The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine for people 16 years and older — without allowing public discussion or holding a formal advisory committee meeting to discuss data.
“For businesses and universities that have been thinking about putting vaccine requirements in place in order to create safer spaces for people to work and learn, I think this move from the FDA, when it comes, will actually help them to move forward with those kinds of plans,” U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy on Sunday told CNN’s Brianna Keilar.
“The FDA’s approval of this vaccine is a milestone as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, acting FDA commissioner in a press release issued Monday.
“While this and other vaccines have met the FDA’s rigorous, scientific standards for emergency use authorization, as the first FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine, the public can be very confident this vaccine meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality the FDA requires of an approved product.”
Woodcock said she believes FDA approval will instill additional confidence in people to get vaccinated.
According to The Washington Post, Pfizer’s vaccine approval was the fastest in the agency’s history, coming less than four months after Pfizer/BioNTech filed for licensing on May 7.
“It’s been remarkably fast,” said Holly Fernandez Lynch, a bioethics expert and lawyer at the University of Pennsylvania, who said careful handling of the approval was crucial to potentially persuade the “vaccine-hesitant” to receive the licensed product.
The approval of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine was based on its clinical trial of 44,000 people — half of whom got the shots, the company said. The median six-month follow-up period for safety and efficacy began after participants received their second dose, Pfizer said.
“Based on the longer-term follow-up data we submitted, today’s approval for those aged 16 and over affirms the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine at a time when it is urgently needed,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement. “I am hopeful this approval will help increase confidence in our vaccine.”
The company plans to follow the 44,000 enrollees for a total of 24 months, from the start of the trial. In order to qualify for FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) last December, Pfizer followed trial participants for a median of only two months after participants received their second dose.
Pfizer’s COVID vaccine received EUA on Dec. 11, 2020, for use in individuals 16 years and older. On May 10, the authorization was expanded to include 12- through 15-year-olds.
According to the FDA, EUAs can be used by the agency during public health emergencies to provide access to medical products that may be effective in preventing, diagnosing, or treating a disease, provided the FDA determines that the known and potential benefits of a product when used to prevent, diagnose or treat the disease, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.
Pfizer’s vaccine will remain under EUA for 12- through 15-year-olds, and for the third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals.
Critics accuse FDA of ‘unprecedented, naked power grab’
According to an article published Aug. 20 in the BMJ, transparency advocates have criticized the FDA decision not to hold a formal advisory committee meeting to discuss Pfizer’s application for full approval — an important mechanism used to scrutinize data.
But in a statement to The BMJ, the FDA said it did not believe a meeting was necessary ahead of the expected full FDA approval.
An FDA spokesperson said the agency held numerous meetings of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) related to COVID vaccines in 2020 and did not believe a meeting was needed to be related to this biologics license application for Pfizer.
According to the BMJ, companies typically apply for full approval after a longer period has elapsed so that more data are available for review.
Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who serves as a consumer representative on the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, said the decision removed an important mechanism for scrutinizing the data.
“These public meetings are imperative in building trust and confidence especially when the vaccines came to market at lightning speed under emergency use authorization,” said Witczak. Wticzak was one of 27 experts who launched a citizen’s petition demanding the FDA “slow down and get the science right” before approving COVID vaccines.
“The public deserves a transparent process, especially as the call for boosters and mandates are rapidly increasing,” Wticzak said. “These meetings offer a platform where questions can be raised, problems tackled and data scrutinized in advance of an approval.”
Witczak said it’s concerning that full approval is based on only six months’ worth of data — despite clinical trials designed for two years — and there’s no control group after Pfizer offered the product to placebo participants before the trials were completed.
“They know they can’t win this argument on the science and that’s why they had to abolish the public process and independent oversight,” said Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “They believe themselves so powerful now that they are stripping off all pretenses that this is about public health, and are baldly revealing the corruption.”
Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, told The BMJ it’s obvious the FDA has no intention of hearing anyone else’s opinion and says making decisions behind closed doors can feed vaccine hesitancy.
“It’s important to have a public discussion about what kind of data are there, and what the limitations are,” Zuckerman said. “As we think about risk versus benefit, we need to know.”Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and former FDA deputy commissioner during the Obama administration, said advisory committee meetings are more than just a way of receiving scientific input from outside experts.
“It’s also an opportunity to educate the public about the important work that the FDA has done reviewing an enormous amount of data about a product,” Sharfstein told The BMJ. “It’s a chance for questions to be asked and answered, building public confidence.”
The Story:What are the latest twists, turns, patterns, and trends in the COVID op?
The Implications:The world has slipped into a deep state of helplessness and tyranny. Can humanity extricate itself from this before it’s too late?
There are 10 current trends that have been
emerging and becoming very clear in the last few weeks of Operation Coronavirus. We are now around 1.5 years since the scamdemic was launched in the West, and even though many people have awakened to the truly diabolical nature of the agenda, there are still many others hopelessly lost in fear, confusion, hypnosis, and blind obedience to authority. The COVID op still advances worldwide. Below are 10 current trends that summarize the latest iterations of an operation that is quite probably planned to last until at least 2025 – if not longer. However, this is not about predictions. This ends when we end it. Despite the ominous advances of Operation Coronavirus, the solution is still just as present as it has always been: determined, peaceful non-compliance en masse. If we sit around, this will only get worse and worse and worse.
COVID Trends #1: Vaccine Mandates and Segregation of the Vaccinated and Unvaccinated
Vaccine mandates are being pushed in many nations and states. The pattern is that governments are mandating vaccines for people in their jurisdiction first to see if they can get away with it. This means that federal workers, state workers, city/municipal/county workers, and other public officials will get hit with vaccine mandates first by their respective governments because these governments have the most control/jurisdiction over them. The agenda, of course, is to start small and go big, moving from small vaccine mandates to society-wide and planetary-wide vaccine mandates (remember Bill Gates’ announcement in 2020 that he wanted to vax the entire world of 7 billion people?). California Governor Newsom announced a “vax or test” rule for all teachers in the state while both the New York Governor (disgraced Andrew Cuomo who is about to leave) and Mayor (Bill De Blasio) announced vaccine mandates for their respective jurisdictions. Luckily people are not taking this lying down, with a group of restaurant owners choosing to sue New York City and de Blasio over the mandate. Meanwhile, Canada is set to mandate COVID vaccines not only for all federal public employees but also for all commercial air travelers.
COVID Trends #2: Blaming the Unvaccinated
The New World Order (NWO) controllers know that to continue the scamdemic, they need to keep inventing new things to scare people, as well as to demonize those who don’t go along with the agenda. This trend addresses these 2 needs at once. By blaming the unvaccinated, they simultaneously claim that the pandemic is still ongoing while attributing the cause of its continuance to the “dirty, selfish” unvaccinated who just won’t sacrifice their bodily autonomy and medical sovereignty for the greater good. As usual, a closer inspection of these claims reveals them to be false. The original ‘pandemic’ cannot be ongoing because it never existed in the first place, being instead propped up by fraud and deceit achieved via methods such as the untrustworthy PCR technique (now abandoned by the CDC) and the bribing of doctors, clinics, and hospitals to inflate the case and death counts.
While the original ‘pandemic’ cannot be said to continue, we are faced with a grave new issue: the rise of disease due to the vaccination itself, whose symptoms conveniently mimic those of the disease. Gibraltar recently had a 2500% increase in COVID cases despite being fully vaccinated, and similar things happened in Iceland and Israel. Israel’s Director of Public Health admitted that 50% of new COVID cases were among the fully vaccinated.
Masking children is one thing, but the COVID op is ultimately about vaxxing them. Although the Big Pharma companies initially stated that their vax was not suitable for children, it hasn’t taken long to move the goalposts. Parental consent is being constantly undermined as authorities are openly encouraging children to defy their parents and sneak the vaccine behind their parent’s backs. In a recent case in Boston, the court took custody of a biotech executive’s 14-year-old child to force vaccination against the parents’ wishes. Meanwhile, Israel has introduced new COVID rules that require children aged 3 or more to produce proof of vaccination or a negative COVID test. Australia is yet again leading the COVID charge into the depths of darkness by having herded 24,000 kids in NSW into a sports arena to vaccinate them. You can read more about it here, plus the Satanic connection to the location here, and Stew Peters just reported that he spoke to an Australian ex-military officer who said 2 children died from the shots. Brad Hazzard, the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research, explicitly stated in a press conference that no parents would be allowed to enter. Can this agenda get any more sinister and diabolical?
COVID Trends #7: Forcing Mental Assessments and Psych Evaluations on Those Who Don’t Buy the Narrative
This one is a common occurrence throughout the history of tyrannies. Governments fear those who think differently and can’t be brainwashed. Declaring such people as enemies of the state or forcing them to have some kind of mental assessment or psychological evaluation is a well-used trick to get them locked up and out of the way – temporarily, if not permanently. I am sad to say that such a thing just happened (in Australia, again) when recently a man was forcibly imprisoned in a mental asylum to be assessed for the ‘crime’ of having a different opinion to the mainstream COVID narrative.
COVID Trends #8: Heartless Rules and Heartless Rule-Followers
Another trend to emerge in the making of strict, totally unreasonable, and heartless rules, combined with the deployment of heartless drones to enforce them without compassion or critical thinking. A British man was recently jailed for 6 weeks for refusing to wear a mask while in Singapore and was ultimately deported. Victoria Health, an agency of the state of Victoria Australia, recently denied a Sydney woman’s request to be with her daughter who was recovering from cancer, because it would involve crossing the state border. The Australian mask goons took things too far yet again when they caused a suspected heart attack in a man while trying to arrest him … for not wearing a mask. You can thank Victorian Premier Dan Andrews, nicknamed Dictator Dan and Kim Jong Dan for his totalitarian tendencies, for some of this. The word “compassionate” and “Dan Andrews” don’t belong in the same sentence. By the way, Andrews is so hopelessly brainwashed and out-of-touch himself that he even cluelessly confessed that he didn’t “know what half of them are protesting against” which is a staggering admission for a man who has destroyed freedom in a state of 6+ million people.
So let’s get this straight. Governments of the world are only locking us down, masking us, and vaccinating us because they care deeply about our health, right? They care so much about our health that they will literally cause heart attacks and kill us just to ensure we are safe against the deadly COVID-19, right? I see … make perfect sense.
COVID Trends #9: Inventing Scary-Sounding Variants Out of Thin Air
There’s really nothing to say about the purported delta variant other than it’s pure nonsense. It doesn’t exist, and neither do any other Greek-letter variants which are coming down the pipeline such as a potential kappa variant or omega variant. As I have covered in previous articles, you can’t have a variant of something that has never been proven to exist in the first place. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been purified or isolated, and courts around the world are hearing governments being unable to produce evidence that it does. Stories of a magical and scary delta variant are yet more desperate fearmongering to keep the narrative alive.
COVID Trends #10: Vaccine Injuries and Deaths Mount Sky High
The final trend to emphasize is the growing number of vaccine-injured and vaccine-killed. Children’s Health Defense reports that in under a year “more than 500,000 post-COVID vaccine injuries have been reported to VAERS — nearly a third of all reports accumulated over the system’s entire three-decade lifespan.” That’s just what is officially in VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). Jon Rappoport reports all the various ways that the VAERS number is way, way lower than the real number. Here are a few excerpts:
“ONE: A bombshell. Alex Berenson, former New York Times reporter, August 6: “Covid vaccine maker Moderna received 300,000 reports of side effects after vaccinations over a three-month period following the launch of its shot, according to an internal report from a company that helps Moderna manage the reports.”
“That figure is far higher than the number of side effect reports about Moderna’s vaccine publicly available in the federal system that tracks such adverse events.”
BOOM. 300,000 vaccine adverse effects NOT reported to VAERS, the federal database. Berenson: “The 300,000 figure comes from an internal update provided to employees by IQVIA, a little-known but enormous company that helps drugmakers manage clinical trials.”
“TWO: Independent researcher Virginia Stoner has issued a stunning new report on the VAERS numbers, and the effort by mainstream scientists to minimize the destructive effects of the COVID vaccines. Here are key quotes from her report:“More deaths have been reported to VAERS from the covid shots than from all other vaccines combined for the last 30 years.””
“THREE: Open letter from Doctors for COVID Ethics accusing governments and media of lying to the people:“Official sources, namely EudraVigilance (EU, EEA, Switzerland), MHRA (UK) and VAERS (USA), have now recorded more Injuries and Deaths from the ‘Covid’ vaccine roll-out than from all previous vaccines combined since records began.”
“TOTAL for EU/UK/USA – 34,052 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 5.46 million injuries reported as at 1 August 2021.”
“It is important to be aware that the official figures above (reported to the health authorities) are but a small percentage of the actual figures. Furthermore, people continue to die (and suffer injury) from the injections with every day which passes.”
“This catastrophic situation has not been reported by the mainstream media, despite the official figures above being publicly available.””
“FOUR: The well-known 2010 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. study of VAERS bluntly stated: “Adverse events from vaccines are common but underreported, with less than one percent reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”
In short, this only ends when we end it. The world all over is rapidly descending into tyranny right before our eyes. Are enough people aware and awake enough to see it? And, are enough of the aware ones courageous enough to stand up now, when it counts, to create a world of love, freedom and peace rather than allow this nightmarish reality to exist?
