A NY Times Editor Killed by Vax 1 Day after Booster Injection. Reported by a NYT Writer on a Blog. The NYT Doesn’t Report Vax Deaths, Even of Its Own Employees, to Avoid Conflict w/Vested Interests

/

On his blog Unreported Truths, NYT Times writer Alex Bereson wrote Carlos Tejada was married and had two children; he spent his career at the Wall Street Journal before joining the Times in 2016.

In July, he received a Johnson & Johnson DNA/AAV Covid vaccine. He was thankful to get it, per his Instagram page.

On Dec. 16, in Seoul, South Korea, he received a Moderna mRNA/LNP “booster.” No clinical trials have ever been conducted to examine the safety or efficacy of mixing various types of these vaccines, and Carlos did not give informed consent, as the consent form was in Korean, a language he could not read. He joked that Omicron should “hit me with your wet snot.”

If this does not wake the Times nothing will.

Liars @ NYT say "Covid vaccines rarely lead to problems in children.” Yet CDC Data Shows that at Least 30 Children Were Killed by COVID Injections, While Not a Single Healthy Child Has Died from COVID

/

FUCK THE MEDIA. Yesterday the NYT Times reported “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released two studies on Thursday that underscored the importance of vaccinating children against the coronavirus.

One study found that serious problems among children 5 to 11 who had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were extremely rare. The other, which looked at hundreds of pediatric hospitalizations in six cities last summer, found that nearly all of the children who became seriously ill had not been fully vaccinated.” [MORE]

Outside the Spectacle, that is, in reality, here on planet Earth, the FDA authorized the Pfizer vaccine for 5 to 11 year old children without sufficient safety information. It Ignored serious injuries to children in their clinical trials. Moreover, the emergency use authorization is unlawful because there is no COVID emergency for children. Also Pfizer has been granted complete immunity for any injuries or death to these children.

Many scientists and health experts have warned that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is unnecessary and extremely risky. Since the beginning of the pandemic, it has been obvious that children were at exceptionally low risk for hospitalization and death from the infection.1 Despite this, massive efforts are underway to ensure that every child gets a shot.

There is mounting evidence that the costs of inoculating children against covid-19 far outweigh the benefits. Children are at extremely low risk from COVID-19, with not a single death of a previously healthy child. [MORE]

Four Vietnamese children die in a Week After Pfizer vaccine

Vietnam on Nov. 30 rolled out its COVID vaccination program for children 15 to 17 years old with Pfizer’s vaccine. Since then, four children have died after receiving their first dose. The cause of death was “overreaction to the vaccine.” [MORE] and [MORE].

Vietnam is in the process of vaccinating nine million children aged 12-17. The vaccine in use is produced by Pfizer. As of December 6, 5.3 million doses have been administered to this age group, of which over 936,200 children have received two doses. [MORE]

Earlier this month, 16,000 physicians and medical scientists around the world signed a declaration publicly declaring that healthy children should NOT be vaccinated for COVID-19. Leading experts on flawed U.S. COVID policy issued an urgent warning at a summit last month: Young children will be harmed in an ill-advised rush to vaccinate a population with very little chance of severe infection from the virus. Apparently the media only listen and parrot the biostitutes who work for Big Pharma or the CDC.

“The real risk for healthy kids is about zero — it does appear to be lower than the flu,” said Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA technology on which the vaccine is based. Inoculating 28 million children 5 to 11 years old, Malone told attendees of the Florida Summit on Covid, could lead to “a thousand or more excess deaths.”

“That’s a thousand kids,” he told the audience of 800 doctors, nurses and advocates. “It’s a thousand kids too many.”

In addition to other pressing COVID issues, the summit addressed three central questions about childhood vaccination. Do young children need vaccination against COVID? Are the vaccinations safe? Are unvaccinated children a threat to adults? On each, they found the government’s near-universal vaccination policy wanton and unsupported.

“Children don’t get severely ill. Children don’t die from this infection,” said Dr. Paul Alexander, a clinical epidemiologist and former senior advisor on pandemic policy in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “We’ve been fed a lot of misleading information.”

Though harshly criticized for keeping schools open, “Sweden had not a single death of a child from COVID,” said Dr. Richard Urso, a Texas ophthalmologist citing published data.

With the risk of serious illness low, panelists said the potential toll of vaccinating was unacceptably high, pointing to thousands of officially downplayed but real side effects and deaths. The risks to children include – but aren’t limited to – serious inflammation of the heart called myocarditis, which has been reported at three to six times the expected rate in vaccinated adolescents. A CDC study reported 14 vaccine-related deaths and 849 serious reactions in children 12 to 17 years old.

“There will be children lost with the vax — far more than ever happened with COVID,” said Dr. Peter McCullough, a widely published cardiologist and leading voice on a rational pandemic response. Doctors are guilty of “willful blindness” to vaccine hazards, he said, having “bought into this…dream that this vax if both safe and effective. It is shattering their dreams that it is not sufficiently safe.” 


As of 12/24/21 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows a total of 965,843 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Dec. 10, 2021, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 20,244 reports of deaths — an increase of 358 over the previous week — and 155,506 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 4,560 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 691,884 adverse events, including 9,295 deaths and 59,767 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Dec. 10, 2021.

Foreign reports are reports received by U.S. manufacturers from their foreign subsidiaries. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 9,295 U.S. deaths reported as of Dec. 10, 21% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 26% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 61% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 480 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Dec. 10. This includes 279 million doses of Pfizer, 184 million doses of Moderna and 17 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

In contrast to the NYT article, CDC data shows the VAX killed at least 48 children (age 5-17) since 12/14/2020. Do the elites at the NYT think CDC’s own data is fake? Instead of parroting whatever Big Pharma tells them the “reporters” could actually find an interview the parents of the child who died from the Vax on 11/22/21 - 4 days after taking it. The info is on the website, the lying motherfuckers at NYT should investigate VAERS ID 1890705, if they have doubts. See below.

In fact, U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Dec. 10, 2021, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

The second death (VAERS I.D. 1890705) occurred in a 5-year-old girl who died four days after her first Pfizer shot.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Dec. 10, 2021, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

The most recent deaths involve a 13-year-old girl from Texas (VAERS I.D. 1913198) who died 31 days after receiving her COVID vaccine. According to her VAERS report, the girl received her first dose of Pfizer on Aug. 1.

Two weeks later, she complained of vague upper back pain and was diagnosed with a rare soft tissue cancer located on her heart despite having no previous medical history. Parents requested a VAERS report be filed in case her cancer was related to the vaccine. Her cancer and heart condition rapidly and progressively worsened and she died Dec 1.

  • 61 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.

  • 571 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) with 561 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.

  • 143 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Dec. 10, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:

According to the latest data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, there have been 20,836 reported adverse events following Pfizer’s COVID vaccine among 12 to 17-year-olds.

VAERS Underreporting Factor Affects Data

To compare the number of deaths from COVID illness against those who have died from the genetic therapy injection, we must address the known underreporting factor in VAERS. To date, the VAERS database is the only reporting system used by the CDC and FDA that is accessible to the public. According to VAERS, it:8

“… is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences. Anyone can submit a report to VAERS, including parents and patients.”

Additionally, it is the only area where the public, including doctors and other medical professionals, can voluntarily report vaccine adverse events, including death. According to VAERS,9 health care professionals are mandated by law to report serious injury adverse events that occur within a specified time period after the shot, and those events that are listed by the manufacturer as a contraindication to further doses.

However, the system only “encourages” providers to report events after vaccination whether the shot caused the event or not. In other words, the system depends on the health care professionals' knowledge that the VAERS system exists and their willingness to spend time filling out the document which asks for:10

While much of this information is necessary for data tracking, you can see how the time-consuming nature of filling out this form can easily become overwhelming when doctors have multiple patients with adverse events from the COVID-19 shots.11 Lack of knowledge of the system, and a growing physician shortage12 with subsequent lack of time have also likely contributed to the underreporting factor (URF).

In an early grant report submitted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is part of the VAERS system, the writers admitted that:13

“Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”

As of December 3, 2021, there were 946,461 adverse events and 19,886 deaths reported to the system.14 If only 1% of the events are reported, this translates to 94.64 million adverse events and 1.98 million deaths. To ascertain a better estimate of how many people have been injured from the current genetic injection, the issue of the URF was again addressed in a paper published in November 2021.15

The process for defining a new URF was published in a 62-page paper.16 Using an engineering analysis of the available data and judgment based on peer reviewed literature and expertise of the scientists, an underreporting factor of 41 was determined.

Researcher Steve Kirsch, recognized the gravity of the situation as it relates to the number of children who have died after taking the vaccine versus the number who have died from the illness. CDC data ending December 8, 2021,17 shows 757 children younger than 18 were listed as casualties of COVID-19.

He points out that many of these deaths, like those in adults, are likely children who died with COVID and not from COVID.18 However, to maintain simplicity, he used those numbers for comparison. Then, using data from VAERS ending December 3, 2021, he found 32 deaths from the vaccine.

Using the URF of 41, this suggests there have been 1,312 deaths that are likely to have been caused by the injection as compared to the 757 deaths the CDC records as having been caused by the illness. If you do the math, this means the shot has killed roughly 173% more children than the illness.

Using the same URF of 41 and the current data ending December 3, 2021, from OpenVAERS we can estimate there should have been 38,804,901 reports and 815,326 deaths caused by the injection. This is vitally important as the total number of deaths recorded for COVID-19 as of December 15, 2021. is 795,839.19 This means the shot has currently killed more children and adults than the virus. [MORE]

Doctors Release Public Statement: COVID Poses a Negligible Risk of Permanent Harm to Otherwise Healthy Persons, No Empirical Evidence Exists to Show Healthy Asymptomatic People Spread It

/

Summary

This expert statement makes the case that

  • the WHO’s act of declaring COVID-19 a “pandemic” was unjustified;

  • COVID-19 poses a negligible risk of permanent harm to otherwise healthy persons, particularly those of young age;

  • no empirical evidence exists to support the use of masks, social distancing, or lock-downs to prevent the spread of COVID;

  • empirical evidence does exist to show that healthy people do not infect others with COVID;

  • lock-downs, school closures and other scientifically baseless ‘pandemic control measures’ have devastating effects on the mental health of our children.

Measures such as lock-downs, mask mandates, and school closures are therefore unsupportable and should be revoked.

From Michael Palmer MD and Sucharit Bhakdi MD [PDF]

1. The misconception of the “COVID-19 emergency”

The WHO issued its declaration of a “pandemic” on March 11th, 2020. Considering that less than two weeks before that date the number of “cases” reported worldwide had been only 80,000 [1], this declaration was strangely premature. However, this low case number is not the only thing that was amiss with this “emergency.”

