“We found that NAb against the WT virus persisted in 89% and S-IgG in 97% of subjects for at least 13 months after infection.”
As measured by neutralizing antibody assays, immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from vaccination wanes after 3-4 months.
This study in the European Journal of Immunology has some good news: Survivors of severe COVID-19 from had very high immunity against Delta 13 months after their initial infection with earlier variants.
The study was conducted on 2586 subjects ≥18 years of age whose native language was Finnish or Swedish who lived within five selected hospital districts in Finland and with a “PCR-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis”.
The authors examined neutralizing antibody levels (Nab) against Wild-Type (Wuhan), Alpha, Beta and Delta proteins, studying both the Spike glycoprotein (S-protein)) and the viral nucleoprotein (N-protein)) at 8 and 13 months following infection.
The Spike protein Nab measured as antibodies against two epitopes) was higher at 13 months than against the nucleoprotein (N-protein), as would be expected given the easier access of the spike protein to our immune system. That said, N-protein NAb production was still very high.
The greatest result, which is very, very welcome, came when the authors examined the Nab in subgroups. They looked at NAbs in people who had mild infections and those who had severe COVID-19.
Those who had severe COVID-19 have the highest Nabs against both proteins. And that’s excellent news for people who had to suffer severe COVID-19. (See link for full article)
Despite the well known scientific fact that natural immunity is always far-superior to vaccines, our corrupt government and any organization that follows in lock-step have misrepresented and denied this plain, simple fact. People have lost their jobs. Soldiers have been kicked out of the military. Children have lost out on educations.
The collateral damage due to ignoring natural immunity can not be overstated.
All of a sudden mainstream is talking about natural immunity and an opinion piece in the WSJ, Dr. Makary states that Omicon provides “superimmunity” which will be stronger against new variants & future coronaviruses, making “normal” life possible even as the virus continues to spread and mutate – just like the flu bug does every single year. Ironically,experts have been saying this the whole time but it’s finally making mainstream news. They remain mum on the fact these injections, which aren’t vaccines, actually reprogram innate immune responses, as well as on results of autopsies on the “vaccinated“, which show horrific findings, revealing they will only go so far with transparency, and pointing to a predetermined, agreed upon outcome.
Hear what CDC Director, Rochelle Walensky had to say.
Del BigTree was “fact-checked” by Snopes stating he took this out of context and that the deaths were among the fully “vaccinated” patients, and that somehow this supports the idea that the “vaccines” are effective.
BigTree than went back and showed the Aug. 2020 report, before the mass “vaccination” campaign, that showed that 94% of COVID deaths had over two comorbidities.
The clear point is the majority of COVID deaths are among the already ill, whether you are “vaccinated” or not. This is important to understand for public policy. As BigTree points out, we should not be masking healthy people, stopping children’s education, firing people, stopping the world, blaming the unvaccinated, and mandating a shot that is non-sterilizing, ineffective, and dangerous.
I have heard many people say that at this moment—January 2022—testing will save us. They cite success stories like the National Basketball Association’s bubble (of 2020) to show what testing can accomplish. Unfortunately, here are nine considerations that they are missing when it comes to mass testing.
1. No one has any tests.
2. Many tests have limited sensitivity.
3. Low pre-test probability.
4. The distribution of testing.
5. Testing is only helpful if you have the resources to make salutatory choices as a result of the information.
6. Risk reduction vs delaying infection.
7. Harms of testing.
8. Contact tracing is impossible in most circumstances.
Two years into the global pandemic of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, there is scant guidance from government agencies, universities, or professional medical organizations to help individuals recover from the SARS-CoV-2 infection that causes COVID-19 without the need for hospitalization.
Although the recovery rate for SARS-COV-2 infections is between 97 and 99.5 percent,4 and most people recover without hospitalization, there are currently 125,922 people hospitalized with COVID in the U.S., and numbers are on an upward trend.5 Recent estimates of costs associated with inpatient treatment for COVID average from $31,339 to $472,213 per person, depending upon the severity of the case.6
The article then highlights the following treatments:
While a number of doctors have successfully treated COVID with monoclonal antibodies, there have been reported infusion-related reactions to activation of the immune system by the monoclonal antibodies, such as flushing, itching, shortness of breath and low blood pressure,14 and there is a possibility of immediate or delayed serious adverse events, including cytokine release syndrome, acute anaphylaxis, serum sickness, infections, cancer, autoimmune disease and cardiotoxicity.1516 There is uncertainty about whether the currently available monoclonal antibodies are effective in treating the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2.17
Further, Dr. Ruby states the experimental monoclonal antibodies are like renting an army for a day, vs your own immune system which sticks around in case they are needed.
