Categories
COVID Biden Pandemic Child Abuse Drugs How sick is this? Science

The Fauch lies again: After month-long COVID bout, Fauci claims quad vaxxed status prevented ‘severe’ disease

Visits: 30

It’s hard to get my head around the idea that anyone with more than a double digit IQ can still believe anything this man says.

I want to turn your attention to a revealing interview conducted with Dr Fauci this week. It shines a light on his faith-based approach to the mRNA “miracle,” and his overall lack of a data-based thought process regarding his own bout with the virus.

In the interview, Fauci credited getting quad vaxxed with keeping him from having a “much more serious” bout with COVID-19.

A visibly ill Fauci told the interviewer:

“I’m really fortunate that I’ve done very well, and I keep telling people … is that I was vaccinated (with first two doses) and doubly boosted, and I believe that if i did not have that degree of background protection, I would have had a much more serious course. My course was relatively light. Minor symptoms. And right now i am completely without symptoms.”

video
play-sharp-fill

Notably, Fauci did not mention the fact that he took two full rounds of Pfizer’s oral antiviral pill, against the guidance of his own government health agencies. So was it the pills or the vaccines, or maybe even his mask and lockdown advocacy that “saved” him? Fauci did not elaborate.

-After-month-long-COVID-bout-Fauci-claims-quad-vaxxed-status-prevented-‘severe-disease

Fauci’s messaging on the miracle cure continues to change as pharmaceutical companies recommend more and more doses of miracle cure. At first, Fauci claimed the primary series of mRNA shots would effectively immunize people from COVID-19 and work as a sterilizing agent. Then, Fauci claimed that three doses was the optimal regimen. Now, he has endorsed seasonal injections of miracle cure.

Moreover, Fauci’s change in tone is striking from his previous interviews concerning his bout with COVID-19. In late June, while on his second course of the Pfizer bill, Fauci claimed to be feeling “really poorly,” and credited the second course of the pill with reversing his troubling symptoms.

There is no evidence that these shots serve any benefit to children, but the loyal pharmaceutical salesmen stayed on message.

All together, Fauci has claimed to have been sick for almost a whole month, after testing positive in mid June. This is hardly evidence that a quad vaxxed and double antiviral pilled regimen somehow saved Fauci from a worse outcome, as his bout with COVID was much worse than the statistical norm. 

At the end of the interview, Fauci expressed disappointment that his friends at Pfizer and Moderna have only been able to inject a small percentage of the infant and toddler population with the experimental mRNA injections. There is no evidence that these shots serve any benefit to children, but the loyal pharmaceutical salesmen stayed on message.

“We’ve gotta do better on the numbers because we’ve still got a relatively small fraction of those children who are eligible, and we need to get them vaccinated,” said the NIAID’s chief drug pusher.

Sprinkling in the usual evidence-free fear mongering, he added: “Children can get severe disease. There’s no doubt about that.”

The interview ended with Fauci recommending that everyone make sure to get another dose of miracle cure, endorsing Pfizer and Moderna’s latest injection for when it receives another rubber stamp FDA authorization in the fall.

 

Loading

162
Categories
COVID Biden Pandemic Drugs Science

Here We Go AGAIN: New ‘Ninja’ COVID Variant Is ‘The Most Dangerous One Yet’

Visits: 23

The corporate media is propagating another campaign to stow fear over a another COVID variant as the federal government attempts to use the bioweapon to perpetuate an indefinite state of emergency.

BA.5, an Omicron  subvariant, also known as ‘Ninja,’ is now the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Ninja “is the most dangerous” variant yet and serves as “a strong reminder the COVID pandemic isn’t over,” the Daily Beast warns, in an article syndicated by Yahoo News on Friday.

While health practitioners around the nation have been fired, suspended or revoked of their medical licenses for treating patients with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, medications that effectively treat COVID-19, experimental gene-editing COVID “vaccines” have proven to provide no immunity against the transmission of the manmade virus.

Yet, “vaccines and boosters are still the best defense,” the Daily Beast reports.

“There are even Omicron-specific booster jabs in development that, in coming months, could make the best vaccines more effective against BA.5 and its genetic cousins,” the publication notes. “BA.5’s widespread mutations made the subvariant less recognizable to all those antibodies we’ve built up from vaccines, boosters and past infection. BA.5 has been able to slip past our immune system, ninja-style, contributing to the rising rate of breakthrough cases and infections.

“The more additional jabs you get on top of your prime course, the better protected you are. Arguably the best protection results from two prime jabs of the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer or Moderna plus a couple boosters.”

The left-wing outlet blames the rising rate of breakthrough cases and new variants on the “stubborn anti-vax minority.”

“In the U.S., for example, the percentage of fully vaccinated has stalled at around 67 percent,” the publication notes. “So COVID lingers, 31 months after the first case was diagnosed in Wuhan, China.”

In reality, the COVID vaccines are creating variants, contends Dr. Ben Marble, the founder of MyFreeDoctor who has treated over 300.000 COVID patients.

“All the different variants, they are created by the C-19 fake vaccine poison — that’s why they exist,” Dr. Marble told the Gateway Pundit in an exclusive interivew. They wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the mass use of these gene-editing fake vaccines. A lot of people are getting really sick. Whose getting really sick? Of course, the people who took the shots. The people who have gotten three and four shots, they are the ones filling up the hospitals. An overwhelming majority of hospitalized people with COVID are people who took the shot. Unvaccinated people don’t get that sick. The bottom line is the more doses of the poison shot you’ve taken, the sicker you are going to be and the more likely you’re going to die soon.”

Mass vaccinating during an outbreak always create mutations, Marble argued.

