... in a not-so-tiny nation called Spain, a nursing home had a nasty virus get into it.

It was March of 2020.  The nasty virus was called Covid-19.  And this nursing home, like so many others all over the world, was full of elderly, morbid people.  The mean age of residents was 85 and 48% were over 80 years old.  It was a killing field, like so many others.....

Within three months 100% of the residents had caught the virus.  Not presumed to have -- proved to have.

How do we know this?  Because almost every one of them seroconverted.  All but three out of 84 of them, to be precise.

Think about that last sentence for a second.

Almost every one of them seroconverted.

How's that possible?  Many of them died, right?  You can't seroconvert if you're dead.

No.  Not only did nearly none die none went to the hospital either because they rapidly figured out how to stop the virus from killing people -- and did exactly that.

You would have thought this would have been all over the news.  In point of fact not one mention of it was made.  Further, not one write-up was made in medical journals either until January of 2021, which I missed.  My bad -- out of the several hundred medical journal pieces, I missed this one.  It was brought to my attention on my forum and my jaw immediately hit the floor.

The jab train must continue, you see.  So must the ventilator train.  So must the money train, the mask train and the rest of the BS we have endured for the last 18+ months.

So must the slaughter for money, the fear, and the lies.

So what did these few nursing homes do that nobody has done since and nobody reported out at the time?

1. Early start of treatment, regardless of the severity of patient symptoms.
  - Antihistamines every 12 h: dexchlorpheniramine 2 mg, cetirizine 10 mg or loratadine 10 mg.

2. Patients with mild or recent-onset symptoms (cough, fever, general malaise, anosmia, polymyalgia):   
   - Azithromycin 500 mg orally every 24 h for 3 days if there is rapid improvement, and for 6 days if the duration of symptoms is prolonged.
   - If pain or fever, acetaminophen 650 mg/6–8 h.
   - Nasal washing and gargling with sodium bicarbonate water (half a glass of warm water with half a teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate).

3. If symptoms of severity (dyspnea, breathing difficulty, mild or moderate chest pain, with SpO2 <80%, heart rate >100 beats per minute at any time of the process):

   - Antihistamines + Azithromycin (see mild treatment management)
   - Levofloxacin 500 mg/12 h, up to 14 days of antibiotic treatment from diagnosis.
   - Mepifilin solution, 50 mg/8 h as a bronchodilator, until subjective improvement. Patients with previous lung disease (asthma or COPD) used their usual bronchodilators.

   - If the patient experienced increased breathing difficulty, prednisone 1 mg/kg/day divided into two doses until clinical improvement, and then it was slowly tapered down.

 

4. Prophylactic treatment for close contacts, including all asymptomatic residents:

  - Antihistamines at the same dose as symptomatic patients.

Ed 9/25 11:30 - Reformatted the cut section; it got mangled by the forum.  Still not what I'd like in terms of formatting, but at least it's readable now... and one typo corrected.

Look at that top line.

Cetrizine is otherwise known as Zyrtec.  Loratadine is otherwise known as Claritin.  Dexchlorpheniramine is not often-used in the US anymore, but it used to be.  The other two core drugs were Azithromycin and Levofloxacin, both common antibiotics with the first being the infamous "Zpak" from the HCQ+Zinc+Zpak combination that a fraudulent study was used to discredit.

Both of the first two antihistamines are available over the counter in most nations including the United States.  The dosing they used is twice that on the label.  The two antibiotics are both available anywhere for little money.

Before they started treating people three residents died.  The entire group of them had the common maladies of old age -- hypertension, diabetes, COPD, cardiovascular disease.  Most were using a huge range of existing drugs for their conditions (5 or more.)  

As soon as they started treating people the following happened:

All of our patients evolved satisfactorily and were recovered at the beginning of June. No adverse effects were recorded in any patient and no one required hospital admission. At the end of June, 100% of the residents and almost half of the workers had positive serology for COVID-19, most of them with past infection.

Not one adverse event occurred among these residents and staff and no hospitalizations were necessary either.

In pooled data 28% of the residents in similar nursing homes over the same time period died.  In these two, once they started treating with cheap drugs, leading with those available over the counter in the US, ZERO -- I repeat -- ZERO had a bad reaction to the protocol, ZERO died and ZERO were admitted to a hospital for treatment.

ZERO.

It was one hundred percent effective.

Yes, it's a small sample.  Go do the statistical math on the CI for that size sample and results if you insist.

According to the mechanisms of action described, these drugs would act synergistically in the early stages of the disease, which is why we consider it essential to start the treatment as soon as possible. Once the virus has colonized the respiratory system, the effectiveness is probably more limited, and hence the failure of these treatments in more advanced stages of the disease, when hospital admission is necessary. In our experience, early double antibiotics were effective to control the process in cases with moderate symptoms.

Nobody cared.

Nobody reported on this.

Nobody duplicated it either.

I didn't even realize this study existed; had I known of it guess what I would have added to my protocol when I got Covid-19 the first week of August of this year, since it happens to be in my medicine cabinet already for seasonal allergies?  Uh huh.  Two 60ct bottles of generic Claritin equivalent costs about $12 at WalMart.

Folks, think about this long and hard: In the worst-case scenario for those who this virus should have killed -- it killed nobody.  It should be killing statistically nobody today -- right here, right now.  How to prevent it from doing so was discovered in March and April of 2020 and intentionally ignored worldwide.

It is still being ignored today.

With these numbers there is no reason to fear a Covid-19 infection.  There is no reason to take a vaccine.  There was never a reason to develop a vaccine, especially the ones we have today; infection that does not produce severe disease is sterilizing and thus wildly superior to vaccinated immunity which is now proved to be failing worldwide.  There is no reason to wear a mask.

Every single one of these residents seroconverted and became immune with mild or moderate symptoms consistent with seasonal colds and flus and not one of them was put into the hospital or killed. The treatment is so goddamned cheap and available there's no excuse to not use it instantly on suspicion of infection and prophylactically among everyone else in your household at first sign of trouble.

You think the entire load of BS around HCQ and Ivermectin is bad?  This is a thousand times worse.

Those who died did not do so due to a "novel coronavirus"; we knew how to treat that infection successfully for pennies in March and April of 2020.  Yes, in the first month or two people died because we did not know.

Beyond April of 2020 people died because we let the medical system and governments murder them for profit and they're still doing it today.  We, the people, have allowed this.  We have failed and refused to rise up and hold accountable, personally, every single hospital, doctor, so-called "hero" nurse and every single politician across the globe.  They willfully and intentionally slaughtered millions on a global basis.

The answer to the problem -- to Covid-19 -- was known in March and April of 2020 and yet not published until January of this year, and even then not one single bit of media attention nor a single mention from Fauci, the CDC, the NIH or FDA has been made, all in the interest of Moderna and Pfizer's stock prices and the power-mad jackasses on an international basis -- at the cost of your loved ones' lives.

That wasn't an accident and it still isn't one.

It is often said that there is some crazy conspiracy to slaughter -- whether you prefer to call it "genocide" or whatever.  In the context of medicine, including the current pandemic, I argue 99% of the time its simpler.

It's nothing more than greed.

Greed is not necessarily bad.  In measured and rational amounts it drives innovation.  I developed a crap-ton of software and designed a network around it that became MCSNet, a successful Internet company in the 1990s because of greed.  That is, by doing so I expected that I could make a lot of money.  That was not the first time I tried to make a lot of money, but it was the time it worked.  Most people who are entrepreneurs (and honest) will tell you that for every success there are three, five, sometimes ten or more failures.  "Failure" means you lose some or, in many cases all of your investment.

But unchecked greed is bad.  It becomes exploitive, even murderous.

What stops unbridled greed in the ordinary case?

Liability.