1.1. The WHO’s criteria for calling a “pandemic” are flawed

British Medical Journal editor Peter Doshi has pointed out that, shortly before Swine Flu was declared a “pandemic” in 2009, the WHO had redefined its criteria for making such a declaration [2]. According to Doshi, as of 2003 the now defunct WHO Pandemic Preparedness homepage had contained the following statement:

An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.

A definition that includes “enormous numbers of death and illness” is certainly in keeping with the general understanding of the term “pandemic,” considering that it is commonly used in connection with the “Black Death” of the Middle Ages or with the Spanish Flu of 1918. However, the WHO’s revised definition from 2009 does not contain any reference to deaths or disease severity. As of that year, the same WHO web page merely stated: 

An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.

Nor do death or clinical disease severity receive any mention in the more detailed definition given by the WHO’s 2009 guidance document on influenza epidemics, which is currently still available [3]. Accordingly, pursuant to these guidelines, any new strain of influenza could be declared a “pandemic,” whether or not it results in significant surplus mortality and morbidity.

Considering the far-reaching and detrimental consequences for commerce, international travel etc., it should go without saying that declaring a pandemic is disproportionate and unjustified when the disease in question is merely widespread but not severe. Exactly this kind of malfeasance, however, has occurred in the case of COVID-19: a pandemic was declared by the WHO, and subsequently by the governments of the world, without regard for clinical severity.

1.2. All-cause mortality soared only shortly after the declaration of the COVID-19 “pandemic,” not before

Figure 1: All-cause mortality in New York city and in Texas, before and after the declaration of the COVID-19 “pandemic” by the WHO (red vertical line). A sharp yet short-lived spike occurred in New York City immediately after the declaration, whereas no such event manifested itself in Texas. Before the declaration, all-cause mortality for the winter 2019/20 had been tracking significantly lower than two years before; the higher mortality rate during that previous winter season was due to a worldwide outbreak of influenza that was not declared a pandemic. Graphics taken from Figures 8 and 10 in [4].

Rancourt has examined the correlation in time between the WHO’s declaration of the “pandemic” and all-cause mortality in various jurisdictions [4]. Immediately after the declaration, there occurred a sharp peak in all-cause mortality in some jurisdictions, but not in others; this discrepancy is illustrated in Figure 1 for New York City and Texas.

Common sense and historic precedents suggest that a deadly virus pandemic would not respect international or state borders. Furthermore, if the virus had indeed been both deadly and truly novel, the wave of deaths in New York should not have subsided within such a short time period as is apparent from Figure 1. Thus, as Rancourt convincingly argues, any peaks in mortality were most likely caused by government malfeasance, which led to consequences such as the rapid spread of the infection in senior homes. In the case of New York, this has led to the filing of criminal complaints against former governor Andrew Cuomo.

1.3. Mortality due to COVID-19 is very low except in the frail and elderly

In the vast majority of people (≥ 99.8% globally), an infection with SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is non-lethal [5–7]. It is typically a mild to moderately severe illness with a case fatality rate similar to that of influenza (see again Figure 1 for context). The relationship of COVID mortality with age is illustrated in Figure 2. Panel A very clearly shows that mortality is vanishingly small in the young and middle-aged. Moreover, even among the elderly, almost all fatal cases occur in people with co-morbidities. In Italy, the average age at the time of death was above 80 years, and only 0.8% of all fatal cases suffered from none of the 10 most common co-morbidities [8]. University of Hamburg forensic pathologist Prof. Klaus Püschel reviewed over 100 autopsies on patients at his institution whose deaths had been ascribed to COVID-19, and he concluded that not one of them had died due to COVID alone [9].

Figure 2: COVID mortality, number of cases, and infection fatality rate by age group. A: Total cases reported to the Robert Koch Institute as of July 13þ, 2021, and mortality per age group, based on 2018 census numbers [10]. B: Infection fatality rates by age in various countries. Adapted from Figure 3 in [11].

The collective findings can be summarized as follows: in otherwise healthy persons of all ages, COVID-19 poses a negligible risk of death or of severe disease with irreversible harm.

1.4. The misconception of the “pandemic” was implanted and perpetuated with inappropriate testing practices

From the very beginning, the number of COVID “cases” was artificially inflated by the inappropriate use of the PCR test. There are two key aspects to this misuse of the technique:

  • the calibration of the method is inadequate; in particular, the number of amplification cycles is excessive;

  • the application of the PCR test to healthy (“asymptomatic”) people, for example in connection with travel. This could not but generate a large number of false positive test results, which were then elevated to “cases.”

For further detail pertaining to this question, please refer to Prof. Ulrike Kämmerer’s separately submitted PCR expertise.

1.5. Flattening which curve?

When the first restrictions such as masks, “social distancing,” and lock-downs were imposed on the public, they were justified with the purported need to “flatten the curve,” that is, to slow down the spread of the virus so as to distribute clinically severe cases in time and thereby avoid the overload of hospitals with grave COVID cases. Media outlets such as the Canadian CBC propped up this narrative with invented stories about overflowing hospitals; see for example the fraudulent CBC story about triage of patients in the parking lot of the hospital in Steinbach, Manitoba—a reporter from another media outlet who investigate on-site found both the parking lot and the hallways of the hospital deserted [12].

In the real world, emergency room visits and hospital admissions declined after the declaration of the “pandemic;” this was consistently reported from various countries [13–17]. The reason for the decline was likely a general reluctance in the population to seek medical assistance, for fear of being infected with the supposedly deadly virus at the hospital. The decline was not offset by any proportional numbers of actual severe COVID cases. Thus, the need for “flattening the curve,” and with it that for imposing the very harsh and oppressive “emergency” measures, never existed.

2. On the necessity and effectiveness of the restrictions imposed by the governments

2.1. Do lock-downs and other restrictions reduce COVID mortality?

Reports like the one by Püschel (see Section 1.3) make it clear that COVID mortality statistics cannot be trusted. Püschel’s use of autopsies is of course the correct approach; in order to understand the seriousness of a novel pathogen, it would be essential to perform autopsies on as large a scale as possible. However, in general, autopsies were rarely performed and discouraged by the authorities worldwide. In their literature review entitled No Autopsies on COVID-19 Deaths: A Missed Opportunity and the Lockdown of Science, Salerno et al. observe [18]:

Despite the increasing number of published studies on COVID-19, in all the examined studies the lack of a well-defined pathophysiology of death among patients who died following COVID-19 infection is evident. Autopsy should be considered mandatory to define the exact cause of death … Only 7 papers reported histological investigations. Nevertheless, only two complete autopsies are described and the cause of death was listed as COVID-19 in only one of them.

The lack of rigorous standards for determining the causes of death in diagnosed cases of the infection has produced a very large spread in the COVID mortality rates reported by different countries (Figure 3A). While some variation between countries must be expected, it surely is difficult to believe that the mortality in France, whose healthcare system is considered of very high quality, should be twenty times higher than in Iceland, or that Belgium should have five times more deaths per capita than Denmark.

The distortion apparent in these numbers makes it impossible to place any trust into those in panel B of the same figure. This graph shows the correlation—or rather, the lack thereof—between a “stringency index,” which summarizes the rigour of the lock-down and other measures imposed by national governments, and the reported COVID deaths. In this sample of 31 European countries (which includes the 16 countries represented in panel A), the correlation is very low, with an R2 value of only 0.02 (and a positive slope of the linear regression line). In other words, the quality of the mortality data is so low as to render the task of discerning any correlation between the stringency of lock-down measures and COVID mortality hopeless. In view of this deplorable quality of the raw data, it is unsurprising that proper epidemiological studies, too, fail to detect any benefits of more restrictive interventions [19,20].

Figure 3: COVID mortality and stringency of government responses across European countries. A: COVID mortality per million residents in 16 European countries. B: COVID mortality vs. stringency of government response for 31 European countries. The linear regression line shown has an R2 value of 0.02. Mortality data from [21] as of September 16th, 2021; response stringency index from [22] as of September 23rd, 2021.

2.2. Lock-downs and overall mortality

We just saw that it is impossible to statistically detect any benefit of lock-downs and other mandates and restrictions imposed on the populace. The only recourse is to look at excess overall mortality during the “pandemic.” An instructive example is the comparison of three European countries provided by Kowall et al. [23]. In contrast to both Spain and Germany, Sweden never imposed any school closures or other hard “lock-down” measures, yet its standard mortality rate is unremarkable in comparison with these two other countries (see Figure 4). Kowall et al. also review possible causes for the observed excess mortalities in Spain and in Sweden, without however offering a definite conclusion regarding role of the lock-down measures. Obviously, no certain conclusions are possible in this regard based on the limited information available.

2.3. Do masks work?

A meta-analysis of 15 clinical studies by an international consortium of epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists offers the following conclusions [24]:

Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) cases … or influenza … for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers … There was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators … Harms were poorly reported and limited to discomfort with lower compliance.

If no effect on disease transmission can be demonstrated even with the use of proper surgical or N95 masks, then surely the notion that those fashionable cloth masks will provide any benefit is fanciful. In conclusion, the evidence shows that masks don’t work.

We should note that influenza viruses and coronaviruses differ in some aspects of their biology from each other and from other “influenza-like” viral pathogens. However, all of these viruses are equivalent when it comes to airborne transmission—the viruses are exhaled with micro-droplets, which may or may not be inhaled by another person. The question as to whether a mask reduces transmission comes down simply to its ability to stop these micro-droplets, regardless of the identity of their viral cargo. Thus, the findings reported by Jefferson et al. are valid for COVID-19 as well.




Figure 4: Weekly standardized mortality ratio (SMR) by calendar week in Spain, Germany and Sweden (with consideration of life expectancy). Adapted from Figure 3 in [23].

A recent “cluster-randomized trial” conducted in Bangladesh claims to finally have unearthed the missing evidence to support the effectiveness of masks. The study was predictably covered with great fanfare in the mainstream press; it does, however, not stand up to scrutiny. The diagnostic method used in this study was an IgG antibody test, which is not suitable for diagnosing current or recent infections. Moreover, the study reports that the proportion of those with symptoms and a positive antibody test among the masked group was 0.76%, whereas in the unmasked group it was 0.68%. Passing off a reduction of 0.08% in an irrelevant diagnostic parameter as proof that masks reduce acute COVID infections is evidence not of mask effectiveness but of scientific incompetence, or worse. Rancourt [25] further dissects the many flaws of the study by Abaluck et al.

2.4. Is COVID likely to be transmitted outdoors?

It is well accepted that the risk of airborne transmission of infections is highest in indoor spaces that have limited ventilation with outdoor air [26–28]. Unlike the air in enclosed spaces, outdoor air will not stagnate or be recirculated, and it generally has a lower relative humidity, which will cause more rapid evaporation of exhaled micro-droplets. In addition, outdoors there is a higher level of ultraviolet radiation, which inactivates airborne microbes. Single-stranded RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are particularly sensitive to UV irradiation. Therefore, while to my knowledge no hard evidence exists to completely rule out outdoors transmission of COVID, the likelihood is certainly far lower than indoors. Thus, confining healthy people to their homes in order to ‘flatten the curve’ or ‘stop the spread of COVID’ is disproportionate and unreasonable.

