There is a reason science is a process and until you understand something you should keep your ******ned mouth shut.

Especially when all you have against 40+ years of hard science is computer models.

Massssskss was one of them.  I warned early on that physics said masks could not work if the virus was in aerosols or transmitted in feces, no matter whether the feces were manually spread or through aerosols.  We knew this was virtually certain when a mass-spread event happened twice in Wuhan and Hong Kong in apartments on the same vertical drain stack where there were no P-traps; the people infected did not know each other and thus any other form of transmission other than through fecal aerosol was wildly improbable.  That was ignored.  We then had the German meatpacking plant where everyone was wearing masks and yet a huge outbreak took place across tens of feet, a claimed impossibility.  Yet it happened and was proved by RNA sequencing; the researchers were able to identify the index and daughter cases and thus conclusively prove that the infections happened in that plant via that route, despite masks.

Now MIT has weighed in and said the same thing. They try to sidestep the mask issue in their "research" but fail; nothing less than an N95, which is not a mask but rather a respirator, stops aerosols, and source control does not work even with N95s because when you exhale the positive pressure escapes around the edges and for aerosols goes right through the gaps.  Workplaces and airlines have banned N95s with exhaust valves which preserve the seal on your face and thus are the only ones that will provide protection for you against inhaling said aerosol.  Non-valved respirators repeatedly break said seal and thus render it ineffective within minutes.  Don't believe me?  Put on an N95 without a valve and do some sanding where there's lots of dust, when you take it off let me know what you find around the edges where the respirator used to be.  This is why you want the ones with a valve and why the ones I have for such work have a valve.

Pay attention to this paper folks and note its publication date, January 2021.  Nobody has paid any attention to it at all yet it is peer-reviewed in Nature, one of the "better" medical publications.  I will start right here with what you do not want to read, but you damn well should before you take the shots.

This T cell-mediated immune response is even more important as studies on humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-1 provided evidence that antibody responses are short-lived and can even cause or aggravate virus-associated lung pathology

Note that when you get the shot the first thing you get is antibodies; you may get a T-cell reaction.  This pre-existing knowledge, from SARS (CoV-1) entirely explains why people who just got vaccinated often get hammered by the virus and frequently end up in the hospital or die.  It marks the premise of attempting to vaccinate out of a pandemic where transmission is actively occurring as stupid.

You go get the shot.  Five days later you get the virus.  You have not yet developed immunity and the partial expression makes it worse.

You would have been better off, by far, taking the same infection straight up front.  It likely would have harmed you less.

This generally applies, by the way, to all vaccines and all viruses.  The government and researchers know this.  They've known this for decades.  It's fact.  It's why you don't wait until the measles is raging around you to get a measles vaccine and the same is true for the flu shot; you get it before the flu season starts for this very reason.  Attempting to vaccinate out of a raging infection does not work and in fact kills people.

Yeah, if you don't get infected during that latent period you get protection.  But if you do get infected you're screwed and all of the two-dose shots have a roughly four week window during which you get hosed instead of protected.  Israel's data, by the way, proves this is real; Berenson has been reporting on it since the beginning of the year and I've noted it as well.

If you remember I've also pointed out that multiple studies have shown that somewhere between 30-50% of the population is T-cell reactive to Covid-19 despite never having had it, nor SARS or MERS, its alleged "precursors."  But those studies were non-specific; that is, they looked for T-cell reactivity but never tried to identify the specific protein sequences and their part of the whole that was involved.  This study does, and it finally puts light on basically the entire reason that what we've done is not only wrong it's criminally stupid.

These folks did what we should have done originally -- they isolated a panel of 120 peptides that comprised roughly 10% of the entire virus, containing 57% and 1% of the nucleocapsid and spike proteins.  Note that while the "spike" facilitates entry into the cell there is evidence that it is, standing alone, pathological -- that is, it causes disease in the human body without the rest of the virus.  The nucleocapsid portion, on the other hand, is the part that is responsible for replication; if it is tagged and the cell containing it is destroyed then viral replication is prevented even though penetration of the cell has occurred.

I draw your attention to this graph:

This fully explains the wild divergence in outcomes even among similarly-morbid people.  The more "matches" you have on a pre-existing basis the more-fully your immune system can recognize the virus and while you will get infected if those matches are among the nucleocapsid section you're much more-likely to drive it off without serious consequence.

Note that among the "PRE" (not-infected) collection of samples all were prior to November of 2019 and thus presumed non-infected.  We in fact know there were infections during that time frame but most in that group were from wildly before Covid-19 by as much as 10 years or more, so the cross-contamination percentage is going to be very low.

Now let me point to the data itself.

Of the SARS donors, 100% showed T cell responses to cross-reactive and/or specific ECs (HLA class I 86%, HLA-DR 100%; Fig. 5d,e), whereas 81% of PRE donors showed HLA class I (16%) and/or HLA-DR (77%) T cell responses to cross-reactive ECs (Fig. 5d).

81% eh?  Isn't that an interesting number?  Where have we seen that before?

You know damn well where, don't you?

It's the rough percentage of alleged Covid-19 infections that were either asymptomatic or very low-symptom for which no medical treatment was sought and, in many cases, not detected.

So it wasn't 30 or 50% who had pre-existing protection it's actually roughly 8 in 10!  This was not a "novel, everyone is susceptible" virus at all.  It never was.  You were lied to from the very beginning and thus all the "models" based on that were trash.

Again, just a bit further down:

Taken together, SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes enabled detection of post-infectious T cell immunity in 100% of individuals convalescing from COVID-19 and revealed pre-existing T cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals.

Now we know why Diamond Princess happened the way it did.  It was never possible for more than 20% of the people on that ship to get seriously-symptomatic Covid-19 despite being cooped up in close quarters for weeks with an aerosol-spread disease and cruise passengers generally being wildly-overrepresented for various morbidity factors.  It also completely explains why one of two people quarantined in the same cabin got sick and the other did not.

We also know why my friend's grandfather was killed by it but his equally-morbid grandmother was not touched symptomatically even though she tested positive despite literally sleeping in the same bed with him until he wound up in the hospital and ultimately expired.

We also know why there is no place on the planet that has seen >20% of people with significant, symptomatic disease from Covid-19.  Not a single place has had that happen, even where sanitation is crap and people spread it like crazy (e.g. Iran where they lick monuments sequentially -- literally.)

