Terrorism (n): The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. (Department of Defense Dictionary)
It's interesting to contemplate that the "strict" meaning of the word "violence" does not include releasing or potentiating the effects of infectious or poisonous agents, yet such is clearly terrorism. It therefore follows that causing death by infectious or poisonous agents by either intentionally ignoring known means to stop said death when undertaken for political or ideological purposes fits the definition.
Back in February, March and April of 2020 when Covid-19 first started knocking people over in the US in size we had good reason to believe a significant number of existing off-patent, inexpensive drugs and other therapies might work to blunt the pandemic's impact. We did not know which ones would work but we had reason to believe any or all of the following might along with several more. I wrote on them at the time, and the record stands in the published works of many, myself included.
Exactly zero funding, studies and other efforts were set up in those months by the CDC, NIH, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Mayo and dozens of others to run down the efficacy of any of those compounds. Several entities performed fairly low-level screening against mechanisms of action and developed lists of potential therapeutics. None of these compounds or strategies had a profit motive associated with them since they were all off-patent and cheap. This should have immediately led to large-scale trial registration for every one of these compounds since all were already known, approved drugs with a well-studied risk profile and the obvious thing to do with a new infectious agent was to investigate them all to see which, if any, might work. Instead of investigating these drugs and other agents all of the agencies in question started recommending and working on vaccines, "social distancing" and then masks, the latter of which had 40 years of science demonstrating worthlessness as source control against viruses with the possible exception of N95s that are both expensive and impractical for the general public to use.
Never mind that now we're seeing actual scientific studies documenting harms of mask use specifically with regard to children. Those forced to wear masks as adults for occupational reasons can be expected to have similar problems. Given that children almost never get seriously ill and die from Covid for them to bear any burden as a consequence of this disease is an outrage; it is identical to telling children they may not drink out of a glass because some percentage of adults use a glass to get drunk and destroy their livers.
Other nations where corruption of the medical system -- and the money that drives it -- are less-present or they simply don't have the money for much of a medical system at all studied these compounds and actions as a means to blunt the impact of the pandemic on their population. In short those "back woods worthless brown and black people" undertook attempts to save their population from the ravages of a disease while the richest nations in the world with a hundred times their resource deliberately refused to participate. I'm sure our government and these so-called "public interest" entities like the Gates Foundation would have loved to stop such research, but they had no way to do so and those health systems were looking for ways to stop not just patient death but employee illness and death as well.
Over the first few months we had reports from various physicians all over the world that some of these suspected compounds worked but even then they were intentionally not followed up by our so-called "public health" agencies and institutions in both the US and most other western nations and those physicians in our country who did pursue them and found them effective were pilloried or even threatened with being fired or having their medical licenses suspended. Indeed in several states pharmacy boards and even Governors prohibited the perfectly-legal off-label use of some of these drugs, issuing mandates prohibiting the filling of prescriptions.
Again: These are compounds whether drug or nutritional supplement where there is no profit motive to drive million dollar clinical trials; if you "win" you make no money. Performing such research is exactly why we grant non-profit status to various research and teaching entities and fund them internally in our governments and they deliberately refused to fulfil that part of their mission.
In addition we knew after the Kirkland outbreak happened in February of 2020 that nursing homes were wildly vulnerable environments and that allowing any traffic in and out was extremely dangerous since an enormous percentage of those living in such facilities died when they got infected. Yet for months we did nothing to shut down all such sources of infection being brought into these environments by employees and in fact in many states we had governors who intentionally enhanced transmission into these facilities by forcing infected and thus known-dangerous persons to be admitted.
So let's go down the list of what we can back up with research that was intentionally not done yet was known likely effective back in March and April. We will start with those steps that had zero risk and move upward.
- Segregation of nursing home employees: Known in March after Kirkland. Not done in one single state by one single governor, all of whom could have done so. Forbidding cross-employment in multiple facilities, moonlighting and segregating all employees in such facilities into a small hotel rented and paid for by the state so as to physically isolate all staff members from outside infection would have prevented most of the nursing home deaths. Yes, there would have been the inevitable leakage of an occasional infection into such a facility but nowhere near what did happen. Doing so for four months would have been much cheaper than even the six week lockdown in the general society; only about 0.5% of our population resides in such places yet they have constituted an enormous percentage of the deaths. Some people would have quit given this mandate but that's ok; have the government pay whatever is required to staff the jobs under that condition. This one step alone would have prevented 50,000+ deaths in the first four months, it was an obvious and effective thing to do and despite people including myself calling for it that step was not taken; these deaths are directly chargeable against every single Governor personally along with every public health department as grossly-negligent manslaughter or even Murder 2 as a result of depraved indifference. Indeed some governors (e.g. Cuomo) did the exact opposite and intentionally forced infected people into those homes, wildly accelerating mortality.