2.5. Can clinically healthy people transmit COVID?

A subtext of the imposition of sweeping masking, distancing, or lock-down mandates on clinically healthy people is the idea of “asymptomatic spread”—persons who have been infected, but who show no signs of it other than a positive PCR test, are assumed to transmit this infection to other susceptible individuals. If we accept the idea of such asymptomatic spread, then the above drastic measures might indeed appear reasonable means for protecting those at risk.

It has, however, been unambiguously determined that such asymptomatic transmission is not relevant in practice. In a large-scale study, which involved almost 10 million Chinese residents, no new infections could be traced to persons that had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR, but who did not exhibit any other signs of infection [29]. This agrees with several studies which compared PCR to virus isolation in cell culture among patients with acute COVID-19 disease. In all cases, growth of the virus in cell culture ceased as symptoms subsided, whereas PCR remained positive for weeks or months afterwards [30,31]. It was accordingly proposed to use cell culture rather than PCR to assess infectiousness and to determine the duration of isolation [31].

These findings indicate that restricting contact of persons at risk with those who show, or very recently showed, symptoms of acute respiratory disease would be effective and sufficient as a protective measure. Indiscriminately restricting the movements of persons who are not themselves at risk of severe disease, or of those who are currently asymptomatic is not required to achieve such protection.

2.6. COVID-19 can be treated effectively

A convergence of evidence indicates that early treatment of COVID-19 with existing drugs reduces hospitalisation and mortality by ~85% and 75%, respectively [32–36]. These treatment protocols include many tried and true antiviral, antiinflammatory, and anticoagulant medications, as well as monoclonal antibodies, zinc, and vitamins C and D. Two of the safest and most effective drugs for early treatment are ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Ivermectin, in particular, is generally considered so safe that it is often prescribed even in scabies, an unpleasant but harmless parasite disease of the skin that can be cured with topical treatment. It’s very strong inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro [37] can account for its observed clinical effectiveness.

The current restrictions and obstacles imposed by the WHO [38] and other authorities worldwide regarding the availability and distribution of these proven and safe drugs are scientifically and medically unjustifiable; they are simply more evidence of deliberate government malfeasance.

3. Lock-downs and children’s mental health

Kowalyshyn et al. have reviewed the literature on the effects of school closures, social distancing etc. on child mental health [39]. The authors note a very substantial increase of child suicides and suicide attempts in the year 2020. Here is the evidence. The Children’s Hospital of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, reported an almost 300% increase in youth suicide attempts between October 2020 and January 2021, compared to the same time period one year before. The city of Pima, Arizona reported a 67% increase in child suicides during the 2020 lock-down, and Boston Children’s Hospital reported a 47% increase in children hospitalized for suicide attempts and suicide ideation between July and October 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.

These harrowing findings make it clear that the supposed pandemic control measures are not only unfit for their declared purpose, but that they are doing real harm to the health and sometimes even the lives of our children. Any such measures must be stopped immediately.

References

  1. Cucinotta, D. and Vanelli, M. (2020) WHO Declares COVID-19 a Pandemic. Acta biomed91:157-160

  2. Doshi, P. (2011) The elusive definition of pandemic influenza. Bull. World Health Organ.89:532-8

  3. Anonymous, (2009) Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response: A WHO Guidance Document.

  4. Rancourt, D. (2020) All-cause mortality during COVID-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response. (Unknown journal) (preprint)

  5. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Global perspective of COVID‐19 epidemiology for a full‐cycle pandemic. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 50 (preprint)

  6. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2021) Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID‐19: An overview of systematic evaluations. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 5:e133554

  7. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bull. World Health Organ. p. BLT.20.265892

  8. Anonymous, (2020) Report sulle caratteristiche dei pazienti deceduti positivi a COVID-19 in Italia. Il presente report è basato sui dati aggiornati al 17 Marzo 2020.

  9. Pueschel, K. (2020) Forensic Pathologist: No One in Hamburg Has Died of COVID-19 Alone.

  10. Anonymous, (2020) Bevölkerung nach Altersgruppen und Geschlecht.

  11. Axfors, C. and Ioannidis, J.P. (2021) Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling populations with emphasis on the elderly: An overview. medRxiv (preprint)

  12. Bexte, K. (2020) CBC says this Manitoba hospital is OVERWHELMED by COVID—is it really? Keean Bexte investigates.

  13. Hartnett, K.P. et al. (2020) Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Emergency Department Visits — United States, January 1, 2019-May 30, 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 69:699-704

  14. Kruizinga, M.D. et al. (2021) The impact of lockdown on pediatric ED visits and hospital admissions during the COVID19 pandemic: a multicenter analysis and review of the literature. Eur. J. Pediatr. 180:2271-2279

  15. Kuitunen, I. et al. (2020) The effect of national lockdown due to COVID-19 on emergency department visits. Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med. 28:114

  16. Ojetti, V. et al. (2020) Non-COVID Diseases during the Pandemic: Where Have All Other Emergencies Gone?. Medicina 56 (preprint)

  17. Rennert-May, E. et al. (2021) The impact of COVID-19 on hospital admissions and emergency department visits: A population-based study. PLoS One 16:e0252441

  18. Salerno, M. et al. (2020) No Autopsies on COVID-19 Deaths: A Missed Opportunity and the Lockdown of Science. J. Clin. Med. 9 (preprint)

  19. Bendavid, E. et al. (2021) Assessing mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID‐19. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 51 (preprint)

  20. De Larochelambert, Q. et al. (2020) Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation. Frontiers in public health 8 (preprint)

  21. Anonymous, (2021) Incidence of coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths in the European Economic Area and the United Kingdom as of September 19, 2021, by country.

  22. Anonymous, (0) COVID-19 Government Response Tracker.

  23. Kowall, B. et al. (2021) Excess mortality due to Covid-19? A comparison of total mortality in 2020 with total mortality in 2016 to 2019 in Germany, Sweden and Spain. PLoS One16:e0255540

  24. Jefferson, T. et al. (2020) Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1—Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis. medRxiv (preprint)

  25. Rancourt, D. (2021) Do Face Masks Reduce COVID-19 Spread in Bangladesh? Are the Abaluck et al. Results Reliable?.

  26. Knibbs, L.D. et al. (2011) Room ventilation and the risk of airborne infection transmission in 3 health care settings within a large teaching hospital. American journal of infection control 39:866-72

  27. Morawska, L. and Milton, D.K. (2020) It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clin. Infect. Dis. 71:2311-2313

  28. de Man, P. et al. (2021) Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a Nursing Home Associated With Aerosol Transmission as a Result of Inadequate Ventilation. Clin. Infect. Dis. 73:170-171

  29. Cao, S. et al. (2020) Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nat. Commun. 11:5917

  30. Wölfel, R. et al. (2020) Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019. Nature 581:465-469

  31. Basile, K. et al. (2020) Cell-based culture of SARS-CoV-2 informs infectivity and safe de-isolation assessments during COVID-19. Clin. Infect. Dis. (preprint)

  32. Orient, J. et al. (2020) A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment.

  33. McCullough, P.A. et al. (2020) Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 21:517-530

  34. Procter, B.C. et al. (2021) Early Ambulatory Multidrug Therapy Reduces Hospitalization and Death in High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). International journal of innovative research in medical science 6:219-221

  35. McCullough, P.A. et al. (2021) Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Am. J. Med. 134:16-22

  36. Anonymous, (2020) Real-time database and meta analysis of 588 COVID-19 studies.

  37. Caly, L. et al. (2020) The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Antiviral Res. 178:104787

  38. Anonymous, (2021) WHO advises that ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials.

  39. Kowalyshyn, J. and Alexander, P.E. (2021) Deaths of Despair: Child suicde evidence package.




Parroting his Master’s Dogma, Halfrocentric Clone Kareem Abdul-Jabber Criticizes Lebron for Not Promoting Experimental, Useless COVID Injections that Kill/Harm People and are Shielded from Liability

/

“Smile Negro And Grin—while I put it in.” FUCK A SNAG & NEVER TRUST A COIN-OPERATED CLONE. KAREEM WOULD SELL OUT HIS PEOPLE JUST TO GET A PAT ON THE HEAD FROM HIS RACIST MASTERS. SHADOWBOX ANOTHER BLACK MAN FOR NOT ADVOCATING THE DEATH OF HIS OWN PEOPLE? MF SAMBO TRAITOR.

“KAREEM GONE.” From [HERE] NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar asked LeBron James to make his stance on the COVID-19 vaccine clear due to his influence on the African-American community.

“I don’t talk about other people and what they should do. We’re talking about individual bodies. We’re not talking about something political or racism or police brutality. I don’t think I personally should get involved in what other people do for their bodies and livelihoods … I know what I did for me and my family … But as far as speaking for everybody and their individualities and things they want to do, that’s not my job,” James said in September.

Kareem penned an article, parroting his masters about how COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted the African-American community, at least in part due to their distrust of vaccines.

This past weekend, James posted the above meme on his Instagram account, comparing COVID-19 to the flu. Apparently, Kareem’s masters Big Tech, Big Pharma, Authority [aka Uncle Brother, Crimeth Inc., Doggy] and their Dependent Media needed what they think is an influential Black spokesperson to censor Lebron, so they trotted Kareem out to do so. The usual authoritarian playbook calls for bignorant, propaghandi to attack the person’s character and never to actually discuss COVID injection facts and research in contention. That is, Kareem didn’t refute Lebron’s contention that in reality COVID is like the Flu or an overblown plandemic. Rather, Kareem just shadowboxed Lebron for his white masters. Well done, negro. This has been the pattern with any celebrity figure, white or Black who dares to criticize or remain neutral to Big Pharma’s deadly COVID injections.

Big up to BronBron for taking a risk against the vested interests. Contrary to SNigger Kareem, in reality:

All-cause mortality soared only shortly after the declaration of the COVID-19 “pandemic,” not before

Figure 1: All-cause mortality in New York city and in Texas, before and after the declaration of the COVID-19 “pandemic” by the WHO (red vertical line). A sharp yet short-lived spike occurred in New York City immediately after the declaration, whereas no such event manifested itself in Texas. Before the declaration, all-cause mortality for the winter 2019/20 had been tracking significantly lower than two years before; the higher mortality rate during that previous winter season was due to a worldwide outbreak of influenza that was not declared a pandemic. Graphics taken from Figures 8 and 10 in [4].

