Remember when the FDA’s top vaccine regulator said even a moderately effective Covid shot could produce herd immunity if 70 percent of people got it?
By Alex Berenson | December 7, 2021
In late July 2020, Dr. Peter Marks, who oversees vaccines for the Food and Drug Administration, spoke for an FDA-produced podcast about the Covid vaccines.
At the time, the big mRNA vaccine trials were just beginning, and the two-part interview was fairly straightforward. It opened with Marks explaining what a vaccine is.
Later, though, Marks explained how an effective vaccine might end the epidemic:
What we also know is that once one reaches a certain level of protection, roughly 70 percent, and if 70 percent of the population gets that vaccine, you start to get to a place where the infectious disease that you’re trying to prevent, in this case, let’s read COVID-19 into that, it doesn’t have anywhere to go and you start to be able to help wipe that infectious disease out…
70 percent protection by 70 percent of the population equals (basically) no more Covid. Got it, doc!
The next week, Marks again explained the importance of 70 percent protection – and this time, he used the magic h-word:
That’s the concept of herd immunity that you have enough people in the population that can’t get the disease, that the disease has nowhere to go if it shows up. That’s exactly what we’d like to ultimately see with a really effective vaccine, one that might have, I think, we estimate at least 70 percent efficacy…
This might be a good time to remind you that much of Western Europe hit Marks’s magic number months ago. In countries like Britain, 70 percent (okay, 69.3!) of people – not adults, the entire population – is fully vaccinated. And about 30 percent of Britons have now received a third dose.
So how come a vaccine that was supposedly 95 percent effective at preventing infection (and supposedly even better at stopping severe disease) in clinical trials has completely failed to stop the epidemic?
Or, put another way, if the vaccines work, what’s going on?
Oh well. We’ll figure it out next pandemic. Meantime, get yer free booster today!
SOURCE: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-insight/fda-insight-vaccines-covid-19-part-1
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-insight/fda-insight-vaccines-covid-19-part-2
The Vaccines Don’t Reduce Transmission
eugyppius | December 7, 2021
It’s an old point, but as vaccine mandates are proposed across the world, it bears repeating: It is highly doubtful that the vaccines do anything to reduce transmission at all.
In all likelihood, they merely reduce your chances of testing positive for several months, because they moderate the symptoms of infection and because governments subject the unvaccinated to closer diagnostic scrutiny.
Graphs like this one, from the Swedish matched cohort study, merely compare rates of confirmed symptomatic infection.
They don’t confirm that SARS-2 is actually less prevalent among the vaccinated or suppressed in highly vaccinated populations.
The more you control for different rates of testing, the harder it gets to find vaccine effectiveness against transmission, and the more you start stumbling over evidence of negative efficacy. This is why we find evidence of negative efficacy in the UK data but not (for example) in the German data. In the UK, unlike in Germany, the unvaccinated are not subject to constant testing rules. In Israel, all national airport arrivals are tested regardless of vaccination status. These numbers, widely discussed a few weeks ago, show far lower third-dose efficacy than claimed, and also indicate negative efficacy among the double vaccinated for the month of August. Because unvaccinated arrivals to Israel are quarantined and subject to additional testing, however, even these numbers are imperfect.
When you test everyone all the time regardless of vaccination status, a very different picture emerges.
The Dreaded New Covid Variant
By Tom Woods | Principia Scientific International | December 6, 2021
Here we are nearly two years into this. Some thought: the vaccines will help, because at the very least they’ll calm the fears of the most irrational.
Instead, the vaccines have been used as a weapon to punish, demonize, and even dehumanize dissidents.
And now a new “variant of concern” is here, and plenty of countries that we were solemnly told had “followed the science,” and if only Americans had listened to them we’d be doing, better, etc., are now headed back into lockdown and the adoption of vaccine passports.
(So far, by the way, the numbers for societies with vaccine passports have generally worsened, not improved, but that must be because they haven’t vaccine passported hard enough!)
The South African doctor who first identified the variant reported that there are so far no known deaths from it, and that symptoms have been mild to moderate.
But the hysteria went into overdrive anyway.
Interestingly, though, not everyone from Lockdown Central has bought into that hysteria.
For instance, Brown University’s Ashish Jha, who’s been pretty nasty toward skeptics of government interventions like you and me, had this to say on Twitter:
“Is it possible #OmicronVariant sets us back to square one? No. We have lots of tests that’ll detect Omicron. We have therapies that’ll work. Our vaccines MAY take a hit but will still provide some (may be a lot) protection. We are in a MUCH better place. This isn’t March 2020.”
Even CNN is reporting on academics who caution against panic.
For instance, Robert Garry, a virologist at Tulane University, speaking of Omicron’s mutations, says: “The ones that might affect transmissibility, I mean, I’m just not seeing a whole lot that would give it a real strong advantage over Delta. That’s really the big question. You know, when it gets into a population that has Delta, is it going to out-compete or not out-compete?”
Trevor Bedford is a genome scientist and epidemiologist at the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle. “Given that Omicron lacks so many of the non-spike mutations that have seemed to contribute to Delta’s increased fitness,” he writes, “I wouldn’t be surprised if its intrinsic transmissibility is similar to Gamma.”
One thing we do know:
Applying the same interventions (lockdowns, more masking, etc.) to this new variant that have done nothing to stop previous iterations is a fool’s errand.
And with the protests occurring around the world, and some U.S. employers backing away from mandates, could we be turning a corner?
