We write this brief clarion call to the FDA of the United States and the citizenry, in the hopes that we could call for a time-out as to the drive for an EUA of COVID-19 vaccines in children (up to 11 years old). We think this is a catastrophic mistake that will endanger the lives of our children particularly given that the proper safety data would not have been yet collected to determine the safety (short and long-term effects). We call for a hard stop in the process to grant this EUA given the US’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is moving fast to consider an EUA in this age group of children. There are reports that the meeting could consider ages as low as 2 years old. But the data is not developed or complete enough and especially lacking as to safety, with regards to these vaccines.
We do agree that the underlying body of evidence is not sufficiently mature enough to allow for an optimal adjudication of the benefits versus harms of this vaccine in children. We see absolutely no benefit of these vaccines (no COVID vaccine in children), even if there was data, because there is no risk to children. It is that simple a risk-management decision for parents. Why put a foreign substance into your child (a newly developed platform) that confers no benefit to them, none, and has possible severe harms? The threshold for granting an EUA has not been met in these children. This is not an ‘emergency’ for these children and with such low risk of bad outcomes, they can be allowed to develop much more-broad based and robust long-lasting ‘natural exposure’ immunity. It would be an abuse of the EUA process by the FDA to grant this.
We call for natural exposure immunity in children and they would be effectively immune potentially life-long and it is not a case of ‘would’ their immunity be lasting, when we have evidence that immunity from natural exposure to respiratory virus is so durable and long-lasting that it can last for 100 years. “These studies reveal that survivors of the 1918 influenza pandemic possess highly functional, virus-neutralizing antibodies to this uniquely virulent virus, and that humans can sustain circulating B memory cells to viruses for many decades after exposure – well into the tenth decade of life”. So why risk a foreign substance that we do not know how it behaves safety wise and long-term? Why? You trust the government agencies to advise you? After what has transpired for COVID the last 1.5 years? Where they were flat wrong on every aspect of COVID from lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, social distancing, and masking in general.
We thus petition the FDA openly here to stop this move to EUA (and pull it if they move prematurely) for we think it is very hasty and rash given the vanishingly small risk to children of severe sequela or death from COVID-19, and the alarming reports of harms of the COVID vaccines in adults and teens (see CDC’s VAERS vaccine adverse reporting system). These reports range from mild adverse effects to anaphylaxis, blood clotting, bleeding disorders, and up to death. We are not calling for a pause, we are calling for a hard stop. There is absolutely no sound justification to rush to grant an EUA for this age-group. No good reason.
The health and well-being of our children remain our priority always. COVID has thankfully spared our children and has not been damaging as we see yearly with seasonal influenza. We know based on settled global data, that children are at exceedingly low risk (near zero and we will say statistical zero) of acquiring the SAR-CoV-2 infection in the first place (less expression of ACE 2 receptors in nasal epithelia and possible cross-protection from prior common cold coronaviruses), spreading it to other children, spreading it to adults, taking it home, of getting severely ill, or of dying from COVID disease.
We thus find that the aggressive push by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the NIH, and the CDC as well as television medical experts to vaccinate our children is very reckless, dangerous, and without the required exclusion of harm. We as parents and scientists find it reprehensible and very unsafe. They have failed to prosecute their case as to why children are to be offered this vaccination. We are for vaccination once properly developed, but there is no benefit with these vaccines and only the potential for downsides. There is even concern over recent statements by the CDC about rising teen hospitalizations among unvaccinated teens whereby the CDC apparently used duplicitous data and graphs that are contrary to its own data. Thus, CDC is using misleading statements to drive fear in parents to vaccinate their teens, when such young persons carry extremely low risks of COVID illness.
Furthermore, the existing vaccines are under EUA and this indicates that they are investigational and experimental, and as such have not met the stringent regulatory assessment (proper methods, appropriate duration of follow-up to allow safety assessment) that a vaccine must go through to attain full BLA regulatory approval. They have not undergone the appropriate animal testing and safety testing that is needed so as to exclude harm. We have looked for this data and cannot find any. We find this very concerning and to subject children to this type of risky vaccine is unacceptable and grossly reckless and irresponsible by all involved.
They have no liability as are indemnified and this is very unfair to the vaccinee (children) and parents for there is no risk by the vaccine developers and FDA etc. We have called on them to accept risk and to remove liability exemption from the table. They have thus far refused but we feel they must be held accountable and accept risk, people like Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins of the NIH, Dr. Walensky of the CDC, the FDA, the CDC, and all of the vaccine development companies who subject children to these vaccines. If any children are harmed or die due to the vaccine, these people must have liability, seeing that if they say to vaccinate our children, then the vaccine must be safe. We question the benefits versus risks as well as all of the research methods questions that are worrisome and outstanding. Why not wait to 2022/2023 when data is supposed to be complete? At least two years of full data (not partial or interim) on safety. They talk about safety yet provide no safety results, and are rushing to vaccinate children. This makes no sense and is very dangerous should there be risks.
We have also learnt that COVID-19 is as much a vascular illness as it is a respiratory illness and we are seeing that many of the catastrophic symptoms have one thing in common, this being an impairment and damage to blood circulation. Researchers discovered that the SARS-CoV-2 virus infects the endothelial cells that line the inside of blood vessels. There is damage to the glycocalyx and endothelial layer and this is potentially dangerous. “The concept that’s emerging is that this is not a respiratory illness alone, this is a respiratory illness to start with, but it is actually a vascular illness that kills people through its involvement of the vasculature”. It has been shown that SARS-CoV-2 can directly infect engineered human blood vessel organoids in vitro (in the laboratory).
We are witnessing thousands of cases of adverse effects e.g. bleeding disorders, blood clotting, and deaths, that are occurring near immediately post vaccination and this close temporal relationship has led us to believe that the vaccine’s content is precipitating this. The adverse effects are being logged into the CDC’s VAERS database as well as the European adverse event database, as mentioned, and we have learnt that the reporting which is voluntary, captures roughly 1% of the events, at least in the VAERS database. This suggests elevated under-reporting.
