Nutshell version of the boosters, FDA and CDC
By Meryl Nass, MD | September 24, 2021
1. Marion Gruber, the #2 person in CBER, who has been there for decades and her deputy, Phil Krause, announce their resignations in August, just after Biden administration announces its plan to offer 3’d vaccine doses beginning the week of September 20.
2. FDA issues a license for the Pfizer vaccine on Aug 23, for only two doses while permitting a 3d dose only for those who are immunocompromised. FDA fails to hold an advisory committee meeting around this decision.
3. FDA is caught out for a “bait and switch:” licensing Comirnaty when only the EUA vaccine, named Pfizer-BioNTech, is actually available in clinics. The “license” provides legal cover for mandates, while the EUA provides broad liability cover to the manufacturer. I was the first person to publicly identify this fraud.
4. FDA schedules an advisory committee meeting for Sept. 17, the Friday before Biden’s Sept. 20 date to start offering boosters to the public.
5. Gruber and Krause publish an article in the Lancet noting boosters are not necessary.
6. Pfizer presents to the advisory committee a very small and inadequate data collection to justify the requested broad license expansion for boosters, almost as if they don’t want it. Or perhaps they were told it would be a shoe-in. Israeli data are presented to buttress the argument for boosters. The advisory committee votes against the broad expansion of boosters to the general population, 16-2. And this is a hand-picked committee, most of whom are temporary members, chosen, it seems, to help usher in the shots with the least difficulty.
7. A new question is quickly created and put to the advisory committee, asking whether they will approve boosters for those over 65 and those at high risk of severe disease. They give a unanimous vote yes.
8. FDA leadership has the right to make decisions that go against the advisory committees, but there is a political and prestige cost when this is done. On Wednesday evening 9/22/21, just before the CDC’s advisory committee, the ACIP was to vote on which demographics would get a recommendation for a booster dose the FDA announced its decision to go against its advisory committee and, with weasel words I explained yesterday, opened the booster dose to a broad swathe of Americans. However, they did not license the vaccine for this; instead, they expanded the EUA.
6. ON 9/23/21 the ACIP committee met, were briefed, and were posed 4 questions to vote on. They assented to 3, but, like the FDA advisory committee, refused to approve a recommendation for a broad expansion of the third dose. (It should be noted that all members of the advisory committee work at medical schools, where a third dose would probably become mandatory in the near future.)
7. Unlike the FDA, which issues the rules for drugs and vaccines, the CDC claims to allow its advisory committee to make the decisions about how vaccines should be used. I could not recall a time that the CDC Director had tried to overrule its advisory committee. Helen Branswell of Stat says it happened only once before, in 2003 over the smallpox vaccine. But on 9/24/21 CDC Director Walensky overruled the advisory committee to broaden the recommendation for a third dose to practically all Americans aged 18 and over. The smallpox vaccine decision was totally political, designed to scare Americans into going to war against Iraq, where no smallpox was ever found.
How will CDC be able to hide behind ACIP’s skirts, claiming that ACIP makes the vaccine decisions, when this time ACIP didn’t?
8. The Biden administration eventually got what it said it wanted, but at the cost of revealing it didn’t give a damn about the Science. Both the FDA and CDC leadership were forced to publicly ignore the evidence as well as their own advisers.
9. A usual suspect was trotted out to applaud the tyrants:
“American Medical Association President Gerald E. Harmon, M.D., applauded Walensky’s leadership and said that his organization believes the recommendation “is a critical step to preserve our nation’s health care capacity and prevent illness among those who have continued to put their own health and safety at risk to care for patients.”‘
As I noted a few days ago, Harmon, a 2-bit family practitioner from South Carolina, rode to fame and fortune as a flight surgeon by exposing and punishing anthrax vaccine refusers with an iron hand, eventually making Major General. This is a ‘leader’ who knows on which side his bread is buttered.
10. Lots of boosters are coming, since the US Government and other governments have already purchased them. New vaccines are a super conduit for graft and corruption.They are sold for several times more than what they cost to make; the profits are incalculable; and so there is an awful lot of money available to pay for “lobbying,” i.e., lobbing cash at politicians.
Here’s the skinny on what happened yesterday and today regarding the booster dose
By Meryl Nass, MD | September 23, 2021
Last Friday, FDA’s advisory committee (VRBPAC) voted 16 to 2 against giving a license to a third Pfizer booster shot for everyone age 16 and up.
Although a second vote at Friday’s meeting had not been planned, another question was hastily developed. That question asked whether the vaccine could be licensed for a third booster dose for high risk people under the age of 65. That vote got a unanimous yes.
The panels decisions are not final. The FDA is obliged to take the panels advice into consideration, but it is not required to adopt it. So yesterday, the FDA issued a license for the Pfizer vaccine for the booster dose.
But in doing so, FDA added an additional category of people for the booster dose, a category that had not been included in the Advisory Committee’s vote:
- “individuals 18 through 64 years of age whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications of COVID-19 including severe COVID-19.”