If I might otherwise claim a vial full of saline has medicinal properties and can cure a disease what will stop me is the threat of being bankrupted or even thrown in prison.

Now enter an epidemic or any other emergent crisis.

Florida and other states have laws constraining greed in times of crisis.  You can't charge someone $10/gallon for gas when a hurricane is coming for this reason.  There are people of the libertarian pursuit that argue these laws are immoral because the invisible hand of supply and demand would otherwise come into play.  They're only right until duress shows up.

They know it too.  Ask any of those libertarians how they feel about it if the gas station owner could see your fuel gauge, knew you were nearly out and couldn't reach the next station and then had his pump charge you $10/gal.  Or worse, he pulls a gun on you once you pull into the station and now you have no choice but to pay the grossly-inflated price.  Is not the hurricane a gun?  That the owner of the station doesn't pull it changes nothing; the question is about taking advantage of duress not who applies it to you.

Now let's look at epidemics and pandemics, since both certainly count as duress, especially if you're infected -- or being led to believe you will be absent something you do (or don't do.)

The last "serious" one before Covid that actually materialized in the US was HIV/AIDS.  What was Fauci's proclaimed miracle drug for HIV?  AZT.

What was AZT?  A failed cancer drug -- it not only didn't work it had a nasty safety profile.  In fact it damaged immune response including that in the bone marrow, which is where long-term immunity tends to migrate to and, by being present there, results in very durable, even lifetime protection.  We knew this going in because it had been previously tested and failed in cancer patients -- in fact it killed people in those trials.  In other words it was one of the overwhelming majority of molecules that drug companies invent, they look promising in test tubes and initial study, and then fail either due to ineffectiveness or outright harm when actually trialed.  Indeed what AZT had produced in those earlier trials looked an awful lot in terms of immune impact like AIDS!

But now we have a "epidemic" with no known effective treatments so off the shelf it comes and into people's bodies.  It appears to sort of work -- it delays, in some people, symptoms.  Or does it?  We're not sure, even today, because the "placebo" arm of the trial wasn't really blinded.  The people in the study could taste the difference between the real medication and the placebo.  Thus they knew which they were getting and this destroys the integrity of the study.  Nonetheless the drug, under heavy pressure from Fauci, was approved and used for a long time.

It didn't actually work but the toxicity was real.  While in those years AIDS was a death sentence because the therapies we have now, which suppress (but do not eradicate) the virus in your body, didn't exist the fact remains that a hell of a lot of money was made.  At the time AZT was the most-expensive medicine ever prescribed.

What's worse is that in the late 1970s we discovered that a cheap, off-patent two-drug antibiotic cocktail known as Bactrim prevented PCP, a nasty and very deadly pneumonia, in children undergoing cancer treatment for leukemia.  People with AIDS often got PCP as well; it is an opportunistic infection that almost-never causes disease in immune-competent individuals, but among those who are being treated for cancer and thus severely immune-suppressed it often did, and frequently killed them.

Anthony Fauci argued vehemently that there was insufficient safety data to recommend the use of Bactrim by AIDS patients as a prophylaxis to prevent PCP, even though they were getting the disease and dying by the thousands.  Whether this was linked to his vehement promotion of AZT is, of course, unknown -- but reasonable to assume.  What is known is that his advocacy against the use of said drug, which we knew worked and had saved countless leukemia patients from a nasty, choking death, resulted in 30,000 AIDS patients in American alone being shoved in the hole before the decision to bar its use in said people was overturned.

AZT was, by the facts, functionally worthless.  For every person temporarily "helped" one or more got screwed by the side effects and statistically zero people had the course of disease interrupted either way on a durable basis.

But it sure was profitable.

Now enter Covid-19.  Fauci runs an unproved line of crap on Remdesivir, claiming "clear-cut evidence" that it helps people recover from the disease.

What was Remdesivir?

It was a three-time loser!  It had been trialed as a drug against both Hepatitis-C and RSV, a viral disease that usually attacks young children and can be fatal in them.  It failed both trials.

Next it was tried against Ebola and failed there too.

But this time, with very limited evidence that it might shorten hospital stays and in fact zero evidence that it cut mortality, because we were in a pandemic that very limited evidence and no evidence that it prevents death allowed it to be given an EUA.  It's quite-expensive too since it's on-patent -- about $3,000 to be precise for the usual course of administration plus thousands more in charges by the hospital to administer it since it is an IV medication.  Any hospital using it makes a crap-ton of money giving it to you.

Further trials occurred over the next months with the most-important one arguably being SOLIDARITY, a very large multi-national in-hospital trial that covered multiple drugs.  It failed there too; it not only had no statistical benefit on outcome it wasn't the only one; indeed, zero of the trialed drugs when used in the hospital setting, that is, presumably late in the disease, worked -- including HCQ.  I was not surprised by any of those outcomes; HCQ, for example, would not be expected to work in the hospital because at that point viral replication is complete and its mechanism of action, such as it is claimed, was against viral replication.

The problem is that Remdesivir was developed and sold as an antiviral so why did anyone think it would work in the hospital under the same circumstance -- viral replication having completed -- where HCQ fails?

Yet even today it will be given to you if you check into a hospital with Covid-19.  It is part of the "official protocol."

It is, on the data, a useless drug just makes people money at your expense.  But most failed drugs aren't just useless since all drugs have potential harms associated with them.  This one is especially nasty because one of the side effects that came out of the early trials was a roughly 1-2 in 10 risk of at least temporarily damaging or destroying kidney function.  

Now think about this for a minute.  You're in the hospital fighting a potentially-deadly infection.  You get a drug that, 10-20% of the time on the data damages or destroys your kidney function.  Most people think the kidneys are all about removing uric acid and thus creating piss.  That's only part of what they do.

In addition they:

• Control the acid/base balance of your blood.  This goes out of range, you die.
  
  
• Control the water balance of your blood.  Guess what happens if that goes out of range?  Uh huh.  Specifically, that can cause acute pulmonary edema and compromise lung function.  You weren't already choking to death before that happened by chance, were you?
  
  
• Controls electrolyte balance.  While some of that is survivable even wildly out of whack there are specific parts of electrolyte balance that you cannot survive being materially-disrupted -- to name one, potassium which is utterly crucial for neural conduction.  That being out of range can literally give you an immediate heart attack by interrupting or damaging the neural signaling from your brain to your heart muscle.  I think you can figure out what comes next if you suffer cardiac arrest.
  
  
• Removes toxins. Not just uric acid; a whole host of other things including many drug byproducts.  Needless to say poisoning by excess levels of many of those results in.... yeah, you got it, death.
  
  
• Control of blood pressure. Yeah, that ain't good if it goes out of range, right?
  
  
• Controls the process of red blood cell production in the marrow by producing a hormone called erythropoietin.  No red blood cells, no oxygen transport.  You die (granted, probably not fast enough for it to be in play here.)
  
  
• And a critical part in the metabolic pathway by which Vitamin D is used by the body.  What do we know is associated with bad Covid-19 outcomes?  Severely deficient serum Vitamin D levels.

Anyone who runs dialysis for other people as a nurse or who has had to have it done knows damn well that the process is not just about removing what would otherwise be piss.  Oh sure, that's part of it -- but it's a complex dance when you try to replace that which the body does on its own with external process and doing so requires a crap-ton of attention and replacement of those functions.  When you are under severe disease stress the odds that this sort of dysfunction and the inability to match natural response artificially, even in the short term and the best of skill, will kill you is quite high.

As a result it is entirely reasonable to expect that if you give Remdesivir, with a known 10-20% rate of significant kidney disruption rate to a group of people who are ill enough to be hospitalized it might well kill 10% of those it was given to via this toxicity.  Therefore in order for the drug to be considered worth the risk it would have to save statistically more people than it harms by enough to produce a hazard ratio that was materially in favor of the treatment and the confidence band would have to conclusively show that.