We are calling for a stop in the administration of these vaccines in children (as part of a study or any EUA) until the safety issues are clarified yet we see no reason to vaccinate children. We are calling for a full moratorium against vaccinating them. There is no safety data nor evidence of support in the need to vaccinate children. Our main concern remains that the safety analysis for these vaccines have not been done and the required time to follow-up for this vaccine to ascertain its safety was limited to a median of 2 months in the initial trials. This is public knowledge and this is very concerning.
In December 2020, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist, warned the FDA that mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways NOT assessed in safety trials. Whelan stated: “Is it possible the spike protein itself causes the tissue damage associated with Covid-19? Nuovo et al (in press) have shown that in 13/13 brains from patients with fatal COVID-19, pseudovirions (spike, envelope, and membrane proteins) without viral RNA are present in the endothelia of cerebral micro-vessels.
Whelan further reports that “ACE-2 receptor expression is highest in the microvasculature of the brain and subcutaneous fat, and to a lesser degree in the liver, kidney, and heart. They have further demonstrated that the coronavirus replicates almost exclusively in the septal capillary endothelial cells of the lungs and the nasopharynx, and that viral lysis and immune destruction of those cells releases viral capsid proteins (or pseudo-virions) that travel through the circulation and bind to ACE- 2 receptors in these other parts of the body leading to mannan-binding lectin complement pathway activation that not only damages the microvascular endothelium but also induces the production of many pro-inflammatory cytokines. Meinhardt et al. (Nature Neuroscience 2020, in press) show that the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots), and like Magro et al. do not find viral RNA in brain endothelium. In other words, viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus”. This implies that the spike, on its very own, could act like a pathogen, causing devastating morbidity and fatality.
Dr. Bryam Bridle, a world-renowned virologist stated, “we made a big mistake, we did not realize it until now, we thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, but we never knew the spike protein itself was a potential toxin. By vaccinating people, we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.” “It was a grave mistake to believe the spike protein would not escape into the blood circulation, according to Bridle. “Now, we have clear-cut evidence that the vaccines that make the cells in our deltoid muscles manufacture this protein — that the vaccine itself, plus the protein — gets into blood circulation,” he said. Bridle said the scientific community para “has discovered the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation”.
Recent FOIA animal data from Japan shows that it (lipid nanoparticles/mRNA/spike) accumulates in various organs in very elevated concentrations. As mentioned, if the protein gets into the blood stream, it can potentially circulate in the blood systemically and potentially accumulate in tissues such as the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands, and ovaries. What we speculated on is now borne out by this biodistribution data. The biodistribution data alarmingly shows that and suggests potentially then that the spike proteins in humans does not (and will not) stay in the injection site and can travel throughout the body. This is a major development. This requires urgent acute examination for clarification. Is the FDA cognizant of this data as they push to vaccinate our children? We urgently need Moderna, Pfzier, J & J, and AstraZeneca to provide the biodistribution data and study of the sequela when mRNA undergoes translation in distant cells and tissues. The case has indeed been built that the lipid nanoparticles and thus the constituent mRNA and resulting spike that is translated, is likely ending up in distant tissue it usually would not end up in. With possible catastrophic outcomes of clotting, bleeding, and immune system attack (NK lymphocytes etc.).
This additional piece to the puzzle as to explaining why we are seeing these problematic adverse events and deaths post-vaccination, in terms of whether the spike protein moves from the injection site, is also backed up by a very recent publication that reported on 13 young healthcare workers (in CID/Ogata et al.) who received the Moderna vaccine. Researchers found detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein in 11 of the 13 participants one day after the first vaccination. “Spike protein was detectable in three of 13 participants an average of 15 days after the first injection… for one individual (Participant #8), a spike was detected at day 29”, circulating in the blood. While nascent, this warrants urgent clarification.
With this emerging knowledge that no doubt needs clarification, if any of it is true, then we have a potential disaster in the making for our children. Why? Why has the FDA disregarded the emerging evidence of the spike being potentially deleterious especially to the endothelium of the vasculature?
We raise a hypothesis that children have limited ACE 2receptors in their nasal epithelia and this confers protection from serious illness and we have seen that they are largely immune from COVID sequelae. But by vaccinating into the deltoid muscle (shoulder), and knowing now that the spike and vaccine (lipid nanoparticles) are finding their way to distant parts of the systemic circulation including crossing the blood-brain barrier, then the implications could be very serious in terms of blood clots and bleeding, etc. We would be essentially causing disease at levels seen in adults and not normally seen in children, to now emerge in children due to the vaccination push. We would be bypassing a natural protective barrier (limited ACE 2 in nasal epithelia) with potentially severe life-threatening consequences, if this bares out. This makes no sense and is highly dangerous.
Doctors have begun to raise concerns for they see across the world, a sort of recklessness and derangement with regards to the vaccination of children. How come Dr. Fauci does not know this about the spike protein? Or the troubling biodistribution data? Or has not considered this risk? Why not? Is something other than science at play here? Where is the safety data that the FDA is considering? Is there any collection of safety data by the vaccine manufacturers? We are raising very troubling questions. As such, given all that we have raised, we call for a hard stop and no issuance of an EUA by the FDA for children up to 11 years old. They must not be subjected to these vaccines. There are just too many unknowns and their baseline risk is low and the possible vaccine harms are potentially very high.
I end by calling on POTUS Trump to stand up now and say NO to vaccinating our children. I call on POTUS Biden to do the same. I call on the Prime Minister of Canada, UK, Australia, India, France, Italy etc. and all global leaders to do the same. I call on Caribbean governments, South American, African, European, and Asian governments to do the same. All global governments to not subject our children to these potentially harmful vaccines. There is no justification to vaccinating our children with these vaccines. There is no benefit and only possible downsides that could leave them with 70 to 80 years of disability or even death. COVID has spared them, say thank God and leave them alone!
Contact
Paul E. Alexander, PhD … email: elias98_99@yahoo.com
Howard Tenenbaum, DDS, PhD … email: hctkbt822@gmail.com
They’re called the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).
As their home page states, they “regulate the practice of medicine in Ontario. Physicians are required to be members to practice medicine in Ontario.”
In other words, CPSO is THE medical board. They run the show. If practicing doctors make a wrong move or say the wrong thing, CPSO is there to step on their faces and discipline them and even cancel their licenses to practice.