This is what I call weasel wording. This statement does not make sense. People whose occupation puts them at high risk of exposure to COVID are no more likely to be at high risk of serious complications or severe COVID-19 than anyone else. They are at higher risk of developing COVID, but not at higher risk of serious COVID.
What FDA did (and you know who did this: Peter Marks, head of CBER and Janet Woodcock, acting Commissioner, are the only people with the authority to come up with this BS) was to take the VRBPAC approval for people with underlying conditions that put them at high risk for severe COVID, and twist it into an approval for all health care workers, staff at schools and colleges, grocery store workers, big box employees, etc.
Why? Because a license is necessary to impose a mandate, that’s why.
It looked like the weasels had won again. However, there was a small hoop left to jump through before any mandates came down.
While FDA determines how a drug or vaccine should be licensed or authorized for use, the CDC’s ACIP committee is the group responsible for creating the recommendations for use of the vaccine in different demographic groups.
And so ACIP did what it never does. It rejected the CDC’s proposal to widen the license for the third dose to all with potential occupational exposures. the ACIP limited their approval to what the FDA advisory committee had voted for last Friday. As CNBC noted,
… Dr. Leana Wen [member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Economic Forum], an emergency physician and former Baltimore health commissioner, on Twitter called the CDC panel’s vote to reject boosters more widely a “mistake.”
“Really, we are not allowing healthcare workers, many of whom got vaccinated in back in December, to get a booster? What about teachers in cramped classrooms where masks aren’t required?” she tweeted, adding CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky should overrule the recommendation.
… In a paper published days before an FDA advisory meeting last week, a leading group of scientists said available data showed vaccine protection against severe disease persists, even as the effectiveness against mild disease wanes over time. The authors, including two high-ranking FDA officials and multiple scientists from the World Health Organization, contended in the medical journal The Lancet that widely distributing booster shots to the general public is not appropriate at this time.
I think 2 things happened. The propaganda that the vaccines still prevent serious disease while perhaps not preventing mild disease stood in the way of approving boosters to prevent mild disease. Why give a potentially dangerous booster to prevent a cold? It doesn’t make sense.
Second, everyone on those committees knew that if the vaccine’s third dose did get approved for a huge swath of the general public, it would be mandated for themselves in no time. A third dose would have been required for every member of both FDA’s and CDC’s advisory committees. I don’t think they were ready for that. And maybe they weren’t ready for the resistance from those who took the 2 shots thinking they were done… and now, it seems they could get into a situation where they could be fired for not having a third dose. What about more and more doses?
Or maybe the large demonstrations in Australia and Europe were influencing those advisory committee members…
Experts Accuse CDC of ‘Cherry-Picking’ Data on Vaccine Immunity to Support Political Narrative
By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | September 16, 2021
There is now a growing body of literature showing natural immunity not only confers robust, durable and high-level protection against COVID, but also provides better protection than vaccine-induced immunity.
Yet, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is ignoring the long-standing science of natural immunity when it comes to COVID — while acknowledging the benefits of natural immunity for other diseases — according to an expert who accused the agency of providing contradictory, ‘illogical’ COVID messaging.
Dr. Marty Makary, professor of surgery and health policy at John Hopkins University, on Tuesday accused the CDC of “cherry-picking” data and manipulating public health guidance surrounding vaccines and natural immunity to support a political narrative.
Makary joined the “Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show” to discuss the clinical impact of natural immunity as it compares to the vaccine.
During the show, Travis pointed out the CDC’s guidance on COVID is inconsistent with its vaccine recommendations for other contagious viruses, like chickenpox.
The CDC’s current guidance for chickenpox, for example, does not encourage those who have contracted it to vaccinate themselves against the virus. The CDC only recommends two doses of chickenpox vaccine for children, adolescents and adults who have never had chickenpox.
“So why doesn’t the CDC say the same thing about those of us who already had COVID?” Travis asked.
Makary called the conflicting guidance “absolutely illogical,” and accused the agency of “ignoring natural immunity.”
“It doesn’t make sense with what they’re putting out on chickenpox,” Makary said. It’s like they have adopted the immune system for one virus, but not for another virus, he said, and “cherry-picking the data to support whatever they’ve already decided.”
“They salami slice it — something we call fishing in statistical techniques,” Makary said. “That is when you look for a tiny sliver of data that supports what you already believe.”
According to a Sept. 13 article in The BMJ, when the COVID vaccine rollout began in mid-December 2020, more than a quarter of Americans — 91 million — had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to CDC estimates.
As of this May, that proportion had risen to more than a third of the population, including 44% of adults between the ages of 18 and 59.
However, the CDC instructed everyone, regardless of previous infection, to get fully vaccinated as soon as they were eligible. On its website, the agency in January justified its guidance by stating natural immunity “varies from person to person” and “experts do not yet know how long someone is protected.
By June, a Kaiser Family Foundation survey found 57% of those previously infected got vaccinated.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical advisor, was asked Sept. 10 by CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta whether people who have tested positive for the virus should still get a vaccine.
Gupta cited recent data from Israel suggesting people who recovered from COVID had better protection and a lower risk of contracting the Delta variant, compared to those with Pfizer-BioNTech’s two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.