The data from SOLIDARITY said that isn't the case.

It gets worse.

Death from the above can be determined at autopsy.  Dysregulation of the first several of those items will produce differentiated edema, particularly in the lungs.  That is, excess fluid.  This is immediately obvious on autopsy and is wildly different than what is apparent if coagulation killed the patient, which is typically what results with Covid pneumonia that leads to death.

They aren't looking, on purpose, and in fact people who have specifically asked for autopsies are being refused.

If you did 100 of them on Covid hospitalized deaths, all of which got Remdesivir and found half of them had evidence of systemic harm from the drug well......

History rarely repeats, but it frequently rhymes.  Fauci, at the same time arguing for Remdesivir, an on-patent and expensive medication along with mandatory vaccination, argued against, and continues to argue against the early use of Ivermectin, HCQ and even Budesonide, three drugs for which we have decades of safety data and which are used routinely by huge numbers of people -- we have history on close to 4 billion human doses consumed for Ivermectin, millions of RA and Lupus sufferers use HCQ daily and Budesonide is commonly prescribed as a maintenance drug for daily use by asthmatics.

Speaking of vaccination we've known for decades that "leaky" vaccines -- that is, ones which do not sterilize you against infection and thus allow you to "carry" a disease and not get sick are dangerous.  If used when a disease is present in the community they turn vaccinated people into carriers and spreaders of the disease who have no idea they're passing the love around to others.  Eventually the disease finds a person it can make sick, whether their vaccine failed or they are not vaccinated.

We learned this the hard way decades ago with DTP.  Virtually every child was -- and is -- vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.  Pertussis, otherwise known as "whooping cough" is a nasty disease that frequently kills infants -- and is dangerous to basically anyone who gets it.  Anyone who is symptomatic for it is instantly obvious due to its characteristic and violent coughing and "whoop" respiratory disturbance, which is also frequently associating with vomiting.

The DTP shots had a fairly nasty adverse effect profile and, what's worse, there were quality control problems with insuring the correct amount was in a given dose.  There were suspicions that the pertussis component caused permanent brain injury in children.  People sued.  The manufacturers withdrew the DTP vaccine, liability insurance became prohibitively expensive and the manufacturers threatened not to make any more of the shots -- ever.

What did Congress do in 1986?  Immunize the manufacturers from liability.  Instead VAERS (which we have today) was established, alleged "mandatory reporting" (which we know is a joke in the context of Covid-19 shots) was instituted for health  providers that administered vaccines and an arbitration system was established for alleged injury claims.

But what happened with pertussis itself -- you know, the disease?

Well, on the data, the vaccines were working.  There were only 1,010 cases of pertussis across the entire United States in the mid 1970s.  Rather than solve the quality control problems the industry, now immune from lawsuit, in full cooperation with the CDC changed the vaccines to "DTaP", which is what is given today.  That change  was broadly rolled out through the 1990s in the United States.  "a" stands for acellular; in other words, not containing the actual material of the disease.  DTaP was easier to make and, while somewhat more-expensive also did not suffer from the quality control challenges of DTP.

That's good, right?  Improve the product!  Why VAERS and everything that came from the lawsuits and such is a victory!

Uh, no, it isn't.

“The second generation of vaccine turned out to have an unanticipated limitation, and that has been probably the main engine driving the resurgence,” says Gill, who is lead author on a review article on the resurrection of whooping cough, published in the journal F1000 Research. Gill and his colleagues suspect that the vaccine, while preventing symptoms from pertussis infections for some time, has little impact on preventing people from becoming “colonized” with the bacteria, meaning they are asymptomatic carriers of the disease and are still capable of infecting others.

Why we would never do the same stupid thing again, not with an endemic disease that comes around here and there and screws some people, but rather into the maw of an epidemic that is screwing people by the score, right?

Oh wait -- we did exactly that and what's worse is that we are now mandating such abject stupidity for health care workers and enlisting countless people, including but certainly not limited to them, in marching around virtue signaling others to get jabs that history tells us will make the situation worse! 

Of course profit and the removal of liability from the manufacturers has nothing to do with this, right?  Why if they were liable then you could sue and introduce as evidence that we have known for decades on the data that when we did the same thing with pertussis we screwed people and turned a nearly-eradicated disease into one that makes a hell of a lot of people sick!

Now I want you to look in here.  Get out Excel, you're going to need it.

Or just look at my county and the latest figures off the CSV file.

358 people total hospitalized and of them 227 died thus far.

Sixty-three percent of the people who go into that hospital (there's only one in this county) for Covid-19 come out in a box?

How about Knox?

1,707 hospitalizations and 784 deaths.

Forty-six percent of those who go into one of the several hospitals in that much-larger county for Covid-19 come out in a box?

By the way on March 1st -- before Delta -- our hospital had killed 61% on a run-rate basis so no, this is not a "Delta" problem.

It is a post-vaccine acceleration at a gross rate, however: On January 1st, when statistically zero people had gotten vaccines, they had killed 43% of those who went in with Covid-19.

Indeed in Sevier County if you take the May 1st number of hospitalizations as a "baseline" (291) and deaths (175) and subtract that off you find that from May 1st to now 127 people went into the hospital for Covid-19 and 52 came out in a box thus far for a "kill rate" of 41% since the "advent" of Delta.  How you like those odds?  4 out of 10?

How about from July 1st to now, when basically everything is allegedly "Delta" and the vaccines may be either wearing off or worse, promoting more-severe disease?

304 in the hospital, 179 dead on that day.  In other words 54 hospitalizations in total and of them 48 died thus far.

THE ASSHOLES AT OUR COUNTY HOSPITAL SENT 89% OF ADMISSIONS HOME IN A BOX SINCE JULY 1ST!  You think there's no SIGNAL in there?

Yes, this is a bit unfair as there's overlap; that is, if you die the second day of the 2-month window you probably were infected and admitted some time previous. Can we correct for that?  Yes; offset the two by 10 days, which likely gets you into the median area for admission .vs. death (that is, on average it likely takes you about 10 days to die if you're going to die.)

So let's do that; we'll go with June 20th for the start date for admissions.  That's 304 and, on deaths, still 179 -- in fact on June 21st Sevier County recorded its previous one death.

I still get 54 admissions from June 20th to the 16th of September and 48 deaths, for a kill rate of.... 89%.  And this understates the rate, in all probability, since if I cut off admissions on the 16th I should carry forward deaths for another 10 days,  If we go back 10 days on admissions to the 6th, however, we get an identical count so we shall see if the deterioration gets worse over the next  week.   Oops.

Now do you understand why I was willing to do whatever I had to early, often and hard to avoid giving those pieces of crap a nearly 9 in 10 crack at killing me when I got infected at the beginning of August?  I succeeded, obviously, or you would not be reading this.

If I had to go and the option was this county rather than just laying down and being murdered so I could be held up as another "unvaxxed death" on CNN I might have chosen instead to do something that could send my soul to Hell.  When facing St. Peter this is what I would have told him:

"See all these souls immediately in front of me? I intentionally made them come here today because they were, with a 90% certainty, imminently going to commit murder upon both my person and others in addition to those who they murdered before me.  I did it to terminate that 90% kill rate, ending their orgy of death along with my life which I willingly spent.  I'm well-aware of God's commandment "thou shalt not murder", the serious nature of violating that law and the just and eternal punishment for doing so, but I submit that it is not murder to stop someone who is actively committing homicide, even if it results in their death.  This is especially true when the net number of lives that are ended decreases as a result of your actions, and a 90% slaughter rate across dozens of people over a couple month's time, which they can no longer continue, meets that criteria.  On the evidence I sincerely believe these people could have kept half or more of those souls who preceded mine here alive and their failure to do so was not an accident -- they did it on purpose out of willful ignorance, arrogance, spite, promoting a political agenda and greed.  Given that you have absolute knowledge of whether I am right or wrong then if I was wrong and my actions did violate the 5th Commandment, a mortal sin, I humbly accept my just punishment in eternal Hellfire."