But now a new rebel group of Canadian MDs has emerged. Why? Because CPSO has issued a fascist edict threatening practicing doctors. Read the threat carefully.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [CPSO] Statement on Public Health Misinformation (4/30/21):
“The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.”
WE’RE YOUR BOSSES. YOU DO WHAT WE TELL YOU TO DO. SHUT YOUR MOUTHS. MARCH STRAIGHT AHEAD. KILL YOUR PATIENTS IF YOU HAVE TO, BUT OBEY US.
The new rebels against this monster call themselves the Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth. This is a brief excerpt from their response:
“On April 30, 2021, Ontario’s physician licensing body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), issued a statement forbidding physicians from questioning or debating any or all of the official measures imposed in response to COVID-19.”
“We regard this recent statement of the CPSO to be unethical, anti-science and deeply disturbing.”
“As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients.”
“The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients…”
I wondered what medical treatments, in general, CPSO supports and tolerates. It took me three minutes to find a Toronto outfit called the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Foundation (CAMH). They promote electro-convulsive therapy. In other words, shock treatment.
In other words, delivering electric shocks to the brain. As a cure for “mental illness.” I call it torture.
Apparently, this treatment is just fine and dandy, but telling patients the COVID lockdowns are criminal is forbidden by the Nazi bureaucrats at CPSO. Saying the vaccine is dangerous is forbidden. Saying masks are useless and harmful is forbidden.
What would happen if these medical rebels, the Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth—say, 10,000 of them—took this war to the wall?
Practiced non-harmful medicine, kept warning their patients about the sociopathic COVID regulations and the vaccine, refused to knuckle under to the Nazi bureaucrats, even to the point of having their licenses stripped and going to jail?
What would happen, as many thousands/millions of Canadians rallied to their side?
I’ll tell you what would happen. Sanity. Revolution. The downfall of the scum.
We’re at Nuremberg 2.0, people. If you don’t know what that means, look it up.
Doctors clear their vision and their brains and do their level best to HEAL, or they follow orders of the Commandants and maim and kill. It’s one side or the other.
In my 83 years, I’ve known a few very good doctors, and a number of The Cold Ones. The Cold Ones administer, without feeling or remorse, the Book of Death.
They’re ice on the outside, and rotting fungus and stench within.
Many of them sit at the top of medical boards.
They turn open societies into concentration camps.
URGENT REQUEST FOLLOWING RESEARCH SHOWING “S PROTEIN” IS A TOXIN
To: Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern <jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz>, Hon David Parker <david.parker@parliament.govt.nz>, Hon Andrew Little <andrew.little@parliament.govt.nz>, Hon Chris Hipkins <chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz>, <ashley_bloomfield@moh.govt.nz>, Chris James <Chris.James@health.govt.nz>, <ayesha.verrall@parliament.govt.nz>
Dear Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Minister of Health, Minister of Covid, Minister or Seniors, Director General of Health and Chris Hipkins
I attach below some new and very important research which I must assume your advisors have not yet provided to you, or the experimental Pfizer injection rollout would surely already have been suspended.
It is now clearly established that the S-Protein [spike protein] is a toxin that causes the harmful symptoms known as “Covid”.
I surely don’t need to explain the legal, ethical and human rights consequences of a government knowingly promoting a program which intentionally injects a life threatening toxin into healthy people.
I also attach a report indicating that injected nanoparticles (and the S-Protein) do not remain in the arm muscle but instead circulate throughout the whole body.
The combined effect is that the Pfizer jab injects mRNA to take over cells to manufacture the deadly S-Protein toxin and this spread throughout much of the body, manufacturing the S-Protein toxin for days and in some cases many weeks.
This explains why even the limited available research from the two months of study as summarised in the Comirnaty Data Sheet identifies possible harm to many different parts of the body including the heart, blood, brain, musculoskeletal system, nervous system, fainting and dizziness etc.
This is no longer just a shocking experiment. Everyone involved is now on notice of this “injection roulette” which may result in death or serious injury to previously healthy people. The health and safety implications for employers and those who push this jab, are significant.
No post injection death can legitimately be ruled out as being caused or contributed by the injection, at least not without a full coroner’s report. Certainly any post vax stroke, heart attack, other blood disorder, nervous system disorder or even suicide or car accident (known overseas as “vaccidents”) must prima facie be assumed to be caused or contributed to by the jab, at least until a full coroners report is undertaken.
Similarly it is not good enough to claim that our seniors who die post jab were frail and likely to die. Surely if they were that frail they should have been spared from the jab. Anyway, surely “deaths post Jab” should be treated consistently with “deaths post Covid”.
Despite the secretive, flawed and very passive official post jab injury reporting process ( CARM), and as a result of the more active community led follow up, you are already on notice of a number of deaths and life threatening and life changing harm from this injection. The deaths and harm will inevitably continue if there are any further injections. Perhaps initially you had an excuse that you thought the S-Protein was “safe”. However now you are on notice that it is not “safe” by any definition.
Further, although you in privileged position are on notice, many members of the public who you were elected to represent remain deceived by misleading claims in crown propaganda that the jab is “safe and effective”. In these circumstances there can be no “Informed consent”. Each jab without Informed Consent is in breach of the Health and Disability Code and is an assault.
In these circumstances, the ongoing program is surely criminal, and indeed may result in Homicide as defined by the Crimes Act:
158 Homicide defined
Homicide is the killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever.
Compare: 1908 No 32 s 173
Anyone who aids, abets or otherwise incites homicide is a party to that homicide.
I note that the Director-General of Health has shared his view in sworn evidence that Covid is the most serious health issue for New Zealand in 100 years.
I invite you all to consider that claim very carefully and critically. Please put Covid in perspective against the many other challenges which we face, including for example heart attacks, strokes, cancer, suicide accidents and diabetes and the nitrate and other contamination of much of our water.
Surely you must agree that the harm is not from “Covid” but from the “Response to Covid”.
The best expert evidence is that the risk from Covid is similar to the risk from influenza. Many experts are now saying that Covid is simply a rebranding of influenza and colds, supported by PCR testing that was never intended as a diagnostic tool. The WHO says that PCR testing should not be used beyond 20-25 cycles. OIA responses indicate that in NZ PCR tests use up to 45 cycles, which simply multiplies any contamination.