“All immunologists know you are never supposed to mass vaccinate in the middle of the pandemic. Ideally, you do it way before the pandemic ever starts. Trying to do it during the middle of a pandemic guarantees it’s natural selection,” he said. “The organism has to mutate in order to survive and if it doesn’t mutate then it dies off. So, it will try different mutations until one survives and keeps getting transmitted. Suddenly, you have a new variant. The evolutionary selective pressure of the fake vaccines forces the actual virus to mutate again.”

Marble suspects the Omicron variant, like COVID-19, was man made and released.

“This is bioterrorism. Some of the mutations are so strikingly different. The Omicron variant was so slightly different it may have been a separately released bioterror event as opposed to naturally appearing from selective pressure and the mass vaccination,” he continued. The original  SARS 2 virus was a bioterrorism weapon was clearly released and man made by Fauci the gain of function. They released it on purpose. Every COVID death is a murder by Fauci and friends.

“The Great Reset is actually a plan to use fake vaccines to cull the human herd and that’s what they’re doing. We are witnessing a great mass genocide. The problem is the mass formation psychosis. If you think political correctness is good, you’re psychotic. The proof that they’re insane is they keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, which is the definition of insanity. They take booster after booster after booster thinking that they are going to get a different result. Surprise. The bad news for them is that they are going to get a different result when they are sick all the time or dying.”

 

Loading

146
Categories
COVID Biden Pandemic Drugs Science

Fauci Confirms Fake COVID Treatment Made Him More Sick, Another Fail By Biden’s Administration!

Visits: 53

By Michael Robison  for TGP Published June 29, 2022

On Tuesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci confirmed that he is experiencing “COVID rebound” after taking Pfizer’s Paxlovid, the so-called silver bullet that Biden wasted billions in taxpayer dollars to support. 

Paxlovid appears to have almost zero effectiveness for people that are already vaccinated, according to the manufacturer Pfizer’s data.

Fauci, shared his health update while speaking remotely at the Foreign Policy Global Health Forum.

Earlier in June, Fauci tested positive for the virus with mild symptoms, including fatigue. According to Fauci, as his symptoms worsened, he began a five-day course of the supposed wonder drug. 

When talking about his experience with the medication, Fauci said that he tested negative for the virus three days in a row. However, when he tested again on the fourth day, the test was positive again.  

Fauci said that his symptoms were “much worse” after he tested positive for the second time following the treatment with Paxlovid.

Watch below:

 

In May, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued a formal warning of a COVID rebound due to a course of Paxlovid. 

The CDC said that some patients prescribed Paxlovid suffered a recurrence of symptoms or tested positive for Covid between two and eight days after beginning treatment. 

According to a June 22 University of California San Diego School of Medicine study, Covid-19 rebound symptoms after a course of Paxlovid are due to the failure of Pfizer’s wonder drug to impact infected cells and stop viral replication. The study notes that the medication may be rendered useless in vaccinated individuals. 

The day after that study was published, Pfizer published its own data from stage 2 drug trials confirming the exact details. The study noted that a fully vaccinated person with a low risk of COVID complications had little to gain from using the drug.

A COVID-positive person allegedly should use Paxlovid to limit symptoms and prevent them from becoming severe enough to require hospitalization. The drug received emergency use authorization in late 2021.  

Biden has touted the drug during his 2022 State of the Union address as one of the triumphs of America’s COVID response.

At the 2022 State of the Union, Biden said: “If you get COVID-19, the Pfizer pill reduces your chances of ending up in the hospital by 90 percent.”

“I’ve ordered more pills than anyone in the world has. Pfizer is working overtime to get us a million pills this month and more than double that next month,” he said. 

 

Fauci’s experience seems to verify that of the drug trials, Paxlovid offers little to no benefit for treating the China virus. It is simply another tool used by the big pharmaceutical companies to milk the U.S. government for billions of dollars. 

 

Loading

214
Categories
COVID Back Door Power Grab Biden Pandemic Politics Polls Progressive Racism Reprints from others. Science

Moral Blinding: How the COVID-Prevention Fetish Killed Critical Thinking

Visits: 36

This article was written by Susan Dunham.

Feeling the fuzzies

Our first lockdown was like a great war effort. It was the closest we’ve come to the home-front experience of the World Wars, when people set aside every selfish thought in favor of the collective wellbeing. We ground our lives to a halt in a powerful rebuke against an emerging threat. Heroes emerged, along with new rituals to honor them as we banged pots for frontline workers and decorated our neighborhoods with messages of thanks. Meanwhile, the rest of us did our part: we stayed home. And it all felt good.

Months later, rising COVID cases have plunged us into another lockdown, which in short order has become a practiced routine. After a lax summer and fall season, we slip back into the usual stay-at-home restrictions. We triple our vigilance: we keep our distance, follow the masking rules, and sanitize compulsively. “Be safe,” we wish each other in lieu of the customary farewells. Even the fearless pitch in, because staying safe means preventing yourself from becoming a threat to others.

All of the prescribed safety practices have become part of a new social ritual. Participation demonstrates one’s commitment to the collective wellbeing, which the pandemic has taught us is not an individual game but a group effort. Masking, sanitizing, distancing, and isolating are not only safety measures in the traditional sense but they have also become the new signs of caring. And they are fast becoming a prerequisite for societal participation. No mask, no service says many signs in store windows, big and small.

As Canadians, long-renowned for politeness, compliance under these terms is practically built into the national DNA. Save for some pockets of protests in our larger cities, we have demonstrated a willingness to give up a little bit of our personal freedom for the greater good, and we embrace whatever is asked of us if it can save a life.

But is that really such a good thing? Could it be that our impassioned acceptance of drastic new norms makes us a little too willing to compromise on everything if we can be convinced it’s the righteous thing to do? And has our conscience been hijacked so that we consent to new norms that actually dismantle the progress we’ve made towards a free and open society?