Controversy has surrounded the use of the drug ivermectin29 and other zinc ionophores. A meta-analysis published in August 202133 concluded that there was moderate-certainty evidence for large reductions in COVID deaths using ivermectin. A June 2020 systematic review published in the medical journal Antibiotics34 identified ivermectin as having “antimicrobial, antiviral and anti-cancer properties.” The authors stated that the drug “is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses.”
Metabolic Syndrome Ignored As Risk Factor In COVID-19 Response
Despite the contribution of obesity and metabolic disorders to the disease burden of COVID, weight loss and prevention of metabolic disorders are not currently part of any published COVID public health policy.
In private, they said it was plausible. In public, they called it a conspiracy theory.
12th January 2022
In December 2019 there was an outbreak in China of a novel bat-borne SARS-like coronavirus a few miles from the world’s leading laboratory for collecting, studying and manipulating novel bat-borne SARS-like coronaviruses. We were assured by leading scientists in China, the US and the UK that this really was a coincidence, even when the nine closest relatives of the new virus turned up in the freezer of the laboratory in question, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Now we know what those leading scientists really thought. Emails exchanged between them after a conference call on 1 February 2020, and only now forced into the public domain by Republicans in the US Congress, show that they not only thought the virus might have leaked from a lab, but they also went much further in private. They thought the genome sequence of the new virus showed a strong likelihood of having been deliberately manipulated or accidentally mutated in the lab. Yet later they drafted an article for a scientific journal arguing that the suggestion not just of a manipulated virus, but even of an accidental spill, could be confidently dismissed and was a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Why did leading virologists suddenly change their minds?
In August 2020 Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry were among the lead investigators to receive $8.9 million to study emerging infectious diseases, in a grant from Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of Francis Collins’s National Institutes of Health.
Further, the investigation into the source of COVID was a complete and utter farce reminiscent of the tick-borne disease working group. Marion Koopmans – who served on the World Health Organization’s first COVID-19 origins investigation team – appears to have been removed from the body’s new “effort” to trace the source of the virus following the National Pulse revealing her long-standing ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
Two decades of experience. Rob Thomas has been married to Marisol Maldonado for over 21 years — and after she was diagnosed with several diseases following brain surgery, he realized how thankful he is for their life together.
The Matchbox Twenty singer, 49, exclusively told Us Weekly that he doesn’t have a big secret to a long-lasting marriage. He just really loves Maldonado, 51.
“We’re friends. Above everything else, she’s my best friend,” Thomas told Us. “She’s the one that I like to spend the most time with. If something’s happening and she doesn’t know about it, it doesn’t feel like it’s happening.” (See link for article and video)
Marisol’s late-stage diagnosis and presence of multiple infections means it’s harder to manage. Her treatment is constantly tweaked according to which infection is flaring up most, and involves a mixture of pharmaceutical meds and holistic therapies, some of which are not easily obtainable due to being commercially unviable.
Southern Tick-Associated Rash Illness (STARI) and Lyme disease
Welcome to another Inside Lyme Podcast with your host Dr. Daniel Cameron. In this episode, Dr. Cameron will be discussing the case of a 63-year-old woman who was diagnosed with Southern Tick-Associated Rash Illness (STARI).
The patient was bitten by a lone-star tick on her right leg while camping in Gainesville, Florida. She noticed a pruritic target erythematous lesion after removing the tick.
Two weeks later she was evaluated and reported having a persistent fever, headache, and diffuse myalgias for 4 days following the tick bite. On presentation, she had a fever of 100.5 F and a tachycardia of 127 BPM, low white count, anemia, low platelet count and elevated liver function tests.
Fortunately, the patient’s symptoms resolved with a 14-day course of doxycycline.
The authors discuss the differences and similarities of STARI and Lyme disease:
“The associated rash is similar if not indistinguishable from Lyme disease erythema migrans, with lymphocytic dermal infiltrate.”