Our government is about to enter dangerous new phase if it proceeds to inject more healthy New Zealanders with an injection that experts have established is toxic.
Apart from the direct harm to those who choose, or are bullied to accept this injection, there is considerable peripheral harm. This includes the contamination of our Blood Bank with S-Protein. We can only speculate on the risks for vulnerable people who receive blood contaminated with this toxin.
Please stop and reflect. Please listen to international experts who are independent from Big Pharma and who are not invested in the Covid paradigm.
Please listen to the New Zealand scientific and medical experts who have put their careers and reputations on the line out of extreme concern.
Please correct the misinformation that this injection is “safe and effective” and “approved by Medsafe” when in fact it did not meet the statutory criteria that “benefit exceeds risk”.
There is no imminent health risk from suspending the program. Dr Bloomfield’s sworn evidence was that the risks were mainly financial and reputational.
Please find the courage to challenge whoever is driving this, and any who act on dogma rather than evidence, reason or ethics.
The future of New Zealand depends on your courage to step up and make this critical call for our people.
I urge you to listen, engage and act in the public interest.
Please put aside your pride and the dogma, and suspend this program.
I am happy to assist however I can.
Sue Grey LLB (Hons), BSc (Biochemistry and Microbiology), RSHDipPHI
DOCTORS and scientists can behave at times like religious zealots, despite the noble aims of their professions. Heretics are not burned at the stake these days, but professionals marginalise and deride those who challenge their beliefs when these become a matter of faith (and self-interest) rather than science.
An apparent persistent attempt, at the highest level, to hide the Covid virus’s genetically engineered laboratory origins, and to persuade us that it simply jumped from an animal host into humans, is a case in point.
Vaccines are another. Taxpayers provide billions for products which in some cases have done wonders, such as eliminating smallpox, but whose value, in the opinion of some experts, became grossly over-estimated when their introduction coincided with social, political and economic advances in wellbeing.
Just as we tend to react strongly to criticism when living a lie as individuals, vaccines have become such a holy cow that critical studies have little chance of being accepted in the mainstream journals.
All this is by way of introducing the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research, founded last year ‘to enable independent theoreticians, practitioners and researchers’ to publish ‘critical uncensored peer-reviewed theory and research about every aspect of vaccines’.
As with findings described here at TCWyesterday, it makes worrying reading. Most of the long-term hazards described are speculative, but the paper argues that the evidence cited makes it vital for regulators to do much more to track adverse events in people who have received the experimental Covid vaccines.
The main author is Dr Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, working with Dr Greg Nigh, a naturopath pioneering alternative approaches to cancer.
Seneff has spent much of her career developing human-computer communication through spoken language. She has a degree in biology as well as degrees in engineering and computer science, and since 2010 has shifted her research focus toward the effects of drugs, toxic chemicals, and diet on human health and disease.
The study claims that many aspects of the widespread use of RNA vaccines merit safety concerns, some of which ‘might not be evident for years or even transgenerationally’.
A toxin known as the spike protein makes the Covid virus uniquely dangerous compared with its predecessors in the coronavirus family. The vaccines, including those produced by Pfizer, Moderna, and Oxford AstraZeneca, deliver a genetic code into our body cells instructing them to manufacture this protein, to train the immune system to minimise the impact of exposure to the actual virus.
‘While the promises of this technology have been widely heralded, the objectively assessed risks and safety concerns have received far less detailed attention,’ the study authors say.
Reviewing the various components of the new vaccines, they conclude that there is potential for ‘a wide range of both acute and long-term induced pathologies, such as blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases and autoimmune diseases’.
Lack of standard trials of the vaccines means many questions about safety and effectiveness can be answered only through data gathered from the mass public rollout, ‘and this is only possible if there is free access to unbiased reporting of outcomes – something that seems unlikely given the widespread censorship of vaccine-related information because of the perceived need to declare success at all cost’.
Regulators internationally continue to maintain that the vaccines bring more benefits than dangers, but there have been many claims of sudden clusters of deaths immediately in the wake of vaccination drives.
Seneff and Nigh argue that we may not be realising the complexity of the body’s potential for reactions to foreign mRNA, and to other ingredients in the vaccines ‘that go far beyond the simple goal of tricking the body into producing antibodies to the spike protein’. The ‘tricks’ include a modification in the RNA code aimed at synthesising abundant copies of the protein.
Yet the protein alone has been shown to be enough to cause damage to blood vessel linings and blood clotting processes. There is also a risk that antibodies to the protein arising either from vaccination, or previous exposure to the virus, may ‘prime’ the immune system in such a way as to provoke chronic autoimmune and inflammatory reactions on subsequent exposure, a particular concern with the booster shots of the vaccine.
Studies indicate that the protein is able to gain access to cells in the testicles, and may disrupt male reproduction.
Furthermore, the genetic code the virus carries contains inserts that make it ‘extremely plausible’ that the protein could misfold into a prion (such as held responsible for mad cow disease in the 1980s), causing widespread damage to brain cells and increasing the risk of conditions including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.
The researchers even discuss the possibility of vaccinated people causing disease in the unvaccinated, through vaccine ‘shedding’. There is a plausible process, they say, by which exosomes (particles which transport DNA and RNA between cells) carrying the spike protein instructions could be released from the lungs and inhaled by someone nearby.
They express concern that continued infection of patients with poor immunity will generate resistant strains of the virus, leading to arguments for repeated rounds of vaccines every few months, ‘with increasing numbers of viral variants coded into the vaccines. This is an arms race that we will probably lose’.
The jabs have the potential to incorporate the genetic code for the Covid virus’s spike protein into our DNA, they say, where it ‘could instruct the synthesis of large numbers of copies of proteinaceous infectious particles, with potentially tragic and even catastrophic unforeseen consequences.’
To rule out or minimise these risks, the paper recommends a well-funded effort to collect detailed data on adverse events associated with the RNA vaccines, ‘tracked well beyond the first couple of weeks after vaccination’.