This study explains every single example seen everywhere in the world, including high-concentration examples, of infection with Covid-19 back to the start of the pandemic.  We now know why no more than 20% of any exposed population has ever exhibited materially-serious disease -- it simply was not possible as no more than 20% of the population was potentially susceptible to serious disease.  Ever.  Period.

EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT OTHERWISE WAS FALSE AND EXACTLY ZERO SO-CALLED "PUBLIC HEALTH" AUTHORITIES OR POLITICANS HAVE EVER ADMITTED TO THIS, YET IT IS NOW SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED THEY WERE COMPLETELY FULL OF CRAP FROM THE FIRST DAY ONWARD AND WE KNEW SO, BUT NOT WHY, AFTER DIAMOND PRINCESS AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT.

NOW WE KNOW WHY -- WITH SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY.

Let me distill this down for you before I go on:

In 100% of the persons who had and recovered from Covid-19 and 81% of those who have never had the virus a vaccine may well be worthless as they already have T-cell response.  While this will not prevent them from getting it again there is questionable at best benefit over their existing immunological state but there is risk, including a risk of death, from the side effects.

Furthermore, evidence was provided for a lower recognition frequency of cross-reactive HLA-DR EC in hospitalized patients compared to donors with mild COVID-19 course, which might suggest a lack of pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 T cells in severely ill patients.

No kidding?  Gee, yet more points of contact with the obvious?

Then there's this:

Our observation that intensity of T cell responses and recognition rate of T cell epitopes was significantly higher in convalescent patients compared to unexposed individuals suggests that not only expansion, but also a spread of SARS-CoV-2 T cell response diversity occurs upon active infection.

Let me be clear: The entire premise of all of the "mitigations" and demand for mass-vaccination relied on a lie; that this was a "novel" virus to which nobody had existing resistance.  We now know that's false; 81% of the population in fact does have existing immunity and further, that immunity is strengthened, materially so, by natural infection.  In short if you have said partial resistance you want to get the disease as the odds of you being seriously harmed are statistically zero yet you will perfect your immunity and from a public health perspective you want those people who are not going to be seriously harmed to get it naturally, not take a ******ned shot because it is that perfection of immunity that stops the disease from being of harm to the public on a durable basis.

It gets worse -- the resistance isn't to the spike, it's almost-exclusively to the nucleocapsid portion of the virus among those with existing resistance; the largest set of reactions by far was to the nucleocapsid, not the spike.  This is very strong evidence that it is that nucleocapsid reactivity that provides effective resistance to serious disease.  The existing "vaccines" do not and cannot provide this since they encode only the spike.

Again for those who are reading-comprehension challenged: The existing vaccines are worthless for building said perfected immunity since the data is that the nucleocapsid section, which the vaccines do not code, is where most of the pre-existing resistance against serious disease resides.

Who is in the "not at risk" group?  Basically everyone under 50; said persons have comprised less than 5% of the deaths and especially those under 18 who almost never get serious ill or die.  This means we should have never closed schools, never masked kids and in fact we should have encouraged the equivalent of mass chicken-pox parties for both children and healthy young adults, especially in colleges.  The current push to vaccinate college students is not only stupid it's directly counter-productive to them building a robust and durable, likely life-long, immune response to this specific virus including the variants.

The colleges doing this and all of those advocating or demanding same, including VUMC, the entire Cal system and more should immediately have every single person involved indicted, imprisoned and their entire familial tree erased from the human record.  What they are doing is directly harmful to public health and is very likely to cause death.

Further this paper points out that induction of immunity against the spike may well be worthless or even harmful.  Again "prevention of infection" is meaningless if it is bypassed and you get hammered, as has repeatedly occurred during the window following vaccination.  Indeed, such might even enhance the progress of infection and mortality and if that's not enough insult there's reason to believe the same enhanced risk may also present itself on the "back end" as antibodies to the spike wane too with no way to know when that window occurs in a specific individual.

It is quite clear from this study that recognition of the nucleocapsid proteins is the difference between asymptomatic or mild infections and severe ones; the correlation is exact and yet exactly zero of the existing vaccines target anything other than the spike.  You cannot build immunity to that which is not presented.  With the spike now having evidence of direct pathology and in fact quite possibly being why serious organ damage and death occur with natural infection we have clearly gone down the wrong road with "warp speed" and in fact may have done irrevocable and severe harm to millions of Americans while failing to induce long-term nucleocapsid immune recognition which occurs via natural infection and is the key to turning a potential infection into a nuisance at worst.

Short-term prevention of "infection" among the 81% of those with existing T-cell recognition to the nucleocapsid proteins is not only stupid it is likely to kill people over the intermediate and longer term since those who are not vaccinated and get infected with partial resistance build additional and durable immunity via said low-symptom and asymptomatic infections which do not materially harm them and blocking that process is harmful, not helpful.

This group includes nearly all young adults and children for which people are trying to force vaccination.

There are some holes in this study that require more work; specifically, trying to pin down how much protection is afforded by which specific nucleocapsid recognition profile, and how cytokine production bears on that along with binding properties.  This is definitely not the last word on such by any means, but it is a rather important contribution -- and one we should have pursued given that it certainly appears to fully explain the low-symptom and asymptomatic "infections."  The authors note this and intend to do further study.  Good!

What is not clear yet is where the cross-reactivity came from; it's obviously some other disease and it didn't kill the person with it; perhaps intentional infection with something that causes nothing more than a cold would be a good idea eh?  Of course first we must identify what gave that 80% of the population their cross-reactivity, which we have not done -- again, on purpose, despite having a full year to work on it.

To repeat this study is 100% congruent with what we have seen thus far in the wild with this virus.

EVERY LAST BIT OF IT.

Oh, and that's not the only evidence that the spike protein alone is pathogenic.  There's this study too, which if it proves up means every one of the existing vaccines in the western world is directly dangerous.