Rancourt has examined the correlation in time between the WHO’s declaration of the “pandemic” and all-cause mortality in various jurisdictions [4]. Immediately after the declaration, there occurred a sharp peak in all-cause mortality in some jurisdictions, but not in others; this discrepancy is illustrated in Figure 1 for New York City and Texas.

Common sense and historic precedents suggest that a deadly virus pandemic would not respect international or state borders. Furthermore, if the virus had indeed been both deadly and truly novel, the wave of deaths in New York should not have subsided within such a short time period as is apparent from Figure 1. Thus, as Rancourt convincingly argues, any peaks in mortality were most likely caused by government malfeasance, which led to consequences such as the rapid spread of the infection in senior homes. In the case of New York, this has led to the filing of criminal complaints against former governor Andrew Cuomo.

Mortality due to COVID-19 is very low except in the frail and elderly

In the vast majority of people (≥ 99.8% globally), an infection with SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is non-lethal [5–7]. It is typically a mild to moderately severe illness with a case fatality rate similar to that of influenza (see again Figure 1 for context). The relationship of COVID mortality with age is illustrated in Figure 2. Panel A very clearly shows that mortality is vanishingly small in the young and middle-aged. Moreover, even among the elderly, almost all fatal cases occur in people with co-morbidities. In Italy, the average age at the time of death was above 80 years, and only 0.8% of all fatal cases suffered from none of the 10 most common co-morbidities [8]. University of Hamburg forensic pathologist Prof. Klaus Püschel reviewed over 100 autopsies on patients at his institution whose deaths had been ascribed to COVID-19, and he concluded that not one of them had died due to COVID alone [9].

Figure 2: COVID mortality, number of cases, and infection fatality rate by age group. A: Total cases reported to the Robert Koch Institute as of July 13þ, 2021, and mortality per age group, based on 2018 census numbers [10]. B: Infection fatality rates by age in various countries. Adapted from Figure 3 in [11].

The collective findings can be summarized as follows: in otherwise healthy persons of all ages, COVID-19 poses a negligible risk of death or of severe disease with irreversible harm.

The misconception of the “pandemic” was implanted and perpetuated with inappropriate testing practices

From the very beginning, the number of COVID “cases” was artificially inflated by the inappropriate use of the PCR test. There are two key aspects to this misuse of the technique:

  • the calibration of the method is inadequate; in particular, the number of amplification cycles is excessive;

  • the application of the PCR test to healthy (“asymptomatic”) people, for example in connection with travel. This could not but generate a large number of false positive test results, which were then elevated to “cases.” [MORE]

According to FUNKTIONARY:

SNAGs - $nitch-ass Negroes Aiding Governments. 2) COINTEL-BROs. 3) Smile Negro And Grin—while I put it in. SNAGs are coin-operated piece-activist sniggering infiltraitors from the native Black American community. SNAGs are on the stroll, exacting Black life as the toll, while klandestinely on the rogue "government" payroll. Dumb-ditty dumb where the hell do these sorry-ass sellout Negroes come from? When you see them, go and give them some—or at least a piece of your mind. It's easy to heckle and hyde, but why do we seem to always let self-hating sucker-perpetrating Negroes electric slide? SNAGs are Negroes who run from the fabric, the very essence of their Afrikan heritage struggle, culture and consciousness, and run to support the psychopathological dominant minority elite European global racist-supremacist mindset and Agenda along with its narcissistic projections and population control objectives (genocide and eugenics). The more you pull at a snag, the more problems it causes—hence, you have to cut it off from the garment so it will cease causing constraint and strain on the integrity of the fabric of Afrikan consciousness and liberation. Don't just run them off, cut them off. SNAGs get dealt with! SNAG's are responsible for facilitating agents of various "government intelligence" operations in successfully accomplishing the "wet jobs" (assassinations) and downfall of some of our most cherished leaders, luminary thinkers, uncompromising revolutionaries and lovers of justice for all humanity. SNAGs come in all shapes, colors, sizes and forms within the Black American community but they all share one common thread—self-hatred. Some of the less known but high-exposure SNAGs were Alex Haley (who covertly worked his roots on Malcolm X), Ernest Withers (civil rights photographer and FBI informant), and Justice Thurgood Marshall (also snitching and informing on the Right-Reverend Martin L. King, Jr.), not to mention another "Reverend" from Memphis, TN who was involved (along with Jesse Jackson) in the orchestration of King's assassination. SNAGs have also been known to be complicit in both successful and botched assassination schemes plotted and executed by the shadowy characters within and behind the veil of the Corporate State and its wet-works black operations spy agencies. (See: COINTELPRO, FBI, CIA, Manhood, Snigger, Sigma Pi Phi, Coin-Operated, Racism White Supremacy, HO-Method, Infiltraitors, Wet Jobs & Piece-Activist) [MORE]

“Comply or Go To Jail" [the False Choice Offered in the Free Range Prison]: Liberal New Yorkers Use the NYPD to Enforce Their New Vax Papers Law to Break Up a Child's Birthday Party at a Restaurant

/

The video captured Monday shows a group of at least a dozen NYPD vaccine enforcers surround a child and his friends at a restaurant, demanding to see their vaccine passports. “If you don’t have it, you’re going to have to leave,” an officer tells the unmasked child, who proceeds to cry. When it was apparent none of them had their vaccine papers, the cops began breaking up the gathering. [MORE]

Dr Peter McCullough says COVID Injections are the ‘most dangerous biological medicinal product rollout in human history' and provides Detailed evidence of the devastating damage COVID Jabs can do

/

From [HERE] At a recent online symposium on covid science that was organized by Doctors for COVID Ethics, the most detailed evidence yet against Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccination” was presented for the world’s consideration.

This international group, which has long opposed the mass rollout of Fauci Flu shots, argued that the human immune system, provoked by the injections, could end up attacking its own tissues (autoimmune disease) when it detects the presence of synthetic spike proteins.

Untold thousands of deaths have already occurred from this, though most of them never make it into the government databases. Numerous presenters, including Dr. Peter McCullough, who has also long stood against the injections, revealed scientific evidence to support these and other claims.

McCullough, by the way, has actually come out to say that covid “vaccines” are the “most dangerous biological medicinal product rollout in human history.” He remains one of the most vocal opponents to the current agenda.

German pathologist and professor Dr. Arne Burkhardt, who has more than 40 years of experience in the field, also presented at the symposium. He conducted his own research on the tissues and organs from 15 different patients where a post-mortem had been performed.

Eight of the bodies were women and seven were men, all between the ages of 28 and 95. Each of these individuals died between seven days and six months post-injection.

What Burkhardt found is that in nearly every case, the jabs caused the individuals’ bodies to self-destruct. A specific type of immune cell called a lymphocyte was found to have invaded various parts of the body, eventually causing early death.

Burkhardt presented slides showing that lymphocytes had infiltrated the heart muscle in particular, causing systemic inflammation. The resulting lesions were small and probably overlooked, “but the destruction of just a few muscle cells may have a devastating effect,” he warned.

“If the inflammatory infiltration is found where the impulse for the contraction of the heart is given, this may lead to heart failure,” he further said.

It was also discovered that a lymphocyte invasion occurred in other vital organs such as the liver, kidneys, uterus, brain, thyroid and skin, all of which showed signs of autoimmune damage.

How much mRNA poison can the body handle before it goes kaput?

Canadian microbiologist and professor Dr. Michael Palmer summed up Burkhardt’s presentation by explaining that anyone with honest medical training will clearly see “just how devastating the effect of these vaccines can be, at least in those who die after the vaccination.”

“We also now know why the authorities were very hesitant to have autopsies performed on such victims,” Palmer added.

As to why some people are not suffering such an extreme fate post-injection, Palmer warned that the total lifetime dose of messenger RNA toxins is limited, suggesting that it varies from person to person.

Due to a lack of experimental data, it is unknown what these thresholds are. And according to Palmer, this is “one of the great scandals of these vaccines, that no proper toxicity studies have been carried out.”

We do know from animal studies that the contents of the jabs do not remain at the site of injection. They circulate throughout the entire body, combining with receptors and lining blood vessels, which in many people causes clotting and excessive bleeding.

The long-term risks of this are what will really be telling once the contents of the jabs really make their way throughout people’s bodies over the long haul. Widespread death from seemingly no specific cause is likely to occur in the coming months and years.

A Number of Medical Experts, Scientists and Published Studies Prove that Endless Boosters Destroy Immune Function and the Higher the Vax rate in a Given area, the Higher the COVID "case rate"

/

SCREEN SHOT FROM PEAK PROSPERITY VIDEO BELOW.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE 

  • The COVID shots reprogram your immune system to respond in a dysfunctional manner. Aside from increasing vulnerability to infections, this can also result in autoimmune diseases and cancer

  • A paper published in early May 2021 reported the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID jab “reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses,” causing immune depletion

  • Antigens in vaccines have been shown to induce defects in the immune system that can raise the risk of autoimmune diseases

  • Leaky or nonsterilizing vaccines can also trigger the evolution of more hazardous viruses, and the COVID jabs are among the leakiest “vaccines” ever created

  • According to health authorities, the vaccine-evading Omicron variant necessitates a third COVID injection, but this recommendation will only perpetuate mutation

From [MERCOLA] A number of medical experts, scientists and published studies now warn that the COVID shots reprogram your immune system to respond in a dysfunctional manner. Aside from increasing vulnerability to infections, this can also result in autoimmune diseases and cancer. 

Pfizer Shot Reprograms Both Arms of Your Immune System

A paper1 posted May 6, 2021, on the preprint server medRxiv reported that the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID jab "reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses," causing immune depletion. 

While they confirmed the jab "induced effective humoral and cellular immunity against several SARS-CoV-2 variants," the shot "also modulated the production of inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells upon stimulation with both specific (SARS-CoV-2) and nonspecific (viral, fungal and bacterial) stimuli."

In other words, we're looking at a horrible tradeoff. You may get some protection against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, but you're weakening your overall immune function, which opens the door wide to all sorts of other health problems, from bacterial, fungal and viral infections to cancer and autoimmunity. 

After the injection, innate immune cells had a markedly decreased response to toll-like receptors 4, 7 and 8 (TLR4, TLR7, TLR8) ligands, while cytokine responses induced by fungi were stronger. According to the authors, defects in TLR7 have previously been linked to an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in young males. 

People who were "fully vaccinated," having received two doses of the Pfizer shot, also produced significantly less interferon upon stimulation, and this can hamper the initial innate immune response against the virus. 

Repeated Vaccinations and the Risk of Autoimmunity

Pathogenic infections and cancer are but two potential outcomes of this kind of reprogramming. Previous research, for example, has linked defects in the immune system to a higher risk of autoimmune diseases. What's more, it's been shown that antigens in vaccines, specifically, can induce this kind of immune system dysfunction.2 As reported in the paper in question:3

"Repeated immunization with antigen causes systemic autoimmunity in mice otherwise not prone to spontaneous autoimmune diseases. Overstimulation of CD4+ T cells led to the development of autoantibody-inducing CD4+ T (aiCD4+ T) cell which had undergone T cell receptor (TCR) revision and was capable of inducing autoantibodies. 