You think I have any respect for anyone who claims that "oh this is so terrible" when they've done nothing about the Elephant in the room -- they own and execute those protocols for these patients and it is absolutely clear they are either doing nothing to save people or worse, actively killing them!

That's like asking me if I had respect for Jeff Dahmer because a few of the people he targeted managed to figure out what he had in mind and escaped having their heads wind up in his refrigerator.

How's Knox County (much larger and right next door) look?  1707 HX, 784 dead as of 9/16.  What was it on 7/1?  1434 and 649, respectively.

273 more hospitalizations and 135 more deaths, or a slaughter rate of 50%.  Better odds than my county?  Yeah, now its a revolver with three cartridges in it out of six holes instead of nine out of ten.  Oh by the way their rate of death from the start of the pandemic to January 1st was 343/960 or 36%.  That's going the wrong way too, isn't it -- and not by a little either.

How is it that with all these vaccines injected across susceptible people who are most-likely to get whacked by this virus we've gone from roughly 4 in 10 people dying who are admitted to more than double that rate and near-certain death?  Why is it that a much-larger county right next door with multiple medical centers, while doing better, is still going the wrong way?  Given that the data out of every place with reasonable statistics says that Delta is somewhat less lethal on a case fatality rate basis, and that all the really easy to kill people are already dead as they died either in early 2020 or the winter what the Hell is going on here?  We already know one hospital (but not in this area) was caught deliberately trying to lie for that purpose as someone taped the Zoom call where it happened and leaked it online.

It isn't because we wildly deployed a vaccine strategy that is identical to the one that failed for pertussis and we knew why it failed before this pandemic began, was it?  Isn't it lovely that we exempted everyone from liability for doing something that on the data was demonstrably dangerous and now, on the objective evidence as documented by the percentage of hospital admissions ending in a pine box is blowing up in our face?

Oh, and since we're talking about failed strategies, has anyone updated the adverse event risk on Remdesivir?  Nope.  What if those original trial results were skewed by illness severity and in fact the drug is a lot more dangerous than it appears?  What if, under increasing levels of systemic stress, that drug kills the majority or even nearly all of those people?

Given that the data continually has shown there is no mortality benefit where is the data from hospitals that do not use it and how do those compare on a matched-cohort basis with those that do?  Do such hospitals in the United States exist?

I cannot find a single scientific publication that lays this out; if you have it I'd love to see a link to it in the comments.

Do we have a bunch of people dying of secondary bacterial pneumonia and not Covid-19 at all yet again, nobody is looking because there is a playbook and it does not include looking for and treating anything else if the person has a positive Covid-19 test?  The use of steroids is shown to help dampen inflammatory response (and thus is common and helpful in hospitalized Covid patients) but systemic steroids also set up the potential for bacterial colonization by suppressing immune response.  Is "The magic PCR 8-ball" saying "POSITIVE!" a barrier to looking for anything else that may be going on?  Since nobody is doing autopsies you will never get caught if you don't bother looking -- is that why all these people are dying?

Again -- what the hell is going on here?  Is it simply that we were stupid with our jabs because we couldn't come up with a sterilizing vaccine for a coronavirus as there has never been a successful one before so the do something, even if it might harm in the interests of "Warp Speed" won and now we're screwed and yet nobody can sue over that which, objectively examined, was STUPID?

This sort of bullshit would never work absent the PREP Act's liability shield and the actions of HHS in the first weeks of the pandemic that specifically exempted hospitals, physicians and others from liability provided they use drugs and protocols the FDA and CDC list as approved whether under regular order or EUA -- and nothing else.   I remind you that not only did Trump's HHS do that but Biden has refused to rescind it -- and he has the power to do so immediately by direct order.

But for that liability shield the relatives of the deceased would order an autopsy be performed and if in fact evidence was present Remedesivir and not Covid-19 killed Granny, or the hospital refused to look for anything else once the PCR test came back positive and in fact she died of bacterial pneumonia they didn't look for and did not treat everyone involved would be sued to beyond the orbit of Mars.

Would we have even gotten beyond publication of the SOLIDARITY trial when it was conclusively demonstrated across a very large data set that statistically speaking it did not keep anyone from dying before that the thrice-failed drug was labeled a four time loser and binned?

Given what we know about this drug and the history of using dangerous and net-harmful pharmaceuticals that our "wonderful" health care system, regulators and others all the way down to doctors and nurses running around with virtue-signaling bullshit on their T-shirts promote and even demand go into patients what sort of possible reason would there be to not autopsy some representative sample of those who die and find out with reasonably medical certainty what's going on, especially when death rates for those hospitalized in certain areas have more than doubled in the last couple of months?

Other than "health care professionals" being made more self-absorbed in their virtue signaling while the hospital and drug company collects $3,000 per corpse for a drug that actually may have killed them, that is.

The math on this is nasty, the basic biological functionality of the kidneys and this drug's known harm to same strongly suggests serious trouble and yet I cannot find one hospital that has sought to discover the truth via autopsy and either prove or disprove that this drug is in fact killing and killed a huge percentage of those who died in the hospital with Covid-19 -- or whether something other than the virus was responsible for their death.  If you have said study and autopsies let's see them.  I've looked and can't find any evidence they exist.

It's all about the money and "virtue" of those nurses and doctors once again -- isn't it?  Just like the original Tik-Tok dancing nurses?

The more death the more "virtuous" they believe they are in doing "God's Work"?

FACTS THAT ARE TRIVIALLY DISCOVERABLE BUT INTENTIONALLY NOT LOOKED FOR BE DAMNED.

The Israel data has told us both what pharma did, what they probably knew, but also how to get out of the box.

And yes, there's a way out of the box.

A reminder: The spike protein that is part of Covid-19, and which all the current vaccines instruct your body to produce is, by itself, pathogenic.  This was first published as a pre-print, it came out before we went on a wild jabbing spree, the original study that set off the alarm bells came in September of 2020 and when the study work was done it was dismissed by many as being "not peer reviewed" (who remember, endorsed a whole bunch of other bullshit such as masks, denial of early treatments and so on.)

Well, that excuse is gone now.  Two articles, both now published, and which I originally discussed as pre-prints before we mass-jabbed people are now out in public and published form here and here.

Both demonstrate quite-conclusively that the spike protein alone, absent the rest of Covid-19 "the virus", is pathogenic.

Again, in case you missed it further up near the top, all of the current vaccines deliberately produce that spike protein, which by itself causes disease, specifically clotting-related disease, in your body.  Deliberately causing your body to produce that pathogen (which then elicits the antibody response) is how all of them work.

This means there is no safe way to vaccinate against this disease because introducing the spike into your body, no matter how you do it, inherently runs the risk of serious clotting-based disorders.  You might or might not get nailed but there is no avoiding the risk.  That same risk is what kills you, most of the time, if you actually get Covid-19 and die but the premise that you avoid that risk when taking a jab is a lie.  You cannot; the risk is inherent in introducing the spike into your circulation and there is no way around that with an IM injection because the muscles of the body are very well-perfused (that is, there's a lot of blood flow in them) even if the person who performs the injection does not hit a blood vessel, and they might.

These facts are not up for debate on a scientific basis any longer.  They also fully explain the myocarditis, pericarditis and myriad other so-called "rare" events that occur with these jabs such as strokes, heart attacks and other clotting-based disorders.  In addition the data is that the 2nd shot in the 2-shot series is much more dangerous than the first, which implies an exponential expansion of risk. 