Both the diagnosis of STARI and Lyme disease are based on clinical evidence. “At the present time, there is no approved diagnostic modality to identify STARI; thus, the diagnosis must be made on clinical evidence including erythema migrans and tick exposure.”
The diagnosis of STARI and Lyme disease often rely on geography. “Diagnosis usually relies on geographic association (STARI from central Texas and Oklahoma eastward across the southern states and along the Atlantic coast as far north as Maine, versus Lyme disease in northeast, mid-Atlantic, and upper mid-west).”
However, the authors did not address reports documenting the presence of lone-star ticks in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and upper Midwest and of deer ticks in the South.
It has been assumed that STARI does not have any long-term sequelae.
“A recent study has suggested that STARI is transmitted by the lone-star tick Amblyoma americanum; however, it may take some time before all the necessary data can be collected, since much is still unknown about STARI.”
The treatment of STARI is also uncertain. “STARI is often treated as Lyme disease with doxycycline twice daily for 14 days; however, there is no approved treatment yet.”
The authors conclude, “STARI is an emerging Lyme-like illness that causes the characteristic rash, erythema migrans. The current incidence of STARI remains unknown as it is not nationally reportable.”
The following questions are addressed in this Podcast episode:
What is STARI?
Are there differences between STARI and Lyme disease rashes?
Are there differences in the ticks?
How is STARI diagnosed, compared to Lyme disease?
What clinical evidence does one need to diagnose STARI?
What are the consequences if Lyme disease or co-infections is overlooked?
What do we know about ticks in the South?
Thanks for listening to another Inside Lyme Podcast. Please remember that the advice given is general and not intended as specific advice to any particular patient. If you require specific advice, please seek that advice from an experienced professional.
Inside Lyme Podcast Series
This Inside Lyme case series will be discussed on my Facebook page and made available on podcast and YouTube. As always, it is your likes, comments, and shares that help spread the word about this series and our work. If you can, please leave a review on iTunes or wherever else you get your podcasts.
Abdelmaseih R, Ashraf B, Abdelmasih R, Dunn S, Nasser H. Southern Tick-Associated Rash Illness: Florida’s Lyme Disease Variant. Cureus. May 28 2021;13(5):e15306. doi:10.7759/cureus.15306
When I speak with experts they state STARI IS LYME. Southerners have fought to be heard. Patients have been turned away undiagnosed and untreated and are told, “You can’t have Lyme because Lyme doesn’t exist here,” which of course is asinine. Until the birds quit flying, rodents quit crawling, lizards and humans quit moving, and transporting ticks everywhere they go, ticks will continue to travel.
In an opinion piece in the WSJ, Dr. Makary states that Omicon provides “superimmunity” which will be stronger against new variants & future coronaviruses, making “normal” life possible even as the virus continues to spread and mutate – just like the flu bug does every single year. Ironically,experts have been saying this the whole time but it’s finally making mainstream news. They remain mum on the fact these injections, which aren’t vaccines, actually reprogram innate immune responses, as well as on autopsies on the “vaccinated“, which show horrific findings, revealing they will only go so far with transparency, and pointing to a predetermined, agreed upon outcome.
In recent days, the pandemic narrative has undergone a remarkable number of U-turns
January 9, 2022, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky sent out a tweet saying “We must protect people with comorbidities from severe COVID-19,” in other words, focused protection, which is what tens of thousands of doctors have been calling for since the creation of The Great Barrington Declaration in early October 2020
January 10, 2022, Walensky admitted that the COVID shots cannot prevent transmission
The CDC is now saying you should not retest once you’ve recovered from COVID, as the PCR can provide false positives for up to 12 weeks after the infection has been resolved. They’re also cutting the isolation requirement from 10 to just five days — probably because the failing economy is hurting Biden’s approval rating so they need people to work
The narrative is also changing on what makes for a COVID case and how deaths are counted. Walensky recently admitted about 40% of “COVID patients” tested positive but do not have symptoms and are hospitalized for something else. She has also promised to deliver data on how many people have actually died “from” COVID and how many died “with” it
As noted by Dr. Ron Paul in the January 10, 2022, Liberty Report above, U.S. authorities have suddenly started to change their tune with regard to COVID and the COVID shots.
“The opposition to our position are starting to wake up,” Paul says, as some shreds of truth are actually starting to be acknowledged. The good news, Paul says, is that “Maybe some of the things they’ve been saying are not quite accurate, and maybe what we’ve been saying is closer to the truth, and maybe they’re starting to recognize that.”