The aiCD4+ T cell was induced by de novo TCR revision but not by cross-reaction, and subsequently overstimulated CD8+ T cells, driving them to become antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL). 

These CTLs could be further matured by antigen cross-presentation, after which they caused autoimmune tissue injury akin to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host's immune 'system' by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system's self-organized criticality."

Fast-forward to mid-May 2021, when a study4 in the Journal of Clinical Investigations reported that "SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines induce broad CD4+ T cell responses that recognize SARS-CoV-2 variants and HCoV-NL63." HCoV-NL63 is a human coronavirus associated with the common cold.

"Interestingly, we observed a 3-fold increase in the CD4+ T cell responses to HCoV-NL63 spike peptides after vaccination," the authors stated, adding, "Our results suggest that T cell responses elicited or enhanced by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines may be able to control SARS-CoV-2 variants and lead to cross-protection against some endemic coronaviruses."

What they did not address was that excessive CD4a+ T cell responses could also result in the development of autoantibodies and autoimmune disease. 

COVID Shots May Also Cause More Hazardous Variants

We've long known that leaky or nonsterilizing vaccines can trigger the evolution of more hazardous viruses.5,6,7,8 So far, SARS-CoV-2 variants have mutated into less dangerous versions, which is fortunate, but the risk of the COVID shots creating a "monster" still remains.

In a February 9, 2021, article,9 NPR highlighted this risk, stating that "vaccines could drive the evolution of more COVID-19 mutants." According to NPR science correspondent Richard Harris, "the virus is always mutating. And if one happens to produce a mutation that makes it less vulnerable to the vaccine, that virus could simply multiply in a vaccinated individual."

The Omicron variant appears to have significant resistance against antibodies produced by the original COVID shots, which is why Omicron infection is being primarily reported in those who have received the injections. 

In 2018, Quanta Magazine detailed how vaccines drive the evolution of pathogens.10 I've referenced that article on previous occasions, as have many others. In response, the editor of Quanta Magazine added a "disclaimer" dated December 6, 2021, to the article, stating:

"This article from 2018 discusses how leaky vaccines — vaccines that do not reduce viral replication or transmission to others — can drive the pathogens they target to evolve and become more virulent. These concerns do not apply to COVID-19 vaccines, because COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduce coronavirus replication and transmission, reducing the chance that mutations occur and variants arise ..."

That statement is clearly false, as studies have repeatedly shown the COVID shots are in fact leaky. They do not "significantly reduce" viral replication or transmission, as the editor claims. Quite the opposite. 

People who have received one or more COVID shots have been found to harbor higher viral loads than the unvaccinated, and Israel (which appears to have the best tracking and monitoring) reports that the worst COVID cases are in those who are fully vaxxed. 

December 6, 2021, Newsweek11 reported a COVID outbreak among "fully vaccinated" hospital staff in Spain. After a Christmas dinner with more than 170 fully vaxxed health care workers in attendance, nearly 70 of them tested positive for COVID. Some reported mild symptoms. Daniel Horowitz pointed out the editor's false note in a December 9, 2021, Blaze post:12

"Leaky vaccines are worse than no vaccine at all. That is the unmistakable conclusion one would derive from a May 2018 article in Quanta magazine, a top scientific publication, about the unsuccessful attempts to create vaccines for HIV, malaria, and anthrax that aren't leaky and don't run the risk of making the pathogens more dangerous. 

Yet now that we are seeing such a microbiological Frankenstein play out in real life and people like Dr. Robert Malone have been citing this article to raise red flags about the leaky COVID shots, Quanta magazine took the unprecedented step of slapping an editor's note on an article three and a half years later to get people to stop applying it to the leakiest vaccine of all time."

COVID Shots Stop Working Within a Few Months

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine, published December 9, 2021, also confirms that whatever protection you get from the Pfizer COVID shot is short in duration. As explained by the authors:13

"In December 2020, Israel began a mass vaccination campaign against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) by administering the BNT162b2 vaccine, which led to a sharp curtailing of the outbreak. 

After a period with almost no cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, a resurgent Covid-19 outbreak began in mid-June 2021. Possible reasons for the resurgence were reduced vaccine effectiveness against the delta (B.1.617.2) variant and waning immunity. 

We used data on confirmed infection and severe disease collected from an Israeli national database for the period of July 11 to 31, 2021, for all Israeli residents who had been fully vaccinated before June 2021. 

We used a Poisson regression model to compare rates of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe Covid-19 among persons vaccinated during different time periods, with stratification according to age group and with adjustment for possible confounding factors.

Among persons 60 years of age or older, the rate of infection in the July 11-31 period was higher among persons who became fully vaccinated in January 2021 (when they were first eligible) than among those fully vaccinated 2 months later, in March (rate ratio, 1.6 ...) 

Among persons 40 to 59 years of age, the rate ratio for infection among those fully vaccinated in February (when they were first eligible), as compared with 2 months later, in April, was 1.7 ... Among persons 16 to 39 years of age, the rate ratio for infection among those fully vaccinated in March (when they were first eligible), as compared with 2 months later, in May, was 1.6 ...

The rate ratio for severe disease among persons fully vaccinated in the month when they were first eligible, as compared with those fully vaccinated in March, was 1.8 ... among persons 60 years of age or older and 2.2 ... among those 40 to 59 years of age ... 

These findings indicate that immunity against the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 waned in all age groups a few months after receipt of the second dose of vaccine."

Two Doses Aren't Enough 

Earlier this year, vaccine makers and health authorities said the shots were about 95% effective and if enough people got the shots, normalcy would be restored. We now know that was a false promise. The goal post was moved back with the emergence of Delta and then Omicron, for which we're now told we need a third booster. 

December 13, 2021, Reuters14 reported that British scientists have concluded "two-dose COVID-19 vaccine regimens do not induce enough neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron coronavirus variant," and that "increased infections in those previously infected or vaccinated may be likely."

'Just Deal With' Booster Shots, Fauci Says

When in mid-December 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci was asked if Americans should expect annual COVID boosters, he replied in the affirmative, saying that Americans will "just have to deal with" the prospect of getting boosters at regular intervals.15 So, in essence, Fauci wants us to accept that booster deficiency is the reason why the COVID-19 "pandemic" continues. 

Clearly, that is not the case. The real reason COVID is still an issue is because Fauci and the medical establishment have suppressed viable early treatments. If early treatment was the norm, COVID would rapidly become a distant memory. 

As predicted over a year ago, we're now on an injection treadmill with no end in sight, and every single dose carries the risk of serious side effects, up to and including permanent disability and death. The only scientifically sound way out of this failed experiment is to stop. No more boosters.

Instead, the captured U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization to novel gene transfer technologies that don't work like conventional vaccines in that they don't prevent infection and spread, thus creating an evil cycle of new vaccine-resistant variants. As demonstrated by James Lyons-Weiler (in a now broken weblink), the more we vaccinate, the higher the COVID caseload.

Weiler's graph looks very much like that in a September 30, 2021, study16 in the European Journal of Epidemiology, which found that the higher the vaccination rate in a given area, the higher the COVID case rate. 

Dr. Chris Martenson discusses this finding in the video below. As noted by Martenson, "the line goes the wrong way," meaning the more heavily "vaccinated" a population is, the worse things get.

As predicted over a year ago, we're now on an injection treadmill with no end in sight, and every single dose carries the risk of serious side effects, up to and including permanent disability and death. The only scientifically sound way out of this failed experiment is to stop. No more boosters. 

Fortunately, it seems most Americans are starting to catch on, and so far, the fearmongering around Omicron has not resulted in a rush for boosters.17 According to an Axios/Ipsos poll conducted December 10 through December 13, 2021, 67% of unvaccinated respondents said Omicron makes no difference in their decision of whether to get vaccinated; 19% said it makes them more likely while 11% said it makes them less likely to get the shot.

Among respondents who already had received one or two doses, 59% said Omicron makes no difference in their decision to get a third dose; 36% said it makes them more likely and 5% said it makes them less likely to get it. 

Considering the shots have been shown to deregulate your immune function, it would be wise to "just say no" to further boosters. Should you develop symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, remember there are safe and effective early treatment protocols, including the I-MASK+18 and I-MATH+,19 protocols, which are available for download on the COVID Critical Care website in multiple languages. Other protocols that have great success are:

This is a load of information to review, especially if you are fatigued and sick with COVID or have a family member struggling. After reviewing all of these protocols, I believe the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance's protocol is among the easiest to follow. Below is a summary of that protocol, with minor amendments.

Sources and References

On COVID Injections: why they cannot work, and irrefutable evidence of their causative role in deaths after vaccination - Sucharit Bhakdi, MD and Arne Burkhardt, MD

/

Sucharit Bhakdi, MD and Arne Burkhardt, MD

From {HERE] and [PDF] This text is a written summary of Dr. Bhakdi’s and Dr. Burkhardt’s presentations at the Doctors for COVID Ethics symposium that was live-streamed by UKColumn on December 10th, 2021. The two presentations can be viewed at the very beginning of the video recording of the symposium.

The authors

Dr. Bhakdi has spent his life practicing, teaching and researching medical microbiology and infectious diseases. He chaired the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at the Johannes Gutenberg Unversity of Mainz, Germany, from 1990 until his retirement in 2012. He has published over 300 research articles in the fields of immunology, bacteriology, virology and parasitology, and served from 1990 to 2012 as Editor-in-Chief of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, one of the first scientific journals of this field that was founded by Robert Koch in 1887.

Dr. Arne Burkhardt is a pathologist who has taught at the Universities of Hamburg, Berne and Tübingen. He was invited for visiting professorships/study visits in Japan (Nihon University), the United States (Brookhaven National Institute), Korea, Sweden, Malaysia and Turkey. He headed the Institute of Pathology in Reutlingen for 18 years. Subsquently, he worked as an independent practicing pathologist with consulting contracts with laboratories in the US. Burkhardt has published more than 150 scientific articles in German and international scientific journals as well as contributions to handbooks in German, English and Japanese. Over many years he has audited and certified institutes of pathology in Germany.

The evidence

We herewith present scientific evidence that calls for an immediate stop of the use of gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. We first lay out why the agents cannot protect against viral infection. While no positive effects can be expected, we show that the vaccines can trigger self-destructive processes that lead to debilitating illness and death.

Why the vaccines cannot protect against infection

A fundamental mistake underlying the development of the COVID-19 vaccines was to neglect the functional distinction between the two major categories of antibodies which the body produces in order to protect itself from pathogenic microbes.

