has been attributed to it in South Africa,1 for example, where it was initially detected.2
Despite that, U.S. health authorities kept issuing warnings as if Omicron were the worst threat yet. The World Health Organization declared it a “variant of concern,” and countries around the world responded by reinstating lockdowns and other draconian measures.3
The Omicron Death That Wasn’t
Then, December 20, 2021, the death of a Houston, Texas, man was labeled an “Omicron variant-related” death,4 and Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo announced that “The Omicron variant of COVID-19 has arrived in full force,”5 necessitating raising the county’s COVID-19 threat level to “Level-2 Orange.”
As you can see in the video above, within hours, the U.S. press widely reported that the first death from the Omicron variant had occurred amid surging COVID cases. Senior contributor to Forbes, Bruce Y. Lee, and MSNBC senior producer Kyle Griffin reported the death as a “reinfection” of “an unvaccinated man who previously had COVID-19.”6
“Naturally, this case makes you wonder how much protection ‘natural immunity’ will even offer against the Omicron variant,” Lee wrote. “Important note for the unvaccinated who believe in ‘natural immunity,’” Griffin tweeted.7
There was only one problem. The man didn’t die “from” Omicron infection. He died having tested positive for the Omicron variant. Journalist Dan Cohen confirmed this December 21, 2021, in a phone conversation with Martha Marquez, who works with the Harris County Public Health department. Marquez confirmed that the man died WITH COVID, not from it — amazing the difference one simple word makes.
If the man had previously recovered from COVID-19, then one wonders whether it was a false positive. The video above, which includes Cohen’s recorded phone call, illustrates how this singular unverified case was blown out of all proportion and used to refuel waning fears.
Omicron Poses Greatest Threat to the COVID-Jabbed
Authorities also wasted no time to use the fake Omicron death to scare the unvaccinated into getting the jab. Again and again, we were told that the unvaccinated were at greatest risk for this new variant, but this too has turned out to be 180 degrees from the truth.
Research8,9 out of Denmark shows that compared to the Delta variant, Omicron is far more likely to infect people who are “fully vaccinated” and boosted than those who are unvaccinated. The study looked at 11,937 Danish households during the month of December 2021.
In all, 2,225 people were identified as being infected with Omicron. During a seven-day follow-up period, they also identified 6,397 secondary infections. Interestingly, infection with Omicron was more likely to result in a secondary infection than the Delta strain, and the COVID-jabbed were far more likely to get these secondary infections. As reported by the authors:10
“The SAR [secondary attack rate] was 31% and 21% in households with the Omicron and Delta VOC [variant of concern], respectively. We found an increased transmission for unvaccinated individuals, and a reduced transmission for booster-vaccinated individuals, compared to fully vaccinated individuals.
Comparing households infected with the Omicron to Delta VOC, we found a 1.17 (95%-CI: 0.99-1.38) times higher SAR for unvaccinated, 2.61 times (95%-CI: 2.34-2.90) higher for fully vaccinated and 3.66 (95%-CI: 2.65-5.05) times higher for booster-vaccinated individuals, demonstrating strong evidence of immune evasiveness of the Omicron VOC.
Our findings confirm that the rapid spread of the Omicron VOC primarily can be ascribed to the immune evasiveness rather than an inherent increase in the basic transmissibility.”
COVID Shots Are Simply a Miserable Failure
All of this is just more evidence that the COVID shots are an abject failure, and it’s being added to an already long list of studies11 demonstrating their suboptimal efficacy. Below is a sampling of that evidence:
The Lancet Infectious Diseases October 202112 — Fully “vaccinated” individuals who develop breakthrough infections have a peak viral load similar to that of unvaccinated people, and efficiently transmit the infection to unvaccinated and “vaccinated” alike in household settings.
The Lancet Preprint13 — Fully “vaccinated” Vietnamese health care workers who contracted breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 Delta infections had viral loads that were 251 times higher than those found in cases infected with earlier strains. So, the shots do not appear to protect against infection with the Delta strain.
A July 31, 2021, medRxiv preprint by Riemersma et. al.14 found no difference in viral loads between unvaccinated people and those “fully vaccinated” who developed breakthrough infections. They also found the Delta variant was capable of “partial escape from polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies.”
Eurosurveillance rapid communication, July 202115 — An outbreak of the Delta variant in a hospital in Finland suggested the shots did little to prevent the spread of infection, even among the “vaccinated,” and despite routine use of face masks and other protective equipment.<
Eurosurveillance rapid communication, September 202116 — An upsurge of Delta variant infections in Israel, at a time when more than 55% of the population were “fully vaccinated,” also showed the COVID shots were ineffective against this variant. The infection spread even to those who were fully jabbed AND wore surgical masks.