I argue that the COVID crisis has turned a once liberal society into a cult of compliance and that we have sold off an open marketplace of ideas in a bid to secure our safety. In its place we have built a new social operating system that coerces consent and could one day render us incapable of seeing the true effects of policies that masquerade as public good..

Creating tunnel vision

While we were placing “Stay at Home” badges on top of our Instagram selfies, congratulating ourselves for staying inside, The World Food Program — an agency of the UN — was reporting that 130 million more people in developing nations would face starvation by the end of the year as a direct result of the global economy which we ground to a halt. That means tens of millions of additional deaths in developing countries because of lockdown.

At home we knew that suicide numbers must have skyrocketed and that countless unstable home lives turned dramatically worse, while food bank lines extended longer than we had ever seen them.

But rather than these realities sobering us out of our moral stupor, they instead inspired us to double-down on the categorical importance of lockdown, even as we were learning that most people are not at serious risk of severe illness. No cost was too high to prevent one more COVID case.

Months later, with better perspective on the costs of lockdown, we find ourselves in yet another one. Although we entered it with reduced appetite for the same kind of stringency we saw last spring, we have dutifully complied with everything that the case numbers have demanded. We’ve thrown out every skeptic thought, because the unquantified concerns of mental health, childhood developmental delay, economic collapse, and mass death by starvation the world over do not hold an audience more powerfully than the running tally of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

The constant beat of daily broadcast COVID briefings and the bombardment of public health messaging play no small part in constructing our perception of the coronavirus threat. Reshaping our lives to avoid a virus seems logical and inevitable when the only metric we’re allowed to hear is the COVID numbers. How naturally all other facets of life seem to fall away when we are properly obsessed over a single problem to the exclusion of all others.

This curation of concern single-handedly drives our collective reaction to the emergent coronavirus. Our laser focus on all things COVID creates a kind of team spirit in the wellness effort, encouraging our embrace of the pain-loving self sacrifice of lockdown — and blinding us to both its costs and its alternatives.

Affirming the course

By now we should have heard from our public health policy-makers that instead of blanket lockdown, we might opt for a model that is business-as-usual with the exception of a full marshaling of resources aimed at those who self-identify as vulnerable and full support for only their isolation. We don’t question the absence of this suggestion because we have been so locked onto the altruistic idea of self-sacrifice for the greater good that any kind of debate would seem selfishly motivated.

Instead we indulge in the joy of pitching-in and doing good, while remaining guiltlessly ignorant of the fact that history might look back upon lockdown as a devastating mistake. Meanwhile, we collect our CERB cheques and boast about the moral virtues of remaining indefinitely couch-bound. Thus we are placated by a public health policy that we should be debating at the very least.

The great opiate of public health stewardship makes us feel so assured of our righteousness that questioning health regulations is morally suspect. We look unkindly at the oppositional thinker, the lockdown skeptic who threatens to upend the whole care-making experience of the COVID era. Whereas normally we would give skeptical voices vital consideration, especially before embracing the drastic new normal we’ve been handed, we instead condemn them out of hand because we are pre-conditioned to despise their very premise.

Much analysis is given to the pandemic response on the government level, but it is our pandemic response on the social level which will prove the most significant to history, because that is where the true forces of lasting change carve out their legacies.

The on-the-ground tensions between the majority of us who embrace policy and those who don’t is the effect of a social phenomenon which has demonstrated an enormous capacity to reshape our world. What we are gripped by is a peculiar kind of collective blindness disguised as goodwill and righteousness that turns us against all forms of debate on public policy so long as it is positioned correctly.

Dehumanizing the rebel

Toronto’s first lockdown protest in April drew the ire of a vocal majority who denounced participants as selfish, small-minded, ignorant, and reckless. These were anti-science bigots whose ideas literally endangered lives. They thumbed their noses at the new rituals which were meanwhile bringing the city together. The protests grew in number and in frequency into the summer months. Demonstrators were spared no ill will by the court of public opinion. Many commentators openly wished they see their comeuppance in the form of a hospital bed, and such tidings were met with all round applause.

There is no moral standing, as we see it, from which to question the edicts of the health experts. Our enthusiastic focus on the wellness effort has morphed into a complete intolerance for debate on the issue. We are so emboldened by our collective struggle that we feel morally justified in throwing all opposition into the fire.

Thus we’ve become locked into a radical, all-in moral defense of new and unprecedented rules. Such a rabid mode of categorical compliance establishes a dangerous low in our capacity for critically, rather than emotionally, perceiving the issues we face. We now despise rebellious thinking, even if those deviant ideas might be our life raft out of dangerous waters.

While the Coronavirus is often said to have brought out the best in us — with our pot-banging and our well-wishing — all of this team-building has produced, almost by necessity, a dark response to doubting voices.

Silencing doubt

SARS-COV-2 has changed our reaction to voices that oppose the crowd. Whereas in the past, outlier thinking, skepticism of mainstream messaging and policy makers, nonconformity in the face of social pressure were all tolerated if not welcomed, now we deem these things dangerous, not stimulating.

The pain of the pandemic, which has shown us what can happen when people adopt the wrong kinds of opinions, has made us hypersensitive to regressive views on other global issues like climate change, vaccination, social justice, even politics, in which the actions of the individual can affect the group. We have seen the consequence of too much freedom of thought in the form of lockdowns and packed ICUs, and we bristle to think what future crises might unfold if the wrong opinions gain traction again.

So we put extra effort into vilifying harmful views. If we have to contend with freedom of speech and freedom of thought, then we get around that obstacle by making unsafe views so socially toxic that they’re more dangerous for the speaker than they are for society. Be caught courting an unsanctioned idea and get branded an enemy of the public good. Suddenly yesterday’s eccentric thinker is today’s ignorant, selfish, uneducated bigot.