According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, COVID-19 “cases” have trended downward since peaking during the first and second week of January 2021. At first glance, this decline appears to be occurring in tandem with the rollout of COVID shots. However, “cases” were on the decline before a meaningful number of people had been vaccinated
COVID-19 “cases” peaked on January 8, 2021, when more than 300,000 new positive test results were recorded on a daily basis. By February 21, that had declined to a daily new case count of 55,000
COVID-19 gene modification injections were granted emergency use authorization at the end of December 2020, and by February 21, only 5.9% of American adults had been fully injected with two doses. Despite such a low injection rate, new “cases” had declined by 82%
The best explanation for a declining COVID-19 case rate appears to be natural immunity from previous infections. A study by the National Institutes of Health suggests COVID-19 prevalence was 4.8 times higher than previously thought, thanks to an undiagnosed infection
The survivability of COVID-19 outside of nursing homes is 99.74%. If you’re under the age of 40, your chance of surviving a bout of COVID-19 is 99.99%. You can’t really improve your chances of surviving beyond that, so COVID shots cannot realistically end the pandemic
According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data,1 COVID-19 “case” have trended downward since peaking during the first and second week of January 2021.
At first glance, this decline appears to be occurring in tandem with the rollout of COVID shots. January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots,2 and as of July 13, 48.3% were fully “vaccinated.”3
However, as noted in July 12, 2021, STAT News article,4 “cases” had started their downward trend before COVID shots were widely used. “Following patterns from previous pandemics, the precipitous decline in new cases of Covid-19 started well before a meaningful number of people had been vaccinated,” Robert M. Kaplan, Professor Emeritus at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, writes. He continues:
“Nearly 50 years ago, medical sociologists John and Sonja McKinlay examined5 death rates from 10 serious diseases: tuberculosis, scarlet fever, influenzae, pneumonia, diphtheria, whooping cough, measles, smallpox, typhoid, and polio. In each case, the new therapy or vaccine credited with overcoming it was introduced well after the disease was in decline.
More recently, historian Thomas McKeown noted6 that deaths from bronchitis, pneumonia, and influenza had begun rapidly falling 35 years before the introduction of new medicines that were credited with their conquest. These historical analyses are relevant to the current pandemic.”
‘Case’ Decline Preceded Widespread Implementation of Jab
As noted by Kaplan, COVID-19 “cases” peaked in early January 2021. On January 8, more than 300,000 new positive test results were recorded on a daily basis. By February 21, that had declined to a daily new case count of 55,000. COVID-19 gene modification injections were granted emergency use authorization at the end of December 2020, but by February 21, only 5.9% of American adults had been fully vaccinated with two doses.
Despite such a low vaccination rate, new “cases” had declined by 82%. Considering health authorities claim we need 70% of Americans vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity and stop the spread of this virus, this simply makes no sense. Clearly, the COVID shots had nothing to do with the decline in positive test results.
To be clear, reported cases mean positive test results, and we now know the vast majority of positive PCR tests have been, and still are, false positives. They’re not sick. They simply had a false “positive.” Right now, we’re also faced with yet another situation that complicates attempts at data analysis, and Kaplan understandably did not address any of these confounding factors.
But just so you’re aware, if you have been fully “vaccinated,” then the CDC recommends running the PCR test at a cycle threshold (CT) of 28 or lower, which dramatically lowers your chance of a false-positive result, but if you are unvaccinated, the PCR test is recommended to be run at a CT of 40 or higher, virtually guaranteeing a false positive.
This is just one way by which the CDC is manipulating data to make the COVID shots appear more effective than they are. This also allows them to falsely claim that the vast majority of new cases are among the unvaccinated.
Naturally, if unvaccinated are tested in such a way as to maximize false positives, then they’re going to make up the bulk of the so-called caseload. In reality, though, the vast majority of them aren’t sick.
Meanwhile, those who have received the jabs only count as a COVID case if they’re hospitalized and/or die with a positive test result. These widely differing testing strategies skew the data and allow for false interpretations to be made.
Natural Immunity Explains Decline in Cases
As noted by Kaplan, the most reasonable explanation for declining rates of SARS-CoV-2 appears to be natural immunity from previous infections, which vary considerably from state to state.7 He goes on to cite a study8 by the National Institutes of Health, which suggests SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was 4.8 times higher than previously thought, thanks to undiagnosed infection.
In other words, they claim that for every reported positive test result, there were likely nearly five additional people who had the infection but didn’t get a diagnosis. To analyze this data further, Kaplan calculated the natural immunity rate by dividing the new estimated number of people naturally infected by the population of any given state. He writes:9
“By mid-February 2021, an estimated 150 million people in the U.S. (30 million times five) may have had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. By April, I estimated the natural immunity rate to be above 55% in 10 states: Arizona, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.
At the other end of the continuum, I estimated the natural immunity rate to be below 35% in the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington …
By the end of 2020, new infections were already rapidly declining in nearly all of the 10 states where the majority may have had natural immunity, well before more than a minuscule percentage of Americans were fully vaccinated. In 80% of these states, the day when new cases were at their peak occurred before vaccines were available.
In contrast, the 10 states with lower rates of previous infections were much more likely to experience new upticks in Covid-19 cases in March and April … By the end of May, states with fewer new infections had significantly lower vaccination rates than states with more new infections.”
COVID Shots Cannot Eliminate COVID-19
So, SARS-CoV-2 cases were actually higher in states where natural immunity was low but vaccination rates were high. Meanwhile, in states where natural immunity due to undiagnosed exposure was high, but vaccination rates were low, the daily new caseload was also lower.
This makes sense if natural immunity is highly effective (which, historically it has always been and there’s no reason to suspect SARS-CoV-2 is any different in that regard). It also makes sense if the COVID shots aren’t really offering any significant protection against infection, which we also know is the case.
Vaccine manufacturers have already admitted these COVID shots will not provide immunity, meaning they will not prevent you from being infected. The idea behind these gene modification injections is that if/when you do get infected, you’ll hopefully experience milder symptoms, even though you’re still infectious and can spread the virus to others.
Kaplan ends his analysis by saying that COVID shots are a safer way to achieve herd immunity and that they are “the best tool available for assuring that the smoldering fire of [COVID-19] is extinguished.” I disagree, based on two major issues.
First, and perhaps most importantly, this is an untested “vaccine” and we have no idea of the short-term let alone long-term damage it will cause, as any reasonable effort at collecting this data has been actively suppressed. Secondly, the survivability of COVID-19 outside of nursing homes is 99.74%. If you’re under the age of 40, your chance of surviving a bout of COVID-19 is 99.99%.10,11,12
You can’t really improve your chances of surviving beyond that, so COVID shots cannot realistically end the pandemic. Meanwhile, the COVID shots come with an ever-growing list of potential side effects that can take years if not decades of your natural life span. The shots are particularly unnecessary for anyone with natural immunity,13 yet that’s what the CDC recommends.14
Why Push COVID Jab on Those with Natural Immunity?
In January 2021, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate, sent a public letter15 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner detailing the risks of vaccinating individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection.
He urged the FDA to require prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins to reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination, as the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus. In March 2021, Fox TV host Tucker Carlson interviewed him about these risks. In that interview, Noorchashm said:16
“I think it’s a dramatic error on part of public health officials to try to put this vaccine into a one-size-fits-all paradigm … We’re going to take this problem we have with the COVID-19 pandemic, where a half-percent of the population is susceptible to dying, and compound it by causing totally avoidable harm by vaccinating people who are already infected …
The signal is deafening, the people who are having complications or adverse events are the people who have recently or are currently or previously infected [with COVID]. I don’t think we can ignore this.”
In an email to The Defender, Noorchashm fleshed out his concerns, saying:17
“Viral antigens persist in the tissues of the naturally infected for months. When the vaccine is used too early after a natural infection, or worse during an active infection, the vaccine force activates a powerful immune response that attacks the tissues where the natural viral antigens are persisting. This, I suggest, is the cause of the high level of adverse events and, likely deaths, we are seeing in the recently infected following vaccination.”
Despite being widely ignored, Noorchashm continues to push for the implementation of prevaccine screening using PCR or rapid antigen testing to determine whether the individual has an active infection and an IgG antibody test to determine past infection.
If either test is positive, he recommends delaying vaccination for a minimum of three to six months to allow your IgG levels to wane. At that point, he recommends testing your blood IgG level and use that as a guide to decide the timing of your vaccination.
Those with Natural Immunity Have Higher Risk of Side Effects
Mere weeks after Noorchashm’s letter to the FDA, an international survey18 confirmed his concerns. After surveying 2,002 people who had received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, they found that those who had previously had COVID-19 experienced “significantly increased incidence and severity” of side effects, compared to those who did not have natural immunity.
The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were linked to a higher incidence of side effects compared to the viral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines, but tended to be milder, local reactions. Systemic reactions, such as anaphylaxis, flu-like illness, and breathlessness, were more likely to occur with the viral vector COVID-19 vaccines.
Like Noorchashm before them, the researchers called on health officials to reevaluate their vaccination recommendations for people who’ve had COVID-19:19
“People with prior COVID-19 exposure were largely excluded from the vaccine trials and, as a result, the safety and reactogenicity of the vaccines in this population have not been previously fully evaluated. For the first time, this study demonstrates a significant association between prior COVID19 infection and a significantly higher incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after vaccination for COVID-19.
Consistently, compared to the first dose of the vaccine, we found an increased incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after the second dose, when recipients had been previously exposed to viral antigen.
In view of the rapidly accumulating data demonstrating that COVID-19 survivors generally have adequate natural immunity for at least 6 months, it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the recommendation for immediate vaccination of this group.”
CDC Misrepresents Data to Push Jab on Those with Immunity
So far, the CDC has refused to change its stance on the matter. Instead, officials at the agency seem to have doubled down and actually go out of their way to misrepresent data in an effort to harass those with natural immunity to inappropriately take the jab, which is clearly clinically unnecessary.
In a report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on December 18, 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was said to have “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.20
After looking at the Pfizer trial data, Rep. Thomas Massie — a Republican Congressman for Kentucky and an award-winning scientist in his own right — discovered that’s completely wrong. In January 30, 2021, Full Measure report, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson described how Massie tried, in vain, to get the CDC to correct its error. According to Massie:21,22
“There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either …
It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says. They’re giving people the impression that this vaccine will save your life, or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or the Moderna trial.”
After multiple phone calls, CDC deputy director Dr. Anne Schuchat finally acknowledged the error and told Massie it would be fixed. “As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there’s efficacy. So, you’re correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it,” Schuchat said in the recorded call.
January 29, 2021, the CDC issued its supposed correction, but rather than fix the error, they simply rephrased the mistake in a different way. This was the “correction” they issued:
“Consistent high efficacy (≥92%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Efficacy was similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants both with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
As you can see, the “correction” still misleadingly suggests that vaccination is effective for those previously infected, even though the data showed no such thing. Children of ever-younger ages are also being pushed to get the COVID jab, even though they have the absolute lowest risk of dying from COVID-19 of any group.
Data23 from the first 12 months of the pandemic in the U.K. show just 25 people under the age of 18 died from or with COVID-19.24 In all, 251 children under 18 were admitted to intensive care between March 2020 and February 2021. The absolute risk of death from COVID-19 in children is 2 in 1 million.
Vaccine Provides Far Less Protection Than Natural Immunity
While some claim vaccine-induced immunity offers greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection than natural immunity, historical and current real-world data simply fail to support this non-common sense assertion.
As recently reported by Attkisson25,26 and David Rosenberg 7 Israeli National News,27 recent Israeli data show those who have received the COVID jab are 6.72 times more likely to get infected than people who have recovered from natural infection.
Among the 7,700 new COVID cases diagnosed so far during the current wave of infections that began in May 2021, 39% were vaccinated (about 3,000 cases), 1% (72 patients) had recovered from a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 60% were neither vaccinated nor previously infected. Israeli National News notes:28
“With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.
By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.”
Breakthrough Infections Are on the Rise
Other Israeli data also suggest the limited protection offered by the COVID shot is rapidly eroding. August 1, 2021, director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.29 Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.
Even worse, on August 5, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.30
Other areas where a clear majority of residents have been vaccinated are also seeing spikes in breakthrough cases. In Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1, 2021.31
US Outbreak Shatters ‘Pandemic of Unvaccinated’ Narrative
An investigation by the CDC32,33 also dispels the narrative that we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” An outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, resulted in 469 new COVID cases among residents who had traveled into town between July 3 and July 17, 2021.
Of these cases, 74% were fully vaccinated, as were 80% of those requiring hospitalization. Most, but not all, had the Delta variant of the virus. The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection had as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who got infected.34 This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated. According to Attkisson:35
“CDC’s newest findings on so-called ‘breakthrough’ infections in vaccinated people are mirrored by other data releases. Illinois health officials recently announced36 more than 160 fully-vaccinated people have died of Covid-19, and at least 644 been hospitalized; 10 deaths and 51 hospitalizations counted in the prior week …
In July, New Jersey reported 49 fully vaccinated residents had died of Covid; 27 in Louisiana; 80 in Massachusetts … Nationally, as of July 12, CDC said it was aware of more than 4,400 people who got Covid-19 after being fully vaccinated and had to be hospitalized; and 1,063 fully vaccinated people who died of Covid.”
It is important to note this data is over 1 month old now and it is likely that many thousands of fully “vaccinated” have now died from COVID-19.