CDC Director Now Calls for Focused Protection
Indeed, in recent days, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has made a remarkable number of U-turns, completely reversing course on several narrative points.
For example, in a January 10, 2022, CNN interview, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky actually admitted that “what [the COVID shots] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission,”1 whereas before, the narrative was that if you get the jab, you have nothing to worry about anymore. In July 2021, President Biden promised that if you get vaccinated, “you’re not going to get COVID.”2 Well, it wasn’t true. Many knew that, but were censored when pointing it out.
A day earlier, January 9, Walensky also sent out a tweet saying “We must protect people with comorbidities from severe COVID-19,” which is what tens of thousands of doctors have been calling for since the creation of The Great Barrington Declaration in early October 2020. It called for focused protection of high-risk individuals, such as the elderly, rather than blanket lockdowns.
It was recently revealed that Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and his former boss, now retired National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins, colluded behind the scenes to quash the declaration.3 For whatever reason, Fauci and Collins were hell-bent on pushing economy-destroying lockdowns instead. In an October 8, 2020, email to Fauci, Collins wrote:4,5,6,7
“The proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention … There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises …”
“Don’t worry, I got this,” Fauci replied. Later, Fauci sent Collins links to newly published articles refuting the focused protection solution, including an op-ed in Wired magazine, and an article in The Nation, titled “Focused Protection, Herd Immunity and Other Deadly Delusions.”
CDC Follows Political Strategy, Not Science
Now, all of a sudden, Walensky is onboard with the “deadly delusion” of focused protection. Her about-face would be confusing were it not for the fact that COVID countermeasures were never about protecting the public from a virus. From the start, the pandemic had political goals, and it still does.
The pressure is now on to prove the Biden administration has made some sort of progress with the pandemic. Biden made a lot of promises, none of which have come to fruition, so now the political establishment is scrounging to come up with some plan that can make them look as though they’re getting somewhere.
The problem is that cases are now exploding, when a successful vaccine campaign should have brought the situation under control. So, they now need a way to minimize the number of cases, whereas before, they used every trick in the book to overcount them,8 in order to scare people into complying with COVID restrictions and getting the jab.
New Testing Guidance Aims to Lower Case Rates
One simple way to cut down cases is to limit testing, and that’s another U-turn we’re now seeing. The CDC is now saying you should not retest once you’ve recovered from COVID. If you test positive, just quarantine for five days and don’t retest to confirm that you’re negative, as the PCR can provide false positives for up to 12 weeks after the infection has been resolved.
Well, we’ve known this for nearly two years already. From the start, experts warned that the PCR cannot be used to diagnose an active infection, as it can pick up RNA from dead, noninfectious viral debris.
Health authorities are now spinning the tale that these revisions in guidance are because we have two years’ worth of data, and they’re just following the science. But that’s pure baloney, seeing how the data never supported their COVID restrictions in the first place.
The CDC’s decision to revise quarantine guidelines down from 10 days to just five days also appears politically motivated. Polls show the economy is a primary concern of voting Americans right now, so they need to strike a balance between the desired demolition of the economy and keeping people at work — at least until the 2022 elections are over.
In short, I suspect most if not all of the recent changes in COVID guidance is to build a narrative that the Biden administration has successfully brought the pandemic under control and reestablished a working economy. The change in narrative is based on political strategy, not science.
CDC Highlights Role of Comorbidities in Vaxxed COVID Deaths
As noted by Paul in the Liberty Report above, Walensky recently stated that 75% of COVID deaths had four or more comorbidities, “So, really, these are people who were unwell to begin with.” The admission went viral and was cited as proof that COVID is a lethal risk for none but the sickest among us.
The CDC quickly stepped in, clarifying that she meant “75% of COVID deaths among those who have received the COVID jab,” not COVID deaths overall.9 You can see the unedited segment above, where that context is made clear. Still, we know that COVID poses very little risk for healthy unvaccinated people as well, and that comorbidities are a primary risk factor regardless of your COVID jab status.
COVID Death Risk Has Always Been Low — Vaxxed or Not
For example, a 2020 study10 found 88% of hospitalized COVID patients in New York City had two or more comorbidities, 6.3% had one underlying health condition and 6.1% had none.