“I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that,” Fauci said. “That’s something we’re going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response.”
The research from Israel did not address the durability that natural immunity offers. Fauci said it is possible for a person to recover from COVID and develop natural immunity, but that protection might not last for nearly as long as the protection provided by the vaccine.
“I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously,” Fauci said.
Numerous studies, however, have shown people who recovered from COVID have robust, durable and long-lasting immunity.
Evidence of natural immunity
As early as November 2020, important studies showed memory B cells and memory T cells formed in response to natural infection — and memory cells respond by producing antibodies to variants at hand.
A study funded by the National Institutes of Health and conducted by the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, found “durable immune responses” in 95% of the 200 participants up to eight months after infection.
One of the largest studies to date, published in Science in February 2021, found that although antibodies declined over eight months, memory B cells increased over time, and the half-life of memory CD8+ and CD4+ T cells suggests a steady presence.
In a study by New York University published May 3, the authors studied the contrast between vaccine immunity and immunity from prior infection as it relates to stimulating the innate T-cell immunity — which is more durable than adaptive immunity through antibodies alone.
The authors concluded:
“In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients. Increased interferon signaling likely contributed to the observed dramatic upregulation of cytotoxic genes in the peripheral T cells and innate-like lymphocytes in patients but not in immunized subjects.”
The study further noted:
“Analysis of B and T cell receptor repertoires revealed that while the majority of clonal B and T cells in COVID-19 patients were effector cells, in vaccine recipients, clonally expanded cells were primarily circulating memory cells.”
This means natural immunity conveys much more innate immunity, while the vaccine mainly stimulates adaptive immunity — as effector cells trigger an innate response that is quicker and more durable, whereas memory response requires an adaptive mode that is slower to respond.
According to a longitudinal analysis published July 14 in Cell Medicine, most recovered COVID patients produced durable antibodies, memory B cells and durable polyfunctional CD4 and CD8 T cells –– which target multiple parts of the virus.
“Taken together, these results suggest broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients,” the authors said.
In other words, unlike with the vaccines, no boosters are required to assist natural immunity.
In a May 12 study conducted by the University of California, researchers found natural immunity conveyed stronger immunity than the vaccine.
The researchers wrote:
“In infection-naïve individuals, the second [vaccine] dose boosted the quantity but not quality of the T cell response, while in convalescents the second dose helped neither. Spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees differed strikingly from those of infection-naïve vaccinees, with phenotypic features suggesting superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx.”
According to The BMJ, studies in Qatar, England, Israel and the U.S. have found infection rates at equally low levels among people who are fully vaccinated and those who have previously had COVID.
As The Defender reported in June, the Cleveland Clinic surveyed more than 50,000 employees to compare four groups based on history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination status.
Not one of more than 1,300 unvaccinated employees who had been previously infected tested positive during the five months of the study. Researchers concluded the cohort “are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination.”
In the largest real-world observational study comparing natural immunity gained through previous SARS-CoV-2 infection to vaccine-induced immunity afforded by the Pfizer vaccine, researchers in Israel found people who recovered from COVID were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms or be hospitalized.
“Our results question the need to vaccinate previously infected individuals,” they concluded.
Experts speak out on natural immunity
In a recent letter to the editor of The BMJ, Dr. Manish Joshi, a pulmonologist at UAMS Health; Dr. Thaddeus Bartter, a pulmonologist at UAMS Health; and Anita Joshi, BDS, MPH, said data demonstrate both adequate and long-lasting protection in those who have recovered from COVID, while the duration of vaccine-induced immunity is not fully known.
The authors of the letter said the “SIREN” study in the Lancet addressed the relationships between seropositivity in people with previous COVID infection and subsequent risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome due to SARS-CoV-2 infection over the subsequent seven to 12 months.
The study found prior infection decreased risk of symptomatic reinfection by 93%.
A large cohort study published in JAMA Internal Medicine which looked at 3.2 million U.S. patients, showed the risk of infection was significantly lower (0.3%) in seropositive patients compared to those who were seronegative (3%).
A recent study published in May in the journal Nature demonstrated the presence of long-lived memory immune cells in those who have recovered from COVID-19 suggesting durable and long-lasting immunity.
“This implies a prolonged (perhaps years) capacity to respond to new infection with new antibodies,” the authors wrote.
© [Sept. 2021] Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Why Testing Your Immunity to COVID-19 Is Important
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 4, 2021
Antibody testing is the gold standard for determining immunity, says immunologist and physician Dr. Hooman Noorchashm. Yet, the CDC and FDA are actively deterring people from testing their immunity. Why?
In May 2021 the FDA issued an advisory discouraging Americans from testing the status of their antibody immunity to COVID-19, Noorchashm wrote in an editorial on his blog. “Those who are adequately immune to COVID-19 are rarely, if ever, getting reinfected — regardless of whether this immunity comes from vaccination or from a natural infection,” Noorchashm said.
Meanwhile, “those who are NOT immune to SARS-CoV-2 are susceptible to being infected,” he said. He surmises that to end the pandemic upward of 90% of the population need to become immune.
