Here are five reports raising concerns that these Covid vaccines are not what they are cracked up to be.
1. Bureaucrat obsession with “silver bullet” vaccines
As Scott Atlas observes in his book about the US pandemic response:
Dr. Birx, Dr. Redfield and Dr. Fauci—often called “the nation’s top expert in infectious disease”—dominated all discussions about the health and medical aspects of the emerging pandemic. One thing was very clear: all three were cut from the same cloth. First, they were all bureaucrats, with a background in various government agencies. Second, they shared a long history in HIV/AIDS as a public health crisis. That was problematic, because HIV couldn’t be more different from SARS2 in its biology, its amenability to testing and contact tracing, its spread and the implications of those facts for its control.
Indeed, the three of them spent many years focusing on the development of a vaccine, rather than treatment, for HIV/AIDS—a vaccine that still does not exist.
Drs. Birx and Fauci commandeered federal policy under President Trump and publicly advocated for a total societal shutdown. Instead of focusing on protecting the most vulnerable, their illogical and extraordinarily blunt response—despite its predictable, wide-ranging harms—was instituted as though it were simple common sense.
As we all recall, the lockdowns were initially for two weeks to protect the health system, and then were perpetuated as being necessary until vaccines were available. That initial obsession with a vaccine-only solution has grown tyrannical with “No Jab, No Job” mandates.
2. Cancellation campaign against repurposing anti-viral medicines
Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson together with his Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General issued their opinion in response to a request by Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services CEO, Dannette Smith. She wanted the AG’s office to examine carefully whether doctors could face legal action or be subject to discipline if they prescribed the meds for COVID treatment.
“Allowing physicians to consider these early treatments will free them to evaluate additional tools that could save lives, keep patients out of the hospital, and provide relief for our already strained healthcare system,” AG Doug Peterson wrote.
The Office of AG pointed to multiple medical journal articles, research, and case studies. They mentioned the study from Lancet that was later on retracted because of its flawed statistics regarding the use of HCQ. Because of conflicting data on the treatments by the principal authors, “We find that the available data does not justify filing disciplinary actions against physicians simply because they prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat COVID-19,” the opinion said.
Office of AG also used the study from the Mahmud and Niaee research team and many more about Ivermectin’s role as prophylaxis.
The office of AG even attacked the company, Merck, on their agenda.
Why would ivermectin’s original patent holder go out of its way to question this medicine by creating the impression that it might not be safe? There are at least two plausible reasons. First, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck does not profit from it anymore. That likely explains why Merck declined to “conductI] clinical trials” on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the chance.
Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19. “[The U.S. government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment, if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.”
That treatment, known a “molnupiravir, aims to stop COVID-19 from progressing and can be given early in the course of the disease.” On October 1, 2021, Merck announced that preliminary studies indicate that molnupiravir “reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half,” and that same day its stock price “jumped as much as 12.3%.” Thus, if low-cost ivermectin works better than–or even the same as-molnupiravir, that could cost Merck billions of dollars.
3. Covid vaccine-induced immunity is incomplete
THE FOURTH issue is the recognition that genetic vaccines have limited value. While doctors support the current vaccine roll-out, reported “danger signals” must be clarified. Both the DNA-vector vaccine (AstraZeneca) and mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) behave as predicted by biology relevant to airways’ protection (something not understood by the vast majority of “experts”): short duration of protection limited to control of systemic inflammation, with little impact on infection of the airways.
Israel was used as a laboratory for the Pfizer vaccine. Six months after vaccination, there was essentially no protection against infection or mild disease, although protection against severe disease remained at 85-to-90 per cent. Thereafter came a rapid and progressive loss of protection against more severe disease. Infected vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects have similar viral loads and transmission capacity.
Immunity following natural infection is better and more durable than that induced by vaccination, so there is no sense in immunising those who have had COVID infection in the preceding six months.