In late August 2020, the CDC published data showing only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.11 So, yes, COVID is a lethal risk only for the sickest among us, just as Walensky said, but that’s true whether you’re “vaccinated” or not.
As for the study12 Walensky discussed in that “Good Morning America” segment, it found that of the 1.2 million COVID jabbed subjects, only 0.0033% died of COVID between December 2020 and October 2021. (And of those, 77.8% had four or more comorbidities.) This study, Walensky claims as evidence that the COVID shot works wonders to reduce the risk of death.
But does it really? Recall studies13 showing the noninstitutionalized infection fatality rate is on average just 0.26% to begin with, and people under the age of 40 have only a 0.01% risk of dying from COVID.14
When we’re talking about a fraction of a percentage point risk, we’re talking about a risk that is close to statistical zero. So, does lowering your risk of death from 0.01% to 0.003% really translate into something worthwhile? And, more importantly, is that reduction worth the risks involved with taking the jab?
Clearly, it’s not a risk-free decision. OneAmerica, a national mutual life insurance company, recently warned that all-cause deaths among working age Americans (18 to 64) are up 40% over prepandemic norms,15 and they cannot be attributed to COVID.
So, what’s causing these deaths? What potentially deadly thing did tens of millions of Americans do in 2021 that they’ve never done before? I’ll let you ponder whether Walensky’s claim that the COVID jab is saving lives is an accurate one.
CDC Admits Large Portion of ‘COVID Patients’ Aren’t
In another recent media appearance, Walensky stated that:16
“In some hospitals that we’ve talked to, up to 40% of the patients who are coming in with COVID-19 are coming in not because they’re sick with COVID, but because they’re coming in with something else and have had … COVID or the Omicron variant detected.”
This, again, is something that we’ve been highlighting since the start of the pandemic. Most so-called “COVID patients” simply weren’t, and still aren’t. They’re hospitalized for something else entirely, and just happen to get a positive test result upon admission — which very possibly is a false positive. Either way, voila, they’re a COVID patient, even though they’re hospitalized for a broken leg or a heart attack.
As noted by Delta News TV, “Comments like these have cast doubt on the severity of the current COVID surge even as the Supreme Court considers legal challenges to Biden’s sweeping private sector mandates on that very issue.”17
Is the Political Pandemic in Its Final Death Throes?
In a January 10, 2022, blog post,18 Jeff Childers, an attorney, and the president and founder of Childers Law firm, presents a hypothesis for why we might be looking at the end of the pandemic, as the Biden administration has “no reasonable alternative but to wrap this whole thing up in the next 60 days or so.”
“There’s an interesting political dynamic shaping up, a kind of political vice grip that might just be driving federal COVID policy toward authenticity and an end to the pandemic … a lot of reality has been breaking through lately,” Childers writes.19
He points out how a federal judge recently ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to release all the Pfizer COVID jab data that the agency wanted 75 years to release. The bulk of that data is now due March 1, 2022, the day of Biden’s State of the Union address. Childers suspects the Pfizer documents will contain plenty of counternarrative fodder and politically embarrassing details.
Why We’re Seeing a U-Turn in the Narrative Now
Biden needs some good news by his State of the Union address, as it’ll be his last chance to “help move the needle back toward blue,” and the way he can do that is by declaring the pandemic over. He can then claim to be the great liberator who ended the pandemic measures for good.
“If they handle this right, they can give their voting base and sycophantic media agents all the necessary talking points to boost Dem prospects for the midterm elections,” Childers writes.20
But to pull off that U-turn with any semblance of credibility, they have to start cutting the case rate now, and that’s precisely what we’re seeing. For example, the CDC recently changed its guidelines so you don’t need to retest after you’ve recovered from COVID, so no more false positives from recovered people.
Florida’s official policy is now to only test high-risk individuals and those who are symptomatic. Childers points out that the left-leaning Sun Sentinel even ran an article highlighting the fact that despite surging case rates, Florida has the lowest COVID death rate in the nation, second only to the sparsely populated Alaska. “What incredibly powerful force could make the Sun Sentinel downplay the pandemic like this?” he asks.
Will We Finally Get a More Accurate Death Count?
The CDC also appears poised to change the definition of COVID death to what it should have been all along. Childers notes:
“Fox News … Bret Baier … asked [Walensky] ‘how many of the 836,000 deaths in the U.S. linked to COVID are FROM COVID or how many are WITH COVID?’