As far as testing for immunity, according to Noorchashm, the FDA advisory prevents people from obtaining critical information necessary to protect themselves during the pandemic. “ … by not encouraging liberal COVID-19 antibody testing, especially in fully vaccinated Americans, the FDA and CDC are preventing vaccinated, but inadequately immune, persons from finding out that they remain susceptible to infection,” he wrote.
Citing his own experience as a physician, he said “patients who hesitate to undergo vaccination are far more likely to do so when they are confronted with a negative antibody test demonstrating they are susceptible.”
SOURCES:
ACIP vote yesterday, after deceitful CDC briefings, removes liability from Comirnaty and opens door to mandates
By Meryl Nass, MD | August 31, 2021
In a nutshell: Yesterday CDC asked its advisory committee to “recommend” the Comirnaty vaccine for 16 and 17 year olds. And it agreed, unanimously. Or pusillanimously.
The vote may seem silly or superfluous, because it had already been recommended for this age group as an EUA.
But this vote was anything but superfluous. This seemingly minor recommendation, which did not get headlines, moves the licensed Comirnaty vaccine from a place where the manufacturer is legally liable for injuries, to a berth within the Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, for which there is no manufacturer liability. Instead a $0.75 excise tax is charged per dose, which goes into a fund administered by DHHS to pay for injuries, if one is lucky enough to convince the special masters (judges) in the program that a vaccine caused your injury. Once a vaccine is recommended for children, its liability is waived no matter who receives it.
But the important part is that once this process is complete (which I expect to be only a very few weeks), Pfizer can roll out stocks of the licensed vaccine while still having its liability waived. That means that the loophole I told you about last week is being backfilled by the USG, with the help of the supine and spineless ACIP committee members, and will soon disappear.
I say spineless with true conviction, because the briefings they received yesterday were a load of fraud and hogwash. Yet no one challenged the data nor the conclusions. It is hard to believe that the lot of them are really that stupid that they believed what they heard. It is also hard to believe that none of them had a conflict of interest, which they all asserted along with their vote.
Furthermore, no one ever actually said why the vote was held: which was for liability purposes, nor that the vote would lead to mandates, which could not be implemented under the EUA.
So, it is disappointing.
Children’s Health Defense went to court today in Tennessee to challenge the FDA on issuing both a license and EUA for the same product. AFLDS also went to court today in Colorado challenging the mandate. More on these cases later.
The Science of “Hope” – Biden Regime Promotes New Plan For Multiple Booster Shots Every Six Months in Perpetuity
THE LAST REFUGE | August 25, 2021
The Biden administration is on the precipice of announcing mandatory six month booster shots for people who have already had the vaccine. The reason? Data from Israel is showing that vaccinated populations are, for yet unknown reasons, more susceptible to even worse infections from the Delta variant.
It appears, from the early data, that once you take the vaccine you put your immune system into a state of perpetual dependency requiring booster shots to chase the variants every six months. Without the boosters, the hospitalization rates amid the vaccinated population appear worse than non-vaccinated. Delta hits the vaccinated population harder than Alpha, and Lambda will likely hit the vaccinated population harder than Delta…. and so it goes, and so it appears it will continue.
The Daily Beast outlined a foreboding article yesterday with the overarching message that America had better prepare for this quickly based on the Israeli data. The Israeli scientists call the population who have taken the vaccine+booster the “ultra-vaccinated”, and unfortunately it appears those ultra-vaccinated patients are now on course to require frequent booster updates as their immune system is now mRNA dependent to battle the evolving COVID variants.
FTA – […] Asked what has brought Israel to peak transmission even as the country has already provided third doses of vaccines to 1.5 million citizens, Rahav, who has become one of the best known faces of Israel’s public health messaging, sighed, saying, “I think we’re dealing with a very nasty virus. This is the main problem—and we’re learning it the hard way.” (read more)
Metaphorically, a drug user chasing a “high” trains his/her brain to become dependent or addicted in order to retain that altered mental state, so too does the COVID vaccination regime appear to place the patient into an dependent state for their immune system.
However, on the positive side (for those vaccinated) the Biden administration appears to be gearing up to deliver this booster process on a long-term basis.
The Biden administration is planning to announce updated guidance recommending a third dose of Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccine be given to Americans very six months after their second dose (instead of eight months), according to The Wall Street Journal. Right now, the final plan is still being worked out, and will need to be approved by the CDC’s vaccine advisory team, essentially controlled by vaccine makers, along with the FDA (also controlled by vaccine makers).
As soon as the pharmaceutical industry tells the Biden administration what to do, the CDC will begin pushing the booster shots onto the vaccinated population.
There is no actual science behind this process, but then again, there hasn’t really been any science behind any of it; so don’t worry, just take the next shot and await further instructions. However, if this process is put into place, it would appear that the vaccination passports will have an expiration date.
WASHINGTON DC – […] The Biden administration and vaccine companies have said that there should be enough supply for boosters that they plan to begin distributing more widely on Sept. 20. The U.S. has purchased a combined 1 billion doses from Pfizer and Moderna.