The ideological cooling effect of such a social mechanism is an effective tool for steering opinion and, as the pandemic has demonstrated, behavior too.

Saving face

Universal masking and protocol compliance has been so effectively adopted precisely because it has become socially untenable to do otherwise. To be caught without a mask, that brilliant piece of cloth that shows you care, is to forfeit your status as a well-meaning member of society.

And so we have it that much of the moral fetishization of COVID protocols — the excessive displays of complying well beyond the public guidelines — has become a way of signifying ideological affinity. So repellent is the image of the COVID skeptic that COVID compliance has become as much about self-image as it is about public safety — if not more.

We find ourselves trapped within a new social formula in which conformity is social currency. The more one over-performs the prescribed duties and rituals of the good citizen, the more approval is bestowed, and the more distance the performer creates between themselves and the looming image of the social monster.

In this paradigm, independent thinking — synthesizing available data into more nuanced or perhaps contradictory conclusions — is taboo. The social rewards of conformity far outweigh the immoral stink of rebellious thought. It simply becomes no longer worth the shame, stigma, self-doubt, and the bother of holding and sharing a competing idea.

There is no end in sight to this new model now that we have set it into motion. It has been embraced during pandemic and the gears are already turning to point this machinery towards other global efforts. It is our new social operating system — and it has already proven its capacity to reshape society without limitation. Consider how absurd the notion would have been just over a year ago that it would be reprehensible to be caught barefaced in a grocery store. What absurdities today will we reconstruct as the moral obligations of tomorrow?

We now have a framework for coercing total compliance to new and changing rules and rituals, which need no backing by logic or sense. How many truly contradictory public protocols do we now follow for the sake of optics alone? We jump into the street to give space to fellow pedestrians even though there is no realistic concern for transmission in this way. Proof and reason become redundancies — at most, formalities. If the Coronavirus ever ceases to be a concern, how many people will truly abandon masking when it has become so ingrained as a symbol of prudence and altruism? Compliance becomes its own end when its made synonymous with moral good.

And thus a moral blinding has stricken society. COVID-19 has gathered us so tightly around the bonfire of cooperation, either by conversion or coercion, that we have found no better place to be, and we have lost our tolerance for anyone refusing to join. We’ve completely annexed our capacity to judge what is being asked of us dispassionately, leaving open an unguarded pathway to our consent through both our heartstrings and our self-image.

Losing Control

The foundation is laid for future incursions into our daily normal, which have no hope of encountering resistance. The next radical social change need only be positioned as the next good thing, and even in the mind of the conflicted individual, doubt will be set aside in favor of appearance. Woe to anyone with the misfortune of disagreeing, because an intense, scapegoating hatred for those who do not comply will justify any manner of policy, punishment, and correction against them. And social spoils will await the loudest and most zealous followers and enforcers of whatever new normal the future cooks up.

We have burned our safety net against tyranny. Rather than doing the hard thing, respecting an individual’s right to self-direction even at a marginal expense of safety, we wage war on thought, between right-think and wrong-think, good action versus bad action so that we may burn every deviant in our path.

Sealing our fate

Through a system of self-adulating social rituals, single-minded public messaging, and stigmatization of the uncooperative, we have lost our capacity to see the shades of gray between extremes and to recognize the fundamental merits of debate and the freedom to dissent. We now prefer that every last skeptic be shamed into compliance, as if the benefit of that is worth the cost of forcing a free society into a hive mind.

We have so easily forgotten that it is in the dialectic of competing views — some for this side, others for that side — that we prevent any one extreme from over-dominating. And it is precisely by the moral exclusion of oppositional views that a population finds itself one day in a world it doesn’t recognize.

So while the world stampedes in lockstep towards new extremes of safety protocols, we are in danger of a well-intentioned agenda breaking away from itself and running ahead of its own mandate if there is no one left to one day challenge it.

And yet the average person shakes their head to learn of the latest citizen to defy protocol.

In just a few short months, the old liberal mindset that would have called for a balance between safety and liberty, that would have rejected the idea that science offers only one way through a crisis, that would have accepted the foundational need for some dissent, has eroded into a culture of compliance. To obey is to care. That is the equation that has reprogrammed our social order. And if it might benefit us today, it could more easily hurt us tomorrow, the next time something to which we wouldn’t normally consent finds that tested appeal to our hearts.

Loading

172
Categories
COVID Biden Pandemic Drugs Reprints from others.

Take that Karen: ‘Natural Immunity Wins Again’: Study Demonstrates Infection-Derived Immunity Likely Superior to COVID Vaccines

Visits: 27

Fireman Jason Wendell protesting against NYC vaccine mandates in Manhattan, New York, on Oct. 26, 2021. (Sarah Lu/The Epoch Times)

By Enrico Trigoso for Epoch Times

Natural immunity wins again

A new study published by the New England Journal of Medicine on June 9 found that protection from COVID-19 via natural immunity was superior to that of two doses of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine after the same amount of time elapsed among uninfected people.

“Natural immunity wins again,” Martin Adel Makary, M.D., M.P.H., a public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, wrote on Twitter, referring to the new study.

Natural immunity “protection was higher than that conferred after the same time had elapsed since receipt of a second dose of vaccine among previously uninfected persons,” concludes the study.

Pfizer vaccine protection ‘wanes.’

“Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) provides natural immunity against reinfection,” the study states at the outset, adding that recent studies have shown “waning of the immunity provided by” the Pfizer shot.

The article uses the database of the Israeli Ministry of Health from 2021 at a time when the Delta variant was predominant, among people who were previously infected with the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus or who had taken the 2019 vaccine.