Natural Immunity Appears Robust and Long-Lasting
An argument we’re starting to hear more of now is that even though natural immunity after recovery from infection appears to be quite good, “we don’t know how long it’ll last.” This is rather disingenuous, seeing how natural immunity is typically lifelong, and studies have shown natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is at a bare minimum longer-lasting than vaccine-induced immunity.
Here’s a sampling of scholarly publications that have investigated natural immunity as it pertains to SARS-CoV-2 infection. There are several more in addition to these:37
Science Immunology October 202038 found that “RBD-targeted antibodies are excellent markers of previous and recent infection, that differential isotype measurements can help distinguish between recent and older infections, and those IgG responses persist over the first few months after infection and are highly correlated with neutralizing antibodies.”
The BMJ January 202139 concluded that “Of 11, 000 health care workers who had proved evidence of infection during the first wave of the pandemic in the U.K. between March and April 2020, none had symptomatic reinfection in the second wave of the virus between October and November 2020.”
Science February 202140 reported that “Substantial immune memory is generated after COVID-19, involving all four major types of immune memory [antibodies, memory B cells, memory CD8+ T cells, and memory CD4+ T cells]. About 95% of subjects retained immune memory at ~6 months after infection. Circulating antibody titers were not predictive of T cell memory.
Thus, simple serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies do not reflect the richness and durability of immune memory to SARS-CoV-2.” A 2,800-person study found no symptomatic reinfections over a ~118-day window, and a 1,246-person study observed no symptomatic reinfections over 6 months.
A February 2021 study posted on the prepublication server medRxiv41 concluded that “Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months.”
An April 2021 study posted on medRxiv42 reported “the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94.8%; hospitalization 94.1%; and severe illness 96·4%. Our results question the need to vaccinate previously infected individuals.”
Another April 2021 study posted on the preprint server BioRxiv43 concluded that “following a typical case of mild COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells not only persist but continuously differentiate in a coordinated fashion well into convalescence, into a state characteristic of long-lived, self-renewing memory.”
A May 2020 report in the journal Immunity44 confirmed that SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralizing antibodies are detected in COVID-19 convalescent subjects, as well as cellular immune responses. Here, they found that neutralizing antibody titers do correlate with the number of virus-specific T cells.
A May 2021 Nature article45 found SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells, which are a crucial source of protective antibodies. Even after a mild infection, anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies were detectable beyond 11 months post-infection.
A May 2021 study in E Clinical Medicine46 found “antibody detection is possible for almost a year post-natural infection of COVID-19.” According to the authors, “Based on current evidence, we hypothesize that antibodies to both S and N-proteins after natural infection may persist for longer than previously thought, thereby providing evidence of sustainability that may influence post-pandemic planning.”
Cure-Hub data47 confirm that while COVID shots can generate higher antibody levels than natural infection, this does not mean vaccine-induced immunity is more protective. Importantly, natural immunity confers much wider protection as your body recognizes all five proteins of the virus and not just one. With the COVID shot, your body only recognizes one of these proteins, the spike protein.
A June 2021 Nature article48 points out that “Wang et al. show that, between 6 and 12 months after infection, the concentration of neutralizing antibodies remains unchanged. That the acute immune reaction extends even beyond six months is suggested by the authors’ analysis of SARS-CoV-2-specific memory B cells in the blood of the convalescent individuals over the course of the year.
These memory B cells continuously enhance the reactivity of their SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies through a process known as somatic hypermutation. The good news is that the evidence thus far predicts that infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces long-term immunity in most individuals.”
Another June Nature paper concluded that “In the absence of vaccination antibody reactivity [to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2], neutralizing activity and the number of RBD-specific memory B cells remain relatively stable from 6 to 12 months.” According to the authors, the data suggest “immunity in convalescent individuals will be very long-lasting.”
What Makes Natural Immunity Superior?
The reason natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity is that viruses contain five different proteins. The COVID shot induces antibodies against just one of those proteins, the spike protein, and no T cell immunity. When you’re infected with the whole virus, you develop antibodies against all parts of the virus, plus memory T cells.
This also means natural immunity offers better protection against variants, as it recognizes several parts of the virus. If there are significant alternations to the spike protein, as with the Delta variant, vaccine-induced immunity can be evaded. Not so with natural immunity, as the other proteins are still recognized and attacked.
Not only that but the COVID jabs actually actively promote the production of variants for which they provide virtually no protection at all, while those with natural immunity do not cause variants and are nearly universally protected against them.
If we are to depend on vaccine-induced immunity, as public health officials are urging us to do, we’ll end up on a never-ending booster treadmill. Boosters will absolutely be necessary, as the shot offers such narrow protection against a single protein of the virus. Already, Moderna has publicly stated that the need for additional boosters is expected.49
Ultimately It’s About Wealth Transfer, Power and Control
Government agencies typically don’t issue recommendations without ulterior motives. Since current recommendations make absolutely no sense from a medical and scientific standpoint, what might the reason be for these illogical and reprehensibly unethical recommendations to inject people who don’t need it with experimental gene modification technology?
Why are they so hell-bent on getting a needle in every arm? And why are they refusing to perform any kind of risk-benefit analysis?
Data already indicate these COVID-19 injections could be the most dangerous medical product we’ve ever seen, and June 24, 2021, peer-reviewed study published in the medical journal Vaccines warned we are in fact killing nearly as many with the shots as would die from COVID-19 itself.50
Using data from a large Israeli field study and two European drug reactions databases, they recalculated the NNTV for Pfizer’s mRNA shot. To prevent one case of COVID-19, anywhere between 200 and 700 had to be injected. To prevent a single death, the NNTV was between 9,000 and 50,000, with 16,000 as a point estimate.
Meanwhile, the number of people reporting adverse reactions from the shots was 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. For serious side effects, there were 16 reports per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects was 4.11 per 100,000 vaccinations.
The final calculation suggested that for every three COVID-19 deaths prevented, two died from the shots. “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy,” the authors concluded.
As has become the trend, a letter expressing “concern” about the study was published June 28, 2021, resulting in the paper being abruptly retracted July 2, 2021, against the authors’ objections. They disagreed with the accusation that their data and subsequent conclusion were misrepresentative, but the paper was retracted before they had time to publish a rebuttal.
Based on everything we’ve discovered so far, it seems a pandemic virus industrial complex is running the show, with a goal to eliminate medical rights and personal freedoms in order to centralize power, control, and wealth.
By the looks of things, the COVID-19 mass psychosis and loss of any rational thinking by nearly half the population will continue to persist as long as the propaganda continues. Fear will continue and if need be, other engineered viruses may be released, for which they’ll create even more gene modification injections.
I believe the truth will eventually be so overwhelming, it’ll sweep away the confusion and the lies.
Most people in the United States have not heard of ivermectin even though it’s been around for more than 30 years and is one of the most distributed drugs on Earth, with more than 2.5 billion doses given out globally over the last 30 years.
Many Americans first started to learn about ivermectin in December 2020 when Dr. Pierre Kory testified in front of the Homeland Security Committee and gave an impassioned testimony about the medicine as a treatment for COVID-19, but the backlash against his position soon arrived.
On March 5, the FDA published a statement online entitled Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19. You may think that the statement would discuss the FDA’s research on the effectiveness and safety of ivermectin, a cheap generic drug whose patent expired in 1996, but instead, their statement was a masterful sleight of hand, as it does not say what most people think it says.
Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug? – WSJ
“The Food and Drug Administration claims to follow the science. So why is it attacking ivermectin, a medication it certified in 1996?” https://t.co/8uyMCJRN4k
As it turns out, the FDA did no research to investigate ivermectin’s effectiveness, as we will discover.
Many news organizations have parroted the FDA’s statements. For example, a CBS Evening Newsreport broadcast on July 1, called ivermectin a “horse gel,” as reporter David Begnaud stared into the camera and said, “a lot of humans have tried it, and they’ve ended up in the hospital.”
What are the facts? The remarkable thing is that in the FDA’s short statement, the agency included one outright lie, one very interesting act of misdirection, and one very surprising admission—none of which, to my knowledge, has been discussed in the mainstream media so far.
Let’s just call them:
THE THREE MYTHS OF IVERMECTIN
Myth #1) Ivermectin is not an anti-viral, it’s just a horse de-wormer.
Myth #2) Many people are getting sick from using ivermectin when they are trying to use it for COVID-19.
Myth #3) The FDA has researched the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID-19.
Let’s unpack these myths.
Myth #1) Ivermectin is not an antiviral, It’s just a horse de-wormer.
The FDA states in their warning, “Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses.)” But ivermectin is a potent antiviral. (By the way, no one besides the FDA uses a hyphen in the middle of the word “antiviral.”)
As recorded in the June 2020 issue of the journal Antiviral Research, a single treatment of ivermectin was able to cause a 5,000-fold reduction of SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture within 48 hours. This news was widely reported in the press, everywhere from The Guardian in Great Britain to Medscape.com, a top medical news website. So how did the FDA miss it? It seems they weren’t looking very hard.
Beyond COVID-19, ivermectin has been shown to be an antiviral agent against at least 18 other viruses. As reported in 2020 in the journal Cells, “cell culture experiments show (ivermectin exhibits) robust antiviral action towards HIV-1, dengue virus (DENV), Zika virus, West Nile virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Chikungunya virus, Pseudorabies virus, adenovirus, and SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19.)”
Not only can we point to medical journals to make the case that ivermectin is an antiviral, we can also use the FDA’s own documents. You see, this author filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on July 19 to see the documents that the FDA used to make their recommendation to not use ivermectin.
The FOIA memorandum I received states, “Ivermectin has known in vitro antiviral properties, and was initially described in the context of COVID-19 in April 2020. On April 3, 2020, Caly et al. published in vitro data that demonstrated ivermectin inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 viral replication.”
Thanks, FDA, for admitting you told a whopper of an untruth.
On this point, we can also look to a research paper published June 17 on the website of The Lancet, one of the world’s most respected medical journals, Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID-19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial. The study concluded that higher doses of ivermectin did reduce viral activity at higher rates. In other words, it’s an antiviral—against COVID-19.
To be fair, it is not used widely as an antiviral medication, except where it is being used around the world right now against COVID-19.
How does it work in connection with coronavirus? Without getting too technical, it binds with the viral RdRP, which are enzymes needed to help the virus reproduce itself, and it disrupts this RdRP. In other words, it stops the virus from making copies of itself.
And there are about 60 other studies that show ivermectin works well against the virus of COVID-19 which can be found at C19ivermectin.com.
Let’s move on.
Myth #2) Many people are getting sick from using ivermectin when they are trying to use it for COVID.
The main argument that the FDA makes in their statement is that people are getting sick from using ivermectin. They focus on the fact that there is a version of ivermectin that is meant for animals.
They say, “The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses.” They have a sub-headline that reads “Ivermectin Products for Animals Are Different from Ivermectin Products for People.”
Yes, veterinary drugs are different from human drugs.
Yes, it could be dangerous to ingest veterinary drugs as they may have ingredients not safe for human use as well as vastly different potencies.
And yes, ivermectin is also used as a horse dewormer.
Did you know that Viagra was originally developed for heart issues? Did you know that remdesivir, the drug touted by Dr. Anthony Fauci for COVID-19, was originally developed for hepatitis?
Oddly, while there are many headlines mocking the use of ivermectin as an “animal dewormer” there are no headlines mocking remdesivir as a hepatitis drug.
What about the ivermectin that is FDA-approved? Is anybody getting sick taking that? The FDA is strangely silent on this point.
Their main headline is Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19, but really their headline should read Why You Should Not Use Animal Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19. They don’t bring any evidence at all that anyone has been injured by using the FDA-approved version to treat COVID-19.
So that’s misdirection. In the many months that I have been intently following this story, I cannot remember reading about or seeing a single doctor recommending animal ivermectin for human consumption. But there are many doctors, such as the doctors in the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, who are recommending the off-label use of FDA-approved ivermectin for patients because they have seen it work, both in reducing hospitalizations and deaths significantly, especially when it is used early.
Safety of Ivermectin
Is ivermectin safe for humans to use? You might get the feeling, reading the FDA statement, that it is quite dangerous. That was certainly the impression that CBS News wanted to leave their viewers with when they reported that “a lot of humans have tried it, and they’ve wound up in the hospital.” That was also clearly the impression that ScienceAlert.com wanted to share when they ran the story: People Are Accidentally Poisoning Themselves Trying to Treat COVID With a Horse Drug.
You may be surprised to learn that 300 million people use ivermectin every year, mostly in Africa and Latin America, because it very effectively fights river blindness. It is distributed for free by non-profit organizations such as the Carter Center and even the US government organization USAID. It is donated by the pharmaceutical company Merck. To put that number of 300 million in perspective, that’s about equal to the populations of England, France, Germany, and Australia put together.
The Nobel-prize-winning scientist (he won his prize for developing ivermectin) Satoshi Omura reports that the rate of Serious Adverse Events for ivermectin is one per million doses. It is an extremely safe medicine. However, like any drug, there exists the potential for drug interactions. In addition, it should not be taken by people with an impaired blood-brain barrier, pregnant women, and women who have just given birth. There is limited evidence on its safety for children under age 5 and for those who weigh less than 15 kg or 33 pounds.
Who else is on record saying that ivermectin is safe?