- Vitamin C: Believed effective, now disproved by study. IV use may be effective (insufficient evidence and of course limited to hospitals since it's an IV.)
- Zinc: Alone believed effective on the basis of multiple nostrums sold for viral interdiction (including colds), now disproved by study. Possibly effective if used with HCQ or Quercetin (not studied sufficiently as far as I know; the mechanism of action is plausible but as you can see the ground is littered with those attempts.)
- Famotidine (Pepcid): Believed potentially effective but disproved by study.
- Vitamin D: The association between severe deficiency and serious or fatal Covid-19 infection was known in April with an extremely high degree of correlation. A pilot study was conducted and reported out in August showing a stunning reduction in mortality and ICU admission for those administered Vitamin D at admission to the hospital. The risk associated with advising people to not be Vitamin D deficient and to test for and immediately correct same on hospital admission is ZERO; there is no medical risk whatsoever to correcting such a deficiency and advising the population to do so at large (e.g. via a daily multivitamin), along with checking for and correcting it immediately when Covid-19 infection is suspected. A later and larger study in Barcelona across 550 patients just reported out, confirming the earlier findings with a 60% reduction in mortality when checked at the time of hospital admission. SIXTY PERCENT!
- Steroid Inhalers: A doctor out of Texas reported this quite early and he was immediately labeled a quack by the mainstream media and so-called medical "experts." I was skeptical on this one because during replication suppression of the immune system can be very bad news and there are warnings on commonly-prescribed systemic steroids (e.g. prednisone) related to increased infection susceptibility. But -- as it turns out there is now science on inhaled steroids and the study in question was just reported out in Australia. The findings? 90% reduction in hospitalization. NINETY PERCENT! In fact they stopped the study early because it was ruled unethical to deny treatment to the control group with results of this magnitude and statistical significance. These are over the counter drugs in many nations; in the US it's prescription-only and wildly marked up at retail but they cost almost nothing in other countries. Obviously if you don't go to the hospital you don't die either, right? Guess what also doesn't happen? The hospital doesn't make any money if you can puff on that thing three times a day for a few days and the infection is conquered ninety percent of the time. Yeah.
- Hydroxychloroquine: Turned into a political football immediately when Trump mentioned it, this is a cheap anti-malarial that has been used for decades with a very well-understood safety profile which we had good reason to believe would likely work on the science, and knew so 15 years previous. This was noted (in the "chloroquine" form, which is more dangerous to use) as a likely effective agent against SARS in 2005 and should have been studied immediately by the NIH on that basis alone. It's primary risk factor is in people with cardiac problems, which of course increase in prevalence with age. Henry Ford Health System (SE Michigan) subsequently ran a pretty-conclusive trial (decent recruitment, randomization, number of persons included in both arms, etc.) on it -- a very well-respected hospital network -- and found it helpful, substituting doxycycline for Z-pak which was an identified cardiac risk potentiator. They were immediately buried with all manner of innuendo and criticism, issuing a press release that they would have no further comment in public nor would they work publicly on anything related in the future due to being attacked for the "offense" of reporting their medical research. Work continued outside the US and some studies post that event intentionally set dosing that was into the poisoning range with an apparent intent to discredit the therapy and, in no surprise, when you give known-toxic doses of something bad things happened. We now know from a large number of studies that in fact it works, but is less effective and has a higher risk profile than Ivermectin. A registered trial intending to test it as combination therapy with Ivermectin appears to have never been actually enrolled or conducted.
- Ivermectin: Known likely effective in April when a physician who identified it via a compound search started using it in Broward County FL. He had nearly-nobody wind up dead while everyone else in the area had about the same percentage of people die. You'd think that when some doctor suddenly has his fatality rate drop markedly compared to everyone else the entire medical establishment would sit up, take notice and do what he or she does. After all the cardinal definition of success in medicine is "keep the patient from dying", right? Instead this was buried along with the HCQ controversy and deliberately ignored in the United States. But in other nations, not so much -- Egypt and Argentina, to name just two of many, ran trials and found astounding efficiency for this drug in limiting severity of infection including direct clinical markers in patients in the hospital, which in several cases hit the magic p<0.001 number -- that is, statistically improbable beyond reason to be due to random chance. There are now more than three dozen studies on this drug and every single one of them has reported it to be effective. In addition there is overwhelming data on safety since this drug has been used for decades in humans; the base risk of significant adverse events is 6/100,000, a safety record unmatched by virtually any pharmacologically active compound and many if not most of those adverse events were likely due to the infection being treated rather than the drug. Merck has now tried to do the same thing to Ivermectin that was done with HCQ claiming there is insufficient "safety data" on the drug despite 30 years and many billions of doses of the drug dispensed for human use.