One point stands out from this study and, in combination with the study documenting pathogenic response to the spike protein alone is now evident: "Warp Speed" was stupid; it targeted the wrong thing, it has made people specifically vulnerable to nasty outcomes during the month or so before "protection" is allegedly achieved and fails to provide durable protection to the nucleocapsid portion of the virus as it does not target that at all.  Further, in roughly 80% of the population as a whole taking the shot is worse than worthless since they are not exposed to severe disease in the first place but the shot is likely to temporarily block the asymptomatic or low-symptom infection that would perfect their natural immunity to the nucleocapsid portion of the virus that is required for replication while exposing said persons to the risk of severe or even fatal side effects by producing a systemic invasion of the spike protein which, if said person was naturally infected, would likely not occur since the person's immune system can recognize the original infected cells in the respiratory tract and prevent the replication cycle from completing and becoming systemic.  And even worse at some point in the future as antibodies wane said persons without nucleocapsid protection are exposed to that risk again but have no idea when that risk has become significant since there's no reasonable way to know what your antibody titer is over time.

Do you think the Chinese knew all of this up front given that their vaccines are all full-protein inactivated and thus include the nucleocapsid portion?  If they deliberately gave us a sequence they knew was directly and singularly pathogenic while ignoring the required nucleocapsid protection for durable protection then Beijing and the CCP must be immediately nuked to ash as they deliberately attempted to kill people worldwide and every single pharma company, US Government agency, "public health" organ and individual who cheered this on and went along with it unquestioned must be completely and irrevocably destroyed.

I note that we do not even know if the nucleocapsid portion of the virus, inactivated, is pathogenic.  It very well might not be and had we produced inactivated vaccines via that route without the spike protein being present they would likely have a similar risk profile to the seasonal flu shot instead of being 100 or more times as dangerous and at the same time they would have provided durable protection that all of the current shots do not because they omit said nucleocapsid sequences on purpose.

WE ****ED OFF FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR INSTEAD OF INVESTIGATING THIS AND EVERY SINGLE ENTITY INVOVLED DESERVES TO BE HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR EVERY SINGLE DEATH THAT RESULTED FROM THAT DELAY PLUS ALL THOSE THAT RESULT FROM THE CURRENT CROP OF "VACCINES" OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS IF THIS PROVES UP -- AND I BET THERE IS A HIGH PROBABILITY IT WILL GIVEN WHAT WE'VE ALREADY SEEN IN ISRAEL AND ELSEWHERE.

It was criminally stupid to suppress and block drugs we knew were safe and might work in furtherance of this insanity.

Instead of what we're doing we should have -- and must, right now and today -- immediately hand out Ivermectin and Budesonide (inhaled) to anyone who appears to be sick with Covid-19, scrap all of the existing alleged "vaccines" pending study of the nucleocapsid portion of the virus and look to see if an inactivated poly-nucleocapsid cocktail is pathogenic.  If it is not then for those who want said shot and will benefit from it without blocking natural infections that perfect immunity in the population as a whole, which include only those older and morbid, we should develop and offer that instead of what we're doing now through regular process, relying on prophylaxis and early treatment in the interim.  Yes, it will take several years to do so but that's the only correct path to take given the scientific evidence and we must do it now.

If the various state Departments of Health will not immediately start handing out said drugs when there is no prescription required to get an experimental shot then they should be disbanded with every single employee of same binned and shunned along with every so-called "public health" organ such as VUMC closed and bulldozed to bare earth.

EVERY ONE OF THEM IS NOW PROVED TO HAVE ALL BEEN WRONG ABOUT UNIVERSAL SUSCEPTIBILITY SINCE THIS BEGAN AND I ARGUE THEY IN FACT KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS IN PURSUIT OF A WORTHLESS OR EVEN HARMFUL ENDPOINT BECAUSE THEY WENT DOWN THE WRONG PATH.

What we are doing now is encouraging more-contagious mutation and if we don't cut it out we may well pull the black ball and get the more-virulent mutation as well that will evade all those who are vaccinated and hammer the hell out of them since none got any nucleocapsid T-cell recognition from the shot!  If that happens those without said existing recognition are very likely to die; we could easily wind up killing 20% of those vaccinated because we were stupid.  Even if we do not pull the black ball said persons are at risk of the same thing happening as their antibody titers wane without any good way to know when.  Since response is individual there is no reasonable way to guess for any specific person nor is there any good way to know whether said person has existing nucleocapsid T-cell recognition (in which case they're reasonably-well protected and likely will remain so -- but in that case they never got anything useful out of the shot in the first place!)

THIS MUST STOP NOW.

I am not anti-vaccination; to the contrary, vaccines are one of a handful of clear medical triumphs.  I am anti-stupid, and producing, promoting and injecting people with something you do not yet understand the pathology of, taking your information from a potentially-hostile nation and not performing scientific verification first is stupid.

To continue said activity in the face of science documenting that you did it wrong goes beyond the realm of stupid and into the realm of criminal culpability for which no immunity should be recognized by anyone, ever, period.

And for the Love of God stop masking and restricting young and healthy people; the future of the world in terms of public health in fact requires that they be allowed to develop said natural, perfected immunity.  Preventing that by giving them a shot is felonious and anyone involved in it should be indicted, prosecuted and lose their life as the mass-murderers they will prove to be.

Before I begin for those who want to call health-care workers "heroes": Damn near every single "doctor" and hospital are included in the title of this article, and throughout I shall prove it.

Let's start with President Trump and his HHS jackass who put into place financial incentives for people to wind up in the hospital, particularly those over 65 who are on Medicare, with even more financial incentives if you were put on a ventilator.

USA Today, hardly a "right wing conspiracy rag", said this back in April of 2020:

We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19 and on ventilators as TRUE.

Hospitals and doctors do get paid more for Medicare patients diagnosed with COVID-19 or if it's considered presumed they have COVID-19 absent a laboratory-confirmed test, and three times more if the patients are placed on a ventilator to cover the cost of care and loss of business resulting from a shift in focus to treat COVID-19 cases.

May I remind you that on the data from Wuhan we knew that 90+% of the time being put on a ventilator was futile for Covid-19 patients, and again, we knew that in March.

Doubt me?  Here's the study data which I reported out at the time -- March of 2020.

Why would you pay three times more if you did a thing that had a 90+% rate of killing someone unless you wanted them to die?

That which you pay more for you will get more of -- every time.

Now you can go ahead and claim that nobody "falsified" the data with regard to hospitals and death certificates, that is, claimed someone had Covid-19 and it killed them when they didn't.

That doesn't matter when you get down to brass tacks.