For those with immunity from natural infection, the risk of hospitalization and death upon reinfection is exceedingly low

“CDC seroprevalence data shows that 58 percent of the public has already been infected across all age groups (75 percent of pediatric population). For those with immunity from natural infection, the risk of hospitalization and death upon reinfection is exceedingly low,” Dr. Sanjay Verma, a cardiologist who has seen a big increase in heart problems since the vaccines were rolled out, told The Epoch Times.

“Therefore, continued disregard for immunity from natural infection is not only contrary to all the published science, it’s an egregious affront to medical ethics,” he added.

“Throughout the pandemic, public health experts have ignored and even disparaged immunity after natural infection, exclusively emphasizing immunity from COVID vaccines. Many people have been unethically forced into unemployment from vaccine mandates that did not accommodate immunity from natural infection. Repeated studies have shown that immunity after COVID infection is comparable or even better than immunity after COVID vaccination,” Verma said.

Epoch Times Photo
Estimated Covariate-Adjusted Rates of Confirmed Infections per 100,000 Person-Days at Risk. (Screenshot of Fig 3 “Protection and Waning of Natural and Hybrid Immunity to SARS-CoV-2,” From The New England Journal of Medicine)

A chart showing the different levels of protection and waning efficacy against infection shows that those in the 4 to <8 months “1 dose + recovered” group didn’t experience significantly fewer infections than the “recovered, unvaccinated” group in the same time frame.

In addition, the data doesn’t show the 4-8 month result for people who took 3 doses.

Loading

124
Categories
COVID Biden Pandemic Drugs Science

Take THAT Karens: Latest CDC Data Shows Covid-19 Infections Higher in Boosted Americans Compared to Unboosted

Visits: 35

By Jim Hoft  Published June 6, 2022 at 4:00pm

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed that breakthrough Covid-19 infections in April was worse in boosted Americans compared to the vaccinated but not boosted.

According to the data analyzed by far-left CBS, the week of April 23 showed that boosted Americans are catching COVID-19 at nearly double the rate of those who have not been boosted. But claimed the unvaccinated remain the highest group.

The unvaccinated rate is a bit misleading as CDC includes those with 1 dose and even 2 doses under 14 days. In the UK, they separate those with zero doses from those who received the vaccination. They categorized it as follows: Unvaccinated, within 21 days of first dose, 21 days or more after first dose, within 21 days of second dose, and 21 days or more after second dose.

The reality is the jabs, initial or boosters, do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus. During Omicron and Delta waves, it was the vaccinated population who were severely infected.

This April, an analysis of CDC data by The Epoch Times reveals that the most vaccinated areas of the United States are experiencing the highest numbers of covid cases – and it’s not just by a little bit. The infection rate is significantly higher than in the areas where vaccine compliance is lowest.

In other words – the data indicates that, at best, the vaccines don’t work; and at worst, they are contributing to the spread of the virus.

According to The Epoch Times analysis, the Covid infection rate in US counties that have a vaccination rate of 62-95% is 23% higher than the Counties that have a vaccination rate of just 11-40%.

The data showed that the least vaccinated counties tended to be on the smaller side, with an average population of around 20,000 – much less than the 330,000 average among the most vaccinated counties.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that a recent data from over 5,000 Walgreens stores, the unvaccinated have the lowest incidence of COVID.

The unvaccinated show an 18% COVID rate. This is lower than those with 3 doses of the vaccine who have a 19.2 COVID rate.
Those with three doses, with their last dose taken over five months ago, have the highest COVID rate at 31.3%.

Loading

166
Categories
Biden Pandemic Sports

Gov. DeSantis: Special Olympics Reversal of Vaccine Requirement a Win

Visits: 15

Ron DeSantis speakingFlorida Gov. Ron DeSantis (Ronda Churchill/Getty Images)

By Nick Koutsobinas  for Newsmax  |   Saturday, 04 June 2022

During a Friday press conference, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis called a win the decision by the Special Olympics to reverse the mandate that otherwise would have required thousands of athletes competing in the games to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

On Friday, the Special Olympics issued a statement detailing that it would lift its mandate as directed by state officials on May 27 “based upon the Florida Department of Health’s interpretation of Florida law.”

According to Politico, this year’s Special Olympics USA Games will kick off Sunday and wrap up on June 12. Initially, the Florida Department of Health sent a letter to Special Olympics International threatening a $27.5 million fine on Thursday if the organization sought a vaccine requirement. A copy of the letter indicated that the Special Olympics had asked 5,500 people to provide proof of vaccination upon entry to the 2022 USA Special Olympics Games, which violates a state ban requiring proof of vaccination.

“[Special Olympics International] was unable to bring the event into compliance for the benefit of their delegates,” the letter read. “And reinstate all who were denied access based on proof of vaccination.”

DeSantis called the decision to reverse the requirement a win for thousands of athletes.

“What connection that has to competing,” DeSantis said of COVID-19 vaccines, “I don’t understand. We’ve never seen something wielded like this vaccine to try to marginalize disfavored people.

“And a lot of these Special Olympians have also had COVID by now. Most people have had it by now.”


Florida called the Special Olympics International committee for their “prove you’ve been jabbed or go home” policy. The committee blinked.

Special Olympics, Inc. (SOI) announced on June 2, 2022, that it is lifting the vaccine requirement for delegation members attending the 2022 Special Olympics USA Games being held in Orlando, Florida, June 5-12, as required by state of Florida officialson May 27, based upon the Florida Department of Health’s interpretation of Florida law.

Delegates who were registered for the Games but were unable to participate due to the prior vaccine requirement, now have the option to attend. SOI, Special Olympics North America, and the 2022 Special Olympics USA Games Local Organizing Committee are making best efforts to accommodate eligible individuals.