There should be repeated testing of vaccine recipients to check for signs of autoimmune disease; studies to understand better the toxicity of the spike protein to the brain, heart, testicles and other organs; and to determine whether vaccination just before conception can result in offspring carrying mechanisms for producing the spike protein, possibly integrated into their genome.
Finally, ‘as an obvious but tragically ignored suggestion’, governments should encourage people to take safe and affordable steps to boost their immune systems naturally, such as getting out in the sunlight to raise vitamin D levels, and eating mainly organic whole foods rather than chemical-laden processed foods.
‘We have rushed into vaccine experiments on a world-wide scale. At the very least, we should take advantage of the data that are available from these experiments to learn more about this new and untested technology,’ the paper concludes.
Reiner Fuellmich and the Corona Investigative Committee interview James Corbett about his investigation into the corona crisis and the future of humanity.
Looks like the Nature publishing company is trying to regain some respectability. They are publishing information that has been suppressed (mostly) since the start of the pandemic. It turns out that Covid immunity following infection appears to be life-long. Even for mild cases. (Of course, you heard it from me that immunity was going to be long-lasting many months ago.)
THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT GET VACCINATED. Vaccination can sometimes interfere with developing long-lasting immunity. That is one of the things you need to test for when you develop a vaccine. But of course, that was not done in the case of the Covid vaccines.
And so the manufacturers and the governments have already signed contracts for many doses of Covid vaccines per person in the US and EU. This is something they never should have done without knowing the extent of populatin immunity and following the immune response over time post-vaccination. It makes absolutely no sense, unless you consider that they may have something they would like injected along with the Covid vaccines.
I still must return to the disaster of vaccinating people who have natural immunity. CDC and FDA do not want anyone to be able to prove they are immune naturally, so they have not approved or authorized even a single test for that purpose. Pretty clever, huh? The reason is to force everyone to be vaccinated, even though the side effects are more pronounced in those who have recovered, and you get no benefit in terms of added immunity. Those who claim you do are liars. You may get a brief boost in antibody levels but it declines quickly and you are back where you started: 95% are immune after the disease, which is better than after the vaccine. Better than after any vaccine, with the possible exceptions of the live vaccines smallpox and measles. (I know, I know, they claim 95% efficacy for the mRNA vaccines, but the study methods used to prove it were worthless. See Dr Sin Hang Lee’s Petition to the FDA last December, which I edited.) There wouldn’t be a coverup regarding breakthrough cases in the vaccinated population if the efficacy was truly 95%. (CDC does not want these cases reported unles they are in hospital or die, and then you also need to have a positive PCR test done with a cycle threashold no greater than 28 in order to report. That is how CDC is belatedly minimizing reports of breakthrough cases.
But here is the good news, and it is very very good. From Nature :
Many people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 will probably make antibodies against the virus for most of their lives. So suggest researchers who have identified long-lived antibody-producing cells in the bone marrow of people who have recovered from COVID-191.
The study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting. Adding to the good news, “the implications are that vaccines will have the same durable effect”, says Menno van Zelm, an immunologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
Antibodies — proteins that can recognize and help to inactivate viral particles — are a key immune defence. After a new infection, short-lived cells called plasmablasts are an early source of antibodies.
But these cells recede soon after a virus is cleared from the body, and other, longer-lasting cells make antibodies: memory B cells patrol the blood for reinfection, while bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) hide away in bones, trickling out antibodies for decades.
“A plasma cell is our life history, in terms of the pathogens we’ve been exposed to,” says Ali Ellebedy, a B-cell immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, who led the study, published in Nature on 24 May.
Researchers presumed that SARS-CoV-2 infection would trigger the development of BMPCs — nearly all viral infections do — but there have been signs that severe COVID-19 might disrupt the cells’ formation2. Some early COVID-19 immunity studies also stoked worries, when they found that antibody levels plunged not long after recovery3.
Ellebedy’s team tracked antibody production in 77 people who had recovered from mostly mild cases of COVID-19. As expected, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies plummeted in the four months after infection. But this decline slowed, and up to 11 months after infection, the researchers could still detect antibodies that recognized the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
To identify the source of the antibodies, Ellebedy’s team collected memory B cells and bone marrow from a subset of participants. Seven months after developing symptoms, most of these participants still had memory B cells that recognized SARS-CoV-2. In 15 of the 18 bone-marrow samples, the scientists found ultra-low but detectable populations of BMPCs whose formation had been triggered by the individuals’ coronavirus infections 7–8 months before. Levels of these cells were stable in all five people who gave another bone-marrow sample several months later.
Scientists initially estimated that 60 to 70 percent of a population would have to acquire resistance to Covid-19 in order for herd immunity to take effect, a threshold that has been revised upwards since the start of the year with 80 to 85 percent quoted in some cases.
Despite the ever-higher immunity threshold discussed by scientists, Israel’s Covid-19 case count started to tumble when 40 percent of its population received at least one jab and now 59.3 percent of its inhabitants are fully vaccinated. The country’s reproduction rate has been around 0.5 in recent weeks and it appears to be on track to emerge from the pandemic, suggesting that initial herd immunity estimates carried some accuracy.
With 45.4 percent of its inhabitants fully vaccinated, Bahrain comes second on the list.
In this case, full vaccination refers to all doses prescribed by the vaccination protocol with data only available for countries reporting the breakdown of their doses.
As Scott Morefield wrote recently, Blue-state lockdown-lovers drunk on their own power like Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer who insist on a 70 percent vaccination rate in order to ease up on mandates and restrictions are ignoring the science completely in order to hold their people hostage to an unobtainable, unnecessary goal.
Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital debunked the desire among some health officials, sometimes referred to as “zero COVID,” that COVID-19 can be eradicated completely.
Well, unfortunately, we have this perception now that’s being created by some public health leaders that we need to reach total eradication. We’re not gonna get to total absolute risk elimination. That is a false goal and quite honestly it’s being used now to manipulate the public. We heard today again from our public health leaders that if we get to 70% vaccination, then we can start seeing restrictions removed. That’s dishonest. Most of the country is at herd immunity.