Director Walensky said … ‘those data will be forthcoming.’Until about 10 minutes ago, the CDC said it didn’t HAVE any way to track that kind of information … But now, apparently, CDC plans to release information about deaths from and with. What do you want to bet they’ll be REDUCING total COVID deaths shortly? By a lot.”
They’re also starting to accurately count only those who are actually sick with COVID rather than including people hospitalized for other reasons who just happen to test positive.
“Yesterday, New York Governor Hochul announced that almost HALF of patients are hospitalized for ‘non-COVID reasons,’ scattering the rotting corpse of the Narrative.
You might recall that just last week she ordered hospitals to start breaking down the reported figures and showing how many folks ACTUALLY are sick with COVID versus just testing positive in the hospital. We’ve been yelling about overcounting hospitalizations for two years now and they just noticed?”21
Same Narrative Switch Seen in Europe
The same sudden switch in narrative can be seen in Europe. Childers continues:22
“Yesterday, the Guardian UK ran a story headlined, ‘End mass jabs and live with COVID, says ex-head of vaccine taskforce.’ It says Dr. Clive Dix — former chairman of the UK’s vaccine taskforce — has called for a ‘major rethink’ of the UK’s COVID strategy, in effect reversing the approach of the past two years and returning to a ‘new normality.’
Shocking the cores the oft-maligned authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Dr. Dix — without getting cancelled — said this:
‘We need to analyze whether we use the current booster campaign to ensure the vulnerable are protected, if this is seen to be necessary … Mass population-based vaccination in the UK should now end.’ Ending mass vaccinations? Suddenly that idea is okay to discuss in the corporate media? Wow.”
In a January 3, 2022, interview with the Daily Telegraph, professor Andrew Pollard, head of the U.K.’s Committee on Vaccination and Immunization who helped create the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot, also made a previously verboten statement: “We can’t vaccinate the planet every four or six months,” he said. “It’s not sustainable or affordable.”23 And, like Dix, Pollard was not canceled, censored or deplatformed.
January 11, 2022, Bloomberg also reported that “European Union regulators warned that frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune response and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency.”24
Marco Cavaleri, the EMA’s head of vaccines strategy, said during a January 11, 2022, press briefing:25
“While use of additional boosters can be part of contingency plans, repeated vaccinations within short intervals would not represent a sustainable long-term strategy. [Boosters] can be done once, or maybe twice, but it’s not something that we can think should be repeated constantly. We need to think about how we can transition from the current pandemic setting to a more endemic setting.”
That same day, the World Health Organization’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-CO-VAC) also issued a statement26 saying that “a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.”
They also stated that COVID vaccines that actually prevent infection and transmission need to be developed. The timing of all these statements is nothing if not remarkable. It shows just how coordinated this plandemic narrative is, all around the world.
Justice Sotomayor Called Out
Perhaps the best example that the narrative is undergoing a radical overhaul, Childers says, is Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor being fact checked and called out as a liar by The Washington Post:
“You’ll recall that Sotomayor confidently told the lawyers during oral argument Friday that ‘100,000’ children were in critical care and on ventilators with Omicron. The lawyers didn’t challenge her even though there aren’t that many total ICU beds in the whole country.
But on Saturday — the next day! — the Washington Post ran an article headlined, ‘Sotomayor’s false claim that ‘over 100,000’ children are in ‘serious condition’ with COVID.’ FALSE CLAIM?? What?? Here’s how the fact-checking article ended:
‘It’s important for Supreme Court justices to make rulings based on correct data … But Sotomayor during an oral argument offered a figure — 100,000 children in ‘serious condition … many on ventilators’ — that is absurdly high. She earns Four Pinocchios.’ It might be unprecedented for a major liberal newspaper to call out a liberal Justice. What could be going on? …
There seems to be a LOT of sudden momentum surging in the direction of ending the pandemic. If I’m right, we’re going to see even more of this, and pretty quickly, since Biden has to wrap it up in time to declare victory on March 1. Which would explain why they pushed the SOTU back a month. They need the time to get the pandemic wrapped up.”27
JP asks, is all this backtracking about the narrative because the narrative is truly crumbling or because it’s part of a strategy to back off and confuse & then push with more fear and control to gain even more traction in people’s minds? He then mentions the upcoming mid-term elections.