A White House spokesman declined to comment. An FDA spokeswoman declined to comment on interactions with vaccine manufacturers. (read more)
You will notice the institutions of Healthcare have now stopped using the term “follow the science.” One of the reasons they have dropped that terminology is apparently because they change the ‘science‘ on a week to week basis.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky was recently asked if her agency was giving current guidance to the public based on “the data” or based on arbitrary “hope” that they will be correct and their guidance will help people.
Director Walensky was honest in her reply: “… So there’s actually hope, [because] we don’t have data yet…”
It is very comforting to know that “hope” is guiding the decision-making of those who are injecting substances into the global population without any idea what the long-term ramifications might be….
… Then again, if you really believed that human existence was the cause of harm to this planet; and saving the planet was the #1 priority of your community; then removing the harm would be for the greater good. Personally, while I hate to be argumentative, I would respectfully disagree with people who prefer my death in order to save the world. But, to be fair, that’s just me being selfish.
I am reminded of the words from a carnival operator I heard as a child as we approached the turnstiles of the roller coaster. Apparently the young lady at the front of the line had said something to him as we all waited for the next car to arrive. I did not hear the question, but his reply was:
“… Well Miss, once you get on the ride – you ain’t getting off ’til the ride’s over.“
Those words stuck in my mind as I pulled down the retaining bar. And as my life has rattled, wobbled and squeeked toward unknown destinations, I have often found a reason to reference them.
Vaccine safety evidence
Vaccine Truth | July 20, 2021
We are not “anti-VAXers.” We were vaccinated because we believed we were being told the truth. Now we know better.
Unfortunately, the current gene-based vaccines (all vaccines on the US market today) were rushed to market without proper testing. They are dangerous and appear to have killed over 30,000 previously healthy Americans so far and disabled an equivalent number.
The Phase 3 trials were structured so that the results looked good because they were allowed to exclude unfavorable data (such as Maddie de Garay, a 12-year old girl who participated in the Pfizer trial and who is now permanently paralyzed due to the vaccine). People with a bad first reaction were allowed to drop out which doesn’t reflect the reality of “full vaccination” requirements of workplaces and schools.
We should stop the current gene-based vaccines ASAP. The risk/benefit justification isn’t there for any age group due to the poor safety profile of these vaccines compared with the alternatives.
Based on analysis of VAERS death data for vaccine deaths and CDC death data for COVID deaths, the younger you are, the less sense vaccination makes. If early treatments didn’t work at all, the toxicity of the current vaccines would only make sense for those over 30 (based data to date). However, the vaccines are too toxic and don’t meet the <50 deaths stopping criteria that we’ve used for the past 30 years, so they should never be used because we have better alternatives available today that can achieve the same goals.
We should never be giving vaccines that disable or kill previously healthy people in huge numbers if safer alternatives are available that can achieve all the same objectives.
Why would anyone in America choose to have lipid nanoparticles which deliver a toxic protein into your brain and where the long term effects are unknown, when safer alternatives are available? What parent would choose to experiment on their kids this way when safer and more effective options are available?
It is tragic that schools are requiring students to be vaccinated in order to attend classes. I’ve asked our top universities for the risk-benefit analysis to justify this action and have received nothing. If the vaccines were perfectly safe, no analysis would be needed. But they aren’t.
The rate of severe life-changing side effects appears to be well in excess of 25,000 people (the number reported disabled is comparable to the number dead). The fact that Facebook groups of vaccine victims had 200,000 users suggests that more than 1 in 1,000 are suffering from significant long-term impacts; people with minor temporary reactions have little incentive to seek out and sign up for a vaccine side-effects group.
People who claim “the clinical trials showed no significant side effects so it must be safe” have a tough time explaining how these facebook groups were so large before they were deleted. If you think the vaccines are so safe, show me the severity analysis of the 200,000 people there. These groups don’t appear with the influenza vaccine. You never see neurological effects like this in such high volume with a safe vaccine.
Some have cited the emergence of the Delta variant as changing the math to favor vaccination even if the vaccine is unsafe. But the case fatality rate (CFR) of the Delta variant is only 0.1 percent compared to the CFR of 1.9 percent for the original virus (alpha) according to UK government data. The argument that the lower CFR of delta is due to the higher number of vaccinated people isn’t very credible since the Eta variant has a 2.7 percent CFR.
Early treatments are a more effective and safer option than the current vaccines. We can achieve all of the objectives of the current vaccination program (herd immunity, eradication of the virus, re-opening our economy, ditching of masks) with fewer deaths and near zero serious side effects. In addition, we would have less problem with variants since variants are less likely to be generated if everyone is naturally immune. So why not promote early treatments? Why not give them a try for a month while we hit the pause button on the vaccines? Would that be so bad?
Allowing natural infection will impart broad natural immunity. We should instruct the population how to treat early with early treatment protocols as soon as they believe they are infected. People should have the drugs on-hand so that treatment can be started without delay after speaking with their doctor. This results in superior risk reduction in terms of fewer fatalities and side effects compared to the current vaccines.