Other parts will get there later this month. San Francisco had 12 cases yesterday, most asymptomatic. What do you call that? I call that herd immunity. And I think what’s happening is our public health leaders are dismissing natural immunity from prior infection, which changes the path to get to more population immunity. It invokes mandates, it means kids may have to get it and it demonizes those that are hesitant rather than respecting their decision.
Indeed, you don’t have to have a medical degree to know that the formula for herd immunity has always been vaccinated plus natural immunity.
Meryl Nass, MD discusses her and RFK Jr.’s new Children’s Health Defense petition to the FDA to withdraw COVID vaccines from the market. CHD reports:
“On May 16, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Meryl Nass, MD, on behalf of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), took a landmark step in the COVID crisis that has irrevocably changed billions of lives around the globe by filing a Citizen Petitionwith the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to withdraw COVID-19 vaccines from the market…
“Specifically, the petition calls upon the FDA to:
Revoke the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for COVID vaccines
Refrain from licensing COVID vaccines
Disallow the participation of minors in COVID vaccine trials
Immediately revoke all EUAs permitting vaccination of minors
Revoke its tacit approval of pregnant women receiving COVID vaccines
Immediately amend its existing guidance for the use of chloroquine drugs, ivermectin, and any other safe and effective drugs against COVID.”
Evidence for the effectiveness of COVID-19 treatments can be found at c19study.com .
At the end of the show, Meryl Nass expresses her concern that the suppression of COVID treatments, in conjunction with the mass vaccination program and draconian censorship, raises a disturbing question: Is there some ulterior and perhaps sinister motive driving this seemingly irrational policy?
I’LL LEAD you into this article gently, since I’m sure many readers will have had the Covid jab, persuaded by the unremitting propaganda from the NHS and most media sources that it is safe and effective.
The reality as the science of it unravels is that for some it is neither.
I had strongly hoped that it really would be an answer to Covid-19. Despite high levels of immediate reactivity (four out of five in the Pfizer vaccine trial report had mild to moderate side-effects), the manufacturers’ argument that this was a sign of a healthy immune response seemed logical.
We now know differently.
The healthiest response to the virus is for the body to develop natural immunity, which fortunately is what most people do, either with only mild symptoms or no illness at all.
As thousands of doctors have argued, public health efforts should be directed towards strengthening immunity among the vulnerable. Support should be focused on those with a poor diet or other factors putting their immune health at risk, including lack of sunshine and loneliness – the exact opposite of what we saw imposed on the elderly during lockdown.
The reason why this kind of support is so important is that once the virus takes hold, the unique ‘extras’ it carries as a result of its genetically engineered origins bring long-term risks as well as immediate harm, including effects ranging from blood clots and heart disease to brain damage and reproductive issues.
As many will know by now, the problem lies within a structure that enables the virus, originally from bats, not only to enter human cells but to deliver a toxin called the spike protein.
Most Covid vaccines instruct our body cells to produce the same protein. This is in the hope that antibodies developed against it will prevent the most damaging effects of the actual virus. There is evidence that this is the case for some.
But there’s also a problem, spelled out most recently by Canadian researcher Dr Byram Bridle, who was awarded a $230,000 Ontario government grant last year for research on Covid vaccine development.
This is that the spike protein produced by the vaccine does not just act locally, at the site of the jab (the shoulder muscle), but gets into the bloodstream and is carried through the circulation to many other sites in the body. Previously confidential animal studies using radioactive tracing show it to go just about everywhere, including the adrenal glands, heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, ovaries, pancreas, pituitary gland, prostate, salivary glands, intestines, spinal cord, spleen, stomach, testes, thymus, and uterus.
The quantities are small and usually disappear within days.
But the questions arise, is this mechanism involved in the thousands of deaths and injuries reported soon after Covid vaccination, and might it set some people up for the same long-term consequences as in severe cases of the disease itself?
Some researchers say the risk from the vaccine may be greater than that from the actual virus in healthy people. This would be especially true for the young, whose immune systems deal with the virus successfully. In contrast, the vaccine has a device that protects the spike protein mechanism against immediate destruction by the body, in order to promote the immune response.
Although millions have received the jab without ill-effects, there have been thousands of reports of deaths and disease associated with it. The symptoms are often indistinguishable to those induced by the virus, and so there is real concern that this damage is being missed by manufacturers and regulators as being related to the vaccine.
Dr Bridle, associate professor of viral immunology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, summarised his concerns in an interview with Toronto radio host Alex Pierson on May 28.
‘I’m very much pro-vaccine, but always making sure that the science is done properly and that we follow the science carefully before going into public rollout of vaccines,’ he said. ‘I’ll forewarn you and your listeners that the story I’m about to tell is a bit of a scary one. This is cutting edge science. There’s a couple of key pieces of scientific information that we’ve been privy to, in the past few days, that has made the final link, so we understand now – myself and some key international collaborators – we understand exactly why these problems [with the vaccine] are happening.’
One of these ‘is that the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation. Indeed, if you inject the purified spike protein into the blood of research animals they get all kinds of damage to the cardiovascular system, and it can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause damage to the brain.
‘At first glance that doesn’t seem too concerning because we’re injecting these vaccines into the shoulder muscle. The assumption, up until now, has been that these vaccines behave like all of our traditional vaccines: they don’t go anywhere other than the injection site, so they stay in our shoulder. Some of the protein will go to the local draining lymph node in order to activate the immune system.
‘However – this is where the cutting edge science has come in, and this is where it gets scary – through a request for information from the Japanese regulatory agency, myself and several international collaborators have been able to get access to what’s called the biodistribution study. It’s the first time ever that scientists have been privy to seeing where the messenger RNA vaccines go after vaccination; in other words, is it a safe assumption that it stays in the shoulder muscle? The short answer is, absolutely not. It’s very disconcerting. The spike protein gets into the blood and circulates over several days post-vaccination.’
The study was conducted for Pfizer by Japanese researchers. Bridle said its results are backed up by a paper just accepted for publication reporting that 11 of 13 young health workers who received two doses of the Moderna RNA vaccine showed detectable levels of the virus protein in their blood within a day of their first injection.
‘We have known for a long time that the spike protein is pathogenic,’ Bridle said. ‘It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it’s in circulation. Now, we have clear-cut evidence that . . . the vaccine itself, plus the protein, gets into blood circulation.’