Whether that expansion of risk bleeds back off over a couple of months or so is entirely unknown as it has not been studied.  Without a data set of hundreds of thousands (so as to get statistical significance) and both baseline and follow-up d-Dimer testing, at minimum, we will never be able to put numbers on this, nor get a decay rate on the risk if it decays, and nobody is doing those studies.

That's the bad news; if you take repeated shots and the risk does not bleed off then eventually you will kill yourself.  If, for example, the risk on the first shot is 1/100,000 (extremely rare), on the second 1/10,000 (that's a bad pattern) and the risk does not bleed off over the space of three or four months then the risk from the third is 1/1,000 (that's 0.1% and quite nasty) while the risk from a fourth jab rises to 1% at which point you're in the ballpark for a severely morbid person when it comes to Covid-19 infection itself killing them.  The fifth jab would put the risk of getting screwed at ten percent, which is approximately the rate of death from the original SARS and the sixth would be odds-on as literal suicide.

How many jabs did you say you're willing to risk taking again?

You cannot get your health back if you ruin it by being stupid.  The younger you are the worse the risk is in terms of years of enjoyable life lost.  To take that sort of risk when you're 85, fat, diabetic, you have an almost-10% risk of death in the next year from all causes  and the Coof is 10% likely to kill you is very different than to take that same risk to your health when you're 17, male, have a BMI under 25, there's not a damn thing wrong with you medically, your all-cause risk of death (most of it by violence) is 7/10,000 and your risk, by the CDC's numbers, of Covid-19 killing you if infected is approximately 1/100,000.

No two people are the same in terms of risk and medical status but this much is certain: That anyone is contemplating, say much less jabbing, the public with a now proved pathogen on a repeated basis without doing this scientific work first is worthy of immediate and summary execution as if they're wrong people are going to die in huge numbers as a direct result of that willful blindness, advocacy and action.

We knew all of the above before the first of 2021 and before any material number of jabs went into arms.  What were dismissed as "pre-print" follies have now been published formally and have turned into scientific fact. 

Never mind the now-documented risk of evasion and even enhancement due to ordinary viral mutation.  This too is now scientific fact.  There is no possible way to reformulate and re-jab everyone fast enough to stay ahead of this; even Pfizer's CEO has said it will take 95 days to reformulate their jab and then you must produce and deliver it, which of course cannot happen with the flick of a wand.  The virus can and does mutate faster than you can adapt the jabs to it which means you are now taking risk without benefit since the odds of evasion to each "new" formulation you work on during the time in question approach 100%, especially if you test the new versions for excess risks unlike the original trials.  Like it or not that's the data; Mother Nature is faster than we are and there's nothing we can do about it.

But remember, I said we also now know there is an exit ramp, and there is.  That knowledge is newly-developed and can greatly limit the damage if we use it instead of, once again, denying scientific fact and continue down a road that we now have every reason to believe, based on the data currently available, is very likely to lead to ruin for hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans.

When the trials were being done last fall I found it utterly astonishing that both Moderna and Pfizer had set their dosing to produce extremely high antibody titers -- 10x, 100x or more than produced by natural infection.  That looked at the time to have been a truncated series of dose:response trials undertaken in the interest of Warp Speed; that is, "be fast rather than accurate."  Obviously you do not want to err on the low side (you get no protection) so if you're going to screw it up the direction to do so is on the high side, assuming toxicity at that level is reasonable  It turns out the decision wasn't reasonable, however, because doing that wildly increased the risk of the above reactions, since to produce that sort of high antibody titer you needed to put more spike into the body and we now know the spike, standing alone, is dangerous.  (Incidentally the CDC still claims the spike is harmless, despite two peer-reviewed and published papers documenting otherwise and all the in-field adverse events which dovetail exactly with what those papers describe.)

But, as Israel has now shown with conclusive data antibody titers from vaccination wane at 40% a month while those from infection decrease at a much slower rate and in fact broaden in terms of recognition to the virus over time.

Why?

The broadening is indicative of B-cell recall, which is utterly crucial for lasting immunity.  Antibodies do not circulate forever in the blood and other tissues; they eventually degrade and are replaced -- if your body's immune system has been trained.  Your B-cells are largely responsible for this, along with T-cells and a whole cadre of other components of the immune system.  This is why monoclonal antibody infusions protect you right now, when infected, but do not provide lasting immunity on their own.  The infection itself does, but not the infusion.  If you give the infusion to a non-infected person you wasted it; they have protection for a short period of time but it goes away.

The evidence from these now-published decay rates is that B-cell training does not happen with any of these vaccines.  This is important and, it would appear, both Pfizer and Moderna (along with J&J) either knew or should have known this.  In fact they all may have deliberately rigged their studies to be submitted for EUAs knowing the failure to produce a durable immune response was not going to be discovered due to time considerations.  This cannot be proved without a bevvy of subpoenas of course but it is a reasonable and rational explanation for setting the dose and produced titer where they all did.

You can bet the vaccine makers will all do everything in their power to evade disclosure of what they knew and when in this regard because if in fact they knew that B-cell induction did not happen and deliberately set dosing to produce a result intended to game the EUA process that is quite-arguably intentional misconduct which is the bar that must be cleared to void their legal immunity for all of the adverse events PLUS all those who got infected as the defectively-produced immunity waned.

Consider a 40% per month decay rate for these injections and a natural infection that produces a titer of "100" (units don't matter for this purpose, nor does the actual number -- just the ratio.)

If the jab produces an original titer of 1,000 (10x as much) you get the following titer level on a monthly basis for the jabs:

0: 1,000
1: 600
2: 360
3: 216
4: 129
5: 77 
6: 46

At six months you're probably below the protection threshold.  Note that it takes 12 months, starting from 100 with a 5% monthly decay for natural infection, to reach the same titer.

So why does the titer decay so much slower if you get infected?  Simple: It doesn't actually go away; natural infection trains your B-cells which is a durable response and thus capable of immediately restoring protection if you get challenged with the virus again, which you will.  This is why the Cleveland Clinic, following their employees who got infected, found zero re-infections over more than a year's time among more than 1,000 infected and recovered individuals.  It is also why a recent study found that natural infection and recovery was 13x as protective as the jabs.

This is how every other virus works and with natural infection by this virus most of the titer is to the "N" protein which cannot mutate materially and still be a virus capable of infecting and replicating in humans.  The vaccines do not include any part of the "N" protein and thus cannot produce a response to it.  In other words all of the "escape" and even "enhancement" concerns with the vaccines don't happen if you get naturally infected and beat the bug.

This is, incidentally, why humans and all other animals exist on this rock; our immune system has evolved over millennia to prefer targeting future protection, post-infection and recovery, toward the parts of a virus that don't change very much if at all.  In addition that recall capacity frequently migrates into the marrow where it becomes decades-long if not permanent and we already know that happens with Covid-19 because a small study was done that proved it.  These parts of the immune system and actions by it confer a survival advantage and thus were naturally selected for over the space of hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.  Disbelieving that which is the very reason you survived your first few months after being born, and why humans and all other animals exist, is flat-out stupid.

The vaccines, it appears, fail to produce this B-cell response; that is a very reasonable explanation for why their antibody titers decay so fast.  The manufacturers may have known this, which if true explains why they set the dosing where they did.  Had they set dosing to produce a titer equivalent to natural infection within three months protection, by the Israel data, would have all but disappeared and the EUA-generating trials would have failed as there would have been no statistical difference in infection rates between those who got the actual shot and placebo by the end of the trial.

The bad part of this decay is being seen now with Mental Midget Fauci and others arguing over the "need" to get a third, fourth and so on jab and on what interval that will be required.  Since we do not know if the risk of adverse events from those jabs compound on an exponential basis it is flat-out insane to suggest such a path forward even absent the antibody to circulating strain mismatch which we also know is a serious concern and raises the risk of both OAS and vaccine-driven enhancement of disease along with simple evasion of the antibody protection.