The prospect of endless boosters also doesn’t bode well for the hysterics. They are losing even some of their original enthusiasts over that, and over mandates for children.
Now is the time to stick the knife in.
Coronavirus Fact-Check #13: “ICUs are filled with the unvaccinated”
OffGuardian | December 6, 2021
It’s become a common meme to refer to ICU’s being “filled” with the unvaccinated, but is there any truth to that?
A few days ago Dr Hillary Jones, whilst being interviewed on Lorraine Kelly, claimed:
90% of people in hospital are unvaccinated”.
Similarly, last week, Kevin Maguire claimed on Jeremy Vine’s show that:
The unvaccinated are filling hospital beds, they’re in ICUs taking up precious resources – there are hospital waiting lists going up because there are so many unvaccinated people in hospitals”
Television presenters and news headlines across the United Kingdom have commonly referred to hospitals being filled with unvaccinated covid19 patients.
As if it could ever be considered evidence of anything, an anonymous “doctor” wrote a piece for The Guardian, which he filled with nameless anecdotal evidence, and emotively headlined:
ICU is full of the unvaccinated – my patience with them is wearing thin
This claim is regularly used as an argument for vaccine mandates, and/or unvaxxed-only lockdowns.
But is it true?
In a word, no.
ICUs are not “full” of unvaccinated covid patients, they’re not even full of covid cases. In fact, they’re not even full at all.
As of last week, NHS England’s own bed statistics reported that England has 4330 available critical care beds, of which 894 (21%) are being used by Covid patients, 2608 (60%) non-Covid patients and 828 (19%) were empty.
So, England’s critical care beds are not even 90% full, let alone 90% full of unvaccinated covid patients.
But let’s be charitable and assume these people misspoke or communicated their point badly. Let’s assume they meant 90% of covid hospitalisations are unvaccinated.
That, at least, is true right? Wrong.
The actual number is 35.4%
According to the UK’s Health Security Agency data (page 31 of this document) 6639 patients were admitted to hospital “with Covid” in the weeks 44-47 of this year. Of those 6639, 2355 were unvaccinated.
So unvaccinated people do not even make up the majority of Covid cases, let alone the majority of ICU admissions in general.
So, even going by the official statistics – which we’ve previously shown are routinely inflated to make the “pandemic” appear frightening – the claim is incorrect.
And that doesn’t even account for the fact that, according to Public Health England, a “Covid hospitalisation” is anyone admitted to hospital for any reason within 28 days of a positive Covid test. This could include people who are admitted to hospital for something else and then happen to test positive while they are there.
We could also discuss the tiny number of hospital beds available in this country, which has more than halved since the 1980s, whilst the population has exploded in that time.
But that’s really an article for another day.
Dr. Aseem Malhotra: Report Finds Dramatic Increase of Heart Inflammation Linked to Jabs
21st Century Wire | December 4, 2021
By now, many have seen the recent segment with cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra which aired on GB News last week. Here he is again, this time speaking with Maajid Nawaz on LBC radio about the article in the American Heart Association’s prestigious journal ‘Circulation’. The findings in this study should disturb everyone.
What is stated in this prestigious peer reviewed medical journal ties in with the numerous reports in recent weeks of young healthy people – including many of top-flight athletes – all suddenly suffering from serious cardiac incidents, and in many cases, dying. How many of these casualties are a result of the experimental mRNA COVID-19 vaccines?
In this recent interview with Dr. Malhotra, the so-called “fact checkers” are exposed as mouthpieces of government agencies, the WHO, and a wildly corrupt corporate pharmaceutical cartel determined to promote their experimental mRNA gene therapy jabs at all costs. Who benefits? This informative segment offers some answers to these questions.
Nobody can explain why the vaccinated are more likely to get COVID and die
By Steve Kirsch | December 5, 2021
ICYMI, here’s a chart from a recent post by my good friend Mathew Crawford. It basically shows, the more you vaccinate, the more cases and deaths you get.
Critics would argue, “it’s confounded! more elderly are vaccinated.” But the same critics cannot show us this is false. They can only do “hand-waving” arguments that it must be wrong. Not very convincing.
Governments won’t release the data to show vaccinations are safe. I wonder why?
However, we actually agree with the critics that it is confounded but here’s why: governments don’t release the breakdowns publicly so we can’t do any better than this. If the vaccines are so safe, why don’t they release the data to the public to show this?
Is this just a fluke? I don’t think so. Watch this video starting at 7:00. The line goes the wrong way. The more you vaccinate, the worse it gets.
The health authorities are never going to figure this out because it would discredit them. So they have to keep on singing the same tune: “Safe and effective.”
Official Data shows Deaths of male Children are up 54% since they were offered the Covid-19 Vaccine
THE EXPOSÉ | DECEMBER 4, 2021
An investigation of official ONS data has revealed that since the Covid-19 vaccine was offered and administered to kids in England and Wales there has been a 54% rise in deaths among male children compared to the same period in 2020.
The UK’s Medicine and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have openly admitted that they suspect myocarditis and pericarditis are potential side effects of the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines, especially among young males. A suspicion that has been strong enough for the UK Medicine Regulator to officially add warnings about myocarditis and pericarditis to the safety labels of the Covid-19 vaccines.
Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, whereas pericarditis is inflammation of the protective sacs surrounding the heart. Both are extremely serious conditions due to the vital role the heart plays in keeping a person alive, and the fact that the heart muscle cannot regenerate. Serious myocarditis can lead to cardiac arrest and knock years off a persons life.