The Lancet Preprint, October 202117 — This Swedish study found the Pfizer injection’s effectiveness progressively waned from 89% on Days 15 to 30, post-injection, to 42% from Day 181 onward. As of day 211, no protection against infection was discernible. Moderna’s shot fared slightly better, waning to 59% as of Day 181. The AstraZeneca injection offered lower protection than Pfizer and Moderna from the start, and waned faster, reaching zero by day 121.
BioRxiv September 202118 — Six months after the second Pfizer shot, antibody responses and T cell immunity against the original virus and known variants was found to have substantially waned, in many cases reaching undetectable levels.
Journal of Infection August 202119 — When the Delta variant was the cause of the infection, neutralizing antibodies had decreased affinity for the spike protein, while antibodies that worsen infection had increased affinity.
The Lancet Infectious Diseases November 202120 — 26% of patients admitted to hospital with confirmed severe or critical COVID-19 were “fully vaccinated;” 46% had a positive COVID test but were asymptomatic, 7% had mild infection and 20% had moderate illness. So, among those who developed symptoms of infection, the majority ended up with severe or critical illness.
medRxiv August 202121 — People with no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who got the Pfizer shot had a 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease, compared to people who had natural immunity.
Are We Starting to See Signs of ADE?
Over the course of 2020, many published studies highlighted the risk of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) following the COVID shots. For example, one October 28, 2020, paper stressed that:22
“… vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).”
While we’ve not seen conclusive evidence of ADE yet, there are signs that point in that direction, including the latest finding that the double and triple jabbed have more than double the rate of secondary infections when infected with Omicron. Clearly, their immune systems are not working as efficiently as in those who are unvaccinated.
Twenty years of research have demonstrated that making a vaccine against coronaviruses is fraught with risk.23 In fact, most previous coronavirus vaccine efforts — for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and similar viruses — have ended up triggering ADE.24,25,26,27,28,29
What that means is that, rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine actually enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated.30
The 2014 paper,31 “Antibody-Dependent SARS Coronavirus Infection Is Mediated by Antibodies Against Spike Proteins,” concluded that monoclonal antibodies generated against SARS-CoV spike proteins actually promoted infection, and that overall, “antibodies against SARS-CoV spike proteins may trigger ADE effects,” thereby raising “questions regarding a potential SARS-CoV vaccine.”
It’s Time to Stop the Madness
Masks don’t work. Lockdowns don’t work. Shutting down small businesses and schools don’t work. Social distancing doesn’t work. The COVID shots don’t work. Yet with the emergence of Omicron, governments are reimplementing all of the same countermeasures that haven’t worked for the past two years.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Yet that’s precisely what’s passing for “science” these days. The answer to this madness is mass-noncompliance. We must peacefully reject these wholly unscientific and harmful “countermeasures.”
It’s also high time to accept the fact that continuing the booster cycle is foolish in the extreme. Clearly, the odds are only getting worse for those with two or more shots, not better, and there’s absolutely no reason to believe they’ll improve their chances with four, five, six or more booster shots. It’s all downhill from here.
Our youths, in particular, must be protected from this folly. Already, data32 from the U.K. show deaths among teenagers increased 47% since they started getting COVID-19 shots. COVID-19-associated deaths also mysteriously rose among 15- to 19-year-olds after the shots were rolled out for this age group which, again, raises the suspicion that ADE may be at play.
Parents must be allowed to make individualized decisions regarding the risks and benefits of COVID vaccines for their children, Dr. Meryl Nass told Maine lawmakers this week.
Nass, a Maine-based practicing physician and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, submitted written testimony to the Maine Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee in support of a bill that would ban state-mandated COVID-19 vaccinations without informed consent.
Hundreds of Maine residents on Tuesday attended a public hearing in support of the bill. Click here to listen to the entire hearing.
There are many reasons why preventing COVID vaccine mandates until adequate, sufficient safety studies have been performed is “the right decision for this committee and legislature,” Nass wrote.
Those reasons include:
All available COVID vaccines are experimental products.
Legally, recipients must be offered the right to refuse.
Mandates negate the right of refusal.
Basic safety questions regarding the vaccines have not been resolved, and some will not be answered until 2027.
The WHO does not recommend broad COVID vaccinations for children.
Parents should be permitted to make individualized decisions regarding their children’s risks and benefits from COVID vaccines.
Unfortunately, no one can make a fully informed decision about COVID vaccines until the public has access to complete information on safety and efficacy, which are not now available. This fact alone should negate all mandates.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Tracy Quint, a Republican from Hodgdon, Maine, told the committee the bill would protect “the vital right of all Mainers to informed consent” about a vaccine whose long-term effects are unknown. She called it a chance “to change course” on the controversial issue.
Quint told Newscenter Maine she’s been hearing from people, particularly concerned parents, from across the state who are fearful there will soon be a vaccine mandate in schools.