The first category (secretory IgA) is produced by immune cells (lymphocytes) which are located directly underneath the mucous membranes that line the respiratory and intestinal tract. The antibodies produced by these lymphocytes are secreted through and to the surface of the mucous membranes. These antibodies are thus on site to meet air-borne viruses, and they may be able to prevent viral binding and infection of the cells.

The second category of antibodies (IgG and circulating IgA) occur in the bloodstream. These antibodies protect the internal organs of the body from infectious agents that try to spread via the bloodstream.

Vaccines that are injected into the muscle – i.e., the interior of the body – will only induce IgG and circulating IgA, not secretory IgA. Such antibodies cannot and will not effectively protect the mucous membranes from infection by SARS-CoV-2. Thus, the currently observed “breakthrough infections” among vaccinated individuals merely confirm the fundamental design flaws of the vaccines. Measurements of antibodies in the blood can never yield any information on the true status of immunity against infection of the respiratory tract.

The inability of vaccine-induced antibodies to prevent coronavirus infections has been reported in recent scientific publications.

The vaccines can trigger self-destruction

A natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus) will in most individuals remain localized to the respiratory tract. In contrast, the vaccines cause cells deep inside our body to express the viral spike protein, which they were never meant to do by nature. Any cell which expresses this foreign antigen will come under attack by the immune system, which will involve both IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes. This may occur in any organ. We are seeing now that the heart is affected in many young people, leading to myocarditis or even sudden cardiac arrest and death. How and why such tragedies might causally be linked to vaccination has remained a matter of conjecture because scientific evidence has been lacking. This situation has now been rectified.

Histopathologic studies: the patients

Histopathologic analyses have been performed on the organs of 15 persons who died after vaccination. The age, gender, vaccination record, and time of death after injection of each patient are listed in the table on the next page. The following points are of utmost importance:

  • Prior to death, only 4 of the 15 patients had been treated in the ICU for more than 2 days. The majority were never hospitalized and died at home (5), on the street (1), at work (1), in the car (1), or in home-care facilities (1). Therefore, in most cases, therapeutic intervention is unlikely to have significantly influenced the post-mortem findings.

  • Not a single death was brought into any possible association with the vaccination by the coroner or the public prosecutor; this association was only established by our autopsy findings.

  • The initially performed conventional post-mortems also uncovered no obvious hints to a possible role of vaccination, since the macroscopic appearance of the organs was overall unremarkable. In most cases, “rhythmogenic heart failure” was postulated as the cause of death.

But our subsequent histopathological analyses then brought about a complete turnaround. A summary of the fundamental findings follows.

Dr. Thomas Binder: 'The alleged pandemic is mainly an unreal PCR testing pandemic, but the totalitarian measures it has spawned are real: they threaten our freedom, our livelihoods and even our lives'

/

From [HERE] and [HERE] Dr. Thomas Binder, a Swiss cardiologist and member of D4CE, has written a strong and accessible piece debunking the prevailing corona narrative for the general public. 

Thomas’ article is available in full from his website.

Thomas has documented three events which presaged the current corona fake pandemic:

Thomas also counters the “top 10” myths about the prevailing corona narrative with the following arguments:

  1. There is no epidemic of COVID-19 in any country – in most countries, there has been no excess mortality.

  2. It is wrong to test symptomatic people for only one of all respiratory viruses, and it is even more wrong to test asymptomatic people.

  3. The Corman-Drosten PCR protocol, which was hastily developed and prematurely adopted by the WHO, is technically flawed and not fit for the purpose of diagnosing an infection with the virus.

  4. Asymptomatic transmission of respiratory viruses is not epidemiologically relevant.

  5. Effective prevention measures and treatments for COVID-19 do exist.

  6. SARS-CoV-2 mutate slowly but inexorably. Therefore, even the most effective vaccines will always lag behind the new variants.

  7. SARS-CoV-2 is becoming more and more contagious indeed, but less and less dangerous, following the laws of evolution.

  8. SARS-CoV-2 does not occur perennially but seasonally from late fall to early spring.

  9. The basic and cross-immunity protect 80-90% of the population from contracting the seasonal beta corona and influenza viruses, which also applies to SARS-CoV-2.

  10. It is not possible to stop the alleged pandemic of the alleged killer virus through vaccination, since the vaccines, aside from causing grave disease, have also proven ineffective.

At the end of the article, Thomas supports his conclusions using real-time ICU occupancy data from Zurich ETH, as shown in the featured picture. The near-real-time monitoring of intensive care occupancy by ETH Zurich, dated November 26th, 2021, exposes the fundamental fraudulence of the prevailing corona narrative. The graph shows that each of the alleged spikes of COVID-19 cases is always mirrored by a decline in non-COVID cases, indicating misdiagnosis of other respiratory infections as COVID.

Nurse Tells Louisiana 'Legistraitors:' “We've Had More Children Die from the Vax than from COVID Itself.” “Most Doctors Don’t Know What VAERS is, So the Number of Vax Deaths is Not Properly Reported"

/

From [HERE] Collette Martin, a practicing nurse of seventeen years, spoke at a hearing before the  Louisiana House of Representatives Health & Welfare Committee earlier this month about her experience in the hospital system during the COVID pandemic.

Collette says she and her colleagues have witnessed “terrifying” reactions to the COVID shots, but their concerns about the vaccines are being ignored and dismissed.

Collete went on to say that vaccine-injury report databases like VAERS are so little used that most doctors and nurses don’t even know that it exists, let alone how to file a report.

“The Majority of our nurses, nurse managers, and some doctors do not even know what VAERS is. I’ve spoken to our chief medicine managers and other nurses on why we’re not reporting to VAERS, and the most common response is: ‘What is VAERS?‘.”

As if this were not bad enough already, she then said that none of the hospitals are reporting any data, meaning that even if someone was investigating, there would be no data to investigate.

“This is not just where I work. I know many nurses, friends and other local hospitals in Southeast Louisiana that say the same thing.”

However, what she says about the potential long-term effects of the jabs is shocking.

“We are not just seeing severe acute [short term] reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.

We are potentially sacrificing our children for fear of maybe dying, getting sick of a virus, a virus with a 99% survival rate.”

Collete concludes by saying that these vaccine side-effects are being covered up as being caused by the new variant.

“As of now, we have more children that died from the COVID vaccine than COVID itself. And then for the Health Department to come out and say the new variant has all the side effects of the vaccine reactions we’re currently seeing now.

It’s maddening, and I don’t understand why more people don’t see it. I think they do, but they fear speaking out and, even worse, being fired.”

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Means Total Immunity for Any Injury Caused by the Vax. Which is Why It is Sought for the Kid Vax and Why "Variants" are Necessary (to keep the Emergency going)

/

STORY AT-A-GLANCE 

  • The reason our children are being targeted by COVID mandates is because vaccine makers want to get the shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule

  • Once a vaccine is added to the childhood schedule, the vaccine maker is shielded from financial liability for injuries, unless the manufacturer knows about vaccine safety issues and withholds that information

  • Products must satisfy four criteria in order to get emergency use authorization: There must be an emergency; a vaccine must be at least 30% to 50% effective; the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product; and there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). Unless all four criteria are met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained

  • According to a U.S. federal court decision, the Pfizer shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are not interchangeable

  • Comirnaty is not fully approved and licensed. It’s only “ready for approval.” Comirnaty is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it's not licensed to be given to anyone, and it's not yet available in the United States. They’re waiting for it to be added to the childhood vaccination schedule, to get the liability shield

From [MERCOLA] In this interview, Alix Mayer explains why our children are being so aggressively targeted for the COVID-19 injection even though they’re not at risk of serious SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clarifies the status of Comirnaty. [MORE]

The COVID Jab Tragedy

While many vaccines have a questionable safety profile, especially when combined, data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) suggest there’s never been a vaccine as dangerous as the experimental mRNA gene transfer injections for COVID. 

What’s more, while lack of transparency and accountability has been a chronic problem within the vaccine industry, the obvious hazards associated with vaccines are really being highlighted by the COVID jabs. 

Many now know of someone who has been injured by the COVID jab, and most were injured so shortly after the shot that it’s hard to deny a correlation. The staggering number of injuries reported among adults who have received the COVID shot in turn highlights the insanity of rolling it out to young children. 

According to Mayer, the reason they’re trying to mandate the COVID shot for children is to evade liability for injuries, because once a vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, vaccine makers have immunity against lawsuits for injuries. 

Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability

The COVID shots currently have legal immunity against liability because they’re still under emergency use authorization (EUA). If you think BioNTech’s Comirnaty has been fully licensed, you’d be mistaken. Mayer explains:

“I put together a slide deck about Emergency Use Authorization (which you can see in the video interview above) because there is so much confusion over this and what's really going on. Once you understand the genesis of EUA and the standards they have to meet in order to keep these products on the market, then you understand the behaviors [we’re now seeing].

They’re falling all over themselves to protect the EUAs for these products and also introduce other very confusing kinds of approval to get away with stuff. So, let me just start to clarify it right now. 

This presentation is all about these three strangleholds that the vaccine makers and our government are never going to let go of ... These are the things they're guarding with their lives. 

First of all, they need to guard the emergency ... so they cannot have any early treatments. Those cannot exist. They're also going for full liability protection, and children will be used as pawns to get them full liability protection.

Vaccine makers love EUA products because they have this huge liability shield. If you're injured by an EUA vaccine, you can't sue the manufacturer, you can't sue the person who gave it to you, you can't sue the institution where you got the shot. 

You have to go through something called the CICP, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, where they'll only cover unpaid medical expenses, and probably only for pharmaceuticals and lost wages.

Now, if you're vaccine injured, let me tell you right now, you are not going to be using pharmaceuticals because they do not work for vaccine injury. They will make you sicker. You'll be on two dozen pharmaceuticals before you know it and you're going to be sick from those. They do not work. The only thing that's going to get you better if you're vaccine injured is natural treatments ...

That's the kind of treatment you're going to need, and that's not even covered, even if you were to get compensation. Everybody I know with chronic illness, whether it's a child or an adult who has chronic fatigue syndrome, vaccine injury, Lyme disease, they're paying $50,000 out of pocket per year. 

If you can't work and you have to pay for your treatment out of pocket, I don't know how you ever get by. People suffer like crazy, they lose homes, they go into bankruptcy.”

Since its inception, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which pays for injuries caused by vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, has paid out about one-third of claims. It’s a long, arduous process that oftentimes takes years and in the end rarely provides adequate compensation.

“If you do end up getting compensation ... they don't pay it out in one lump sum, they pay it out year by year, and they pretty much hope that whoever is injured is actually going to die of their injuries before they get compensated. 