There was never a need for masking or social distancing as COVID is very treatable when treated early. Nobody has to die or be hospitalized. We can get to herd immunity quickly this way. The key is to treat the virus early with a proven early treatment cocktail of repurposed drugs, adding novel antivirals if/when available.
Unfortunately, the NIH has unethically suppressed all early treatments in order to push the vaccine narrative. This is clear with the publication of a systematic review of ivermectin, the highest level of evidence possible. Yet the NIH and WHO pretend that it never happened. It isn’t even acknowledged that the systematic review came out. There has never been a peer-reviewed systematic review that was later overturned. This is why they are the top of the evidence pyramid.
Early treatments were never funded. When evidence came in they worked, the NIH ignored it. The corruption at the NIH and FDA should be corrected by Congress. Now.
To prove the point about the unethical suppression of early treatments, I offered $2M to anyone who could show that the NIH got it right. Nobody stepped forward.
Similarly, I offered $1M to anyone who could show that the vaccines are safe. No takers, not even the drug companies.
If a safe sterilizing vaccine can be developed, we should test it adequately for safety before deploying it. We should not cut corners on safety again; with early treatments, there is no need to rush this.
Major medical journals have lost objectivity in publishing papers that go against the “safe” narrative. For example, the NEJM rejected a Letter to the Editor pointing out a flaw in a paper showing vaccines were safe for pregnant women. The Letter showed an alarming statistic. The NEJM refused to reveal their reasoning for the rejection. Three editors quit a journal after a peer-reviewed paper was published that showed that vaccination may cause more harm than good. Those who quit provided no evidence that the paper was in error.
The censorship of legitimate medical information on social networks must end. These networks are the new “public square” and should be regulated so that people are free to express their opinions to anyone who chooses to listen. There should be heavy monetary penalties for suppressing medical information that has the potential to save lives. Social networks should be required to compensate all those people who have been harmed by their actions.
Never again should we deploy a vaccine on the American public without proper testing and without informed consent. Databases such as V-SAFE that track safety data should be made transparent. Am I the only person who thinks that is a problem?
VAERS reporting should be required and the VAERS system should be modernized so that it is easy to use and results in records with consistent field coding. There should be a smaller lag time to get records into the database, all false reports should be 100% enforced as a criminal act, and the safety signal monitoring should be much stronger.
The cost-benefit analysis of the current gene-based vaccines for anyone of any age is at best a wash according to the scientific literature (new paper published June 24, 2021). This peer-reviewed paper looked at the real cost-benefit analysis and concluded that “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.” As far as I know, this is the most optimistic of all the papers looking at actual death rates of COVID vs. the vaccine. All the other ones are even worse for the vaccine.
Independent analysis by a statistician friend shows a similar effect. Like me, Mathew has no axe to grind here, just trying to get at the truth of the risk/benefit for the current vaccines. His conclusion: “More importantly, I also still disagree with the mass vaccination program. In particular, nearly all lives saved are in the high risk group. While vaccinating those in the low risk group might decrease spread into the high risk group, that’s asking young healthy people to act as human shields.
I also believe that when the vaccine deaths and adverse events are finally tallied and compared to either a ring vaccination strategy or combination ring vaccination and early treatment strategy, the current plan will look quite foolish and possibly even nefarious.”
Since the focus today is on getting kids vaccinated, I ran the numbers in the VAERS database for 20-24 year olds and 25-29 year olds. In both age ranges, the number of deaths caused by the vaccine outnumber the number of deaths saved. The vaccines caused 1.89 deaths per 100,000 (ages 25-29) and 1.74 deaths per 100,000 (ages 20-24).
This means the vaccines are net killing machines since they kill more people than they save (.3 to 1.0 lives per 100K saved according to the most recent CDC presentation). My calculations are in the body of this document and the calculations show no net benefit for any age group based on real-world data from the US and UK.
The comparison is even more extreme if we tell kids to ignore the current CDC advice and use an early treatment program. In that case, we can reduce the death rate by more than two orders of magnitude from COVID, so that the number of lives saved by the vaccine is fewer than 1 in 10M. This means the vaccines need to be less toxic than the influenza vaccine (which has a death rate of 1 in 10M) in order to be considered. They are not even close to that. Not by a country mile.
For older people, the numbers don’t work out either. We looked at the UK data for <50 and >50 and we found that the absolute death rate is very small for <50 group. There was a high relative risk reduction, but the absolute deaths were small. If the vaccine kills more than 1 in 1 million, it’s game over for the vaccine being useful. For age >50, the UK data shows that even if the vaccines killed nobody, it is not beneficial. So when you factor the death rate of the vaccines and early treatment as the other option, the case is extremely lopsided.
In short, because the current vaccines are so dangerous and early treatment is so effective (relative risk reduction of 100 or more with no permanent side effects), there is no reasonable case that can be made for vaccinating any age group.
Although we just looked at deaths in the analysis above, the same can be true for other side effects as well: the range and intensity of side effects from the vaccine dwarf anything seen in natural COVID. It’s even a more stark contrast when early treatment is added to the mix.
Long term, untreated vax patients and untreated COVID patients are virtually identical in terms of symptoms (thanks to Ram Yogendra for that insight). By vaccinating patients, we are essentially giving a portion of those vaccinated long hauler COVID.