We look forward to welcoming thousands of Special Olympics athletes, families, and fans to an extraordinary 2022 USA Games.

(Emphasis mine.)

Loading

169
Categories
Uncategorized Biden Pandemic COVID Politics Reprints from others. Science

Pfizer quietly admits it will never manufacture original FDA approved COVID vaccines Company claims it is manufacturing Comirnaty product with new formula.

Visits: 43

This article is from The Dossier.

The August 23, 2021 FDA approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine was a cause for celebration. Marked as a turning point in the battle against COVID19, the announcement was highly publicized by the Biden Administration with the clear intention to extinguish “vaccine hesitancy” and boost uptake.

It was celebrated as a cause for national relief, and many Americans arrived at their local pharmacies under the impression, via government and pharmaceutical propaganda, that they were receiving an FDA-approved COVID vaccine. Yet that legally distinct product, as we know it, never existed. And now we know, via Pfizer, that it will never exist.

 

For the uninitiated:

Comirnaty is a legally distinct product from the emergency use authorization (EUA) shots, and It has never made its way to market. For months on end, no such vaccine has ever become available. Those who received the “Pfizer shot(s)” have been injected with the emergency use authorization (EUA) version of the shots. See my piece in The Dossier for more info:

 
Shell Game? There remains no FDA approved COVID vaccine in the United States
I fact checked the fact checkers and couldn’t believe what I found. Despite the corporate press, Big Pharma, and the federal government telling us otherwise, it is absolutely true that there is no FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine available in the United States today. And there are no plans to make one available any time soon…

Read more

The information operation succeeded. There was indeed an FDA approved vaccine, at least on paper, but you couldn’t get it.

When originally confronted with this ordeal, Pfizer labeled this issue an inventory question that had nothing to do with the legal distinction between an experimental EUA product and an FDA-approved vaccine. Up until just weeks ago, this was the statement up on the CDC website via Pfizer:

“Pfizer received FDA BLA license on 8/23/2021 for its COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 and older (COMIRNATY).  At that time, the FDA published a BLA package insert that included the approved new COVID-19 vaccine tradename COMIRNATY and listed 2 new NDCs (0069-1000-03, 0069-1000-02) and images of labels with the new tradename.

At present, Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these new NDCs and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution.  As such, the CDC, AMA, and drug compendia may not publish these new codes until Pfizer has determined when the product will be produced with the BLA labels.”

In May, Pfizer updated its statement to mention a December 2021 licensed Comirnaty product, which was granted a license four months after the highly-publicized August FDA press release.

And just last week, Pfizer finally acknowledged that its original licensed product will never be distributed. In an unreported update on the CDC website, Pfizer told the agency:

“Pfizer received initial FDA BLA license on 8/23/2021 for its COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 and older (COMIRNATY). At that time, the FDA published a BLA package insert that included the approved new COVID-19 vaccine tradename COMIRNATY and listed 2 new NDCs (0069-1000-03, 0069-1000-02) and images of labels with the new tradename. These NDCs will not be manufactured. Only NDCs for the subsequently BLA approved tris-sucrose formulation will be produced.”

The key distinction between the originally approved formulation and the tris-sucrose formulation is that — according to manufacturers — the latter can be held for a much longer period of time outside of an ultra cold freezer. These freezers cost over $10,000 a piece and each unit uses as much energy per day as an average American household. Improper storage can render the mRNA unstable.

Notably, the clinical trials for the Pfizer shot were conducted without the modified tris-sucrose ingredient. Given the partisan nature of Pfizer, the corporate media, government health bureaucracies, and your correspondent’s lack of expertise in this area, it is unclear whether this is significant.

Another notable thing to look out for in the coming days and weeks is the possibility that the subsequently FDA approved product finally becomes available in the United States. In recent days, the CDC removed the language of “not orderable at this time” above the description of both Comirnaty and Moderna’s Spikevax.

Additionally, as reported by Uncover DC, the Defense Department appears to be in the early stages of ordering what it has interpreted as a legally required minimum of Comirnaty in order to continue its mRNA mandate of American service members.

Loading

122
Categories
Uncategorized Biden Pandemic Corruption Leftist Virtue(!) Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others.

The Deeply Flawed Narrative That Joe Biden Bought

Visits: 28

Left critics and self-hating Democrats believe that Obama was a Republican-indulging compromiser. So did Biden and his appointees, who were determined to outdo Obama using narrow Democratic control of Congress. Why they blew it.

This is a piece from a new source for me called the Washington Monthly.  Many of the articles are left leaning, but this one does make some sense. I’ll highlight some of the comments I agree with. Most of this article is Bullshit. But I felt all should see how the left thinks.

In July 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank banking bill. Its passage marked his administration’s third major legislative accomplishment, joining the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act. The former, known as “the stimulus,” helped cut short the Great Recession. It also powered a clean energy revolution. From the beginning to the end of the Obama administration, wind power capacity tripled and solar power capacity increased by an astonishing 2,500 percent. The ACA, or “Obamacare,” expanded health insurance coverage, helping to reduce the percentage of uninsured Americans from 14.7 in 2008 to 9.2 in 2021. To fund expanded coverage, the ACA imposed new taxes on the wealthy, which, in concert with subsequent tax code changes, subjected the richest 1 percent of households to their highest tax burden since 1979. And Dodd-Frank’s reorganization of the financial regulatory system, according to the financial reformers at Better Markets, succeeded in “making a financial crash much less likely.”

At the same point, 486 days into his administration, Joe Biden’s scorecard is not as full. His biggest victory is the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Biden signed was significant as well, but his failure to extend the law’s poverty-fighting child tax credit expansion beyond December 2021 mars its legacy.