That's been said to me a bunch of times by people who've been through this horrible process. Now, the CICP has only compensated 3% of claims. And so far, there have been no approvals for [compensation] for COVID shot injuries,” Mayer says. [Editor’s note: The first COVID case was recently determined “eligible” for compensation, but the case has not yet been adjudicated.1]

Stages of Liability: EUA

In her slide show, Mayer reviews each of the stages of product liability, and whether the mRNA shots can be mandated. As mentioned, vaccine makers have no liability as long as their product is under EUA, as the product is investigational.

“Investigational is a synonym for experimental,” Mayer says. “And the word experimental ties it directly into the Nuremberg Code, which says that we cannot be experimented on [without consent]. We always have the right to accept or refuse a medical treatment.

[The Nuremberg Code] is not a law, but it's a code under which the whole world is supposed to be operating by. And it is actually codified into some local and federal laws as well ... So, what everybody needs to know is that coercion and duress are considered de facto mandates and illegal. De facto means that it's basically the same as an outright mandate. 

It's illegal medical segregation, medical apartheid [because that is a form of coercion or duress.] So, if you go to a restaurant and they demand your vaccine passport, only let you eat outside, and they might not let you use the bathroom, that's medical segregation. 

That is illegal and I do not support businesses that do that and you shouldn't either. Any access privileges that are different between the vaccinated and unvaccinated are illegal, and any visual indication of vaccine status like a sticker or a bracelet ... that's also illegal because that creates segregation and medical apartheid, [since they are all forms of coercion or duress.]” 

Importantly, mass violation of the law does not make something legal. 

“If we all drove 100 miles an hour on Interstate 80, would we watch the speed limit signs suddenly changed to 100 miles per hour? No, it's not going to happen. Mass violation of the law has never made anything legal. And just because schools and businesses and our government are mandating these shots, it doesn't make it legal. It's all illegal ...

Now, they know full well that it's illegal to mandate these [COVID shots]. President Biden knows it's illegal. But what they're counting on is that the court cases overturning their illegal mandates will take a while, and in that interim, people are going to be scared enough to get the shots. And unfortunately, it's worked.”

Stages of Liability: Full Licensure and Childhood Scheduling

The next stage is full licensure (FDA approval). Once a product is fully licensed, the company becomes liable for injuries. At that point, the product can be legally mandated. Of course, knowing how dangerous the COVID shots are, no manufacturer wants to be financially liable for injuries. They’d be sued out of business.

This is the holy grail if you're a manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put on the market until you get it on the children's schedule. ~ Alix Mayer

To get immunity against liability again, the vaccine manufacturers need to get their product onto the childhood vaccination schedule. This will also allow government to mandate the shots. As noted by Mayer:

“This is the holy grail if you're a vaccine manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put it on the market until you get it on the children's schedule.”

DOJ Redefines Medical ‘Consequence’

In Doe v. Rumsfeld,2 the court held that service members could refuse an EUA product without punitive consequences such as dishonorable discharge or other punishments. Therefore, there were no consequences to refusing an EUA product, other than the natural consequence of possibly getting the disease. 

However, in July 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice attempted to redefine the term “consequences” just for the COVID shot, to suggest that punitive consequences, like job loss or being separated from your working or learning location, are legal when a person refuses an EUA vaccine. 

“But this type of consequence, a punitive consequence, has never been adjudicated,” Mayer says. “That's not in any law. This is just an opinion from the DOJ. And it absolutely means nothing, except it came from our DOJ, so people give it a lot of authority. 

They also stated twice — and this is so hard to understand because it's just beyond reason — that the right to accept or refuse an EUA product is 'purely informational.' 

Literally, you can read that you could die by taking it, but it's purely informational. You cannot act on it. That's what the DOJ says. Again, it's not adjudicated, so it doesn't mean anything. It's an opinion. It holds no legal weight at all. So, as we said before, these mandates are starting to be overturned.”

Four Standards for EUA

There are four standards that must be fulfilled for an EUA. If any of these criteria are not met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained. First, the secretary of Health and Human Services has to declare and maintain a state of emergency. If the emergency were to go away, all EUA products would have to come off the market. And that doesn't just mean vaccines. It also includes the PCR tests and even surgical masks. 

The second standard is evidence of effectiveness. Historically, vaccines had to show a 70% or greater effectiveness, as measured by a fourfold increase in antibody levels, in order to qualify. For an EUA vaccine, the efficacy threshold is only 30% to 50%. In another departure from prior vaccine approvals, the COVID vaccine clinical trials relied on the RT-PCR test, not antibodies, to demonstrate effectiveness in the small “challenge phase” of the trials.

Now, you probably heard that the Pfizer shot was 95% effective when it first rolled out, but that was relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction. Confounding these two parameters is a common strategy used to make a product sound far better than it actually is. The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s shot was just 0.84%.3

For example, if a study divided people into two groups of 1,000 and two people in the group who didn’t get a fictional vaccine got infected, while only one in the vaccinated group got infected, the relative risk reduction would be reported as 100%. In terms of absolute risk reduction, the fictional vaccine only prevented 1 in 1,000 from getting the infection — a very poor absolute risk reduction.

The take-home message here is that even though the minimal threshold for effectiveness is ludicrously low, in terms of absolute risk reduction, these shots still don’t measure up. Within six months, even the relative risk reduction bottoms out at zero. What’s more, there’s evidence that the clinical trials were manipulated as well. 

“I remember an analysis very early in lockdowns [that showed] if you added back all the probable cases of COVID to the clinical trial [data], the effectiveness went from 90% to between 19% and 29%,”4 Mayer says.

The third standard is that the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In the case of COVID shots, there’s overwhelming evidence showing they do more harm than good. 

The fourth and last standard that must be met is there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). “This is why hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were quashed,” Mayer says. This is also another reason Comirnaty is not treated as a fully approved product in the U.S., because if it were, then all the other COVID shots that are under EUA would have to be removed from the market.

“This is a four-legged stool,” Mayer says. “If any one of these legs goes away, you have to take your EUA products off the market ... by law. I put [state of] emergency and [treatment] alternatives in red, because those are two of the things that they have a stranglehold on; those are things they are guarding like crazy. 

This means that every variant that comes out, they have to make it sound super scary to keep the emergency going. So, the variants serve a purpose. You have to think about these variants in the context of this crime, where they have to keep the emergency going to keep their products on the market. 

You would think this emergency would stop maybe when we get to herd immunity, maybe if we get 90% vaccination uptake, maybe COVID is just going to go away, like smallpox did in the early 1900s [even though] only 5% of people were vaccinated. [But it won’t] go away [until] the shots get full approval and the manufacturers get a full liability shield.”

Comirnaty’s Quasi Approval

With regard to Comirnaty, is it or is it not fully approved and licensed? The answer is more complex than a simple yes or no. Mayer explains:

“Comirnaty’s quasi approval is just for BioNTech. It doesn't have to do with Pfizer, and this is why I'm doing this presentation because I'm going to explain what’s going on with that. 

This is the race to get liability protection. Remember, that's the other stranglehold that they want. They really want to get this liability protection. Once the COVID shots are fully approved, the manufacturer has full liability. 

There's all this confusion about Comirnaty. Was it fully approved? Is it on the market? Is it interchangeable with the Pfizer shot? And does it make the COVID shot mandate legal? It's all the same answer. No, no, no, no. 

The FDA issued an intentionally confusing biological license application approval for Comirnaty. It was an unprecedented approval to both license the Comirnaty shot, saying it's ‘interchangeable’ with the Pfizer shot. But they also said it's ‘legally distinct.’ 

In that same approval, they retain the vaccine’s liability shield by designating it EUA as well. They want it to be fully approved, but they want the liability protection, so they did this BS dual approval.

So, [Comirnaty] is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it's not licensed to be given to anyone, and it's not available in the United States. It's available in the U.K., New Zealand and other places, but it is not available in the United States because they're really scared of liability. 

Now, are you ready for this one? The BLA actually states that Comirnaty is only ‘ready for approval.’5 It doesn’t say it's approved anywhere in the document. And they buried this language in a pediatric section to confuse people even more. 

Here's what they said; ‘We're deferring submission of your pediatric studies for ages younger than 16. For this application, because this product is ready for approval for use in individuals 16 years of age and older, as pediatric studies for younger ages have not been completed.’

Why did they do this? Sixteen is a very important number. You would think the age break would be 18. That's a very typical age break for everything else that we do in this country. Why 16? 

The reason they did 16 is because 16- and 17-year-olds are still on the children's vaccination schedule. And then the manufacturer gets full liability protection. That's why this is ready to be approved for 16 and up, not 18 and up.”

Comirnaty Is Not Fully Licensed

This confusion is clearly intentional. On the one hand, the FDA claims Comirnaty is interchangeable with the Pfizer shot, yet it's also legally distinct. Courts have had to weigh in on the matter, and a federal judge recently rejected the DoD claim that the two shots are interchangeable. They're not interchangeable. That means Comirnaty vaccine is still EUA. It doesn't have full approval and it's not on the market. 

“Military members involved in lawsuits are challenging the military's COVID vaccine mandate. They filed an amended complaint seeking a new injunction after the judge last month rejected the assertion that the Pfizer COVID shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are interchangeable. So, we're still hammering on this legally, but a court has ruled that they're not interchangeable. 

[Editor’s note: This information is accurate at the time of the interview, but legal challenges are ongoing and courts may issue new rulings. December 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court announced6 it has slated January 7, 2022, to hear arguments challenging Biden’s vaccine and testing mandates.]

So, how do we know that Comirnaty is not being treated as fully approved? First, the approval states you have the right to accept or refuse the product. That means it's an EUA. Second, it’s not available in the U.S. because Comirnaty doesn't have liability protection. Third, if it were available, it's an alternative [treatment] and all other EUA shots would have to come off the market. 

No. 4, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) would have to recommend it for ages 16 to 18 and the CDC would have added it to the children's recommended schedule. That's how we know it's not fully approved and on the market. 

Here is the label for Comirnaty. It says it's emergency use authorization. It doesn't say it's fully approved, because it's not. But look at the safety information they are recognizing: Myocarditis and pericarditis have occurred in some people who've received the vaccine, more commonly in males under 40 years of age than among females and older males. 

So, this is saying that young men are getting heart inflammation. And what we know from all the anecdotal reports is 300 athletes have died or collapsed on the field, and children in schools have died of heart attacks. That's what's going on here. 

And the reason they have to declare this is because they know it. They know it's happening. And the only way they can be sued is if they know there's a problem with their vaccine and they don't declare it. So, they declare it here, in very mild language as if it's not that big of a deal, but it's a very big deal. Young people are dying [from the shots] who have a 99.9973% chance of recovering from COVID ...

The holy grail is to get the shot on the CDC recommended schedule for children, because then it gets full liability protection according to the 1986 Act. This is why they're going after our children when they have a 99.9973% recovery rate ...