But the fact that B-cell recall appears to not be generated by the jab also means you can exit the jab highway and, while you will take a materially-higher risk of adverse outcome from infection than an unvaccinated person for a period of time, likely six to twelve months, it is not a lifetime risk since that mismatched B-cell training which would have screwed you on a durable basis did not, by the data thus far, happen.

Some of this is hypothesis at this point in time -- but it is a reasonable hypothesis as to what happened, why it happened, and what we had better do before we allow the wanton re-jabbing of people on an on-going basis with shots that intentionally produce a known-dangerous condition, by the now peer-reviewed science, in the human body.

First and foremost we must stop treating recovered people as if they need anything more; not only is that false it's dangerous as the data is that prior infection is roughly thirteen times as protective as vaccination.  If you actually had Covid-19 and recovered there is no scientific evidence you need anything more -- not now, and not in the future.  Yes, failures will occur; nothing is 100%, ever, in medicine.  But you are far more-likely to be safe on a durable basis than via any number of jabs.

At the same time we must stop lying to those who we claimed had Covid-19 by crazy-high Ct PCR test but have no other evidence of infection.  Many of those people didn't actually have the disease; they either had nothing or some other viral disease such as influenza.  The CDC is now claiming that a "significant" percentage of people, biased toward young and high Ct value PCR tested individuals, did not seroconvert.  The near-certain explanation for that is simple: They never had Covid-19 at all and the test readouts were false positives.  To back this up if you believe that there was no influenza last year in America, which is what the CDC has repeatedly claimed, you're a flat-out nutcase.  Further, as I pointed out in November of 2020 we knew the false-positive rate on these tests was nutjob-level high because by the CDC's data every single person in America was likely infected and that made the winter (and this summer's) surge mathematically impossible -- yet they both happened.  The only explanation is that many of those who we claimed had Covid-19 by PCR test in fact either had nothing at all or some other viral infection.

An inexpensive antibody test will differentiate those individuals and must be made available on request for private, in-home use.  These tests exist today but forcing people into a pharmacy where the price is 10x higher because you're paying the tech to stick your finger, where ID is required and the data is transmitted to the government is outrageous, especially after we lied to tens of millions of people in the first place.  If you're not at risk you deserve to be able to know you have circulating antibodies as a matter of private, medical fact for no more than the cost of an at-home pregnancy test.  If you are at risk because despite being told you had Covid-19 you never really did then likewise, you deserve to know on, again, a private medical basis.  This technology exists right now, it is nearly 100% accurate, it is in most Krogers and many other locations right now, and must immediately and permanently be sold OTC on a "no questions asked, use at home as you wish" cash basis exactly as were the BinaxNOW tests sold in WalMart for a few weeks around here.

We must also stop ignoring both existing drugs that help blunt the virus' impact and continue work, where appropriate, on finding new ones.  Simply put the jabs do not work to produce durable protection, they may over time enhance disease, they are much more-dangerous than any other common vaccine and we cannot possibly reformulate and distribute them faster, even without testing each new iteration which is ridiculously stupid by the way, than the virus can evolve to escape the cage we attempt to put it in.  Both Zelenko and FLCCC, among others, have protocols that appear to work.  I personally used a blend of a few of them and believe it was effective.  Case studies are not proof but you'll no more convince me it didn't work than you will convince someone who got jabbed and then infected that it would not have been worse had they not taken the shot.

We must insist and enforce that doctors be doctors and thus act as advisors, not deciders.  It's your ass and thus it must be your choice as to how and with what you use to treat this virus since you, and only you, are stuck with the consequences.

The only option we have is to live with the virus and learn how to treat it; natural immunity, even against all "variants" by the data works.  The jabs do not; they produce non-sterilizing and temporary protection at the risk of severe adverse events up to and including death with an unknown and potentially-compounding exponent for each repeated jab.  They should remain a personal choice but only with full and fair disclosure and full legal consequences for anyone concealing the facts as they develop.

In any event since we now know these jabs are non-sterilizing and their protection rapidly decays anyone attempting to mandate them needs to go to prison immediately as they are not mandating the induction of durable sterilizing immunity, which confers a public benefit, but rather are mandating the exponential accumulation of personal risk of serious medical events including heart attacks, strokes and death in the scientifically-proved absence of any public benefit.

That is legally a battery and it is occurring with the reasonable expectation of causing great bodily harm or death to the person being coerced.

That, on the science, fully-justifies the use of whatever level of force may be necessary to stop it immediately.

Now the CDC wants everyone to line up for a third round of clot-shot lottery.

Note carefully: The Israel data says this will fail and kill lots of people.

Aran’s message for the United States and other wealthier nations considering boosters is stark: “Do not think that the boosters are the solution.”

That's right.  They're not.

Delta may be more-transmissible but if you're immune it does not matter how transmissible a virus is.  You either can or cannot be infected.  It's binary.  If you're immune then you're immune.  If you're not then you're not.  If you have had Chicken Pox (I have) you'd look at anyone telling you to take a chicken pox shot as if they had six heads because such a suggestion is flat-out batshit-crazy-level insanity.

The idea that somehow Delta "can" break through immunity because it is more transmissible is flat-out scientific fraud and everyone who says that and has any knowledge of viruses and immunity knows it.  They're lying, on purpose, and every one of them deserves to be locked up in GITMO as a fucking terrorist and waterboarded to within an inch of their lives.

The reason Delta is "breaking through" is either due to OAS or the fact that the vaccines never did work worth a crap in the first place to prevent you from getting infected.  Their "efficacy" was a lie but whether its due to mutational reality or the fact that we claimed "effectiveness" simply due to herd effects with the existing circulating strains at the time does not matter.

My suspicion is that there is a blend of both going on here and there is science to back that up; the mutational pattern that we have seen and the science behind it says that evasion is happening.  The "wild coding" used originally and to this day for the jabs is long-extinct; there is basically zero of that circulating anymore in the population.  It has all been subsumed by ordinary mutational process and we had every reason to believe this would happen when Covid-19 first showed up because it has happened with every other coronavirus we have studied through history -- including the closest analog SARS-1 which mutated itself out of transmission and being a threat to people.

This is much like what happens with the flu shot every year: They have to guess which specific flu strains and mutations will show up in advance.  They're never right.  Their match varies in effectiveness but is basically never 100%.  Get it (sort of) right, you get decent protection.  Get it wrong you get little or nothing.

Except: Every coronavirus in history has mutated at a high rate in the spike domain.  All of them.  We knew this and we ALSO knew before the first shot went into the first arm the strain against which the vaccines were developed -- all of them -- was extinct in the wild, having been out-competed by said mutations.

We lied about the effectiveness by taking advantage of a peak in infections for the circulating strains last winter that was already in the past.  It was a knowing, intentional lie used to get 150+ million Americans to do something with waning toward worthless effectiveness but with 100x higher risk than the ordinary flu shot or, for that matter, any other vaccine in history.

The match has continued to degrade; it is biologically impossible to win that "arms race" as the virus will continue to change, and attempting to jab people with repeat inoculations as the match gets worse and worse over time simply adds to the risk of serious adverse events including clotting, strokes and heart damage.   Note that despite knowing this there has been no change made to the formulations.  What are you going to do -- throw all the existing doses and pipeline for them in the trash every time a new mutation shows up?

What we did was fight a war that cannot be won by the means employed and any honest person knows it.  The entire fucking government and medical apparatus knew this, lied about it and continues to lie today.  All of them.

They KNOW they're full of shit.