The case numbers in the UK (one of the most heavily vaccinated countries) are now climbing. It suggests we should have listened to the arguments of Geert Vanden Bossche, one of the most famous scientists in the vaccine field, which are further clarified in this excellent video by Chris Martenson which points out that there are really only two ways out of the pandemic: a sterilizing vaccine (using the complete virus as the antigen) or allowing infection and treating with early treatment leading to natural immunity.
The Yellow Card system in the UK showed a similar safety signal. Independent analysis of that data by an expert in medical evidence concluded that the vaccines are unsafe for use in humans. It wasn’t a close call. The death rates from the vaccines are far greater than any absolute risk reduction.
This is taken from a very long article. Read the rest here: docs.google.com
CDC has a plan to stick the “high risk” in special camps, which will most likely enhance transmission of Covid
Green Zones or Concentration Camps?
By Meryl Nass, MD | August 9, 2021
For people who still think that public health dictates are intended for our benefit, will you still think so when the public health police decide to remove granny from her home to a high risk camp, where latrines will be provided? And hopefully food and medical care, all based on the refugee model? This was updated a year ago, so it has probably changed in the interim.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html
The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updates.
What is the Shielding Approach? 1
The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.1,2 They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.
Operational Considerations
The shielding approach requires several prerequisites for effective implementation. Several are addressed, including access to healthcare and provision of food. However, there are several prerequisites which require additional considerations. Table 2 presents the prerequisites or suggestions as stated in the shielding guidance document (column 1) and CDC presents additional questions and considerations alongside these prerequisites (column 2).
Table 2: Suggested Prerequisites per the shielding documents and CDC’s Operational Considerations for Implementation
Suggested Prerequisites
*As stated in the shielding document*
- Each green zone has a dedicated latrine/bathing facility for high-risk individuals
- To minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile
- Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.
- The green zone and living areas for high-risk residents should be aligned with minimum humanitarian (SPHERE) standards.6
Considerations as suggested by CDC
- The shielding approach advises against any new facility construction to establish green zones; however, few settings will have existing shelters or communal facilities with designated latrines/bathing facilities to accommodate high-risk individuals. In these settings, most latrines used by HHs are located outside the home and often shared by multiple HHs.
- If dedicated facilities are available, ensure safety measures such as proper lighting, handwashing/hygiene infrastructure, maintenance and disinfection of latrines.
- Ensure facilities can accommodate high-risk individuals with disabilities, children and separate genders at the neighborhood/camp-level.
- This may be difficult to sustain, especially if the caregivers are also high risk. As caregivers may often will be family members, ensure that this strategy is socially or culturally acceptable.
- Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.
- The shielding approach requires strict adherence to infection, prevention and control (IPC) measures. They require, uninterrupted availability of soap, water, hygiene/cleaning supplies, masks or cloth face coverings, etc. for all individuals in green zones. Thus, it is necessary to ensure minimum public health standards6 are maintained and possibly supplemented to decrease the risk of other outbreaks outside of COVID-19. Attaining and maintaining minimum SPHERE6 standards is difficult in these settings for the general population.8,9,10 Users should consider that provision of services and supplies to high risk individuals could be at the expense of low-risk residents, putting them at increased risk for other outbreaks.
CDC Director “What our vaccines can’t do any more is prevent transmission”
By Meryl Nass, MD | August 7, 2021
Here is a 15 second clip of Rochelle Walensky talking to Wolf Blitzer.
She lies in the same sentence, claiming the vaccines still work “exceptionally well.”
If they don’t prevent transmission, you CANNOT USE PUBLIC HEALTH AND HERD IMMUNITY AS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR A MANDATE. At best, the vaccines might provide the recipient with some protection for a few months. But the downside is they might increase susceptibility or severity of disease later.
And when you add on the known and unknown short and long-term side effects, vaccination with an experimental product that went through minimal testing and poorly designed clinical trials just doesn’t make sense.
All the bluster about mandates was designed to trick the public into getting vaccinated before the truth came out. Now it’s out. Help your friends and family avoid these shots.
Remember: Your vaccine does NOT protect me, and it might not protect you either. Not for long. Then it might make things worse for you.
CDC Insanity: Fully Vaccinated Spreading Delta Variant – So Everyone Needs to Get Vaccinated & Mask Up
By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | July 28, 2021
Those of us in the alternative media who have been exposing the dangers of vaccines for years, have had to deal with the attacks and ridicule from the vaccine believers who parroted the one statement that always ended any debate on the subject of vaccines, which they claimed were responsible for eliminating most of the world’s infectious diseases:
The science is settled. Vaccines save lives.
Writing and reporting on this topic for more than a decade now, I have constantly told our readers that this statement, “The science is settled,” is one of the most unscientific statements the health bureaucrat “doctors” at the alphabet letter agencies have ever made, because when is the “science” ever settled?
Never mind the fact that the rate of autism among our children has increased from one in ten thousand to one out of every 50 children in the U.S. as the CDC childhood vaccination schedule ballooned over the years. Never mind that the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate in developed countries along with the highest amounts of vaccines injected into children from birth to age 18 among the developed countries.