The important point here folks is that all of this formal study work came from outside the United States and the one time a large, nationally-recognized medical group attempted such a study here in the US they were pilloried and literally driven to silence by political activism. This is not a singular event either; FLCCC, a group of physicians, had the video of their sworn Senate Testimony removed by Youtube!
We had several months in which to do said follow-up and deliberately did not. There was not one dollar spent on any of this by the NIH, which Fauci and his wife (who gates research dollars as she runs the "bioethics" group) effectively operate. Several of these drugs and therapies were directly recommended against by the NIH and FDA, including HCQ and Ivermectin. The doctor who first came up with the steroid inhaler therapy here in the US was branded a quack by multiple so-called medical "experts" and the media.
Given this and the deliberate attacks on Henry Ford for running a trial on HCQ does this sound like public health or does it sound like the suppression of medical study and testing resulting in death for political and/or ideological goals?
Dr. Fauci has now confirmed by his own words that his and the CDC's goals are political; that his and the CDC's "new" guidelines on schools (while, I remind you, Florida has had their schools safely open for months without these things) are conditioned on passage of the legislation currently being written in Congress.
Now let's talk about the numbers of deaths directly chargeable to this terrorism -- that is, the deliberate infliction of death through willful and intentional interference with testing known safe and potentially effective therapies and strategies that served to deliberately propagate a biological agent causing death which, if they had been undertaken, investigated and those that proved up made widely available would have dramatically changed the course of this disease, all of which by the totality of the evidence was done with the explicit goal of inculcating fear and driving a political or ideological outcome.
Had we segregated nursing home workers immediately after Kirkland 50,000 of the 140,000 people who died in the first few months would not have died from Covid. Every single one of the Governors and the Federal Government are directly and personally responsible for these deaths and should be tried and get the needle for the mass-death they caused through depraved indifference to human life.
Had we acted on the Vitamin D deficiency data we had in April which had a zero risk of adverse effects in correcting either in the population or on hospital admission 60% of all persons who have died would not have died. Again there is zero risk associated with making sure you're not Vitamin-D deficient. Between these first two actions the death toll through June would have been under 40,000; a reduction in death between the two of 70%.
Had we spent the few tens of millions of dollars in March through June testing the steroid inhalers and Ivermectin, along with the other drugs that did not prove up we could have released the employee lockdown on nursing homes by the end of June and 95% of all the people who died from July onward, which now total more than 300,000 would not have died from a Covid-19 associated illness. In other words only about another 15,000 people would have passed from that date onward.
This is materially less, by a factor of more than 75%, than the flu kills in an average year. Statistically that is a zero and while all death is sad that certainly is not an emergency as extended over a year's time it is materially less than the flu's annual burden.
There would have been no desire or need for "emergency" vaccines with an unknown set of intermediate and long-term risks; if vaccines were indicated they could have gone through regular testing and, in the fullness of time, perhaps been approved.
There would have been no need for "emergency" ventilators at the cost of billions which, we later learned, were both unnecessary and useless.
The trillions of dollars emitted and doled out with most of it going to big business and political cronies would have never occurred and the inflation destruction that is certain to follow in the years ahead would have been avoided.
There would have been no reason to keep a single school closed.
There would have been no call for mask mandates, distancing, closing businesses or anything else.
Essentially all of the unemployment, business destruction, wildly skewed preference and the driving of business to large national and multi-national firms such as Amazon, WalMart and others would not have occurred.
The entirety of the tourism and hospitality business would have been back to normal by August including cruises, air travel and the rest.
In short by the end of summer everything would have been back to normal including our economy.
The pandemic and fear would have been over in the summer and stayed over with cheap, inexpensive and readily-available drugs and vitamin supplements that have been known to be safe and can be bought anywhere for pennies. If you got Covid-19 a couple of doses of Ivermectin and a few puffs on a steroid inhaler would have turned 95% of the hospitalizations and deaths that occurred into nuisances no more serious than a common cold or mild flu. Further we would have achieved and maintained herd immunity through what would be a nuisance infection similar to that of common colds and flus by now since the infections would still happen, virtually everyone would have been infected and recovered by late summer and yet serious harm or death would have come to statistically nobody.