Once that happens, the spike protein can combine with receptors on blood platelets and with cells that line our blood vessels. This is why, paradoxically, it can cause both blood clotting and bleeding. ‘And of course the heart is involved, as part of the cardiovascular system,’ Bridle said. ‘That’s why we’re seeing heart problems. The protein can also cross the blood-brain barrier and cause neurological damage. That’s exactly why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with these vaccines.’
In another study, not yet accepted for publication, researchers found ‘inadvertently’ that RNA vaccine particles are transferred to babies through breast milk (they had been trying to show that antibodies in vaccinated mothers were passed on to the babies).
Doctors are concerned that that once the spike protein gets into circulation, it will become concentrated in breast milk. It could also be a hazard for fragile patients receiving blood transfusions.
‘Looking into the adverse event database in the US, we have found evidence of suckling infants experiencing bleeding disorders in the gastro-intestinal tract,’ Bridle said.
‘In short, the conclusion is that we made a big mistake. We didn’t realise it until now. We didn’t realise that by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin. In some people this gets into the circulation; and when that happens, in some people it can cause damage, especially to the cardiovascular system. I have many other legitimate questions about the long-term safety of the vaccine.’
Bridle is a member of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, a group of independent doctors, scientists and health care practitioners ‘committed to providing top-quality and balanced evidence-based information to the Canadian public about Covid-19 so that hospitalizations can be reduced, lives saved, and our country safely restored as quickly as possible.’
The group has produced this guide as to ‘why parents, teens and children should question the Covid-19 vaccine’.
Last week, Britain’s regulators approved the Pfizer jab for 12-15-year-olds, concluding it is ‘safe and effective in this age group and that the benefits of this vaccine outweigh any risk’. As Sally Beck wrote in TCW here, several high-profile experts questioned the ethics of the decision, which came even as 93 doctors in Israel – a testing ground for the same vaccine – wrote to their government begging them not to use it on children.
Christian Drosten, a German virologist and wunderkind, signed the (lab origin coverup) Lancet letter, and designed the PCR test for Covid that has been touted by the WHO and used around the world. His PCR test has been challenged by European scientists and physicians. His PhD is said by some to have been faked.
How, then, did he become a full professor at the University of Bonn and, at 35, head of the Institute of Virology at Charite Hospital? Drosten became the face of Covid in Germany in the same way Fauci became the face of the pandemic in the US. According to an April 2020 puff piece in Sciencemagazine,
Drosten’s podcast has given him real influence, says Marcel Fratzscher, head of DIW Berlin, an economic research institute. “At this point, if Drosten says it is too early [to open up], that carries as much weight as Merkel saying it.”
“But Drosten wants his research to save lives. Large cardboard boxes in his office hold supplies of two medicines waiting to be tried in the clinic. One is camostat mesylate, a pancreatitis drug approved in Japan that Drosten and others found can prevent both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells. The other drug is niclosamide, used to treat tapeworms and other parasites. In a paper posted on the preprint server bioRxiv this month, Drosten’s colleague Marcel Müller showed that SARS-CoV-2 interferes with the cellular recycling process called autophagy. It’s unclear how exactly that benefits the virus, but niclosamide counters the interference. Treatment with the compound reduced SARS-CoV-2’s growth in cell culture by 70%, the authors write. Drosten hopes to start to enroll patients soon in a trial to test a combination of the two drugs.”
This paragraph enables me to transition to a very important point that I have not seen anyone else write about. I am talking about the tremendous benefit conveyed by the pandemic to the drug research enterprise. Normally it costs many millions of dollars to test one drug–perhaps over a billion if it is a new chemical entitiy.
But, as long as you can pretend that there are no effective drugs to treat Covid, you can keep testing drugs on human beings. That is why the Recovery and Solidarity trials continue to enroll hapless subjects, instead of treating them with drugs that actually cure the disease.
Here is Drosten, with cartons of two old drugs he wants to test in humans, one of which was only 70% effective at killing virus in the lab. Why not use a drug like ivermectin that is practically 100% effective at killing virus? It would be both unethical and very expensive to test drugs outside the pandemic if it were admitted that a Covid treatment already existed.
But if you pretend there are no effective treatments, the treatment trials for Covid turn into charity affairs. Very little data are collected, so the investigators cannot be shown to have harmed the patients. But enough data are collected for a future regulatory review.
I wrote about this with respect to the Solidarity trial in my long article on the hydroxychloroquine false narrative. Countries donate tax dollars, and charitable institutions donate, and a variety of drugs can be tested. It doesn’t seem to matter that almost all fail to cure the patient. It helps keep the fear going. This testing is probably being done to gather human data for a possible future use of these drugs, perhaps for a completely different purpose.
On the other hand, there also may be a role for these trials as a delaying action… slow-rolling a response until vaccines or whatever are available.
So how do these useless drug trials help the pandemic purveyors?
They keep the public terrified over the lack of a cure
They delay the end of the pandemic
They test drugs for the pharmaceutical industry and its minions at taxpayer expense
The trials are conducted rapidly with a large number of centers enrolling patients, who think they are generating knowledge for the good of humanity
Probably there are enormous kickbacks involved
The wunderkind Drosten appears to be in the thick of the coverup. If a Covid cure is found, he would lose the opportunity to do the drug trials.
If you’re among those of us who aren’t tribally invested in Covid politics but would like good information about when life will resume as normal, chances are you’re interested in herd immunity. You’re likely not interested in having to rely on the Internet Archive for good information on herd immunity. Alas, it’s become a go-to place for retrieving, as it were, previously published information on herd immunity that became inconvenient post-vaccine and then virtually Memory-Holed.
Over the past 15 months, the litany of Experts’ True Facts and Science regarding various aspects of SARS-CoV-2 has changed more often than the starting lineup of a bad minor league ball club. Covid-19 is spread by droplets, especially from asymptomatic people, until one day it was airborne all along and people who weren’t sick in all likelihood weren’t even sick. Stay at home, you’re safer indoors, even stay away from parks and beaches; well, actually, outdoors is the place to be. Masks don’t work against viruses and are actually unhealthy to wear if you’re not sick, then suddenly they did work and without one you might as well be shooting people. Everyone knows and PolitiFact verified that the virus couldn’t have been created in the prominent infectious disease lab doing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in bats coincidentally at Covid Ground Zero until, one day, PolitiFact had to retract the entire “Pants on Fire!” article. And so forth.