Every medical intervention is a risk benefit equation, and it doesn't calculate for kids at all. They should never be getting COVID shots. The shots don't prevent transmission. They don't prevent cases. They don't prevent hospitalization or death.” 

How You Can Help

Children’s Health Defense has sued the FDA over the approval of Comirnaty, alleging that this is a “bait and switch” to convince people they are receiving a licensed vaccine, when in fact they are getting an EUA vaccine that cannot be lawfully mandated. Unfortunately, these kinds of legal cases can take a long time, and children are being needlessly harmed while we wait for legal clarification. 

They also have a couple dozen other legal cases underway. If you want to help, please sign up to become a member on childrenshealthdefense.org. It’s only $10 for a lifetime membership.

“That really helps us with standing in our legal cases, because the more people we represent, the stronger our cases are,” Mayer says. If you're in California, you can join the local chapter at ca.childrenshealthdefense.org. You can also help by purchasing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.” 

Sources and References

Report from an Alliance of Doctors and Nurses says Miscarriages and other Reproductive Abnormalities Skyrocketed Right after Covid Injections Began

/

 From [HERE] Ever since around March of this year, in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics have seen a massive surge in miscarriages and other serious problems, all apparently stemming from Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines.”

American entrepreneur Steve Kirsch says an “informant” told him that rates of miscarriage have basically doubled ever since the Operation Warp Speed injections were unleashed by Donald “father of the vaccine” Trump.

A Ph.D. was brought into the clinic where the informant reportedly works, her job being to look at “every possible variable” that might have impacted this rapid spike – all possible variables except for one, it turns out.

The Operation Warp Speed jabs were completely excluded from the investigation, which led the Ph.D. to claim that “nothing was common” to all of these women. She basically concluded that the phenomenon is a “fluke” without explanation.

There is a big elephant in the room, though, and that is the vaccines. The IVF clinic problems really ramped up right at the same time that the shots started getting pushed by fake “president” Joe Biden.

A 42-page report produced by the Health Independence Alliance explains that due to the vaccine, the miscarriage rate jumped from 28 percent to 40 percent, a 43 percent increase.

The report also contains detailed stories about disabilities, deaths and a wide range of other adverse events clearly stemming from the injections. The report states:

We are very concerned about the comparatively large increase in adverse events due to the COVID-19 vaccinations as compared to other vaccinations, including miscarriages, deaths, permanent bodily injury, and a host of neurological and vascular issues. We are even more concerned that these deaths and injuries are going unnoticed and unacknowledged, up to the point that most medical professionals, medical associations, and even the victims, are reluctant to attribute the injury to the vaccine. As a result, these adverse events are dismissed as “rare”, “unrelated to the vaccine”, or worse still, as collateral damage “for the greater good”. Since these vaccines have now begun to be used in the case of young children, we see this as the most urgent and dangerous issue of the present time.

In this report, you will find a sample of stories by no means exhaustive, collected from the public domain, from comments made by Utahns (to the best of our knowledge) about adverse events. We have also included verified but redacted data from a fertility clinic in Utah, which shows a sharp uptick in miscarriages in the last year. Just from this sample, an open-minded individual can see that the vaccine is not safe.

Since the CDC admits that the vaccine does not fully prevent transmission, the decision to take it becomes a fully private decision which does not automatically result in a guaranteed public benefit. In light of the fact that the vaccine is being made a condition of participation in society, we, as a group of medical professionals, strongly protest this practice, and present this report as potential legal evidence. We declare that making the vaccine a direct or indirect requirement for going “back to normal” amounts to a highly unethical, illegal and oppressive practice of requiring the people to participate in medical Russian Roulette as a condition for socio-economic life. We also see this as a slippery slope, since it would be the natural next step to strongly require other vaccines, cancer treatments, and specific medical procedures in order to live in society, leading to a system of medical apartheid under the apparently benign guise of safety.” [MORE]

“Conclusion: The vaccines should be immediately stopped,” Kirsch writes about the report’s findings.

IVF workers are now spotting “unknown contaminants” in embryo wells

From March through May, the miscarriage rate actually jumped by over 50 percent. Clinic workers say they have never seen anything like this before, and it all occurred right after the jabs were released.

Keep in mind that IVF clinics do not track anyone’s vaccination status. It is their perspective that the jabs are completely “safe and effective,” so they are not even a consideration when it comes to tracking changes in reproductive patterns.

Even so, there were some very abrupt changes that occurred immediately as millions of Americans were rolling up their sleeves in order to “Build Back Better” (6uild 6ack 6etter), as Biden’s post-plandemic agenda is called.

“One woman had very reliably donated 30 or more eggs each time she came in which yielded 5 to 8 embryos,” Kirsch writes about one specific case. “In May, she got her second shot of the vaccine and then came in to donate a couple of weeks later.”

“The clinic was shocked: All of the embryos had all arrested when they checked them on day 5. None of them reached the stage where the trophectoderm forms. I’m told this sort of thing is exactly what you’d expect from the vaccine.”

There are also “unknown contaminants” reportedly being spotted in the wells with the embryos. The presence of these contaminants really started ramping up around August, Kirsch reports.

Despite all this, IVF clinics are not reporting these problems publicly. Instead, internal whistleblowers are having to come forward to spill the beans because their superiors and the companies that employ them apparently want to keep the truth under wraps.

“What kind of medical practitioners would allow anyone to use an IVF clinic with no safety data on the gene altering injections,” asked one reader at Kirsch’s Substack. “Surely this is malpractice.”

“This just happened to me and my wife last week,” wrote another.

“Had 12 good embryos at day 3 – everything looked great. Then development stopped. At day 5, none had progressed to a satisfactory point. We’re both young, healthy, etc. I’m a dirty unvaxxed. She had 2 shots of Pfizer this spring.”

Lancet Science Letter Infers: A Plandemic of the Vaccinated Means a Never Ending Subscription to Injections b/c the Injection Makes People More Prone to Negative Health Outcomes, More Prone to COVID

/

From [HERE] and [HERE] Since the beginning of the plandemic, the world was told that getting “vaccinated” with an Operation Warp Speed injection would “cure” the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19). Nearly two years have passed, however, and the exact opposite is proving to be true.

A new letter from researcher Günter Kampf that was published in The Lancet blows some major holes in the mainstream injection narrative, one of the biggest being that Fauci Flu shots are not stopping the spread as claimed.

In fact, there appears to be greater spread of illness and death among those who took the shots in obedience to government guidelines compared to those who left their immune systems alone to fight disease naturally.

According to Kampf, the epidemiological relevance of the fully vaccinated “is increasing,” based on the latest data. At best, the jabs are providing no protection whatsoever. At worst, they are making the people who take them more prone to a negative health outcome.

“In the UK, it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated),” Kampf writes.

“[Twelve] of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts (39%) arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases. Peak viral load did not differ by vaccination status or variant type.”

In Germany, he adds, the rate of symptomatic covid among the vaccinated is increasing. Back in July, it was around 16.9 percent among patients 60 years of age and older. As of October 27, that figure skyrocketed to 58.9 percent, “providing clear evidence of the increasing relevance of the fully vaccinated as a possible source of transmission.”

CDC: Most highly vaccinated counties are also the most diseased counties

A similar phenomenon is occurring in the United Kingdom as well. Symptomatic covid cases among the fully vaccinated are rising just as they are in Israel and elsewhere where Fauci Flu shots are being widely administered.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently announced that four of the top five counties with the highest percentage of fully vaccinated population (84.3-99.9 percent) are “high” transmission counties.

All of this would suggest that getting jabbed likely means getting sick or spreading sickness to others. And yet the official story is that the fully vaccinated are not to even be counted as a potential source of transmission.

“It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures,” Kampf says.

To continue calling the current situation a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” is simply false, Kampf warns. In reality, this is a pandemic of the vaccinated, as the plandemic would already be over had everyone chosen to remain unvaccinated.

“I don’t bend over for bullies trying to ‘stigmatize’ me,” wrote a Natural News reader about this unfair mischaracterization of the unvaccinated. “And being stigmatized in a sick society is a badge of honor while being well adjusted is the opposite.”

“The ‘vaccinated’ are the ones to avoid,” wrote another. “They are the sick. They are the disease spreaders. They have compromised immune systems. They have 251x the viral load in their nasal passages and throat. Stop cowering and go on the offense.”

This writer would further add that, yes, it is time for the unvaccinated to stand boldly and unashamed, and to equip themselves with this kind of knowledge in order to counter the constant falsehoods coming from the media and the government.

Citing No Science Authority for the Conclusion that the Unvaccinated Spread COVID More than the Vaccinated, DC Mayor Irrationally Bans the Unvaxed from Public Spaces "To Mitigate the Spread of COVID"

/

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY:   

A PROXYMORON IS ONE MORON WHO SPEAKS ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PLUPERFECT MORON OR A WHOLE GANG OF MORONS. (SEE POLITICIAN, CONGRESSMAN, MORON-MAJORITY, DELEGATE, PROZAC, OXYMORON & TV).

From [HERE] Beginning Saturday, January 15, 2022, at 6am, certain establishments will be required to verify that patrons aged 12 and older have received at least one dose of the Covid-19 vaccine,” Mayor Murial Bowser said in a Wednesday press release, adding that residents will have another month to become fully immunized.

The new mandate is set to impact a long list of businesses and indoor public spaces, among them restaurants, bars, nightclubs, entertainment venues, gyms and fitness centers. Though no clear definition was provided for “event and meeting establishments,” they, too, will be subject to the vaccine requirement. 

The order claims that the purpose is to mitigate against the spread of COVID and to ensure the continuity of business and government operations by “preventing the long absences” which occur for persons who become severely ill from COVID. However, its cites no scientific authority for its premise and provides no citations for any of its several factual assertions. For instance the order states “Nearly 100% of COVID-19 related hospitalizations in the District in the past week occurred in unvaccinated persons.” [MORE] Said assertion appears to contradict patterns in the US and abroad that tend to show the vaccinated are filling up the hospitals [MORE]] and [MORE] and [MORE]

The city will allow several different means of proving vaccination status, including an official CDC document, an “immunization record” provided by a health provider, or one of multiple verification apps, such as VaxYes or CLEAR. It remains unclear whether proof of natural immunity from a prior infection will be accepted, as the mayor’s office spoke only of vaccines.

Businesses were also provided with an example of the type of sign they should place outside their establishments to inform customers that vaccinations are required for entry. However, the city did not specify whether the signage itself is part of the new mandate.

The nation’s capital has joined a number of other localities introducing similar vaccine requirements, with Chicago, Boston and New York City also mandating the jab for various groups and certain settings. In contrast to DC’s rules, Chicago has mandated that all residents aged five and older receive the shot, while the Big Apple’s requirements have extended to private schools and those working in childcare.