The UK Government have now also admitted in official documents that a high percentage of all hospitalised children are presenting to hospital with Myocarditis following Covid-19 vaccination.

Source
This fact adds greater concern for data published by Public Health England on the number of 999 calls made requesting an ambulance due to cardiac arrest. The stats show that they have skyrocketed against the expected average since young adults and teens began receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.

Chris Whitty advised the UK Government to roll-out the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine to all children over the age of 12 in week 37 of 2021. Thanks to preparations already being made by the NHS to intrude on education in schools and administer the jab to children, the roll-out got underway the following week (week 38).
The 2020 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here shows the number of deaths registered weekly by age group.

Source
The ONS data shows that between September 18th and November 13th 2020 a total of 24 deaths occurred among male children aged between 10 and 14.
However, the 2021 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here, shows a significantly higher number of deaths have occurred among male children in 2021 following Chris Whitty’s decision to offer them the Covid-19 vaccine.
The data shows that between week 38 (week beginning 18th September) and week 46 (week ending 19th November) of 2021, a total of 37 deaths occurred among male children aged between 10 and 14.

This shows that since the Covid-19 vaccines began being given to kids over the age of 12, deaths among male children have increased by 54% compared to the same period in 2020.
We compiled the following graph on ONS figures so that we were able to easily compare the number of deaths per week among male children in 2020 and 2021.

The data is there now for the authorities to see, a 54% increase in deaths of male children compared to 2020 since they started to be given the Covid-19 vaccine, they must investigate this and cease the roll-out of the jabs to kids immediately.
2,809 Dead Babies in VAERS Following COVID Shots as New Documents Prove Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC Knew the Shots Were Not Safe for Pregnant Women
By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | December 4, 2021
The latest data dump into the U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) happened yesterday (12/3/21) and covers data through 11/26/2021.
There are now 927,740 cases reported to VAERS following COVID-19 shots for the past 11 months, out of the total of 1,782,453 cases in the entire VAERS database filed for the past 30+ years.
Left image source, Right image source.
That means that 52% off ALL vaccine adverse reaction cases in VAERS for the past 30+ years have been reported in the last 11 months following the COVID-19 shots.
In addition, 68% of all deaths following vaccines reported in VAERS for the past 30+ years have been reported in the last 11 months following the COVID-19 shots.
We are on pace to see 21,307 deaths reported in the first year following the experimental COVID-19 shots, while the average yearly deaths reported after FDA-approved vaccines for the past 30+ years is 305 deaths.
That is an astounding 86% increase in reported deaths following the COVID-19 shots, a 70X increase over the average reported deaths following vaccinations for the past 30+ years!
- FDA-approved vaccines: 305 deaths per year
- COVID-19 EUA shots: 21,307 deaths per year
And as Dr. Jessica Rose has previously reported, the under-reporting factor in VAERS for the COVID-19 shots is 41X, as a conservative number, which means that at least 800,812 people have now died following COVID-19 shots based on the VAERS data.
Most, if not all, of those deaths are being reported in the pharma-owned corporate media as “COVID” deaths, as there are now more recorded “COVID deaths” for the first 11 months of 2021 than there were for the entire year in 2020, when there were no COVID vaccines until December. (Source.)