From the new book This Will Not Pass by the New York Times reporters Alex Burns and Jonathan Martin, we know that Biden had hoped to surpass Obama’s legislative output and impact. The president is quoted as saying to an adviser, “I am confident that Barack is not happy with the coverage of this administration as more transformative than his.” (And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is quoted as having told a friend, “Obama is jealous of Biden.”)

But 16 months into Biden’s presidency, it seems unlikely to be as transformative as Obama’s. It may succeed in many respects; great foreign policy achievements may be in store; a burst of bipartisanship could dampen our polarization. But the window for sweeping progressive legislation appears to be closed. Any last-ditch “reconciliation” bill this year, somehow earning Senator Joe Manchin’s approval and a barely sufficient 50 Senate votes, will have to be much smaller than the Build Back Better bill, meant to be Biden’s crowning legislative achievement. Truly ambitious party line legislation beyond this year would necessitate a Republican collapse, allowing Democrats to control Congress despite high inflation and Biden’s poor approval ratings.

The value of comparing these two administrations is not to settle some presidential pissing contest but to determine how best to enact progressive change.

We learn from This Will Not Pass that the Biden administration was heavily influenced by critics of Obama’s conciliatory approach, some of whom came from within that administration itself. According to Burns and Martin,

The people [Biden] had put in place at the highest levels of the White House largely aligned with [Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer and Pelosi in their view of congressional Republicans. Mostly veterans of the Obama administration, they were haunted by their party’s last experience governing in an economic crisis, in 2009, when a newly inaugurated Democratic president and his top staff had spent months pleading and horse-trading for Republican support on various essential priorities and come away with little to show for it. [White House Chief of Staff] Ron Klain was among the Biden aides who [were] clear-eyed about the early missteps of the Obama administration …

The Obama administration, Klain believed, had moved too slowly in its early days to address the recession, and it had done too little to explain to the public what it was doing … Klain fretted that there was a risk Democrats would make the same mistakes again: allowing a drawn-out negotiation over dollar figures and time-tables to overshadow the real benefits the administration wanted to give voters.

Such a narrative became popular in progressive circles, driven by pundits like the New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman. In January 2009, Krugman deemed Obama’s $775 billion stimulus proposal “not enough” to deal with an estimated $2.1 trillion of lost production in the Great Recession. Five years later, Krugman called the stimulus, despite its positive policy elements, a “political disaster” that ended up “discrediting the very idea of stimulus.” Krugman also criticized Obama in August 2009 in response to reports that he was “backing away” from a “public option” during health care negotiations: “It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased.”

Obama revealed his real-time response to such complaints in his memoir, A Promised Land. Attempts to include a public option were dropped toward the end of the process at the behest of moderates in the Democratic caucus, enraging many progressives. Obama wrote,

I found the whole brouhaha exasperating. “What is it about sixty votes these folks don’t understand?” I groused to my staff. “Should I tell the thirty million people who can’t get covered that they’re going to have to wait another ten years because we can’t get them a public option?” It wasn’t just that criticism from friends always stung the most. The carping carried immediate political consequences for Democrats … all the great social-welfare advances in American history, including Social Security and Medicare, had started off incomplete and had been built upon gradually, over time. By preemptively spinning what could be a monumental, if imperfect, victory into a bitter defeat, the criticism contributed to a potential long-term demoralization of Democratic voters—otherwise known as the “What’s the point of voting if nothing ever changes?” syndrome—making it even harder for us to win elections and move progressive legislation forward in the future.

I find Obama’s explanation sensible. Yet inexplicably to me, many Obama administration veterans favor the Krugman view. Even more bizarre, Biden, after pushing back on progressive Obama critics in the 2020 primaries, surrounded himself with such critics once in office. The result was a Biden administration less attuned than his Democratic predecessor’s at determining what could be achieved with the Senate votes available.

Yes, Obama had more Senate Democrats to work with than Biden’s 50. Obama began his presidency with 58 Democrats. In late April 2009, Senator Arlen Specter switched parties to make it 59. In early July 2009, Al Franken was sworn in as the 60th Democratic senator following a grueling recount. Then the number was knocked back to 59 in February 2010 after Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown won the special election to succeed the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy.

With such a big majority, you might think that Obama could have plucked just about anything off the progressive wish list and made it law, using budget reconciliation—the procedurally complex filibuster-proof process Biden used last year to pass the American Rescue Plan with just 50 Senate Democrats. But Obama’s big majority included a sizable and stingy moderate faction, and not just in the Senate. In 2009, the House had 255 Democrats, but 49 were moderate Blue Dogs, more than enough to deny Pelosi a majority.

As Michael Grunwald explained in his history of the 2009 stimulus, The New New Deal, Obama “had to make sure Blue Dogs in the House and centrist Democrats in the Senate didn’t jump ship,” because even before the inauguration, “they were already sounding alarms about runaway spending.” In December 2008, then Vice President–elect Biden was compelled to publicly state that the emerging package “will not become a Democratic Christmas tree.” That effectively cut off any talk about using reconciliation for the first major bill of the Obama administration. And when a Senate version of the stimulus grew to $930 billion, a group of moderate Republicans and Democrats came together to scale it back to $780 billion.

Following the February 2009 passage of the Recovery Act, Democratic leaders wanted reconciliation available for the rest of Obama’s agenda, but fellow Democrats stymied them. When putting together the budget resolution—the parliamentary precursor to a budget reconciliation bill—Democrats agreed to include health care and education as eligible for the reconciliation process. But a Republican motion explicitly denying the same privilege for any climate change bill was embraced by 26 Senate Democrats and passed overwhelmingly—an omen that the Senate was not going to be hospitable to any ambitious climate change bill.