How about the New York Times? In June 2019, the New York Timesran an article about ivermectin saying, “the drug is considered safe enough to give to almost everyone except the youngest infants and pregnant women.”
Or how about the National Capitol Poison Center, which has upon its website at Poison.org: “To date, ivermectin has been shown to be a safe and well-tolerated drug.”
In fact, what about the World Health Organization? While they have been funding laudable programs globally to distribute ivermectin to fight river blindness, they funded public relations materials such as this poster, which states, “Mectizan Is For Everybody.”
What is Mectizan? It’s simply a trading name for ivermectin. The World Health Organization was on board with the safety of ivermectin, at least until it was recommended for COVID-19.
Here’s a close-up of the bottom of this poster:
What about the poisonings that the FDA say are happening? Didn’t the FDA say there were “multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses”?
My FOIA documents from the FDA say that “evidence that people are misusing ivermectin products for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has emerged. This may be in part due to the ease of procurement (e.g. via Amazon or pet stores) and availability of veterinary topical ivermectin products to the general public.” Again, we are talking about veterinary ivermectin, not that which is FDA-approved for human use.
The FDA’s Department of Pharmacovigilance retrieved 400 cases of exposure to ivermectin products. Of these, 92 were labeled “intentional,” and the rest were presumably accidents. Of these 92 there were only five in the category of deaths and “major effects.” Among these were one death and four outcomes labeled “major effect.” However, two of these were related to psychiatric medical problems (for example, a suspected suicide attempt).
When you take out the cases of people with psychiatric problems, you are left with three people with either death or what the FDA terms a “major effect.”
The FDA also reported that there were four other cases of intentional misuse related to using ivermectin for COVID-19 that led to what the FDA classifies as a “moderate or potentially toxic effect.”
So that’s seven cases altogether.
For some reason, in this new FOIA document dump, only six of these are described in depth. Four out of the six were people ingesting animal ivermectin, which to the best of my knowledge is not recommended by any doctors promoting the use of ivermectin for COVID-19.
That leaves only two cases described involving human FDA-approved ivermectin. One is the case of a person feeling light-headed, which soon resolved. And finally, we have a case of an 80-year-old man who experienced a racing heart rate, but he was also taking oxycodone, an opiate drug, along with ivermectin. His high heart rate may have been caused by oxycodone. He was released from the hospital after two days of treatment.
So as far as can be seen in these FOIA documents, there are no known cases of people taking FDA-approved ivermectin for COVID-19 and suffering severe and lasting ill effects. None.
That’s a slim basis to tell people not to take ivermectin that they could get a prescription for. Especially when many meta-analyses now show that it would dramatically reduce deaths from COVID-19.
Myth #3) The FDA has researched the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID.
This is the easiest one to prove, as the FDA states it outright in their statement, although it’s not clear anyone was really paying attention.
To quote the FDA, “The FDA has not reviewed data to support the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or prevent COVID-19. However, some initial research is underway.” What?
Let me repeat that one more time, a little slower.
“The FDA has …. not…. reviewed… data….to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or prevent COVID-19.”
So, just to get this straight, there have been more than 100 trials involving ivermectin, including 60 peer-reviewed studies. Those studies have involved almost 600 scientists and nearly 25,000 patients. Pooling studies together, it is estimated that ivermectin reduces the risk of death by 66%. And yet by March 2021, the FDA, with its nearly 15,000 employees and a budget exceeding $3 billion, couldn’t be bothered to review the data to support the use of ivermectin, a drug that has been used against COVID-19 in more than 30 countries around the world.
On their website, the FDA states, “FDA is responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medical products more effective, safer, and more affordable and by helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medical products and foods to maintain and improve their health.”
“Speed innovations?” It is now August 2021, five months after this statement, and still there is no word from the FDA on whether they have deigned to “review the data” on ivermectin.
The FDA Gets Their Money for Drug Oversight …. From the Drug Companies
Oh, never mind. I think it’s clear that even if the FDA ever decides to “review the data” on ivermectin, they will be doing so from a position of bias against this very safe drug.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that many of the people who work for the FDA go on to work for big pharmaceutical companies, so maybe it’s not best to promote cheap generic drugs at the FDA.
Or maybe it has to do with the little-known and surprising fact that most of the funding of the FDA’s drug oversight programs comes directly from the drug companies themselves, not taxpayer dollars. In 2015, only 29% of the money for prescription drug oversight came from Congress. The remaining 71%, almost three-quarters of the funding, came directly from the drug manufacturers. In 2015, that was $796 million straight from Big Pharma to the FDA, under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA).
In the opinion of the nonprofit group the Project on Government Oversight, the “FDA is addicted to drug money.”
And that money comes with strings attached. Every five years, the FDA sits in meetings with drug manufacturers to negotiate a new agreement over how these PDUFA funds are to be used, and often the agreements tie the FDA’s hands. For example, from 1992 to 2002, these PDUFA funds could NOT be used for “postmarketing safety surveillance.”
In other words, these funds could not be used to make sure that the drugs were approved were safe for use. In the next five-year authorization, “a small amount of fee revenues (about 5%) was permitted to be used for post-marketing drug safety activities; however, restrictions on when these funds could be spent (only for drugs approved after 2002, and for up to 2 years after approval, or up to 3 years for “potentially serious drugs”) limited their effectiveness,” according to a report published by the National Academy of Sciences.
In addition to explicitly restricting the FDA from investigating drug safety, the PDUFA negotiations focus on speed. The drug companies want drugs approved as fast as possible, and they negotiate with the FDA for quick target dates for agency action.
In an investigation by the non-partisan non-profit group Project on Government Oversight (POGO), we see that those fast deadlines may have deadly effects.
Former FDA drug reviewer Ron Kavanagh told POGO that, when he was at the agency from 1998 to 2008, PDUFA’s target dates for FDA action left too little time to review drug company submissions, which could total 160,000 pages not counting supporting data. Reviewers were told not to worry about studying all of the material, Kavanagh said.
“There’s a lot of things I simply didn’t look at,” Kavanagh said. “And even without looking at things I barely made the deadlines.”
Kavanagh shared an internal FDA email from 2007 in which he gave this account: ‘I finally had to stand up and say that I would take being written up for insubordination and would risk a poor performance evaluation, but that I would not curtail my evaluation of a potential safety concern simply to meet a PDUFA goal date.’
FDA safety official David Graham told a Senate hearing in 2004 that the FDA “views the pharmaceutical industry it is supposed to regulate as its client. It overvalues the benefits of the drugs it approves, and it seriously undervalues, disregards and disrespects drug safety.” Dr. Graham fought to raise an alarm about the arthritis drug Vioxx, which was causing heart attacks within two weeks of its first use. Ultimately, observers believe Vioxx led to the deaths of a minimum of 40,000 people.
And the problem has existed for decades before that. In 1977, a governmental panel reported, “Many current and former FDA employees and consultants had testified to Congressional committees that industry pressure caused FDA officials to approve drugs that did not meet agency safety and effectiveness standards and that those who attempted to oppose industry demands were harshly and improperly treated by senior FDA officials.”
And that circles back to what is perhaps the real reason why ivermectin is suppressed: the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
As you may know, the COVID-19 vaccines are not FDA-approved. The only way they can be legally used in the United States today is through a legal “work-around” called the Emergency Use Authorization. The idea being that in a real emergency we need medications that work right away. There must be an “emergency” to justify the Emergency Use Authorization. The way the law works is that “FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products… when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”
So as the law stands now, if there were “adequate, approved and available alternatives” to a vaccine, the EUA for the vaccine would be invalid. And if the EUA was invalidated, there would be no legal permission to distribute the COVID-19 vaccines. And the billions of dollars of vaccine profits would cease flowing for Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, etc.
Perhaps that’s the reason, or at least part of the reason, why the FDA has consistently refused to look seriously at any early treatment options.
Maybe that’s why their 14,000 employees haven’t had the time to examine a cheap little generic drug that nobody is going to make billions off of.
Data released Aug. 13 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that between Dec. 14, 2020, and Aug. 6, 2021, a total of 571,831 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 12,791 deaths — an increase of 425 over the previous week. There were 77,490 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 7,385 compared with the previous week.
The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
This week’s U.S. data for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
The most recent reported deaths include a 15-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 1498080) who previously had COVID, was diagnosed with cardiomyopathy in May 2021, and died four days after receiving his second dose of Pfizer’s vaccine on June 18, when he collapsed on the soccer field and went into ventricular tachycardia; and a 13-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1505250) who died after suffering a heart condition after receiving her first dose of Pfizer.
As The Defender reported Aug. 13, neither vaccine has yet received full FDA approval, and neither has completed late-stage clinical trials proving a third dose will boost immunity or work against COVID variants.
The FDA’s amended Emergency Use Authorization allows people who have had an organ transplant, or those with a similar level of the weakened immune system, to get an extra COVID vaccine dose. The J&J vaccine was not included because there was not sufficient data on boosters, according to the agency.
The FDA’s decision “allows doctors to boost immunity in certain immunocompromised individuals who need extra protection from COVID19,” Dr. Janet Woodcock, FDA acting commissioner, tweeted Aug. 12.
“Others who are fully vaccinated are adequately protected & do not need an additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine at this time,” Woodcock tweeted.
The vulnerable group of patients makes up less than 3% of U.S. adults, according to CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky.
Heart inflammation after COVID vaccines more common than CDC claims new research shows U.S. public health officials claim cases of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID vaccination are rare — but new research published online in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) shows they may happen more often than reported.
Post-vaccine myocarditis and pericarditis also appear to represent two “distinct syndromes,” Dr. George Diaz, with the Providence Regional Medical Center Everett, told Medscape Cardiology.
Diaz and colleagues reviewed 2,000,287 electronic medical records (EMR) of people who received at least one COVID vaccination. The records, obtained from 40 hospitals in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and California, showed 20 people had vaccine-related myocarditis (1.0 per 100,000) and 37 had pericarditis (1.8 per 100,000).
The new JAMA study showed a “similar pattern [to the CDC study], although a higher incidence [of myocarditis and pericarditis] after vaccination, suggesting vaccine adverse event under-reporting.”
The JAMA report also stated: “Additionally, pericarditis may be more common than myocarditis among older patients.”
“Our study resulted in higher numbers of cases probably because we searched the EMR, and [also because] VAERS requires doctors to report suspected cases voluntarily,” Diaz told Medscape.
The researchers calculated the average monthly number of cases of myocarditis or pericarditis during the pre-vaccine period of January 2019 through January 2021 was 16.9 compared with 27.3 during the vaccine period of February through May 2021. The mean numbers of pericarditis cases during the same periods were 49.1 and 78.8.
The authors said limitations of their analysis include potentially missed cases outside care settings and missed diagnoses of myocarditis or pericarditis, which would underestimate the incidence, as well as inaccurate EMR vaccination information.
Mom of 14-year-old who developed myocarditis after Pfizer vaccine no longer trusts public health officials
In an exclusive interview last week with The Defender, Emily Jo said before her son, Aiden, got his first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine, she was led to believe his chance of suffering an adverse reaction was “one in a million.”
Aiden, a 14-year-old from Georgia, had no history of COVID or pre-existing conditions, except for asthma. On June 10, several days after his second Pfizer shot, Aiden woke his mother up at 4:30 a.m. because his chest hurt and he couldn’t breathe.
Jo said she was aware of the potential side effect of heart inflammation, but she believed the CDC, which said the reaction was very rare and mild. “What they didn’t explain is that mild means hospital care and follow-up care indefinitely,” Jo said.
“The biggest problem is they [CDC] are not explaining what mild myocarditis means,” Jo said. “Aiden’s cardiologist told us no case of myocarditis is ‘mild.’ That’s like saying a heart attack is mild,” she said the cardiologist told her.
Jo said her son tires easily and his recovery will be a long process. She said all her kids are fully vaccinated and she was one of the most trusting advocates of the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics — until her son experienced his vaccine injury.
Another sad story! Mom so proud that her 14-year-old son could get the COVID vaccine… but now doctors confirm her son meets the criteria for having post-vaccine myocarditis.
25-year-old develops myocarditis after Moderna vaccine
In another exclusive interview last week with The Defender, Deborah Brenner said her son, a healthy 25-year-old from Ohio, experienced myocarditis five days after his first dose of Moderna’s COVID vaccine, administered on July 22.
Christopher Brenner developed a fever after the vaccine, and within five days, he was experiencing chest pain so intense he was unable to sleep, so he went to the Defiance Mercy Clinic.
When Christopher was in the ER, tests showed his troponin levels were high. “I was alarmed at that point,” Brenner said.
“One of the ER nurses mentioned it could be myocarditis from the vaccine, but everyone else played it down like it was serious — but wasn’t a big deal,” Brenner said. “When his numbers jumped higher, that’s when it became more serious.”
When nurses took Christopher’s troponin level a second time it was higher, so they kept him overnight.
“When he was still in Defiance, we saw the internist who diagnosed my son with myocarditis and said it was a reaction to the vaccine,” Brenner said. “The internist explained that one type of inflammation is around the heart and one is inside the heart — and Christopher’s was the type that caused inflammation inside the heart.”
Christopher’s troponin level continued to rise, so he was transferred by ambulance to St. Vincent Hospital in Toledo. Benner said the cardiologists in Toledo were totally against connecting the reaction to the vaccine. “They didn’t want to go there, didn’t want to talk about it, and just said his numbers would come back down,” she said. “I was getting really frustrated because I was wondering what was going on in his heart that we couldn’t see.”