Rather than accept this fact and focus our attention on determining the most-effective ways to interdict infections early in people with a goal of allowing the infection to course its way through the population while not killing the victims or sending them to the hospital we instead took an utterly insane approach that focused on the idea that we could prevent people from getting the virus at all.  Whether that was masks (worthless since the virus is a tiny fraction of the size of the filter media and goes right through it), lockdowns (pointless; all you do is delay the inevitable) and now vaccines we keep being beaten around the head and shoulders by the virus which follows the laws of physics and undergoes natural mutation whether we like it or not.

I believed I might have had Covid-19 in January of 2020, even though I tested negative for antibodies several months later.  As it turns out my later antibody testing (negative) was correct and not a defective test; whatever I had in January of 2020 it was not Covid-19.

But now having had Covid-19 (almost-certainly Delta too) and knowing damn well it was Covid-19, and surviving it, it is a clearly-distinct infection that I could not possibly mistake for anything else.  That I was infected with Covid-19 is known scientific fact as I was previously IgG negative as of a couple months ago but now, following recovery from said suspected infection, am IgG positive.

Having had the infection and now having found IgG antibodies by test I am now known robustly immune to any and all variants; the immunity built from natural infection is conserved across the various epitopes of the virus in all cases because the "N" portion of the virus, which has to remain more-or-less intact for it to be able to be a virus, forms the backbone and bulk of the immune response built following natural infection.

I am not afraid of Covid-19 at any level any longer.  I am the exact person you want to employ to work in a hospital or nursing home full of very high-risk persons for severe Covid-19 because I am sterile to the virus; I can neither get it or give it to anyone.  Of course we would have to negotiate terms; money is not, I suspect, among the ones hospitals and nursing homes would have trouble with.

This is not true for any of the vaccines, it was a critical error in what we did and it is why we are now seeing escape.  It is not breakthrough folks, it is escape due to mismatch between the coded antibodies and circulating virus and it will both continue and accelerate as the match inexorably continues to degrade between what circulates and the original "wild type" out of Wuhan, which is what's coded in ALL the jabs and which is long extinct.  What's worse is that if OAS or ADE really come out to play on top of it then if you have not been naturally infected and have been jabbed you are in for a world of shit if you get challenged by the virus in the wild.  Even very, very small enhancement percentages from ADE-style reactions can completely overwhelm any sort of treatment possibility at all.

We do not yet know if this is happening as we are deliberately not autopsying and investigating cases where someone was vaccinated, got infected anyway and then rapidly crashed going from being moderately ill to in an ICU or dead within 72 hours.  There are multiple reports of this happening already.  If this was someone who had a defective immune response then that's very unfortunate but it does happen.  We had damned well better prove that, however, and we're not going the pathology work to do so.  If it turns out that said person did in fact build a proper immune response then these cases are either OAS or ADE-enhanced disease and while this outcome is clearly not universal in those who got jabbed if it is happening even once in a while we had better figure it out right fucking now or there is going to be a pile of dead bodies this fall and winter and it will be the direct responsibility of those who advocated for and in fact are trying to, in many cases, FORCE mass-jabbing of the population that caused it.

I warned everyone.

Now even CNN is on it, although they (like SAGE) think we're smarter than nature -- and evolution.

They write that some variants that have emerged over the past few months "show a reduced susceptibility to vaccine-acquired immunity, though none appears to escape entirely."

But they caution that these variants emerged "before vaccination was widespread," and that "as vaccines become more widespread, the transmission advantage gained by a virus that can evade vaccine-acquired immunity will increase."

In a word: Duh.

I know I've been banging on this drum since Covid-19 started but it is no-less important today, especially in the context of holding people accountable for killing several hundred thousand Americans and the economic destruction they brought upon the nation.

To be sterilizing a vaccine must prevent infection.  Since you never get infected you never replicate the virus and thus do not shed it.  If you do not shed it the potential path of the viral life-cycle for that particular infection ends with you and thus you cannot pass on or cause a mutation. You are sterile against that disease; from the point of view of the virus you are a lifeless rock.  Among commonly-used sterilizing vaccines are MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), Varicella (chicken pox), OPV (oral polio) and others.  The only time that such a vaccine fails is when you do not build immunity (such as due to immune compromise.)  This is extremely rare and the protection from such vaccines tends to be either decades-long or lifetime.

A vaccine that is not sterilizing permits the virus to infect you and replicate and as a result you can infect others.  Technically it is not a vaccine at all (which by definition prevents infection); it is a prophylactic therapy.  Such a "vaccine" instead acts to reduce or eliminate symptomatic disease.  You don't know you're sick and you don't get sick.  You don't go to the hospital and you don't die.  Unfortunately since you don't know you're sick but are infected and the virus is both replicating in you and shedding you are more-likely to spread the infection to others.  All of the current Covid jabs are in this category and so is, for that matter IPV (injected polio vaccine -- the original Salk discovery.)

During the original vaccine trials in the summer and fall of 2020 they deliberately did not test any of the recipients for asymptomatic infections.  Only a person who developed a significant illness was tested.  This has continued post roll-out with the CDC specifying that a close contact of a known case who was vaccinated did not need to quarantine or be tested until and unless they became symptomatic.  They knew damn well, in other words, that the jabs were not sterilizing but did not want that data up for public debate because then those who have read history would be likely to make the connection to the present day and thus they did their level best to hide it.  That has now blown up in their face with it being conclusively known that jabbed people in fact not only get infected but spread the virus to others.

The problem with non-sterilizing vaccines is simply this: There is no safe means of mass-use of non-sterilizing vaccines so long as transmission within the community does or is likely to exist.

Ever.

There are no exceptions.

This was known to public health officials and virologists seventy years ago and is why the United States used both IPV (injected polio vaccine) and OPV (oral polio vaccine) in sequence for polio until the 1990s.  OPV produced sterilizing immunity but IPV did not.  OPV had a very small (but non-zero, about 1 in a million) risk of causing polio because it was a codon-deoptimized live virus which, on rare occasion, would mutate back to its virulent form in the human body.  So to mitigate that risk you got IPV first in the US (to prevent systemic infection; this was non-sterilizing), then OPV which is sterilizing -- that is, it prevents not only getting sick from polio but also replicating and shedding the virus, thus giving it to others along with preventing the promotion of mutations that WILL eventually escape the vaccine.

Had we done with polio what we're doing now with Covid -- IPV (non-sterilizing) use only with virus circulating in the United States -- it is very likely the virus would have mutated, escaped the vaccine and killed millions in America.  Every single so-called expert knows damn well why we didn't do that with polio and how dangerous it is to attempt it.  Indeed where polio still circulates but money is scarce they use OPV only (which is sterilizing) and accept the risk of the rare but possible active case it can cause for this exact reason.

Again: This is not a "new idea"; it was in fact the only rational path of action and known decades ago, forming the very basis of our polio vaccination strategy.  This combination strategy was necessary for polio but not for measles, for example, as the measles vaccine is sterilizing.

ONLY A STERILIZING VACCINE IS SAFE TO USE ON A MASS POPULATION BASIS WHEN A PARTICULAR PATHOGEN IS CIRCULATING IN THE ENVIRONMENT.

THIS IS NOT THEORY -- IT IS DECADES-OLD KNOWN MEDICAL FACT.

In addition natural infection with Covid-19 is sterilizing.  Being infected and recovering conserves the nasal and respiratory mucosal response which is where the virus enters the body.  Natural infection also conveys both "N" (nucleocapsid) and "S" (spike) antibody knowledge and T-cell recognition but the "N" knowledge is much stronger as coronaviruses have evolved to evade the immune system with the "S" portion through millions of years.  This is why they can infect you in the first place.  The "S" portion undergoes mutation at a quite-rapid rate while the "N" portion is conserved.  It was thus expected that prior infection would lead to durable (years to decades) of resistance and indeed that's exactly what we have found thus far.  Indeed in a small study it was found that this recognition extended to the bone marrow in a large percentage of cases and in those people is likely to confer decades-long if not lifetime protection.  This is not true for "S" induced immunity as it wanes rapidly and, far worse that is where the mutation is taking place and thus where escape risk lies.