What does matter is that we knew how to stop people from being killed by Covid-19 all the way back to the summer months, conclusively so, in nearly every case.  Yes, in some cases therapy and early intervention will fail (so do vaccines some of the time) but in most cases these therapies succeed.

When did we know that early intervention worked in old people particularly?

In April of 2020.

Did we make that something to be widely used immediately, back in April of 2020?

NO.  In fact we did the opposite; the NIH specifically recommended against the use of Ivermectin.

If you don't go to the hospital then the hospital doesn't make their extra money, particularly if you're 65+ and on Medicare.  If the hospital doesn't get you in there or you don't get sicker they don't get the even larger, three times larger, bonus from putting you on a machine that is extremely likely to kill you.  Who is at the greatest risk from Covid-19?  Those over 65 and thus on Medicare; statistically-speaking this is a disease that harms damn few younger individuals.

As the evidence piled up in the summer did we change the recommendations?

NO.

All the way to December we did not and indeed as of today the NIH position is "neutral"!

Again folks: These are real clinical physicians who are using this therapy in extremely high-risk patients with a 90-100% reduction in hospitalizations and deaths.  Not once, not twice, repeatedly in every case.  In addition there is not one failed clinical trial on record.

Why did we not strongly recommend and use Ivermectin despite the overwhelming evidence that it worked all the way back to April of 2020?

The $30,000 in extra payments to the hospital wasn't enough -- oh no, there were in fact tens of billions of dollars at stake, and your mother, grandfather or other family member had to be slaughtered in order to make sure that money flowed and kept flowing. 

An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. Taking into consideration input from the FDA, manufacturers decide whether and when to submit an EUA request to FDA.

The EUAs for vaccines (and Remdesivir) were illegal if there was an adequate, approved and available alternative.  HCQ, Ivermectin (and budesonide) are all available and approved drugs.  This meant that in order to obtain EUAs for Remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies and the vaccines on an EUA basis it was necessary to deliberately deny that the use of these existing therapeutic agents were adequate even though the data was that their use prevented somewhere between 75 and 90% of all hospital admissions when used early and even when not used until hospital admission prevented the majority of intubations and deaths.

In other words the data is that they work as well as a vaccine.

If that is not "adequate" would you mind telling me what would be?

Our governments at the federal and state levels, all 50 states including those like Tennessee and Florida which have claimed to be "leaders" in Covid-19, deliberately sat back and let your loved ones be denied known safe and likely effective treatments for Covid-19 and the data says that as a direct result of that intentional refusal a whole lot of them are dead.

Most, but not all physicians and hospitals not only went along with this bull**** they explicitly supported it and the hospitals got to bill Medicare for every person over 65 at a greatly elevated rate by doing so.

This is why the vast majority of those who Covid-19 killed have died.

Our local hospital's record here is that nearly 65% of those admitted for Covid-19 left in a box.

Damn near all of those individuals should have survived but then the roughly $5 million our local hospital obtained in "extra and triple-extra payments", assuming most or all of the 163 dead were on Medicare, would not have been paid out to them.

There was no medical reason for any of the hysteria, closures, mandates or anything else -- including vaccines.

Why are you still quietly putting up with this bull****, including mask mandates, business and school closures and more?

Our government, physicians and hospitals knew how to keep Covid-19 from being a serious threat to your health in April of 2020 with cheap and widely-available drugs just as physicians use antibiotics for bacterial infections on a daily basis that would otherwise be deadly.  Instead of using known safe and available existing drugs they intentionally let the virus kill nearly a half-million people along with the government destroying the education of our children and countless businesses and jobs for the explicit purpose of funneling billions of dollars to the medical and pharmaceutical industry, along with furthering the political aspirations of various actors all through the United States.

These were not deaths that occurred despite our "best efforts"; they were mass-homicide.

If you are willing to let your government slaughter your mother while believing their intentionally-false claim that wearing a diaper on your face "works" and as a result you sat back for the last year and watched 500,000 of your countrymen and women die rather than rising up and holding every one of those ghouls accountable for the unnecessary death they deliberately allowed for both political and financial profit then you are the monster.

In my nearly six decades of drawing breath on this rock I've never seen our government, until Covid-19 showed up, take actions that I believed were worthy of a no-bull**** uprising with essentially every government official at all levels being physically dragged out of office by their hair and tossed into the street with nothing more than their underwear remaining to their name.  Never in my adult life would I have believed that our government, with its alleged "checks and balances", would deliberately kill half a million American citizens over 12 months time by allowing them to choke on their own spit through the intentional concealment and outright suppression of known safe medical therapies via threats, executive orders, outright lies and even license suspensions for the explicit purpose of enriching certain "chosen people and corporations" both politically and economically.

Over the last 12 months I've read well over a hundred scientific and medical research papers and myriad references which in my opinion document conclusively that this is in fact exactly what happened at a level of proof more than sufficient to sustain criminal convictions.

I've given this virus and our government's response to it at all levels more than one full year of my effort as an independent journalist.

That ends today, February 28th, 2021.

Right now the Chinese are furiously working in their biolabs, as are a whole host of other nefarious nations, such as North Korea and likely Iran.

What are they working on?

Threlkeld added, Williams also had been vaccinated for COVID about a month ago and that testing found the two types of antibodies in his system - one type of antibody that results from a natural COVID infection, and a second type of antibody from the vaccine. Threlkeld also said Williams tested negative for COVID-19 while in the hospital. 

From The Hunt For Red October:

YOU ARROGANT ASS YOU KILLED US!

Coronaviruses are notorious for ADE reactions, where antibody presence potentiates the infection instead of protecting against it.  Using that as a bioweapon is stupid because you will score "own goals" on your own people and there is no way to control that.  As a result biological weapons generally are dumb; poison gas and such don't have this risk since it does not propagate but any disease does.

The poster child for ADE in coronaviruses was an attempted vaccine for a feline coronavirus that often made cats very sick.  The vaccine killed every one of them in the test when they were later exposed, wildly potentiating the infection.

Read that again folks: NOT ONE VACCINATED CAT SURVIVED A CHALLENGE WITH THE ACTUAL VIRUS.

Ordinary vaccines we have lots of experience with, such as measles, the flu shot, mumps and similar do not carry a risk beyond that of natural infection and cannot be weaponized because they produce the exact same antibody response as a natural infection.  If you have had either the measles or the shot you will have antibodies but an antibody test will not tell you which since they're not distinguishable.