“It didn’t matter whether they were a Democrat or a Republican, just parents in general, had some concerns whether or not this would be mandated for their children,” Quint said.
Matt Landry of Greene, Maine — one of more than 280 people who testified remotely or wrote in during the three-hour hearing — told lawmakers he is “tired of these jabs being forced against the people’s will and making people sick, injured or dead. I can see it happening to people I know, and it makes my blood boil.”
Maine Gov. Janet Mills, who opposes the bill, told Newscenter Maine:
“This is the time for everybody in leadership positions, everybody in public office, everybody in roles of leadership in their community, to get the word out to make sure people understand how safe and thoroughly tested these vaccines are and how critical they are to keep you out of the hospital, keep you out of the ICU, keep you from dying.”
But Nass told lawmakers no matter what claims have been made regarding these vaccines, they are not “safe and effective.”
Nass wrote:
“‘Safe and effective’ is an [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] ‘term of art’ that may only be applied to licensed drugs and vaccines. All currently available COVID vaccines in the United States are unlicensed and experimental, a.k.a. investigational.”
Read Nass’ full testimony below:
January 11, 2022
Honorable Chairpersons, Members and Senators,
I write in support of LD 867. There are many reasons why preventing COVID vaccine mandates until adequate, sufficient safety studies have been performed is the right decision for this committee and legislature.
1. COVID vaccines are experimental
Let me say, first, that no matter what claims have been made regarding these vaccines, they are not “safe and effective.” “Safe and effective” is an FDA “term of art” that may only be applied to licensed drugs and vaccines. All currently available COVID vaccines in the United States are unlicensed and experimental, a.k.a. investigational.
Medicines and vaccines are either licensed products or experimental products. There is no gray area between them in US law. Whether or not research is explicitly conducted, the use of experimental products (including those issued an Emergency Use Authorization) falls under the Nuremberg Code and under US law regulating experimental drugs. As former FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn himself noted, “EUA products are still considered investigational.”
According to 21CFR Subchapter D Part 312: “an experiment is any use of a drug except for the use of a marketed drug in the course of medical practice.” Vaccines are considered a subset of drugs by FDA. And the use of unlicensed, Emergency Use Authorized vaccines is thus, by definition, experimental.
US law requires that humans receiving experimental products must provide written informed consent. However, when the PREP Act creating Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) was written, this requirement was loosened slightly for emergencies in which EUA products would be used. The required disclosures when using EUAs were specified below. Please note the option to accept or refuse.
21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 – Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies (ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed —
(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
All Moderna, Janssen (Johnson and Johnson) and all childhood Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are being used under EUAs. And while the adult Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is supposed to be licensed with brand name Comirnaty, in fact the Pfizer adult vaccines being used in the US today are EUA products as well.
2. While FDA licensed Comirnaty, the only approved COVID vaccine, only Emergency Use Authorized (experimental) vaccines are being used in the US
Despite claims to the contrary, the licensed and branded Comirnaty has not been made available for administration in the US. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is currently available, is authorized under an Emergency Use Authorization, which provides a broad liability shield to the manufacturer, distributor, administrator, program planner, and virtually anyone else involved in the vaccination process. The branded product, on the other hand, is subject to ordinary liability claims at the present time.
Exactly three weeks after FDA issued Comirnaty a license, the National Library of Medicine, part of the NIH, posted information that Pfizer was not planning to make Comirnaty available in the US while the EUA vaccine was still available.
Pfizer received FDA BLA license for its COVID-19 vaccine
Pfizer received FDA BLA license on 8/23/2021 for its COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 and older (COMIRNATY). At that time, the FDA published a BLA package insert that included the approved new COVID-19 vaccine tradename COMIRNATY and listed 2 new NDCs (0069-1000-03, 0069-1000-02) and images of labels with the new tradename.
At present, Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these new NDCs and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution. As such, the CDC, AMA, and drug compendia may not publish these new codes until Pfizer has determined when the product will be produced with the BLA labels.
FDA extended the vaccine’s EUA authorization on the same day it licensed the vaccine.
FDA appears to have been acceding to the White House demand that the vaccine be licensed, to allow it to be mandated for large sectors of the US population. Under an EUA, which specifies that potential recipients have the right to refuse, mandates cannot be imposed. So a license was issued, allowing the administration to inform the public that the vaccine was fully approved and licensed. But in fact, the public was unable to access the licensed vaccine.
Why was this convoluted regulatory process performed? While under EUA, Pfizer has an almost bulletproof liability shield. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on September 23, 2021, “courts have characterized PREP Act immunity as ‘sweeping.’” The CRS explains, “the PREP Act immunizes a covered person from legal liability for all claims for loss related to the administration or use of a covered countermeasure.”