4. Pandemic policies driven by opinion polls
From zerohedge Jordan Peterson: Government Adviser Told Me COVID Rules Based On Opinion Polls, Not Science. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
Jordan Peterson says he spoke to a senior government adviser who told him Canada’s COVID restriction policies are completely driven by opinion polls and not science.
“In relation to the COVID restrictions, I talked to a senior adviser to one of the provincial governments a couple of weeks ago,” said Peterson.
“He told me flat out that the COVID policy here is driven by nothing but opinion polls related to the popularity of the government,” he added.
“No science, no endgame in sight, no real plan, and so what that means is that the part of the population that is most afraid of COVID,” are driving the policy.
Peterson pointed to figures that prove people vastly exaggerate the risk of being hospitalized by COVID due to relentless government fearmongering campaigns.
The author said he found the conversation “extremely disheartening” because he had hoped lockdown policies were “at least driven by something remotely resembling a scientifically informed plan.”
Peterson said the government adviser was “irate at what had been happening, enough to consider resigning.”
5. Under 60 unvaccinated have better life expectancy than vaccinated
A previous post reckoned that the drive to mandate 100% vaccination is motivated by the need to eliminate the unvaccinated as a control population for comparative evaluation. That possibility is now allowing discovery of ground truth, as evidenced by the UK medical records, and also worldwide data. From Gateway Pundit Shocking UK Study Stuns Medical Community: Vaccinated People 60 and Younger Are Twice As Likely to Die as Unvaccinated People Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
Vaccinated people under 60 are dying at twice the rate of unvaccinated people in the same age group.
The original data is here.
This ought to be the death knell for the push for mandatory vaccines. Will it?
Via Alex Berenson.
The brown line represents weekly deaths from all causes of vaccinated people aged 10-59, per 100,000 people.
The blue line represents weekly deaths from all causes of unvaccinated people per 100,000 in the same age range.
I have checked the underlying dataset myself and this graph is correct. Vaccinated people under 60 are twice as likely to die as unvaccinated people. And overall deaths in Britain are running well above normal.
Now we know why the globalists want to hide the Pfizer vaccine results for 55 years.
The charts and graphs show…
- The above shows that the incidence of cases increases fairly linearly with the percentage of vaccinated people at a rate of 800 cases per million per extra percentage vaccinated.
- Heavily vaccinated countries (over 60%) have 3x the case rates of lightly vaccinated countries (under 20%) and have 7x the case rates of very lightly vaccinated countries (under 10%).
- Raw death rates from Covid-19 increase with vaccination percentage from 0% to 50-60% and then decrease thereafter. Heavily vaccinated countries (over 60%) have twice the Covid-19 death rates of lightly vaccinated countries.
- The death rates are very high for partially vaccinated countries and come down for highly vaccinated countries because the old are vaccinated first. This skews the early or partially vaccinated death rates against vaccination because the unvaccinated group have a lower average age.
But by the time 80-90% are vaccinated, everyone has had the chance to be jabbed and the age skewing will have almost vanished. So the age adjusted death rate will run in a straight line from around 120 deaths per million for unvaccinated nations to around 600 deaths per million for fully vaccinated nations.
On that basis this data shows that each percentage of vaccination increases the death rate by around 6 deaths per million
5. This data shows that a 2nd Jab offers no significant benefit over a 1st jab.
The inescapable conclusion from all the data we have up to October 31 is that vaccines increase case numbers by 3x-7x and increase death rates from Covid-19 by 2x-4x..
This is not a representative sample of a few thousand cases or deaths from one nation. It is the full study of all the cases so far in every reporting nation. The results are in. There is a massive positive correlation between vaccination percentage and case numbers and deaths.
Covid-19 vaccination has been the largest experimental intervention in the history of medical science. The work of every Government statistics department in 185 nations collated by Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore has produced the largest cohort study ever to be considered. We include the full dataset used below for further analysis by interested parties.