I suspected from the start that due to the way these mRNA shots work -- they are not actually a vaccine at all in that they do not "mimic" natural infection but rather cause your cells to produce the spike protein that the virus has and that elicits an immune response -- that the antibodies produced by those jabs would be distinct and distinguishable from natural infection.

All of the so-called "experts" who worked to develop these and the firms involved knew damn well this was the case when they started developing them -- and did it anyway.

Now we have hard, scientific confirmation of that and it's very bad.

In fact it's potentially nation-ending bad.

An adversary that develops a virus (e.g. another modified/mutated bat virus, for example) that selectively targets ADE in people with the specific antibodies from vaccination, which are distinct from natural infection, could easily kill every single person who was vaccinated and not harm or only make mildly sick those who either had Covid-19 naturally or who were uninfected and unvaccinated.

The nightmare scenario that has always driven bioweapons research is the push to discover some genetically distinct means of targeting a bioweapon such that it only kills your adversary and leaves everyone else alone.  It's even worse for your adversary if your side gets and transmits it but doesn't get sick.  This has never been found despite diligent effort in the past; all attempts to find such a distinct vulnerability have failed, showing reactivity across the board and thus strongly suggesting that if that "thing" was completed and got out it would kill indiscriminately.  That you cannot stop a virus from circulating (even isolated islands eventually got hit by the 1918 pandemic flu!) means that releasing a virus or bacteria that nobody on "your" side has been sensitized to yet doesn't help because when (not if) the sensitizing agent gets into your population all your people die too.

This has now, for the first time in human history, been changed by the idiotic actions of our governments and pharmaceutical companies in that we are now tagging people for death by the literal millions and they will die if an adversary is able to develop a virus that targets those specific antibodies. 

Of course, said adversary will not deploy the tagging via said shots in their population and thus their people will not be attacked and killed.  Since it takes an actual jab of a needle to be sensitized absent intentional action there is no risk to the adversary's population or troops.

I give the odds of an adversary (remember, we're talking nations here with nearly unlimited resources and plenty of smart people) figuring out how to selectively target Covid-19 vaccination antibodies at 50% or better within the next five years.

If they succeed every single person who took one of the vaccines that produces a distinguishable antibody titer dies.

You can bet your last nickel they're working on it right now.

What happens if they succeed and we forcibly vaccinated our children and anyone who wishes to have a "normal" life back?  The entire procreation-capable stock of people in the United States will die and so will America.

That risk is wildly beyond the boundaries of sanity to have ever been accepted and it was deliberately concealed from the people -- not just here, but throughout the Western World.

It's clearly not enough for certain ghouls to have destroyed a full year of most school-age children's education; now they propose to risk literally extinguishing all of their lives and thus the future generations they would be able to create down the road.

I pray I'm wrong.

Unfortunately I know that I'm not -- there are plenty of people, both terrorists and evil nation-states that would love to unleash something like this on those they hate, they will work on this problem and if they discover a way to exploit it they will do so.

The use of any "vaccine" that does not produce an identical antibody to natural infection must be halted immediately and never done again.  We cannot do anything for the people already stabbed but we can eliminate the incentive to develop such a weapon by not having any material percentage of the productive and young population able to be targeted.

The option to cancel the risk of self-destruction of our nation and many others will expire within weeks.

No, really?

About 1 in 3 Americans say they definitely or probably won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a new poll that some experts say is discouraging news if the U.S. hopes to achieve herd immunity and vanquish the outbreak.

I wonder why they're skeptical?

Maybe it's because those so-called "experts" are lying right then and there.

We must use vaccines to have "hope" of achieving herd immunity?

We already have herd immunity.

What does this look like?

Sure looks like herd immunity to me and it wasn't due to vaccines -- the peak occurred before any person had the shots and today we are just reaching the first people who have (1) had both shots and (2) waited the requisite 14 days for antibodies to build protection.

Yet the case rate is down by approximately 75% and hospitalization is down by more than half, with hospitalization peaking almost exactly two weeks later as expected.  Deaths are reported late (not back-dated to "date of") and will shortly start falling as well.

Let's go down the litany of lies, because if you expect people to believe the vaccines are "safe and effective" when pronounced by these very same experts then they must account and pay for their previous lies and the harm those lies have done.

• "15 days to slow the spread"; it is now nearly a year later and we have not released the alleged "mitigations" that were claimed would control the pandemic.  The original two weeks turned into six of a near-complete lockdown in most of the nation.
  
  
• "Asymptomatic transmission"; there is no science behind this.  Never once in the history of an epidemic has asymptomatic transmission been of any material consequence.  Oh, it happens, but very rarely.  A peer reviewed paper in NATURE failed to find one such documented case with Covid-19 across 10 million people.  Yet it is the entire premise of mass-actions including mask orders, lockdowns, mass-testing of those without any sign of disease, business and school closures.  There is zero hard science supporting that premise; it is entirely made up based on computer models.  In addition to there being no hard science behind it the premise is mathematically implausible due to viral replication being exponential.
  
  
• "Its all droplets"; Yes, it most-certainly was "droplets" between apartments in Hong Kong and China separated by ten floors with people who did not know each other, but who shared sinks and toilets on the same vertical drain line without P-traps.  The near-certainty that fecal transmission is part of the problem has been known since March of 2020 and deliberately ignored.  Further, that aerosol transmission was implicated in a meat-packing plant where they were able to sequence and trace the index case in Germany has also been ignored on purpose for the simple reason that if either is in play then none of the "NPI" interventions can possibly work.  Oh, golly gee, over time the data has proved that they don't work.
  
  
• "Masks work"; No they don't -- the data is clear.  But the previous lie is utterly essential to this one, so it was maintained.  Never mind that the entire premise of masks can't work for anything other than gross (and very visible) sized spittle.  We've known this for 40 years as hard science via random controlled trial and there are zero controlled trials that have found otherwise.  An attempt to do so during Covid-19 had its publication deliberately interfered with because it did not show that masks worked (the Danish trial) with multiple journals refusing to publish the study not due to claimed problems with the study but because they did not agree with the results; specifically, the confidence interval spread raised the possibility that masks might actually increase infections.  Again: There has never been a single random controlled trial that has shown statistical evidence that common cloth, paper or surgical masks interrupt transmission of viral disease and there are multiple such trials that show they're worthless or may actually be harmful.  Oh, don't just believe me on the last three points -- read here too.
  