After four days of being hospitalized and treated with blood thinners and beta-blockers, Christopher was discharged. The discharging doctor told Brenner he didn’t know why the other physicians didn’t want to admit her son’s reaction was caused by the vaccine.
“Everybody has allergic reactions and your son just had an allergic reaction to the vaccine,” he said. “I can’t sit here and tell you 100% that the vaccine is the cause but the fact that he got the vaccine and days later started having issues — something was going on.”
EU looking into new possible side-effects of mRNA COVID Vaccines
European drug regulators on Aug. 11 said they are studying three new conditions reported by a small number of people after they took the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) safety committee is studying erythema multiforme, a form of allergic skin reaction; glomerulonephritis, or kidney inflammation; and nephrotic syndrome, a renal disorder characterized by heavy urinary protein losses, Reuters reported.
The EMA did not give details on how many cases of the new conditions were recorded but said it had requested more data from the vaccine makers.
The regulator, which disclosed the new assessments as part of routine updates to the safety section of the authorized vaccines’ database, did not recommend changes to the labels of mRNA vaccines at this time.
Pfizer’s efficacy plummets to 42% as Delta variant takes hold
As The Defender reported Aug. 11, a new preprint study showed mRNA vaccines’ effectiveness plummeted in July when Delta variant was dominant — with Moderna only 76% effective and Pfizer only 42% effective against infection.
A new preprint study showed mRNA vaccines’ effectiveness plummeted in July when Delta variant was dominant — with Moderna only 76% effective and Pfizer only 42% effective against infection.
The study, which raised concerns about the effectiveness of mRNA COVID vaccines — particularly Pfizer’s — against the Delta variant, caught the attention of top Biden administration officials, Axios reported.
“If that’s not a wake-up call, I don’t know what is,” a senior Biden official told Axios.
The study, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, compared the effectiveness of Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines in the Mayo Clinic Health System from January to July 2021, during which time either the Alpha or Delta variant was highly prevalent.
Overall, researchers found Moderna’s vaccine was 86% effective against infection over the study period, and Pfizer’s was 76% effective. Moderna’s vaccine was 92% effective against hospitalization and Pfizer’s was 85% effective. There were no deaths in either cohort.
But vaccine efficacy dropped sharply in July when the Delta variant was more prevalent. Moderna was only 76% effective against infection and Pfizer was only 42% effective.
“We observed a pronounced reduction in the effectiveness of BNT162b2 [Pfizer] coinciding with the surging prevalence of the Delta variant in the United States, but this temporal association does not imply causality,” Venky Soundararajan and his co-authors wrote.
The authors concluded “further evaluation of mechanisms underlying differences in their effectiveness such as dosing regimens and vaccine composition are warranted.”
158 days and counting, CDC ignores The Defender’s inquiries
According to the CDC website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”
On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. We have made repeated attempts, by phone and email, to obtain a response to our questions.
Despite multiple phone and email communications with many people at the CDC, and despite being told that our request was in the system and that someone would respond, we have not yet received answers to any of the questions we submitted. It has been 144 days since we sent our first email to the CDC requesting information.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree, and extensive training in natural health.
An Open Letter to the Unvaccinated
OCLA researcher Dr. Denis Rancourt and several fellow Canadian academics penned an open letter to support those who have decided not to accept the COVID-19 vaccine.
The group emphasizes the voluntary nature of this medical treatment as well as the need for informed consent and individual risk-benefit assessment. They reject the pressure exerted by public health officials, the news and social media, and fellow citizens.
Control over our bodily integrity may well be the ultimate frontier of the fight to protect civil liberties. Read the letter below or as a PDF here.
Open Letter to the Unvaccinated
You are not alone! As of 28 July 2021, 29% of Canadians have not received a COVID-19 vaccine, and an additional 14% have received one shot. In the US and in the European Union, less than half the population is fully vaccinated, and even in Israel, the “world’s lab” according to Pfizer, one-third of people remain completely unvaccinated. Politicians and the media have taken a uniform view, scapegoating the unvaccinated for the troubles that have ensued after eighteen months of fearmongering and lockdowns. It’s time to set the record straight.
It is entirely reasonable and legitimate to say ‘no’ to insufficiently tested vaccines for which there is no reliable science. You have a right to assert guardianship of your body and to refuse medical treatments if you see fit. You are right to say ‘no’ to a violation of your dignity, your integrity, and your bodily autonomy. It is your body, and you have the right to choose. You are right to fight for your children against their mass vaccination in school.
You are right to question whether free and informed consent is at all possible under present circumstances. Long-term effects are unknown. Transgenerational effects are unknown. Vaccine-induced deregulation of natural immunity is unknown. Potential harm is unknown as the adverse event reporting is delayed, incomplete and inconsistent between jurisdictions.
You are being targeted by mainstream media, government social engineering campaigns, unjust rules and policies, collaborating employers, and the social-media mob. You are being told that you are now the problem and that the world cannot get back to normal unless you get vaccinated. You are being viciously scapegoated by propaganda and pressured by others around you. Remember; there is nothing wrong with you.
You are inaccurately accused of being a factory for new SARS-CoV-2 variants, when in fact, according to leading scientists, your natural immune system generates immunity to multiple components of the virus. This will promote your protection against a vast range of viral variants and abrogates further spread to anyone else.
You are justified in demanding independent peer-reviewed studies, not funded by multinational pharmaceutical companies. All the peer-reviewed studies of short-term safety and short-term efficacy have been funded, organized, coordinated, and supported by these for-profit corporations; and none of the study data have been made public or available to researchers who don’t work for these companies.
You are right to question the preliminary vaccine trial results. The claimed high values of relative efficacy rely on small numbers of tenuously determined “infections.” The studies were also not blind, where people giving the injections admittedly knew or could deduce whether they were injecting the experimental vaccine or the placebo. This is not an acceptable scientific methodology for vaccine trials.
You are correct in your calls for a diversity of scientific opinions. Like in nature, we need a polyculture of information and its interpretations. And we don’t have that right now. Choosing not to take the vaccine is holding space for reason, transparency, and accountability to emerge. You are right to ask, ‘What comes next when we give away authority over our own bodies?’
Do not be intimidated. You are showing resilience, integrity, and grit. You are coming together in your communities, making plans to help one another, and standing for scientific accountability and free speech, which are required for society to thrive. We are among many who stand with you.
Angela Durante, PhD
Denis Rancourt, PhD
Claus Rinner, PhD
Laurent Leduc, PhD
Donald Welsh, PhD
John Zwaagstra, PhD
Jan Vrbik, PhD
Valentina Capurri, PhD
Update: The letter has been shared widely on the Internet, and translated into several languages, including Czech, Estonian, Norwegian and Spanish.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices today voted unanimously to recommend the CDC follow the FDA’s guidance by also approving the third shots for immunocompromised patients.
Thursday’s decision by the FDA “allows doctors to boost immunity in certain immunocompromised individuals who need extra protection from COVID-19,” Dr. Janet Woodcock, FDA acting commissioner, tweeted Thursday.
“Others who are fully vaccinated are adequately protected & do not need an additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine at this time,” Woodcock said in the tweet. The vulnerable group of patients eligible for the third shot makes up less than 3% of U.S. adults, according to Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Israel started administering booster vaccines on July 12, to people 60 or older, and other countries plan to follow. On Aug. 13, Israel expanded the booster vaccination campaign to include people 50 years and older — a revision from the previous age eligibility requirement of 60 years and up.
Yet, Israeli Health Ministry data published Aug. 12 showed 14 Israelis had been infected with COVID a week after receiving a booster shot. Eleven people infected were 60 or older, and two were hospitalized — while the other three received a third dose because they are immunocompromised.
If confirmed in larger samples, the Internal Health Ministry said figures could cast doubt on the effectiveness of the booster shot, which Israel started administering before major health agencies around the world approved it.
The FDA’s authorization came as Biden administration officials and pharmaceutical companies appear increasingly convinced boosters for the broader population will be necessary.
Scientists are divided over the broad use of COVID vaccine boosters among those without underlying problems, as the benefits of the boosters remain undetermined.
Officials are scrutinizing data on the vaccines’ durability and discussing when extra shots might need to be administered and which groups might get priority, according to federal officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Those officials told The Washington Post discussions have become increasingly urgent as some studies indicate a waning of the vaccines’ protection over time.
“No vaccine, at least not within this category, is going to have an indefinite amount of protection,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Thursday on NBC’s “Today” show. “Inevitably, there will be a time when we’ll have to get boosts.”
Safety and efficacy data on boosters lacking
At the end of July, Pfizer and BioNTech announced findings showing four to six months after a second dose, their vaccine’s efficacy dropped to about 84%.
Earlier this month, Moderna said its two-dose vaccine was 93% effective, with efficacy “remaining durable” through six months after the second dose. However, “neutralizing titers will continue to wane and eventually impact vaccine efficacy,” the company said. “Given this intersection, we believe dose 3 booster will likely be necessary prior to the winter season.”
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said he is “very, very confident” a booster will increase immunity levels in the vaccinated.
According to Kaiser Health News (KHN), Pfizer has not yet delivered conclusive proof to back up that confidence. The company lacks late-stage clinical trial results to confirm a booster will work against COVID variants, including Delta — which now accounts for 93% of new infections across the U.S.
Pfizer in July announced its global phase 3 trial — which assesses the safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of a third dose — but the trial’s completion date isn’t until 2022. Phase 3 results generally are required before regulatory approval, KHN reported.
“We are confident in this vaccine and the third dose, but you have to remember the vaccine efficacy study is still going on, so we need all the evidence to back up that,” Jerica Pitts, Pfizer’s director of global media relations, said Monday.
Moderna’s clinical trial “designed to assess the safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a delayed vaccine boost” has an estimated primary completion date of May 28, 2023, and a study completion date of 2025.
According to Reuters, Pfizer, along with German partner BioNTech, and Moderna have together locked up COVID vaccine supply agreements worth more than $60 billion in sales, just in 2021 and 2022. The agreements include the supply of the initial two doses of their vaccines as well as billions of dollars in potential boosters for wealthy nations.
Analysts forecasted revenue of more than $6.6 billion for Pfizer’s COVID vaccine and $7.6 billion for Moderna in 2023, mostly from booster sales. They eventually see the annual market settling at around $5 billion or higher, with additional drugmakers competing for those sales.
Meanwhile, Pfizer recently said if a third dose couldn’t combat the Delta or other variants, the drugmaker is prepared to come up with a “tailor-made” vaccine within 100 days, KHN reported.
All of this has sown a sense of confusion about what exactly will work, and when. The pharmaceutical industry’s rush to recommend boosters for the public is “a little frustrating,” said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an adviser to the National Institutes of Health and FDA.
Even if a booster is found to be safe, Offit said, the U.S. effort should focus on “vaccinating people who are unvaccinated.” In any case, decisions about boosters do not rest with vaccine makers, he said.
When vaccines that don’t provide robust immunity are overused, they allow viruses to mutate in potentially hazardous ways. COVID variants with measurably different behavior emerged in mid-December 2020, which coincides with the rollout of the first COVID shots
While variants were identified in various areas before the shots were introduced in those same regions, vaccine makers were conducting large-scale trials on thousands of people in those areas well before the shots became available to the public, and before variants were detected
The COVID shots do not prevent infection or transmission, hence the variants created inside vaccinated individuals will spread. This hypothesis was confirmed in a 2015 study, which found that “imperfect vaccination can enhance the transmission of highly virulent pathogens”
Research shows fully vaccinated individuals who develop breakthrough infections with the Delta variant have the same viral loads as unvaccinated individuals infected with this virus, hence both groups can spread the infection to the same degree
Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 74% of COVID-19 diagnoses in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, between July 6 through July 25, 2021, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated
Will mass injections against COVID-19 encourage the mutation of more dangerous versions of SARS-CoV-2? In the video above, WhatsHerFace questions why the U.K. government is procuring 6 million pounds worth of body bags, or “temporary body storage,” even as government officials announce that the current vaccination rate has “created a protective wall” against the infection.1
If that’s true, why are they expecting an “excess death scenario” requiring massive numbers of body bags? The procurement agreement will remain in effect for a period of four years. Does the U.K. government know something they’re not sharing with the public?
Have they peeked at the actual science and realized that mass vaccination during an active pandemic might encourage mutations that evade vaccine-induced defenses, or that the gene-modifying injections might render the vaccinated more susceptible to serious illness and death through a mechanism known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) or the more descriptive term, paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE)?
Where Are the Variants Coming From, and Why Now?
WhatsHerFace highlights some of the answers given by health professionals on social media when asked why no problematic variants emerged during the first year when no COVID injections were available, and only popped up after the mass injection campaign started.
According to one such answer, “Our surveillance sucked in the beginning and it takes time for variants to come about but once they come they become rampant.” Interestingly, as noted in a February 15, 2021, article in The Conversation,2 variants with “measurably different behavior” did not emerge until mid-December 2020, which just so happens to be the exact time at which the first COVID shots were rolled out.
Fact-checkers have tried to debunk any connection between COVID shot rollouts and the emergence of variants by showing that variants were identified in various areas before the shots were introduced in those same regions. However, as noted by WhatsHerFace, vaccine makers were conducting large-scale trials in those areas well before the shots became available to the public.