Record Number of Fetal Deaths Following COVID-19 Shots
As of this most recent update in VAERS, we have now found 2,809 fetal deaths following COVID-19 shots injected into pregnant and child-bearing women for the past 11 months. (Source.)
By way of contrast, using the exact same search parameters in VAERS, but excluding the COVID-19 shots, we found 2,168 fetal deaths following all FDA-approved vaccines for the past 30+ years. (Source.)
That’s an average of 72 fetal deaths per year following all FDA-approved vaccines for the past 30+ years, compared to what is on pace to be 3064 fetal deaths in 1 year following COVID-19 shots.
- FDA-approved vaccines: 72 fetal deaths per year
- COVID-19 EUA shots: 3064 fetal deaths per year
That is an 80% increase in fetal deaths recorded in VAERS following the COVID-19 shots. And yet, the CDC and FDA continue to recommend these EUA shots for pregnant women and nursing mothers.
Not only do they recommend these shots for pregnant women, we now have ample evidence that they have known since earlier this year that these shots are dangerous to pregnant women, and causing fetal deaths.
In a March 4, 2021 Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) meeting, the CDC submitted a report that contained a section titled: Maternal vaccination safety summary (starting on p. 39).
They stated (emphasis mine – my comments in red):
* Pregnant women were not specifically included in pre-authorization clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines
– Post-authorization safety monitoring and research are the primary ways to obtain safety data on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy
* Larger than expected numbers of self-reported pregnant women have registered in v-safe
* The reactogenicity profile and adverse events observed among pregnant women in v-safe did not indicate any safety problems (based on what criteria???)
* Most reports to VAERS among pregnant women (73%) involved non-pregnancy specific adverse events (e.g., local and systemic reactions)
* Miscarriage was the most frequently reported pregnancy-specific adverse event to VAERS; numbers are within the known background rates based on presumed COVID-19 vaccine doses administered to pregnant women (no supporting evidence to backup these claims)
It is important to note through all of this reporting by the CDC that these are based on self-reporting data from pregnant women.
We know that it is politically incorrect to blame any health issue on a COVID-19 “vaccine,” and that doctors and nurses are pressured to NOT report these, so how many pregnant women had an adverse reaction, like a miscarriage, and never even thought to link it to their COVID-19 shot?
So back in March of this year (2021), there were already major concerns about the effects of the shots on pregnant women, as “larger than expected” pregnant women were reporting adverse reactions, and “the most frequently reported pregnancy-specific adverse event to VAERS” was “miscarriage.”
Then in August of this year (2021), the CDC presented a “new study” with “new data.”
Again, this “data” is dependent on pregnant women “self-reporting” adverse reactions, so we know these reports will be well below what was actually happening in the population, as it is politically incorrect to report any adverse reactions related to the experimental COVID-19 shots. To do so is to be branded an “anti-vaxxer” and shame you for life.
The August update admitted that 13% of the pregnant women who had received a COVID-19 shot reported a miscarriage. The CDC brushed this aside by stating “miscarriage typically occurs in about 11-16% of pregnancies.”
But of course ALL miscarriages are reported somewhere in the medical files, which is why they can even come up with a number range like this. So this figure is based on 100% of the reported data, while the COVID-19 related miscarriages are only based on what was self-reported, and we have no idea how many women never reported their miscarriages because they never related it to their COVID-19 shot.
One the main studies the CDC allegedly relied upon to declare that COVID-19 shots were safe for pregnant women, was a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on June 17, 2021.
But on October 14, 2021, they issued a statement stating that some of their data was wrong in the June 17th study. (Source.) It dealt specifically with pregnancies in their 20th week or earlier.
“No denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions, because at the time of this report, follow-up through 20 weeks was not yet available for 905 of the 1224 participants vaccinated within 30 days before the first day of the last menstrual period or in the first trimester. Furthermore, any risk estimate would need to account for gestational week–specific risk of spontaneous abortion.” (Source.)