  
• "Masks are better than vaccines"; Stated in sworn testimony by Dr. Redfield, the CDC's Director in September, with a plea for the people to wear them for 4, 6, or 8 weeks and the promise that if we did the pandemic would be under control.  Virtually the entire nation was in fact under such a mandate at the time and compliance in most areas was 90%+.  Less than one month after that statement was made the winter spike began reaching more than triple the case and hospitalization rate in virtually every state and locale irrespective of mandates.  Obviously that statement was false.  You now want people to believe that, given this recent and proximate false statement that anything else from the same organization about safety and effectiveness is true?
  
  
• "The vaccines underwent extensive testing and are known safe";  Oh really?  They were not tested in (1) pregnant women, (2) old, medically frail people and (3) those who previously had Covid-19; all three were excluded from the trials.  Also excluded from the trials were children under 18.  VARES says 453 people have died associated with one (or both) Covid-19 shots as of the end of January.  The same query for seasonal flu vaccines (all of the sub-types selectable) from August of last year to now returns 20 deaths associated with flu vaccines.  By the CDC's own data the Covid-19 vaccines are twenty times as likely to be associated with your death as the seasonal flu shot and that is with incomplete administration for Covid; this year's flu shot round has all been administered by now.  Adjusting for a roughly 30% prevalence of flu vaccination, which is a decent guess, it appears the Covid-19 vaccines are somewhere between one hundred and two hundred times as likely to kill you as is the flu shot.  The varicella (Chicken Pox) vaccine over its entire period of administration has recorded only 161 associated deaths over nearly 30 years of use with just ONE death in 2020.   Does this, on a comparative basis, sound "safe" to you?  Further, the CDC refuses to commit to these vaccines producing sterilizing immunity because they did not require it to grant the EUA at the FDA which is why they refuse to tell you that you can discard the masks and distancing after being vaccinated.  Vaccines that do not produce sterilizing immunity are dangerous to the population as a whole even if they provide personal benefit.  In short it is entirely possible we are jabbing people with something dangerous to others and we are deliberately giving those jabs without knowing if this is true.
  
  
• "Vaccines have a long and successful safety record"; True in the general case and irrelevant to this specific case.  The commonly used vaccines all have decades-long safety records and were fully tested in a process that typically takes at least five years -- and often more than ten years.  The Chicken Pox (varicella) vaccine took nearly 20 years to be certified. Further, vaccines that use whole killed or attenuated virus are well-understood and produce the same immune response as an actual infection does, minus the nasty infection consequences because they are the same thing.  This path was not used to produce vaccines for Covid-19 because coronaviruses have repeatedly proved to be unable to be safely vaccinated against via this path and in animal trials have killed the animals that received the shots when later infected by the same agent, likely due to natural mutations that potentiate ADE.  We do not know if the approach taken with these shots is safe over the intermediate and longer term because we were in a big hurry to get them out there rather than fully test them and thus did neither the animal trials nor did we take the several years it takes to find out in small test populations in humans.
  
  
• "There are no safe and effective treatments"; This is flat-out false.  Both HCQ and Ivermectin (in particular the latter) are known safe having been used for decades in humans.  Both are also effective although once again Ivermectin appears to be wildly superior.  Then there's budesonide, which a Texas doctor claimed to have near-100% results with and also wasn't looked at because once again -- it's cheap and now has a study out in peer review that showed it was 90% effective.  These have been intentionally not trialed over the previous year by public health authorities and the state of both being safe has been lied about repeatedly by physicians and health officials because the EUA process for vaccines or any other drug requires that there be no safe and effective alternative.  In other words hundreds of thousands of people in the US were intentionally denied safe and likely effective treatments so as to make possible the accelerated rollout of these vaccines and roughly 300,000 of the 400,000+ dead expired as a result of intentionally-withheld treatments with decades-long safety records that might have prevented said deaths.  You now want to tell people after killing close to half a million in the US that your "alternative" is safe and effective and expect to be believed?
  
  
• "The death reports are honest and the vaccines will stop it"; Oh really?  The CDC illegally changed the means of recording death causes in March of 2020 after using the previous methodology for decades including across multiple epidemics and pandemics.  As a government agency the OMB, PRA and APA legal requirements all apply to the CDC; all require written justification and a comment period.  These very requirements are why many of Trump's E/Os and unilateral changes were struck down in court; it was not that he did not have the authority but that irrespective of an E/O no agency can sidestep those requirements in implementing the changes.  The same is true here yet the CDC deliberately tampered with death certificate reporting without going through that procedure and by doing so made disentangling their change impossible as you cannot compare the two methodologies.  Are all 400,000+ of these deaths actually from Covid19?  We know that claim is false since there are over 14,000 deaths by suicide, poisoning and accident claimed in their own data set to be "caused" by Covid!  How many more are not really caused by Covid19?  We do not know; the CDC deliberately destroyed the very basis of public health reporting by changing the rules just for this specific condition.  The Florida House of Representatives investigated this set of circumstances and found that a huge percentage of alleged "Covid" deaths were not factually classifiable as being caused by Covid-19.  While is is clear that there was more death in 2020 what is not clear nor separable as a direct consequence of these reporting changes is how much of it was actually from Covid-19 and how much of it was caused by government mandates in the form of suicides, drug overdoses, deferred medical care and similar.

How much more do you need?

Were I at specific risk might I find that the vaccines, despite the lack of testing, intermediate and long-term data and the fact that they are using an approach never before attempted in humans to evade a known risk with coronavirus vaccines that might kill me, to be worth it for myself in an individual capacity? 

Perhaps.

But for people without specific morbidity factors there is no way you can justify the shot on a comparative risk basis.  VARES says 453 people are dead associated with these shots as of the end of January.  The CDC claims that roughly 13 million Americans have received at least one dose as of the end of January.  That's a death rate of 0.00003, or statistically identical to the risk of dying from Covid-19 if you do not have any of the listed specific co-morbidities.  Note that while VARES reporting does not prove that shot is the cause of the result neither does being called a Covid-19 death prove that Covid was the cause of the result either by the CDC's own admission in their own data.