For example, Pfizer enrolled more than 46,000 participants in the U.S., Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Germany, and Turkey,3 and Oxford/AstraZeneca injected 23,000 participants in the U.K., Brazil, and South Africa.
“Now this is very interesting,” WhatsHerFace says, “because you’ll actually find that each of the areas where variants first emerged just happen to be the same countries where the trials took place.”
The Backstory of the Delta Variant
The Delta variant (B.1.617.2) was initially identified in India on December 1 and 11, 2020. While the COVID jabs were not rolled out in India until mid-January 2021, Phase 3 trials for Biotech’s Covaxin were initiated in Bharat, India, on November 16, 2020. By December 22, 2020, 22,500 volunteers had received the jab.
On a side note, the Indian government released Covaxin to the public before Phase 3 trials were completed and in the absence of any safety or efficacy data. According to some vaccinologists, the emergence of potentially more problematic variants following mass vaccination rollouts during an active pandemic is precisely what you’d expect.
Dr. Geert Vanden Bosche,4 whose resume includes work with GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, published an open letter5 to the World Health Organization, March 6, 2021.
In the letter, Bosche warned that implementing a global mass vaccination campaign during the height of the pandemic could create an “uncontrollable monster” where evolutionary pressure will force the emergence of new and potentially more dangerous mutations.
“There can be no doubt that continued mass vaccination campaigns will enable new, more infectious viral variants to become increasingly dominant and ultimately result in a dramatic incline in new cases despite enhanced vaccine coverage rates. There can be no doubt either that this situation will soon lead to complete resistance of circulating variants to the current vaccines,” Bossche wrote.6
‘Leaky’ Vaccines Promote Mutations
In short, when vaccines that don’t provide robust immunity are overused, they allow viruses to mutate in potentially hazardous ways. When you overuse an antibiotic that fails to eradicate the bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria are allowed to flourish.
In the same way, overuse of a vaccine that doesn’t provide immunity can allow the virus to mutate inside vaccinated individuals into variants that evade vaccine-induced immunity.
And, as we already know, the COVID shots do not prevent infection or transmission, hence the variants created inside vaccinated individuals will spread, attacking both vaccinated and unvaccinated alike. This hypothesis was confirmed in a 2015 study7 in PLOS Biology, which found that “imperfect vaccination can enhance the transmission of highly virulent pathogens.” As explained by the authors:8
“There is a theoretical expectation that some types of vaccines could prompt the evolution of more virulent (‘hotter’) pathogens. This idea follows from the notion that natural selection removes pathogen strains that are so ‘hot’ that they kill their hosts and, therefore, themselves.
Vaccines that let the hosts survive but do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing the evolution of hotter pathogens to occur. This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine. When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked.
But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist.
This theory proved highly controversial when it was first proposed over a decade ago, but here we report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist.
Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease.”
This research was reported in a number of mainstream media publications, including Live Science,9 Newsweek10, and National Geographic.11 Quanta Magazine also took a deep dive into it in May 2018, closing the article with the following observation:12
“… the most crucial need right now is for vaccine scientists to recognize the relevance of evolutionary biology to their field. Last month, when more than 1,000 vaccine scientists gathered in Washington, D.C., at the World Vaccine Congress, the issue of vaccine-induced evolution was not the focus of any scientific sessions.
Part of the problem, [disease ecologist Andrew] Read says, is that researchers are afraid: They’re nervous to talk about and call attention to potential evolutionary effects because they fear that doing so might fuel more fear and distrust of vaccines by the public …”
The COVID shots, which do not make you immune against the virus but rather only lessen symptoms of infection, are a perfect example of leaky vaccines that can allow the virus to mutate within the mildly ill host, who then transmits the mutated virus to others. In this way, the shots can fuel a never-ending chain of outbreaks.
NPR Highlights How Vaccines Drive Viral Evolution
In a February 9, 2021, article,13 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.”
Simply having a virus mutating inside you isn’t necessarily dangerous, however. The viral load also plays an important role in determining how potentially dangerous a vaccinated individual who carries a mutation might be. If your viral load is low, the risk of you transmitting the mutated virus to others is also low. If your viral load is high, then the risk of transmission increases accordingly.
When it comes to the Delta variant, there’s bad news for those who have received one or more COVID shots, as research14 shows fully vaccinated individuals who develop breakthrough infections with the Delta variant have the same viral loads as unvaccinated individuals who are infected with this virus. As reported by Reuters on August 2, 2021:15
“Among people infected by the Delta variant of the coronavirus, fully vaccinated people with ‘breakthrough’ infections may be just as likely as unvaccinated people to spread the virus to others, new research suggests. The higher the amount of coronavirus in the nose and throat, the more likely the patient will infect others.
In one Wisconsin county, after Delta became predominant, researchers analyzed16viral loads on nose-and-throat swab samples obtained when patients were first diagnosed. They found similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, with levels often high enough to allow shedding of infectious virus.
‘A key assumption’ underlying current regulations aimed at slowing COVID-19 transmission ‘is that those who are vaccinated are at very low risk of spreading the virus to others,’ said study coauthor Katarina Grande of Public Health Madison & Dane County in Madison, Wisconsin.
The findings, however, indicate ‘that vaccinated people should take steps to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus to others,’ she added.”
Lambda Variant Shows Signs of Vaccine Resistance
The latest coronavirus on the block is Lambda, which was first identified in Peru. It’s now spreading through South America. Like the Delta variant, Lambda is more infectious than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. Unlike Delta, it appears more resistant to vaccine-induced antibodies.
According to Reuters,17 three spike protein mutations “help it resist neutralization by vaccine-induced antibodies.” While some claim the emergence of Delta and Lambda is justification for a third booster shot, Rockefeller University researchers point out that a third dose might raise the number of antibodies, but it won’t improve their ability to neutralize viruses.18,19
If a third dose can’t neutralize any of the variants any better than two doses, then we’re back at the beginning of this vicious cycle where imperfect neutralization drives additional mutation.
The Rockefeller University paper also highlights the superior protection offered by natural immunity, which is what you get after you’ve recovered from an infection. According to the authors, “memory antibodies selected over time by the natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination.”
For transparency, one of the coauthors, Michel Nussenzweig, told Reuters that if an updated injection capable of protecting against one or more specific variants were to become available, “then that would be the choice.”
I mention that, because the competing interest statement on that paper reveals the Rockefeller University “has filed a provisional patent application in connection with this work … (US patent 63/021,387). The patent has been licensed by Rockefeller University to Bristol Meyers Squib.”
An identical competing interest statement can also be found on other recent papers, including a preprint paper20 titled “Development of Potency, Breadth and Resilience to Viral Escape Mutations in SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies.”
At the time of writing, I got nothing but error messages when trying to access the U.S. patent office to confirm what U.S. patent 63/021,387 might be, but based on the papers bearing this competing interest statement, it sounds like the Rockefeller University might be patenting a new COVID shot against variants.
First COVID Shots Appear Ineffective Against Newer Variants
At the same time that Moderna and Pfizer raise prices on their individual COVID shots by 10% and 25% respectively,21 evidence of their ineffectiveness continues to mount.
In a July 30, 2021, report,22 Sharyl Attkisson cited data23 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which show that 74% of COVID-19 diagnoses in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, between July 6 through July 25, 2021, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.
“The report contradicts multiple false reports that have claimed the vaccines are ‘100% effective’ in preventing hospitalization,” Attkisson writes.24
“It also contradicts false reports that have implied vaccinated people are not spreading Covid-19. According to CDC, the fully vaccinated are showing just as high of a ‘viral load’ as unvaccinated people who get infected.
CDC published new data25 on the topic in its weekly report. It says that most of the identified cases of Covid-19 in a Barnstable County, Massachusetts, town, in July (74%) were among fully vaccinated people.
Most, but not all, had the Delta variant. Additionally, four of five hospitalized patients were fully vaccinated. Only one was not fully vaccinated. Today, CDC also acknowledged that Covid-19 viral load is ‘similarly high’ in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. That’s a result, say officials, of the Delta variant.
From the start, virologists said that there would be natural variants to Covid-19. They also accurately predicted that effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines would wear down in a matter of months, not years. Now, CDC is confirming that the current Covid-19 vaccines are not working effectively against Covid-19.
In contrast, the millions of Americans who have fought off Covid-19 infections, either with or without symptoms, are proving to have greater and longer lasting immunity, so far, than those who have been vaccinated. That, too, was predicted by virologists.”
Americans are now told the Delta variant is a pandemic among the unvaccinated, even though the data doesn’t support this claim. The CDC appears to be trying to prop up this narrative by not reporting breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals unless they are hospitalized or die.
Even then, they acknowledge them only if they have a positive PCR test run at a cycle threshold (CT) below 28,26 whereas unvaccinated people are still tested at a CT of 40 or above. The higher the CT, the greater the chance of a false positive.
Israeli Data Show Waning Effectiveness of Pfizer Shot
Israel is now recommending a third booster shot for people over the age of 60, as data27 shows the Pfizer injection is only 39% effective (relative risk reduction) against the Delta variant, down from 64% relative effectiveness two weeks earlier.
As of August 2, 2021, 66.9% of Israelis had received at least one dose of Pfizer’s injection; 62.2% had received two doses.28 A day earlier, August 1, the director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.29 Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.
In closing, remember there are several different treatment protocols for COVID-19 that appear just as effective for variants as for the original virus, including the following:
Nebulized hydrogen peroxide for prevention and treatment of COVID-19, as detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper30 and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” Levy believes nebulized hydrogen peroxide can also be an invaluable strategy for combating spike protein toxicity31 because, in addition to being a powerful antiviral, it will also augment and speed up cellular healing, in part by improving oxygenation
Dr. Anthony Fauci on Sunday said the continued spread of COVID among the unvaccinated could lead to a more serious disease.
Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), told viewers of NBC’s “Meet the Press”:
“As we’ve said all along this is fundamentally a pandemic among the unvaccinated. That is proven true … One of the problems … is you don’t want people to get sick and to get hospitalized and to die. That is happening now predominantly — overwhelmingly — among the unvaccinated.”
Fauci told viewers the vaccines “do quite well against Delta particularly in protecting you from severe disease.” But if you “give the virus the chance to continue to change,” he said, “we might get a worse variant and then that will impact not only the unvaccinated, that will impact the vaccinated because that variant could evade the protection of the vaccine.”
In an interview with The Defender, Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA and DNA vaccines, worldwide expert in RNA technologies, and Harvard-trained physician, said there’s an agenda for universal vaccination that is not scientifically sound.
“Tony Fauci is not an epidemiologist,” Malone said. “He does not have an MPH [Masters in Public Health]. He is not trained in this. Moderna is the first vaccine that has ever come out of NIAID that has even come close to licensure.”
“They’ve completely failed to develop an AIDS vaccine. They failed to develop a West Nile vaccine and a Zika vaccine. Every time there’s an outbreak, Fauci goes to Congress and requests a bunch of money to create a vaccine and this is his first big win. They just seem to be dug in that universal vaccination is the only solution.”
According to Malone, Fauci has rolled out the “noble lie.” The noble lie is that we have to reach herd immunity for economic recovery and to minimize death and disability, and these genetic vaccines are the only path available to herd immunity and these genetic vaccines are perfectly safe.
Each of these statements is demonstrably false, Malone said.
OK, time for another one of these. My positions – 1) bioethics require full risk disclosure and free choice. Neither of these are being met. 2) For high risk populations, the risk/benefit ratio for the USA vaccines seem to make sense. 3) We do not know all the risks yet.
The breakthrough crisis really came to a head when The Washington Post obtained and reported on a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) slide deck, Malone said.
According to the leaked CDC data, 15% of those hospitalized for COVID were fully vaccinated as of May. The number was just 3.1% in April.
Malone said the CDC data make it clear that even if we had complete uptake in vaccines and complete masking, at best we can slow the spread of Delta but we can’t stop it.
Malone, who believes death and disability still warrant vaccination in high-risk populations, subscribes to Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s theory that continued mass vaccination campaigns will enable new, more infectious viral variants.
“Geert Vanden Bossche — I am on board with that now,” Malone said, “That we really shouldn’t be doing universal vaccination because we’re just going to be generating escape mutants.”
Vanden Bossche is a virologist and vaccinologist who worked with GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle, and Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization in Geneva.
“There can be no doubt that continued mass vaccination campaigns will enable new, more infectious viral variants to become increasingly dominant and ultimately result in a dramatic incline in new cases despite enhanced vaccine coverage rates. There can be no doubt either that this situation will soon lead to complete resistance of circulating variants to the current vaccines.”
“A combination of lockdowns and extreme selection pressure on the virus-induced by the intense global mass vaccination program might diminish the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the short-term, but ultimately, would induce the creation of more mutants of concern — known as “immune escape.”
This will trigger vaccine companies to further refine vaccines that will add to the selection pressure, producing ever more transmissible and potentially deadly variants.
Vaccine breakthrough cases increase across the U.S.
The CDC’s latest breakthrough numbers, as of Aug. 2, show 7,525 fully vaccinated people with COVID breakthrough cases. Of those, 7,525 people were hospitalized and 1,507 people died.
A breakthrough case refers to anyone who is diagnosed with COVID after being fully vaccinated. A person is considered fully vaccinated two weeks after receiving the second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID vaccine or two weeks after receiving the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine.