No, that is not related to vaccines, because “the science is settled” when it comes to vaccines, we were all told. Those infant deaths were all written into the death certificates as SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), and everyone knows that autism is genetic, happening before birth, so don’t be a stupid “conspiracy theorist” and blame vaccines, because when it comes to vaccines, “the science is settled.”
So to all my fellow truth seekers in the alternative media who have been ridiculed for many years for publishing the truth about vaccines and the injuries and deaths they cause because “the science is settled,” we were all just vindicated yesterday by CDC director Rochelle Walensky, who announced to the world that people fully vaccinated for COVID-19 were spreading the “delta variant” and that it was now time to mask up again, just weeks after they announced that people fully vaccinated for COVID-19 no longer needed to wear masks, because: THE SCIENCE IS SHIFTING.
Imagine that. The “science” behind vaccines isn’t settled after all. We “conspiracy theorists” were correct all along, because the science is never settled, because the scientific method inherently can never prove anything, only provide theories that are subject to revisions as more data becomes available…
In yesterday’s public address by the shifty CDC director Rochelle Walensky, not only did she announce that people fully vaccinated were spreading the COVID-19 delta variant to others requiring people to mask up again, she also stated:
“But the big concern is the next variant that might emerge, just a few mutations potentially away, could potentially evade our vaccines.”
Wow, sounds like it is time to admit these vaccines are a colossal failure and should be scrapped altogether, right?
Nope, instead she told America and the world that everyone who is not yet “vaccinated” needs to immediately go out and get one of the shots to stop the spread of this variant to make sure this doesn’t happen. And mask up again in the meantime.
Is this not the textbook definition of “insanity?” Is the United States just becoming one large asylum for the insane?
I did a search again today in the corporate media for “breakthrough cases” and could hardly believe what I found: Interviews with people who were fully vaccinated and had now become sick along with a COVID-19 positive test, and also spreading it to their friends and family members who are also fully vaccinated, and yet, they claim the vaccines “are working,” because if they had not received one of the COVID-19 injections, they would have been far sicker.
How could you even prove that?? But that’s what people are actually believing, as they follow the propaganda and shake their fists at those of us who are not vaccinated, blaming us for all these outbreaks.
Is this not insanity? Is anyone else waking up in the morning like I am, and asking yourself: “How could this all be real??” … Full article
Featured Video
Your Enslavement Begins in Gaza: The ‘Board of Peace’
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The US: The Century of Lost Wars
By James Petras | Global Research | September 12, 2018
Introduction
Despite having the biggest military budget in the world, five times larger than the next six countries, the largest number of military bases – over 180 – in the world and the most expensive military industrial complex, the US has failed to win a single war in the 21st century.
In this paper we will enumerate the wars and proceed to analyze why, despite the powerful material basis for wars, it has led to failures. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The US build-up around Iran constitutes strategic war option, not ‘deterrence’
- Iran to US: Sanctions and war failed; try diplomacy and respect
- China supplies Iran with radar, surveillance tech to track US stealth aircraft: Report
- Zelensky rejects territorial concessions to Russia
- German leader of EU’s largest faction sounds the alarm of possibility of right-wing forces coming to power in France, Poland
- Putin: Developing Russia’s nuclear forces ‘absolute priority’
- Hungary Blocks 20th Package of Anti-Russia Sanctions, $106B Loan to Ukraine – Szijjarto
- NATO Must Return to 1997 Borders for Peace in Ukraine – Finnish Politician
- Your Enslavement Begins in Gaza: The ‘Board of Peace’
- Israeli FOIA Data Reveals Massive Heart Injury Spike in Children Immediately After mRNA Shot Rollout
- If Americans Knew
- Average of five Palestinians killed by Israel every day in Gaza since ceasefire – Not a ceasefire Day 136
- Palestinian church leaders admonish Christian Zionist Mike Huckabee – Not a ceasefire Day 135
- Ominous messaging from Trump’s “Board of Peace” – Not a ceasefire Day 134
- ‘Christians Out’: Jerusalem Church Tagged With Hate Graffiti, Police Investigating
- Israeli Settlers Kill American Teen
- ‘We returned from hell’: Palestinian journalists recount torture in Israeli prisons
- No mercy for Gaza in Ramadan – Not a ceasefire Day 133
- The Israeli Government Installed and Maintained Security System at Epstein Apartment
- Tucker Carlson interrogated in Israel, has passport seized after interviewing US ambassador
- 6,000 Amputees in Gaza Face Impossible Recovery amid Israeli War Ultimatum
- No Tricks Zone
- New Research Reaffirms Clouds, Aerosols, And Surface Solar Radiation Are ‘Driving The Climate System’
- Germany: Electric Car Catches Fire At Charging Station, Sets Off Local “Inferno”, Widespread Damage
- New Study: Canada’s New Brunswick Was 1°C Warmer Than Today During The Medieval Warm Period
- Coal Power Back In Trend As Globe Tries To Keep Pace With Growing Demand For Power
- New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
Aletho News 