3. FDA instructed Pfizer-BioNTech that FDA’s Congressionally-mandated databases are inadequate to assess the danger of myocarditis (and other potential COVID vaccine side effects) and therefore Pfizer-BioNTech must perform studies to evaluate these risks over the next six years
On the day FDA issued a license for Comirnaty, August 23, 2021, FDA instructed Pfizer-BioNTech that it did NOT have sufficient information on serious potential risks of the product, and required Pfizer and BioNTech, the manufacturers, to conduct a series of studies to assess these potential risks. These studies were to be performed on both products: the licensed Comirnaty and the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Note that they include the requirement for a safety study in pregnancy, which will not be completed until December 31, 2025.
I have reproduced part of what FDA wrote about these required safety studies below, directly from pages 6-11 of the FDA approval letter sent to BioNTech.
FDA’s admission that it cannot assess these safety risks, and that up to 6 years will be taken to study them, provides us with additional de facto evidence that the Pfizer vaccines cannot be termed safe, as many of the fundamental safety studies are only now getting started.
“POSTMARKETING REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 505(o) Section 505(o) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) authorizes FDA to require holders of approved drug and biological product applications to conduct postmarketing studies and clinical trials for certain purposes, if FDA makes certain findings required by the statute (section 505(o)(3)(A), 21 U.S.C. 355(o)(3)(A)).
We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis.
Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks. Therefore, based on appropriate scientific data, we have determined that you are required to conduct the following studies:
Study C4591009, entitled “A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in the United States,” to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: August 31, 2021 Monitoring Report Submission: October 31, 2022 Interim Report Submission: October 31, 2023 Study Completion: June 30, 2025 Final Report Submission: October 31, 2025
Study C4591021, entitled “Post Conditional Approval [EUA] Active Surveillance Study Among Individuals in Europe Receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech Coronavirus Page 7 – STN BL 125742/0 – Elisa Harkins Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine,” to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: August 11, 2021 Progress Report Submission: September 30, 2021 Interim Report 1 Submission: March 31, 2022 Interim Report 2 Submission: September 30, 2022 Interim Report 3 Submission: March 31, 2023 Interim Report 4 Submission: September 30, 2023 Interim Report 5 Submission: March 31, 2024 Study Completion: March 31, 2024 Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024
Study C4591021 sub-study to describe the natural history of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: January 31, 2022 Study Completion: March 31, 2024 Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024 7. Study C4591036, a prospective cohort study with at least 5 years of follow-up for potential long-term sequelae of myocarditis after vaccination (in collaboration with Pediatric Heart Network). We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021 Study Completion: December 31, 2026 Page 8 – STN BL 125742/0 – Elisa Harkins Final Report Submission: May 31, 2027
Study C4591007 sub-study to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical myocarditis following administration of the second dose of COMIRNATY in a subset of participants 5 through 15 years of age. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this assessment according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: September 30, 2021 Study Completion: November 30, 2023 Final Report Submission: May 31, 2024
Study C4591031 sub-study to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical myocarditis following administration of a third dose of COMIRNATY in a subset of participants 16 to 30 years of age. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021 Study Completion: June 30, 2022.
Final Report Submission: December 31, 2022 …
Study C4591022, entitled “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine [the EUA vaccine] Exposure during Pregnancy: A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of Pregnancy and Infant Outcomes in the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS)/MotherToBaby Pregnancy Registry.”
Final Protocol Submission: July 1, 2021 Study Completion: June 30, 2025
Final Report Submission: December 31, 2025
4. The World Health Organization does not recommend COVID vaccines for normal children
Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.
More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19.
WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) has concluded that the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine is suitable for use by people aged 12 years and above. Children aged between 12 and 15 who are at high risk may be offered this vaccine alongside other priority groups for vaccination. Vaccine trials for children are ongoing and WHO will update its recommendations when the evidence or epidemiological situation warrants a change in policy.
If the World Health Organization believes there is insufficient evidence to support general vaccination of normal children, why would this committee and the Maine Legislature think otherwise?
To sum up:
All available COVID vaccines are experimental products.
Legally, recipients must be offered the right to refuse.
Mandates negate the right of refusal.
Basic safety questions regarding the vaccines have not been resolved, and some will not be answered until 2027.
The WHO does not recommend broad COVID vaccinations for children.
Parents should be permitted to make individualized decisions regarding their children’s risks and benefits from COVID vaccines.
Unfortunately, no one can make a fully informed decision about COVID vaccines until the public has access to complete information on safety and efficacy, which are not now available. This fact alone should negate all mandates.
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.
SEPTEMBER 4, 2020 – New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in Parliament: ‘I want to send a clear message to the New Zealand public: we will share with you the most up-to-date information daily. You can trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the Director-General of Health and the Ministry of Health . . . dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth.’
Aletho News
Aletho News 