CDC: 3,907 hospitalizations + 750 deaths in people fully vaccinated against COVID with an FDA-authorized vaccine as of June 21.https://t.co/IthNjLnc0G
In May, the CDC revised its guidance for reporting breakthrough cases, stating it would count only those cases that result in hospitalization or death. Previously, the agency had included in its breakthrough count anyone who tested positive for COVID.
According to the CDC, the surveillance system for breakthrough cases is passive and relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments, which may not be complete. In addition, some breakthrough cases will not be identified due to a lack of testing. This is particularly true in instances of asymptomatic or mild illness, the CDC said.
The Oregon Health Authority released COVID vaccine breakthrough data on Aug. 6, recording a total of 4,196 breakthrough cases through July 31.
In July, there were 12,514 total cases of COVID in Oregon with one out of every five (19%) occurring in people who were fully vaccinated, according to the Oregon Health Authority.
About 1 in 10 severe cases of COVID requiring hospitalization or resulting in death occurred in individuals who were vaccinated. Out of 55 COVID-related deaths, 9% occurred in individuals who were vaccinated.
New data from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) showed 100 people who had been fully vaccinated died of COVID in the state by the end of July. In about three-quarters of the breakthrough cases, patients reported having underlying conditions, DPH said. The median age of those who died was 82.5 years.
According to a CDC study from Aug. 6, 469 COVID cases were identified among residents of Barnstable County, Massachusetts with 436 cases (74%) occurring in people who were fully vaccinated.
The Louisiana Department of Health (LDH) released data held secret for months about which COVID vaccines produced the most breakthrough cases, WBRZ reported.
The data released Friday by LDH after a series of requests from the WBRZ Investigative Unit showed among fully vaccinated people with breakthrough infections and who had severe health outcomes such as hospitalization or death, 41% received Moderna, 52% received Pfizer and 6% received Johnson and Johnson’s COVID vaccine.
LDH reiterated that in its statement: “The number of people who received each type of vaccine is not equal… [so many factors in the data] further cloud any conclusions one can draw from these numbers.”
Between July 22 and July 28, 10% of new cases that week were breakthrough cases. In that same period, 16% of deaths occurred in people who had been vaccinated.
Of 422 people hospitalized in Baton Rouge hospitals as of Aug. 6, 59 were fully vaccinated.
Dan Stock, MD, a family-practice physician in Noblesville, Indiana, testified on August 7, 2021, before the local Mt. Vernon School Board. His presentation immediately went viral – and for good reason. In slightly less than seven minutes, Dr. Stock explained why everything advocated by the CDC and the National Institute of Health is contrary to known science. We will not attempt to summarize his presentation, because it is like a fast-moving freight train with a hundred boxcars of information rolling by. The amount of information packed into his short presentation is phenomenal. Expect the pro-vaccine gatekeepers of information to go ballistic over the fact that this has gone viral and do everything in their power to discredit this courageous doctor.
Columnist Tells CNN that US Is WRONG to Pursue ‘illusory victory’ Over COVID and Says Kids Are 18 Times More Likely to DROWN Than Die From Virusirus
A leading journalist has called on Americans to get a grip and learn to live with COVID-19, rather than attempting to win an ‘illusory’ victory over the virus.
Speaking to Anderson Cooper on CNN Monday night, Andrew Sullivan said it was time to lift lockdown measures, encourage people to take vaccines, and stop letting federal and state governments continue to impose lockdown rules on Americans’ lives.
Explaining his philosophy on the virus, Sullivan said: ‘Government isn’t there to hold your hand every day. The government has a responsibility to give you the means to protect you and your family from this. Once they’ve done that, as a free country. You get to live.’
Sullivan lives in Provincetown, Massachusetts, which saw one of the biggest outbreaks of COVID among fully-vaccinated people last month.
Earlier this month, he wrote on his blog The Dish that seeing how mild the symptoms were among his vaccinated friends convinced him that it was time to shrug off the fear of the virus.
Sullivan told Cooper: ‘The goal is not to pursue an illusory victory over the virus, but to learn how to live with it, and actually live fully alongside it,’ he said.
While the Delta variant remains on the rise, Sullivan argues that COVID has become ‘less of a plague and more of a disease you live with’.
‘In a free society, once everyone has access to a vaccine that overwhelmingly prevents serious sickness and death, there’s no reason to enforce lockdowns again or mask mandates or social distancing any longer. In fact, there’s every reason not to,’ he said.
Sullivan, who was born in the UK and has enjoyed an illustrious career as a journalist in the US added: ‘There are costs to not living. There are costs to having a year of your life taken away from learning and developing as a child. There are costs of not being with your family. There are costs of not being with your fellow workers,’ he explained.
‘We are a social animal. We cannot live isolated like this. We’ve never done this before. You can’t wrap yourself up in cotton wool for the rest of your life and you mustn’t let children not live.’
He argues that while communities around the nation are experiencing case surges, citizens need to resume normal life.
Grilled by Cooper about the risks to children because under 12s cannot yet have COVID vaccines, Sullivan said that under fives were in more danger each time they went for a swim.
The writer, who is strongly pro-vaccine, explained: ‘If you’re 18 times more likely to drown if you’re aged one to five than to die of COVID.
‘I think putting it in some sort of perspective for children, which is it’s not that serious a disease at all. It’s like a bad cold.
‘The immunocompromised are going to be unfortunately vulnerable for a long time. This now, we now know, is a virus that transmits from vaccinated people. So we’re going to have to live with this thing. We’re going to have to be vaccinated consistently against it.
Four months ago, on March 30, 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said: “Our data from the CDC today suggest that vaccinated people do not carry the virus,” indicating that vaccinated people could neither catch nor spread the illness. A few weeks later a CDC study claimed that Pfizer and Moderna follow-up shots reduced the risk of infection by 90%. On August 5, Walensky was interviewed on CNN and said, “Our vaccines are working exceptionally well. They continue to work well for Delta in regard to severe illness and death being prevented. But what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.” In just the past two weeks, the CDC went from claiming vaccines are preventing variants to claiming vaccines may be causing variants. Tony Fauci now says that vaccinated people can infect other people. The CDC now recommends that vaccinated people wear masks. All of this leads to the question: If vaccinated and non-vaccinated people can carry and transmit the virus – with or without symptoms – then what is the purpose of a vaccination passport? -GEG
Fully vaccinated people who get a Covid-19 breakthrough infection can transmit the virus, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said Thursday.
“Our vaccines are working exceptionally well,” Walensky told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “They continue to work well for Delta, with regard to severe illness and death — they prevent it. But what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”
That’s why the CDC changed its guidance last week and is now recommending even vaccinated people wear masks indoors again, Walensky said.
The CDC said the exact opposite in April (and social media sites would silence you for claiming otherwise):
Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and editor-in-chief of MedPage Today, is pushing back against the growing drumbeat for mass vaccinations and COVID vaccine mandates.
In an interview with U.S. News & World Reports, Makary said mandating vaccines for “every living, walking American” is not well-supported by science. Makary also expressed concerns about the two-dose vaccine regimen for adolescents.
Makary told U.S. News & World Report that as a physician, he believes “you win more bees with honey than with fire — referring to patients who don’t follow what “we ask them to do.”
Makary believes people “who choose not to get vaccinated are making a poor health decision at their own individual risk.” But he doesn’t believe the unvaccinated pose a public health threat to those who are already immune to the virus.
“Would we be so stern toward people making similar or worse health choices to smoke, drink alcohol, or not wear a helmet when riding a bike? Over 85,000 Americans die annually from alcohol, yet we don’t have the same public health fervor or requirements to save those lives. Let’s encourage vaccination rather than activate the personal liberty culture wars that result in people becoming more entrenched in their opposition.”
Makary said that vaccinating everyone — including eventually every newborn — in order to control the pandemic is based on the false assumption that the risk of dying from COVID is equally distributed among the population — but it’s not, he said.
“We have always known that it’s very hard for the virus to hurt someone who is young and healthy,” Makary said. “And that’s still the case.”
Makary suggested taking a similar approach to what is used with the flu shot, which is often mandated for healthcare workers. Makary said while vaccine requirements for healthcare workers make sense, we would never extend those requirements outside of healthcare.
“We’d simply state to the public: Those who avoid the flu shot do so at their own risk,” Makary said.
No scientific support for requiring the vaccine for those with natural immunity
Makary said there is no scientific support for requiring the vaccine in people who have natural immunity — that is, immunity from prior COVID infection. There is zero clinical outcome data to support arguing dogmatically that natural immune individuals “must get vaccinated.”
“During every month of this pandemic, I’ve had debates with other public researchers about the effectiveness and durability of natural immunity. I’ve been told that natural immunity could fall off a cliff, rendering people susceptible to infection. But here we are now, over a year and a half into the clinical experience of observing patients who were infected, and natural immunity is effective and going strong. And that’s because, with natural immunity, the body develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus, not just a spike protein constructed from a vaccine.”
A recent Israeli study affirmed the superiority of natural immunity. Health Ministry data on the wave of COVID outbreaks which began in May 2021, found a 6.72 times greater level of protection among those with natural immunity compared to those with vaccinated immunity.
In June, a Cleveland Clinic study found vaccinating people with natural immunity did not add to their level of protection.
The clinic studied 52,238 employees. Of those, 49,659 never had the virus and 2,579 had COVID and recovered. Of the 2,579 who previously were infected, 1,359 remained unvaccinated, compared with 22,777 who were vaccinated.
Not one of the 1,359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study.
As The Defender reported, a December 2020 study by Singapore researchers found neutralizing antibodies (one prong of the immune response) remained present in high concentrations for 17 years or more in individuals who recovered from the original SARS-CoV.
Yet despite these recent findings, health authorities are largely ignoring the scientific evidence of natural immunity’s stellar track record. In fact, as the American Institute of Economic Research reported, it appears in order to promote the COVID vaccine agenda, key organizations are not only “downplaying” natural immunity but may be seeking to “erase” it all together.
Makary said instead of talking about the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, we should be talking about the immune and non-immune.
“Immunity can be proven with a simple antibody test,” Makary said, and “vaccine passports and proof-of-vaccine documents should recognize it.”
Makary said there’s very strong population immunity in most parts of the U.S. and these areas are resistant to the delta variant. Roughly a third to half of Americans who are unvaccinated have natural immunity, based on an analysis of California residents.
According to a study conducted by the state of California in March, 38% of Californians and 45% of Los Angeles residents had natural immunity.
“We’re potentially talking about a large portion of the U.S. population who may be immune to COVID and not know it,” Makary said. “They should be tested to find out, and we should concentrate our vaccination efforts on people who are not immune.”
No strong case for vaccinating kids, Makary says
When it comes to vaccinating healthy kids, Makary says there is not a strong case for vaccinating young people up to age 25.
“When it comes to vaccinating healthy kids — and you could argue young people up to 25 — there is a case for vaccination but it’s not strong. The COVID-19 death risk is clustered among kids with a comorbid condition, like obesity.
“Of the more than 330 COVID-19 deaths in kids under age 25, there’s good preliminary data suggesting that most or nearly all appear to be in kids with a pre-existing condition. For kids with concurrent medical conditions, the case for vaccination is compelling. But for healthy kids?”
Makary said he’s concerned the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) hasn’t considered whether one- or two-dose shots would be sufficient or safer for young people.
“The agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has vigorously recommended the two-dose vaccine regimen for all children ages 12 and up, regardless of whether kids already have immunity. I take issue with that,” Makary said.
As The Defender reported, Simone Scott, 19, and Jacob Clynick, 13, died shortly after receiving their second COVID vaccine doses after developing heart inflammation.
Simone Scott underwent a heart transplant one month after developing what her doctors believe was myocarditis following her second dose of Moderna. She received the second vaccine May 1 and died June 11.
Makary said he wished the CDC would tell the public more about their deaths, and the 19 others youths under the age of 25 who, according to CDC data, have died after receiving a COVID vaccine.
“Since the clinical trials were not powered sufficiently to detect rare events like these, I want to know more about those deaths before making blanket recommendations,” Makary said.
“Researching these events is important when issuing broad guidance about vaccinating healthy kids, including students, who already have an infinitesimally small risk of dying from COVID-19.”
Makary perplexed by vitriol directed at those reluctant to get vaccinated
Makary believes that for some, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the biggest driver of hesitancy in those not willing to get vaccinated as the agency has failed to fully approve COVID vaccines due to stability testing.
Makary didn’t refrain from attacking the CDC either. According to Makary, the CDC’s relentless focus on vaccine-induced immunity and its “demonizing” of individuals who choose not to get a COVID vaccine make the agency “the slowest, reactionary, political CDC in American history.”
In June, Makary blasted the CDC and White House for continuing to push COVID vaccines when it’s not necessary.
“I never thought I’d say this, but please ignore the CDC guidance,” he said.
“The goal of our pandemic response should be to reduce death, illness, and disability, but instead what you’re seeing is a movement that has morphed from being pro-vaccine to vaccine fanaticism at all costs.”
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree, and extensive training in natural health.
mRNA Inventor Speaks Out on the COVID Crisis: The Three False ‘Truths’ Being Circulated
Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA technology, says three lies are being circulated about COVID-19 including the need for herd immunity.
Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology, expressed his concerns about the spike protein used in COVID-19 vaccines to the FDA last fall, but was dismissed
C60-complete-small-150×150 mRNA Inventor Speaks Out about COVID Crisis
C60Complete Black Seed Oil & Curcumin Gel Capsules – Proven 200x more effective than Vitamin C!