May I note again for those of you who can't be bothered to read that Chicken Pox, which in children has a death risk approximately equal to Covid-19, that is, roughly 4/100,000 (Covid-19 is about 3/100,000), has a vaccine that took roughly 20 years to be certified.  Over the last roughly 30 years of use the varicella vaccine has recorded a total of 161 associated deaths in VARES with just ONE DEATH in all of 2020.  Yet in less than two months for a disease with the same risk profile in healthy individuals the Covid-19 vaccines have recorded a stunning 453 associated deaths which is NEARLY THREE THOUSAND TIMES GREATER RISK OF DEATH ASSOCIATED WITH THE COVID 19 VACCINES THAN THAT FOR THE VARICELLA SHOT OVER A COMPARABLE PERIOD OF TIME.

The pharmaceutical industry would never be able to get a vaccine for any other condition through "full approval" in non-morbid individuals if the risk of dying from the vaccine was equivalent to the risk of dying if you got the infection.  If the Chicken Pox vaccines killed 3,000 kids a year there would be an uproar and the CDC would have been sacked and the earth on which it stood salted with diesel fuel years ago.  Yet that is exactly what the data from the CDC's own databases show for these Covid vaccines if you do not have any of the specific known morbid factors.

It is abundantly clear that these shots are not approvable for other than at-risk population segments on the basis of the CDC's own data known and published alone and in addition are several thousand times as dangerous as the shot for Chicken Pox and roughly 100 times as dangerous as a flu shot.  What's worse is that unlike the Chicken Pox shot these shots are presumed to be an annual thing so the risk is not taken once it is taken once per year.

Again note that this death rate for the disease itself is without widespread use of Ivermectin or HCQ in the United States.  With it the death rate may be materially lower.  Additionally Israel apparently has uncovered a compound that has no serious side effect risk in their trials and is 100% effective. They are proceeding to Phase III trials with this compound, and since it's not a vaccine mutations will not evade it unlike vaccines which will likely be evaded by natural viral mutation.  But what is clear thus far is that for people without any such co-morbidity the vaccinations are approximately equally dangerous as infection, if you the take the shot the risk is certain but infection is not certain and as a result the shot is more dangerous than the risk of exposure to the disease in persons without one or more of those comorbid factors.

Skepticism is, in other words, quite-clearly warranted on nothing more than the CDC's own data, and that ignores all of the previous lies told by government and other public-health agencies back to last March.

Vaccines that mimic infections have proved over time to be one of the medical discoveries that have saved countless lives, second only to perhaps antibiotics and surgical anesthesia.  But antibiotics can and often are misused, and their misuse leads to promotion of "super strains" of bacteria that can be extremely difficult -- and, on current trajectories, it is projected impossible in the future -- to control.

The common -- and safe -- vaccines given to people all work on the same basic principle: You take a virus, either attenuate it by modifying it so it cannot replicate well in a human cell (often by passing it through other animal cells) or kill it outright and then give it to the person or animal to be protected.  The recipient's immune system believes it is being attacked by the original disease and mounts an immune response.

But -- there is no, or only a very weak disease.

What you're left with is the same outcome you'd have from natural infection if you were to survive it in terms of immunity.  The immune "memory", in B and T cells, along with antibodies, looks identical -- or very close to identical -- as if you got the actual disease and suffered through it.

Qualifying these vaccines is primarily a process of making sure that they do not revert to their virulent form in the body, a risk that can happen with an attenuated vaccine product.  These vaccines produce "sterilizing" immunity in the recipient -- that is, you cannot get the infection again as your immune system will interdict the bug before replication can take place to any material degree, and thus if exposed later you will never have a material viral titer.  Without a viral titer you cannot shed anything and thus you also can't give the infection to someone else.

It is this key fact that makes most routine vaccines safe in terms of not potentiating mutations that all viruses undergo.  A vaccinated person who has "sterilizing immunity" cannot become part of a chain of replication for a mutated strain that is more-virulent because they are incapable of transmitting the virus to someone else.  The exception among the common vaccines used today in the US is polio; the injected form does not produce sterilizing immunity and this is only safe to do in the US because polio has not circulated in the US since the late 1970s.  When it was circulating we used a combination of both the shot and the oral attenuated vaccine for this very reason; the oral vaccine occasionally can and does produce polio but it also produces sterilizing immunity.  In parts of the world where polio still circulates the oral form is still used for this exact reason.

Coronaviruses, which infect not just humans but also domesticated and food-source animals, generally cannot be vaccinated against in this fashion; neither can HIV and a few other forms of viruses.  The reasons are different for each family of viruses where it does not work but all boil down to the virus' characteristics and mutation patterns, along with how your B cells respond.  With coronaviruses the problem is that attenuated viral vaccine attempts have repeatedly reverted to the virulent form in the body, usually after a couple of hundred passes through cells on average.  In addition these attempts in animals have repeatedly produced ADE instead of protection; in other words, instead of protecting the recipient they make a future infection worse, usually killing the infected animal (in particular this occurred with a candidate for a vaccine against a coronavirus that primarily infects cats.)

That has led to the various "novel" attempts at vaccines developed this time around for Covid-19.  This is not the first time we've tried this sort of thing, although it is the first time in humans.

Unfortunately the history of vaccines in the animal world with non-sterilizing immunity has taught us lessons that we apparently have set aside in our haste for a Covid-19 answer.  To understand the problem you must understand the natural progression of viruses generally.

It is to the advantage of a virus to spread widely, of course.  It's not that a virus has a mind, but rather that the more-widely it spreads without killing the host the more replicants of it there are.  It therefore "wins" genetically.  A virus that violently attacks a host and disables or kills the host before it is passed to another victim loses; a clearly-diseased human will be shunned by others, and one that is dead cannot interact with anyone else.  Thus by pure mathematics viruses as they mutate tend to favor less-virulent but more easily-transmitted mutations; those are more-successful in getting passed on to others before their more-virulent cousin manages to infect the same person and, as the population gains antibodies so long as the immunity has cross-reaction capacity those particular mutations are the ones most-likely to get passed on and the more-virulent ones are selected against.

A vaccine that mimics natural infection does not tamper with this process because from the virus' point of view a person vaccinated is someone already infected.  There is no difference in regard to how the virus behaves when it encounters someone who was either previously sick or vaccinated with such a formulation.

This is not true for vaccines that do not produce sterilizing immunity or worse, do not mimic natural infections at all.