It can still be over without a single jab in the arm or any of the risks associated with it today, right here and now in the space of a single day, via the exact same mechanism at near-zero cost and inconvenience, job loss or economic damage.
Some of those first 40,000 dead would have died due to lack of knowledge of how to mitigate the risk and treat vulnerable people. That sucks but was unavoidable since we did not know which pharmaceutical and nutritional agents were effective.
95% of the rest, and 95% of those who get the virus and die today are doing so as a direct result of intentional actions by State Governors, the President of the United States both past and present, the CDC, the NIH and every single so-called "public health" institution including the hospitals, teaching and research universities including but not limited to IHME, Vanderbilt, Johns Hopkins and countless more.
There is no reason for any of this to continue, there is no reason to wear a mask as they are worthless and in fact can cause harm, there is no reason to distance or stay away from each other, there is no reason to torture our kids with school restrictions and there is no reason to take a vaccine.
None of it is necessary on the science because we know how to stop nearly all such infections from becoming serious or fatal at the cost of literal pennies. We had good reason to believe all of this would work in March and April, we knew factually that locking in nursing home employees would work in March, and we intentionally refused to investigate those drugs or lock nursing home employees in away from sources of infection. We did pillory the few health systems and physicians that dared launch their own investigation and report the results.
Despite that intentional obstruction in the US and western nations other countries have done the work and now the results and the jury are both in -- like it or not.
Our government -- including Federal, State and Local officials, in concert with both the medical system and our alleged "public health" agencies deliberately spread disease and caused death for the last year, directly and through depraved indifference, killing approximately 400,000 Americans thus far and is killing thousands more every single day. We knew how to stop the death in nursing homes in February of 2020 and we knew how to stop 95% of the deaths in the general population this summer using cheap and available nutritional supplements and off-patent medications. Rather than fulfill their legal duty both by their oaths of office and in the case of non-profits and public health organizations the duties set forth in their charter and the reason for their tax exemptions they instead conspired with commercial interests to allow and even promote such death so as to inculcate fear in the population for the purpose of political, ideological and financial gain.
BY THE CLEAR DEFINITION OF THE TERM AND THE FACTS THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE PROPERLY CALLED TERRORISTS AND THESE SHOULD BE PROPERLY CALLED ACTS OF TERRORISM.
These actions are deliberately being undertaken and have been since March of 2020, and have caused mass death, for the express purpose of a political and/or ideological result.
That is the entire point of terrorism -- to scare people into compliance with a set of political or ideological demands by making the public fear that they will die next if they do not do as the terrorists demand.
WELL?
We're coming up on 500,000 dead Americans folks and most of those deaths were avoidable.
Something like 130+ times the number of people Bin Laden killed on 9/11 in avoidable deaths were caused by intentional refusal to follow up on what was learned and even harassment of well-respected medical institutions that dared to speak against their suppression was undertaken with another 9/11's worth of death being accrued at present every single day.
I am not afraid of this virus because I have read and understood the evolving science since the start of this mess and have acquired beginning in March the agents necessary to prevent, with a 95% certainty, the harms it may cause. Over time I've discarded a few of those potential treatments as they were either found to be ineffective or replaced with more-effective ones. I have ensured I am not Vitamin-D deficient since that has zero risk to my person and costs pennies. As a result despite being 57 years of age and thus at allegedly "higher risk" it is clear on the science that this virus is no more dangerous to me than the common cold and I have exactly zero concern about contracting it. I have lived my unmasked life for the last year and will continue to; you may take your "mandates" intended to scare me and shove them straight up your ass.
I no longer give a wet crap about terrorists using bombs, knives, guns, trucks, airplanes or even a nuclear weapon and never will again since our nation has decided that its perfectly ok for terrorists in our government and health care institutions to kill thousands of Americans every day on purpose for a year straight and will not punish those who are doing it or force them to stop. Every terrorist who has attacked an American interest in this history of this nation combined has not come close to the body count of the ghouls who together are responsible for nearly half a million dead American souls.
And since the vast majority of the population are by the clear record terrorist sympathizers in that the people of this nation refuse to rise and put a stop to this crap if I come upon your overturned vehicle or otherwise find you in peril unlike the two times in the previous 20 years when I stopped and rendered assistance, in one case according to the EMTs likely saving the driver's life -- I'm continuing right on by.
Make your peace with God for as long as this state of affairs continues I swear on my eternal soul I will not help any who may have conspired to shove nearly half a million Americans in hole for political purposes.
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.
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.
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.