In its native form in SARS-CoV-2, the spike protein is responsible for the pathologies of the viral infection, and in its wild form it’s known to open the blood-brain barrier, cause cell damage (cytotoxicity) and other problems
Malone speaks about the bioethics of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) granted to COVID-19 vaccines; experimentation without proper informed consent violates the Nuremberg Code
The concept of the noble lie was first described by Plato; it refers to the notion that, in the case of high-status individuals or designated public leaders, it’s acceptable to lie if the lie is made in the interest of the common good
Three lies are being circulated about COVID-19, including the need for herd immunity, the notion that herd immunity can only be achieved by universal vaccination and that the vaccines are completely safe; any discussion that challenges or goes against these three elements is censored
Malone believes that children and young adults up to age 30 or 35 should not be vaccinated because the risks outweigh the benefits in this population
When Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,1 spoke out about the risks of COVID-19 gene therapy vaccines in June 2021, he was surprised that the three-hour interview went viral. “It showed there was a huge thirst for information from people all over the world,” he said, speaking with Aga Wilson with Newsvoice.2
The podcast was erased from YouTube, and Malone quickly realized that his message, which he felt morally obliged to share, would not be heard via mainstream media.
“When it became clear to me that I would not be able to speak through mainstream media, I, together with my wife … made a conscious decision to reach out through alternative media and new media, and I’ve learned, from many, many podcasts and podcasters like yourself about the value of this new medium of podcasting,” he told Wilson.3
Experimental Vaccine Violates Bioethics Laws
With Malone’s impressive credentials, his grave concerns about COVID-19 vaccines have made many stop and listen, and people started writing to him about their own problems with censorship and the spectrum of adverse events with the vaccine. It all started, Malone said, with a long conversation with a physician in Canada, who poured his heart out about what he was experiencing in Canada treating patients with COVID-19 and adverse events after vaccination.
He reported them to authorities but was dismissed and told they weren’t related to the injection even though, in his clinical opinion, they were. With the mass vaccination campaign in full effect, Malone was also disturbed that it is considered OK by the government to entice children to get vaccinated by offering them free ice cream or doughnuts, and even allowing children to get vaccinated without their parents’ consent.
He soon ventured into the bioethics of the emergency use authorization (EUA) granted to COVID-19 vaccines. Experimentation without proper informed consent violates the Nuremberg Code,4 which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation.
This set of principles was developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again, but in the current climate of extreme censorship, people are not being informed about the full risks of the vaccines — which are only beginning to be uncovered.
Further, due to the EUA, adults aren’t required to sign informed consent documents and, at the same time, aren’t being given a full disclosure of the risks that would normally be given during a clinical trial5 — and, at this point, anyone who receives the vaccine is participating as a research subject.
FDA Dismissed Malone’s Vaccine Warning
Through his professional career, Malone has worked closely with the U.S. government for many years. As such, he has kept an open dialogue with colleagues at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, with whom he discussed concerns about adverse events and the spike protein used in COVID-19 vaccines.
In its native form in SARS-CoV-2, the spike protein is responsible for the pathologies of the viral infection, and in its wild form it’s known to open the blood-brain barrier, cause cell damage (cytotoxicity) and, Malone said, “is active in manipulating the biology of the cells that coat the inside of your blood vessels — vascular endothelial cells, in part through its interaction with ACE2, which controls contraction in the blood vessels, blood pressure and other things.”6
Malone is well aware of the actions of spike protein, as he worked to identify an effective drug that worked by blocking the action of the COX-2 enzyme, which is a key inflammatory enzyme. In one of his papers, he laid out how the spike protein and another protein in the virus directly turn on COX-2 promoter in infected cells.
This awareness of the spike protein as a biologically active protein made him alert the FDA about the associated risks last fall. His FDA colleagues transferred his concerns to the FDA’s review branch, which dismissed his concerns, saying they did not believe the spike protein was biologically active and there wasn’t enough documentation otherwise. As history now reveals, they proceeded with the EUA.
It’s since been revealed that the spike protein on its own is enough to cause inflammation and damage to the vascular system, even independent of a virus.7
Plato’s Noble Lie: Three False ‘Truths’ Being Circulated
The concept of the noble lie was first described by Socrates and Plato.8 It refers to the notion that, in the case of high-status individuals or designated public leaders, it’s acceptable to lie if the lie is made in the interest of the common good.
But in the modern day, in the midst of an unprecedented global pandemic in which government, Big Pharma, media and Big Tech have become integrated, we’re now seeing the noble lie “play out in a way that Plato could never have imagined,” Malone said.
Take Dr. Anthony Fauci — whose expertise has been held as indisputable by mainstream media since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. He’s been caught lying to both the public and the U.S. Senate on a number of issues, but nothing has been done about it.
Malone outlined three main logic elements — each false — that are being propagated as part of the grander noble lie. Any discussion that challenges or goes against these three elements is censored:9
1. Mitigating death and disease from COVID requires herd immunity — This is not true, as it’s possible to reduce death and disease from COVID-19 using medications like ivermectin and many others, including anti-inflammatories.
2. The only way to reach herd immunity is through universal vaccination — This is another lie. As Malone says, “Herd immunity is most often reached through natural infection.” Further, there’s no solid data on whether COVID injections reduce transmissibility, which changes depending on the variant anyway. So the idea that we must reach a certain percentage of herd immunity in the population to end the pandemic “fails the logic test.”
Even the World Health Organization advises people who are vaccinated to continue wearing masks due to the delta variant because “vaccine alone won’t stop community transmission.”10 “Vaccines will not get us to herd immunity,” Malone said.11
3. The vaccines are completely safe — This is another lie, as it’s well known that the vaccines are not completely safe. Malone listed several adverse events that are already raising red flags. Another important point: Censorship prevents full comprehension of these risks:
Miscarriage in the first and second trimesters (this has not yet been confirmed), Thrombocytopenia (dropping blood platelets)
Brain and nervous system disorders
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
Data Do Not Support Vaccination of Children
Malone believes that children and young adults up to age 30 or 35 should not be vaccinated, noting that the total number of COVID-19 deaths for birth- to 18-year-olds during the entire pandemic is 386.12 Children reap little benefit from this vaccine, not only because they’re at very low risk from COVID-19, but also because, according to Peter Doshi, Ph.D., a significant portion of U.S. children are already immune and aren’t at risk of infection to begin with.
Doshi cited Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showing an estimated 23% of children under the age of 4 and 42% of those ages 5 through 17 have already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection and now have robust and long-lasting immunity.
The rationale has been that children should be vaccinated in order to protect the elderly, but this only has merit if the vaccine has no toxicity, which isn’t the case with COVID-19 injections, so the justification fails miserably. “We need to carefully think about who gets the benefit from vaccination, and focus vaccination on them,” Malone said.
For people who aren’t at high risk, it’s hard to justify exposing them to risk from a COVID-19 injection. Doshi similarly pointed out that the FDA has no basis on which to grant COVID-19 vaccines emergency use authorization for children in the first place, as COVID-19 is not an emergency in children. The threat this infection poses to children is negligible and no more serious than that of the common cold or flu.
The Power of Podcasts
Malone has been speaking out about the problems of censorship and the fact that physicians and scientists who raise concerns that go against the official narrative can be damaged professionally. He even heard an unsubstantiated report in Spain that a physician who advocates for alternative treatment strategies can be declared mentally incompetent and institutionalized.
“This is profoundly worrying,” he said, “but we’re seeing it all over the world … It’s extremely difficult to speak against this narrative.”13 Malone would know. Just five days after he publicly shared his concerns about the dangers of COVID-19 injections, his name and scientific credentials, including those relating to mRNA vaccines, were removed from Wikipedia.
Through his remaining contacts with the government, Malone is still trying to share this powerful insider information and data with those in positions of power who will listen. He comes from a place of caring and empathy and believes this, not fighting the opposition, is key.
He’s also speaking out via podcasts, which he believes are “extremely valuable” and “represent a threat to the narrative.” Instead of worrying about being deleted from social media or speaking to a reporter who may “cut and splice my words to fit some narrative that they want to impose … podcasts work. They get out to people.”
Malone is privy to the opposition he’s up against, but as a highly ethical physician committed to integrity — and preeminently qualified to speak on this topic — he feels it’s his duty to share the truth. It will take this and many others like him speaking out to counter the false narrative being forced upon us as the truth.
If we give up, we’ll continue down this rabbit hole in which misinformation becomes fact and believing it is the only choice to remain a part of society. This isn’t an option, which is why sharing data and information as Malone is doing is a heroic action that we can all take part in.
A recent study published by King’s College in London, which operates the ZOECOVID Study app to monitor COVID infection and vaccination rates, found that as of July 15 there was an average of 15,537 new daily symptomatic cases of COVID-19 among partly or fully vaccinated people in the UK — an increase of 40% from the previous week’s total of 11,084 new cases.
Infections in vaccinated people in the UK are outpacing infections in the unvaccinated
The Zoe COVID Study, led by epidemiologist Tim Spector, M.D., of Kings College in London, estimated that there were 17,581 new daily symptomatic cases of COVID-19 in unvaccinated people, or 22% less than the previous week’s total of 22,638 new cases. According to a press release issued by the study’s authors, “With cases in the vaccinated group continuing to rise, the number of new cases in the vaccinated population is set to overtake the unvaccinated in the coming days.”
On July 17, the UK’s Health Secretary, Sajid Javid, announced he had tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus despite having received two doses of the AstraZeneca/Oxford University’s experimental AZD1222 COVID vaccine on Mar. 17 and May 16.
“This morning I tested positive for COVID. I’m waiting for my PCR result, but thankfully I have had my jabs and symptoms are mild.”
With a population of more than 66 million people, two-thirds of adults in the UK. have received the COVID-19 vaccine, representing a total of 82,592,996 vaccinations as of July 20. Some 46,349,709 Britons have received the first dose and 36,243,287 have gotten the second dose. The country is not vaccinating children.
The U.K. is among the most highly vaccinated countries in the world, but it is experiencing the third wave of coronavirus infections reportedly largely due to the spread of the Delta variant of the virus. Other highly vaccinated countries like Israel are also experiencing a new wave of coronavirus infections due to the Delta variant.
Most infections in Israel are among vaccinated people
In Israel, about 60% of the country’s population of 9.3 million has received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine. About 85% of adults in Israel have been vaccinated. Yet most of the new coronavirus infections are occurring in vaccinated people.
In early July, former Health Minister Chezy Levy, M.D. confirmed that “55% of the newly infected [people in Israel] had been vaccinated.”
There has also been a concerning rise in the number of vaccinated people in Israel being hospitalized. An article in The Jerusalem Post last week noted that the Israeli Health Ministry reported 124 people had been hospitalized for COVID-19 on July 20 and that 65% of them were fully vaccinated. Of the 124 people, 62 were in serious condition and 70% of those patients were fully vaccinated.
Earlier this month, the Health Ministry estimated that Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 COVID biologic was only 64% effective in preventing symptomatic infections of COVID-19, specifically those caused by the Delta variant. But the effectiveness rate for Pfizer’s experimental COVID vaccine in preventing infection (and transmission) could be lower.
Infections in Chile, Seychelles, and Mongolia mostly in vaccinated people
Another example of a highly vaccinated country that has been experiencing a new outbreak of coronavirus infections mostly among its vaccinated population is Chile. Of the thousands of new coronavirus cases being reported daily in that country, 80% of them are in vaccinated people. Chile has fully vaccinated 55% of its population.
The examples of the U.K., Israel, and Chile, as well as other highly vaccinated countries like the Seychelles and Mongolia experiencing coronavirus infections mostly within the vaccinated segments of their populations, pose a dilemma. The governments of these countries have to decide if the problem is that not enough of their people have been vaccinated, or that the vaccines are simply not as effective as initially assumed they would be.
Could vaccinations be causing a rise in infections?
There is also a third possible problem which was raised by French virologist and Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier, M.D. in May. In an interview with Pierre Barnérias of Hold-Up Media, Dr. Montagnier said he believed that the mass vaccination programs for COVID may actually be causing SARS-CoV-2 mutations like the Delta variant and, thus, prolonging the pandemic.
Montagnier explained that in each country that undertakes a mass vaccination campaign, “the curve of vaccinations is followed by the curve of deaths.” He said that the COVID vaccines create antibodies that force the virus to “find another solution” or “die,” adding that it is the variants that “are a production and result from the vaccination.”
Montagnier’s views are admittedly controversial. The thought that vaccinations may actually be exacerbating the COVID pandemic is perhaps too difficult a concept for government officials to consider. But this possibility should not be dismissed outright.
One of the best explanations of this dynamic was given by Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder, and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) in a 2011 interview when she described the evolution of pertussis bacteria to evade the vaccines:
“[E]very life form wants to live, wants to survive. Universal principle. And viruses and bacteria are no exception. And when you put pressure on a virus or bacteria that are circulating, with the use of a vaccine that contains a lab-altered form of that virus or bacteria, it doesn’t seem that it would be illogical to understand that that organism is going to fight to survive, it’s going to find a way to adapt in order to survive.”
Marco Cáceres is managing editor of the weekly journal newspaper “The Vaccine Reaction” established and published by the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center, which launched the TVR website in 2015.