Specifically it is very possible for such a vaccine to actually make it more-likely that a deadlier form of the virus will survive and in fact thrive!  If the vaccine prevents you from getting seriously ill or dying but not from developing a viral titer and being able to pass the infection to others then it erases the natural disadvantage that mutations making a virus more deadly would otherwise have.

That raises the risk of stopping or even reversing the natural mutation processes by which easily-communicable viruses decrease in their capacity to kill people.

Take SARS.  SARS died out quite quickly because you were not able to effectively transmit it until you were quite ill to the point that anyone who saw you would have good cause to think you were sick and it killed a large percentage of those infected.  Thus it very frequently failed to find a new host; general human revulsion to people who are violently ill, once word got out that "it might be SARS" kept a person afflicted from effectively giving it to others, and as a result the virus killed itself off by failing to propagate in a very short period of time.

Now consider a vaccine that makes SARS a low-level cold nuisance or a "silent" infection but does not produce sterilizing immunity.  A widely-vaccinated population would spread SARS like wildfire through the world and anyone unable to be vaccinated, who had their immunity wear off or who was not vaccinated would get it and DIE.

Such a vaccine would take the few thousand deaths from SARS and turn it into tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of deaths, selecting with vicious efficiency for extermination the elderly who poorly responded to a vaccine or were unable to take it due to serious illness where the vaccine might kill them outright, those with cancer, people with autoimmune diseases who could not be vaccinated, those who couldn't afford vaccination and those who either decided not to take the shot or who's immunity wore off.

Is this a realistic risk from the Covid-19 vaccines?

YES, and if it happens there will be exactly nothing we can do about it.

Remember that the CDC and other "authorities" are telling you point-blank that they do not believe these vaccines produce sterilizing immunity.  That is, you cannot take off your mask, stop distancing and resume your normal life after being vaccinated.  Why not?  There is only one reasonable explanation: They do not believe the vaccines prevent you from being infected and producing a titer of virus sufficient to infect others -- the vaccines only decrease the rate of severe disease and death.

Such "vaccines" must NEVER be given on a widespread basis to the public when a particular virus is circulating in the population as doing so risks a catastrophic mutation cascade that will kill tens or even hundreds of millions of people.  While numerically the risk of this occurring is likely quite small the consequence if it does happen is catastrophic and thus that course of action should never be undertaken.  A vaccine that behaves this way is simply never safe in the general population; the only rational use is in very high-risk individuals who make up a too-small and non-concentrated portion of the population to form a disease chain vector for a more-virulent mutation.

Today Covid-19 is not a very virulent virus, despite all the screaming Karens.  If infects easily but only kills, statistically, those who are seriously morbid in the first place.  The primary factor is not age contrary to people's assertions -- the NYC Coroner data makes this crystal clear but the media and our so-called "experts" are knowingly lying even with nearly a year's worth of said data now under our belts.  Simply put if you are not severely-morbid the odds of Covid-19 killing you are about 3/100,000 irrespective of age if you get infected -- that is, 0.003%.  Or, if you prefer, 99.997% of the time you will survive.

The risk is not age-specific; you can literally count on your fingers the number of people over 75 who do not have one of the listed conditions that Covid-19 has killed in NYC.

This is a very mild disease in those who are not morbid -- in fact it is materially less dangerous than the flu which more-frequently kills young people with no particular morbidity.  That doesn't mean it can't kill someone without one or more known risk factors -- it most-certainly can and occasionally does, just as Chicken Pox did occasionally kill a child who got it.  But unless you have one of a particular list of morbid conditions you accept far more risk of death by using a passenger car, either as a driver or passenger, over a period of about six months.

Now if you do have one or more of those conditions you're at materially higher risk.

But even so -- perspective is important.  We have learned how to treat this disease and in many cases how to prevent it from transmitting from one person to another using prophylaxis, not vaccines.  If you are one of the people who is not going to get seriously hurt or killed from a public health perspective your infection is beneficial to the community as a whole.

The question of whether your vaccination is likewise beneficial is not known.  We cannot say that it is identically beneficial as an infection because these vaccines are not mimicking natural infections; they intentionally target only part of the viral structure because attenuated vaccines are known to be unsafe with coronaviruses in that they revert and wind up causing disease -- so to avoid that they intentionally didn't use the entire virus.  Instead they "engineered" an injection that causes your body to produce the spike (and only the spike) and then your immune system produces antibodies to that.

But -- this means we do not know if you can get infected and emit the virus toward others after being vaccinated.  We did not study it in the lab because challenge studies are generally not ethically permissible in humans, we did not do the animal trials and there has been insufficient data from infections and monitoring the population yet here we are jabbing people willy-nilly without knowing this critical fact.

These vaccines should have never been put into widespread use until and unless we knew if they produced sterilizing immunity as that should always be a gating requirement for widespread use of any vaccine.  By using them widely, if they do not produce sterilizing immunity, we take the very real risk of promulgating a much more-lethal strain of Covid-19 that would otherwise fail to find traction statistically and thus harm very few before it is outcompeted instead spreading it worldwide, and for those who have had their immunity wane, who cannot be vaccinated due to immune or medical compromise (e.g. anyone undergoing cancer treatment which damages the immune system) or otherwise that strain will result in a massive amount of mortality.

This is not conjecture folks -- it has happened in animal husbandry and has resulted in avian flu potentiation wildly beyond what used to be the case.  Avian flu strains used to kill a fair number of birds who contracted it but now, as a result of vaccines that do not present sterilizing immunity it is now nearly universally fatal among poultry.  If such is detected in a flock today the usual response is immediate culling of the entire population at that location because it is nearly-certain to be fatal to the infected birds anyway and if it gets out of that facility and into another one it will kill all the birds there too.

The nightmare scenario is one in which the virus mutates in this fashion and in the process evades the vaccines as well in which case you now have not a 3/100,000 risk of dying but a 1/100 or even 10/100 risk with no effective means to stop it at all.

The odds are relatively low that this will occur will but the path for it to happen has been deliberately opened up by distributing vaccines on a widespread basis, not just to those at the highest risk (e.g. nursing home patients) without first proving up that they do produce sterilizing immunity and refusing to approve those that do not.

This was and is stupid and if we lose the bet there will be literally nothing we can do about it other than suck it up and watch the worldwide population get nailed to whatever degree occurs.