Unfortunately, information about herd immunity has also not been immune to this kind of meddling. Until recent months, people readily understood that active immunity came about either by natural immunity or vaccine-induced immunity. Natural immunity comes from battling and defeating an actual infection, then having your immune system primed for the rest of your life to fight it off if it ever shows up again. This immunity is achieved at a sometimes very high personal price.
Vaccine-induced immunity is to prime your immune system with a weaker, non-threatening form of the invading infection, so that it’s ready to fight off the real thing should you ever encounter it, and without your having first to risk severe illness or death.
Those interested in herd immunity in itself likely don’t have a moral or political preference for one form of immunity to the exclusion of the other. Immunity is immunity, regardless of whether a particular person has it naturally or by a vaccine. All immunity contributes to herd immunity.
Others, however, are much less circumspect. They seem to have forgotten the ultimate goal of the public campaign for people to receive vaccination against Covid-19. It’s not to be vaccinated; it’s to have immunity. People with natural immunity — i.e., people whose immune systems have faced Covid-19 and won — don’t need a vaccine.
They do, however, need to be considered in any good-faith discussion of herd immunity. There are two prongs to herd immunity, as we used to all know, and those with natural immunity are the prong that’s being ignored. It’s not just mere oversight, however. Fostering such ignorance can lead to several bad outcomes:
People with natural immunity could be kept from employment, education, travel, normal commerce, and who knows what other things if they don’t submit to a vaccine they don’t need in order to fulfill a head count that confuses a means with the end
The nation could already be at herd immunity while governors and health bureaucrats continue to exert extreme emergency powers, harming people’s liberties and livelihoods
People already terrified of Covid — including especially those who’ve already had it — would continue to live in fear, avoiding human interaction and worrying beyond all reason
People could come to distrust even sound advice from experts about important matters, as they witness and grow to expect how what “the experts” counsel diverges from what they know to be wise counsel while it conforms to and amplifies the temporary needs of the political class
Those of us wanting good information certainly don’t want any of those outcomes. But others seem perfectly fine to risk them. They include not only elected officials, members of the media, political talking heads, self-important bureaucrats, and their wide-eyed acolytes harassing shoppers, but strangely also highly prominent health organizations.
For example, late last year Jeffrey Tucker showed that the World Health Organization (WHO) suddenly, and “for reasons unknown,” changed its definition of “herd immunity.” Using screenshots from a cached version on the Internet Archive, Tucker showed how the WHO altered its definition in such a way as to erase completely the role of natural immunity. Before, the WHO rightly said it “happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.” The WHO’s change stated that it happens “if a threshold of vaccination is reached.” Not long after Tucker’s piece appeared, the WHO restored natural immunity to its definition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seemingly apropos of nothing, on May 19 issued a “safety communication” to warn that FDA-authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests “should not be used to evaluate immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time.” The FDA’s concern appears to be that taking an antibody test too soon after receiving a vaccination may fail to show vaccine-induced antibodies, but why preclude its use for “identifying people with an adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 from a recent or prior infection?” Especially after stating outright that “Antibody tests can play an important role in identifying individuals who may have been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and may have developed an adaptive immune response.”
Then there is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, that ubiquitous font of fatuous guidance. He had told people that herd immunity would be at 60 to 70 percent immunity, and then he started publicly cinching those numbers up: 75 percent, 80 percent, 85 percent, even 90 percent (as if Covid-19 were as infectious as measles). He is quoted in the New York Times admitting to doing so deliberately to affect people’s behavior:
“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.“
Now — or better put, as of this writing — Fauci has taken to arguing herd immunity is a “mystical elusive number,” a distracting “endgame,” and therefore not worth considering. Only vaccinations are worth counting. As he put it recently, “We don’t want to get too hung up on reaching this endgame of herd immunity because every day that you put 2 million to 3 million vaccinations into people [it] makes society be more and more protected.”
While composing an article about natural immunity and herd immunity for my home state of North Carolina, I happened to notice that the Mayo Clinic had removed a compelling factoid about natural immunity. It’s something I had quoted in an earlier discussion of the matter and wanted to revisit it.
Here’s what the Mayo Clinic once wanted people to know in its page on “Herd Immunity and COVID-19” with respect to natural immunity: “[T]hose who survived the 1918 flu (influenza) pandemic were later immune to infection with the H1N1 flu, a subtype of influenza A.” The Mayo Clinic pointed out that H1N1 was during the 2009-10 flu season, which would be 92 years later. That finding attested to just how powerful and long-lived natural immunity could be.
As can be seen from the Internet Archive, however, sometime after April 14 the Mayo Clinic removed that compelling historical aside:
The Mayo Clinic also reoriented its page to feature vaccination over “the natural infection method” (method? ) and added a section on “the outlook for achieving herd immunity in the U.S.” This new section stated that “it’s not clear if or when the U.S. will achieve herd immunity” but encouraged people nonetheless that “the FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at protecting against severe illness requiring hospitalization and death … allowing people to better be able to live with the virus.”
Why, from people who know better, is there so much interest in downplaying or erasing natural immunity?
Is it because it’s hard to quantify how many people have natural immunity? Is it out of a mix of good intentions and worry, that discussing natural immunity would somehow discourage (“nudge,” in Fauci’s term) people from getting vaccines who otherwise would? Is it simple oversight, being so focused on vaccinations that they just plain forgot about natural immunity? Or is something else at work?
Whatever the reason, it’s keeping Americans in the dark about how many people have active immunity from Covid-19. It’s keeping people needlessly fearful and suspicious of each other. It’s empowering executive overreach. Worst of all, it’s tempting people to consider government and business restrictions on the unvaccinated, regardless of their actual immunity.
Jon Sanders is an economist and the senior fellow of regulatory studies and research editor at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Reknowned economist M. Shahid Alamoffers this excellent critique of Noam Chomsky’s defective analysis of the relative influence of Oil versus the Israel lobby over US foreign policy: … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