It was acceptable to issue EUAs for potentially non-sterilizing jabs to be used only by very high-risk individuals -- such as those in nursing homes -- with the understanding that they will fail to provide anywhere close to complete protection and might, over time potentiate worse outcomes.  But with actual informed consent and on a limited, not population-wide basis, that was defensible.  This, of course, leaves aside the adverse event risk -- which we also know is much higher in these jabs, by a factor of 100x or more, than we have ever tolerated in any mass-use shot before.

It was ridiculously and grossly negligent entering into the territory of depraved indifference to mass-vaccinate the population with non-sterilizing jabs.  We knew very early on that eradicating Covid-19 was impossible; there are animal reservoirs, specifically felines (of all sorts), ferrets and likely others (now believed to include deer.)  We have never eradicated rabies and never will for this reason; as long as there are animal reservoirs you cannot eradicate a virus as it always has a host and a means of transmission outside of human control.

As such there was never, and will never be, a safe means to use non-sterilizing vaccines against this virus or any other coronavirus and the more jabs we deliver and attempt to compel the use of the worse the problem will get.

Eventually we are very likely to get a mutation that entirely evades the jabs.  That mutation will be caused by those who are jabbed since they are the only ones placing such mutational pressure on the virus.  An unvaccinated person who gets infected places no such mutational pressure on the virus where a vaccinated person not only does they provide the exact pathway that virologists use to intentionally select for more-transmissible, virile or both mutations -- serial passage through cells that does not kill the host.

What is potentially worse is that there is a developing body of evidence that those who previously had Covid and then get vaccinated may destroy their "N" protein recognition by doing so, ruining their previous nearly-perfect immunity.  That we did not specifically prove that this did not happen before giving these shots to anyone with prior infection is outrageous.  While the data on this is quite thin at present that there is a higher breakthrough rate in persons with prior infection than those who were infected but did not get vaccinated is what the data currently shows, which strongly implies that vaccination after infection actually screws you.

The people who did all of this did so intentionally either by willful blindness or worse, with actual knowledge -- and the so-called "public health" authorities who continue to push this instead of banning it are intentionally doing so as well.  VanderCUNT is just one example of this insanity but hardly alone -- Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Mayo, Cleveland -- they all know this is true, never mind the researchers at Ft. Detrick, the CDC and NIH.

Until and unless we prove a vaccine against Covid (or anything else that is circulating) is sterilizing it cannot be safely used on a mass-population basis.  That's the beginning and end of the discussion.  There are no exceptions, ever, period.  This was not even attempted to be demonstrated in the summer and fall 2020 Covid vaccine trials as the time period was too short to do so.  We now know, factually that in fact there are zero sterilizing and effective options among the vaccines in use -- whether here in the US or otherwise.

The only means to combat a pathogen absent sterilizing vaccination is to hit infections early and hard with whatever you have for the purpose of reducing viral load so as to produce durable, sterilizing immunity via infection.  If you reduce viral load you reduce both the risk of pathology seriously injuring or killing the infected person and also reduce the forward transmission rate, Rt, of said virus. 

Only sterilizing immunity cuts off mutation and exerting mutational pressure via non-sterilizing vaccines not only promotes mutation by removing the signal an infected person has to self-isolate and reduce transmission risk (since you don't feel ill) it nudges the virus toward codons that will escape the protection in whole or part.

In small groups of particularly high risk a non-sterilizing vaccine may be worth it but any use of one raises the risk of mutational escape and thus while attempting to protect that small group you may screw others.  Attempting to accurately determine who "deserves" to get protected while someone else gets screwed is a discussion that damn well ought to take place out in public as it is the public at large that is the recipient of the screwing if it occurs!

There remains a risk that drug resistance may arise which is why multi-drug regimes are important.  As an example HCQ+Ivermectin which was formally registered as a trial and then never actually run, is (among other options) one such potential approach.

When it comes to respiratory viruses as was the case with polio you need immunity via whatever source to take hold at the point of both entry and emission by an infected person.  This is why OPV worked on a sterilizing basis for polio where IPV did not.  IPV was injected; OPV was consumed.  As a result OPV produced mucosal immunity in the gut and thus prevented both colonization and forward transmission.  IPV, on the other hand, prevented symptomatic disease in the person immunized but did not express sufficiently in the gut mucosa to prevent infection, shedding and transmission.

THE SAME APPLIES HERE WITH THE COVID JABS AND FOR THIS REASON THEY ARE AND ALWAYS WILL BE DANGEROUS, PROMOTING MUTATION AND ULTIMATELY VIRAL ESCAPE.

If you get Covid and beat it since the point of entry is your respiratory mucosa you have strong and broad resistance focused there.  That's sterilizing in more than 9 out of 10 persons and far more-durable than jab-based immunity as well.  That is what the data tells us. 

It is wildly superior to a non-sterilizing vaccine because you are not only very unlikely to get the virus again you are also nearly-certain to be unable to infect anyone else if you do.  This and only this is what cuts off mutational pressure.

It's too late now; we're stuck with the stupid, particularly all the screaming harpies who went out and got jabbed despite being at very low risk of serious outcomes themselves, turning themselves into literal gain-of-function labs for the virus.  If you took the jab, in short, unless you were at very high risk and thus it was justified on a personal mitigation basis you are, in fact, part of the body of individuals that are placing evolutionary pressure on the virus to evolve and ultimately evade the protection and screw not just others but you as well.

Those who are claiming "well, I got jabbed, I got infected, but it would have been much worse if I didn't get jabbed" are the worst of the psychotics.  First, the majority of Covid-19 infections are asymptomatic according to the CDC itself.  Indeed they claim at least six people get infected for each detected infection.  You may well have moved yourself from "I sneezed" to "I got pretty damned sick" by taking the shot.  You don't know.  But worse is that by taking the jab and then getting infected anyway you have now not just become a potential mutational factory you are one of the people causing what will ultimately become viral escape and the screwing of yourself and others because by definition if you got sick after vaccination the virus got into your system, it has now proved whatever occurred in you evaded the protection you had and then was emitted back out where others can catch it from you after that evasion took place.

You were either the mutational factory or an intermediate host that screws the next person you share the love with!

Not only did your protection against fail but, much worse, it's possible that said screwing will be enhanced by whatever residual antibody titer you may have since binding antibodies, if present (and which you intentionally put into your system) will still be present.  Even more-seriously you put the spike protein and thus the antibody response not in your nose and throat but in your blood vessels and other organs where they can cause the exact disease progression that occurs when Covid-19 kills people.  If you get a "break though" infection I hope you have your d-Dimer levels immediately checked because if not you may be a walking heart attack or stroke somewhere in the not-so-distant future with no other warning as a direct result of intentionally loading your body full of "protection" in the wrong place.

This, and only this, is why I will not consent to such a jab under any circumstances until and unless there is hard science showing that a sterilizing option exists.  That one, assuming the risk profile is reasonable, is one I might consider.  Said jab today does not exist anywhere in the United States and I'm unaware of any scientific work showing that any of the current jabs are sterilizing irrespective of where they are manufactured and sold.

Without sterilizing immunization against this disease the only sane approach is to attempt to interdict the progress of disease at first suspicion and evidence of infection instead.

I am capable of reading both history and scientific papers, I know I'm right, the CDC, NIH, VanderCunt, Mayo, Cleveland and Johns Hopkins also knew for decades that I'm right and they have either all turned what formerly were scientific organizations into politically-driven soy-boy pieces of worthless and even harmful crap or, much worse, they're deliberately lying.

If you were among the conned the only remaining question is what are you going to do with and to those who conned you?

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of "You're fucked, fool."