Even though health care made the cut, Democrats said at the time that the reconciliation option was a last resort. Reconciliation bills can only include budget-related provisions, and many health care reform proposals wouldn’t qualify (a procedural obstacle that fatally compromised Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare using reconciliation in 2017). Then Senate Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad said, “Virtually everyone who has been part of these discussions recognizes that reconciliation is not the preferred way to write this legislation. But the administration wants to have a reconciliation instruction as an insurance policy.”

In turn, Obama calibrated his legislative agenda to meet the limits of what the 60th vote would allow. For the Recovery Act, after helping to limit the price tag, the 58th, 59th, and 60th Senate votes came from Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, and—before his switch—Specter. (Senate Democrats were united in support, though eight House Democrats broke ranks.) For Obamacare, the 60th vote came from Democrat-turned-independent moderate Joe Lieberman, who refused both the public option as well as a Medicare buy-in option for those turning 55. For Dodd-Frank, it came from Scott Brown (offsetting the loss of progressive Democrat Russ Feingold), who demanded that a proposed tax on banks be stricken from the bill. It was.

Student loan reform did piggyback on a reconciliation package used to finish up the Obamacare process, accommodating changes sought by the House weeks after Senate Democrats lost their 60th seat. Fifty-six Senate Democrats passed that follow-up bill, with three Democrats joining Republicans in opposition.

Some progressives never cottoned to the horse trades required to win those votes and partly blamed watered-down legislation for the poor Democratic performances in the 2010 and 2014 midterms and even Donald Trump’s 2016 victory. The Biden presidency offered the opportunity to prove the alternate theory of the case. Don’t strain for the 60th vote. Use the reconciliation process. Go big with 50 votes. Don’t even bother with Republicans.

But whatever the merits of reconciliation, basic legislative competence still requires accommodating the determining vote, be it the 60th vote in regular order or the 50th vote in reconciliation.

Biden simply did not do that in his pursuit of a wide-ranging Build Back Better bill. In December, he didn’t rush to take Manchin’s $1.8 trillion offer, apparently because it left out an extension of the expanded child tax credit. As Biden hesitated, Manchin announced his opposition to the entire bill and revoked the offer. Biden was understandably reluctant to give up on a program that had successfully slashed child poverty and had the makings of a signature policy achievement. But it was politically foolish to presume that the one-year expansion of the credit—slipped into the American Rescue Plan reconciliation measure—would be extended indefinitely without first securing Manchin’s support.

Krugman and others charged Obama with having “wasted time” by trying for months to win Republican support for the Affordable Care Act, support that never materialized. But Obama wasn’t just chasing Republicans; he was also chasing Senate Democrat moderates. However long it took, he found the votes he needed. Notably, Obamacare (and the student loan reform that rode along with it) was an anomaly. Every other bill Obama signed into law was passed thanks to mathematically necessary Republican support. It’s far more accurate to charge Biden with having wasted time on Build Back Better, as he spent months trying to wear down Manchin and ended up with nothing. Biden took less time getting the 60 Senate votes needed to pass an infrastructure bill precisely because he let those moderates who held the determining votes take the lead on negotiations.

Getting the historical narrative correct matters. Democrats should have been telling a positive story of Obama’s presidency, one where landmark laws made America better, and he became the first Democratic president to win reelection with more than 50 percent of the popular vote since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Instead, Democrats told a narrative that lacked historical perspective, blaming an inevitably imperfect legislative record for midterm losses, even though such defeats are common for the president’s party. Amazingly, Joe Biden, of all politicians, a figure who has lived through decades of Washington history, got suckered into accepting a flawed narrative. No wonder his legislative strategy was similarly flawed.

 

 

 

Loading

228
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Pandemic Corruption COVID Drugs Science

That OTHER Global COVID Summit

Visits: 14

17,000 physicians and medical scientists make a plea to restore scientific integrity and end the national emergency

While global bureaucrats were meeting on May 12, 2022 at a summit hosted by President Biden to discuss how to “turn vaccines into vaccinations,” and how to increase demand for unwanted injections, another COVID summit was taking place.

The alternate summit focused on some big questions: Why have patients been denied life-saving medical treatments? Why are we not researching the damage being caused by the injections? Why are medical professionals still being censored by media companies, Big Tech and their own institutions?

The group known as the Global COVID Summit represents 17,000 physicians and medical scientists from all over the world who have signed on to a declaration based on the following ten foundational principles:

1.    We declare and the data confirm that the COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end.

2.    We declare doctors should not be blocked from providing life-saving medical treatment.

3.    We declare the state of national emergency, which facilitates corruption and extends the pandemic, should be immediately terminated.

4.    We declare medical privacy should never again be violated, and all travel and social restrictions must cease.

5.    We declare masks are not and have never been effective protection against an airborne respiratory virus in the community setting.

6.    We declare funding and research must be established for vaccination damage, death and suffering.

7.    We declare no opportunity should be denied, including education, career, military service or medical treatment, over unwillingness to take an injection.

8.    We declare that first amendment violations and medical censorship by government, technology and media companies should cease, and the Bill of Rights be upheld.

9.    We declare that Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, Astra Zeneca, and their enablers, withheld and willfully omitted safety and effectiveness information from patients and physicians, and should be immediately indicted for fraud.

10.  We declare government and medical agencies must be held accountable.

Read more and watch the entire summit here or watch an in-depth interview with some of the Global COVID Summit doctors here.


With dozens of previously healthy young athletes literally dropping dead after getting jabbed, and hundreds of people seriously ill after getting jabbed, the Biden regime has now approved it for children — statistically the LEAST likely to contract Covid-19 — as young as FIVE years old.

WHY?

Loading

149
Verified by MonsterInsights