Archive for the ‘Viruses’ Category

Christmas 2021 Time Warp: The End of The Pandemic Will Not Be Televised & Stigmatizing the Unvaccinated Isn’t Justified

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068094

Christmas 2021: Time Warp

The end of the pandemic will not be televised

BMJ 2021; 375 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068094 (Published 14 December 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;375:e068094

  1. David Robertson, doctoral candidate1,
  2. Peter Doshi, associate professor2

Dashboards of pandemic statistics have dominated screens and helped to track covid-19, but David Robertson and Peter Doshi explain why they might not be enough to define its end

As the year 2021 started, the covid-19 pandemic seemed to be receding. Discussions and predictions about “opening up,” a return to “normal,” and achieving herd immunity were in the air.1234 But for many, optimism receded as cases and deaths surged in India, Brazil, and elsewhere. Attention turned to SARS-CoV-2 virus variants—most recently, the emergence of omicron. Just as the end seemed to be on the horizon, it was interrupted by a foreboding that the pandemic could be a long way from over.56

Unlike any previous pandemic, covid-19 has been closely tracked through dashboards that aim to show the real time movement and effect of coronavirus; they track laboratory testing metrics, hospital and intensive care admissions, transmission rates, and, most recently, vaccine doses delivered. These dashboards—with their panels of numbers, statistics, epidemic curves, and heat maps—have dominated our televisions, computers, and smartphones. At their core is the allure of objectivity and data to grasp onto in the midst of uncertainty and fear. They have helped populations conceptualise a need for rapid containment and control,7 directing public sentiment, fuelling pressure for countermeasures, and maintaining an aura of emergency.7 They offer a sense of control when cases are coming down following certain countermeasures but can also drive a sense of helplessness and impending catastrophe when cases rise.

Problems defining pandemic endings

There is no universal definition of the epidemiological parameters of the end of a pandemic. By what metric, then, will we know that it is actually over? The World Health Organization declared the covid-19 pandemic, but who will tell us when it’s over?

The ubiquity of dashboards has helped create a sense that the pandemic will be over when the dashboard indicators all reach either zero (infections, cases, deaths) or 100 (percentage vaccinated). However, respiratory pandemics of the past century show that endings are not clear cut, and that pandemic closure is better understood as occurring with the resumption of social life, not the achievement of specific epidemiological targets.89

Respiratory pandemics of the past 130 years have been followed by annual seasonal waves fueled by viral endemicity that typically continues until the next pandemic.10 What goes down comes back up, and the difficulty in dating the end of a pandemic is reflected in the historical and epidemiological literature. Although many scholars describe the “Spanish flu” as occurring across three waves from “1918 to 1919,” references to the “1918 to 1920” pandemic are also abundant, usually capturing what some call a “fourth wave.”11 Similarly, the mid-century “Asian flu” pandemic is generally described as a two wave event from 1957 to 1958, but others include a third wave, placing the pandemic’s end in 1959.12

This variability in dating historical pandemics highlights the imprecise nature of using death rates to determine, even retrospectively, the “end” of a pandemic and the start of the inter-pandemic period. For example, CDC today states that around 100 000 Americans died in each of the 1957 and 1968 influenza pandemics.1314 But these estimates include deaths taking place at times most would consider to be between pandemics (1957-1960 and 1968-1972, respectively).1516

The notion, reinforced by dashboards, that a pandemic ends when cases or deaths drop to zero is at odds with the historical evidence that substantial influenza morbidity and mortality continues to occur, season after season, between pandemics.

In the inter-pandemic season of 1928-29, for example, over 100 000 excess deaths related to influenza A/H1N1 (the 1918 pandemic virus) are estimated to have occurred in the United States in a population one third the size of today’s.17 Furthermore, it can be challenging to discern which deaths can be attributed to the pandemic and which belong in the inter-pandemic period. The distinctions are not trivial, as excess mortality is the classic metric for assessing severity.1618 Inter-pandemic years have sometimes had higher death tolls than the pandemic seasons that followed, such as the 1946-47 season that preceded the 1957-58 pandemic season (fig 1).19 Hence, a pandemic’s end cannot be defined by the absence of excess deaths associated with the pandemic pathogen.

Fig 1
Fig 1

Monthly all cause death rate in the US, with arrows and bold dates indicating the beginning of pandemics, Jan 1900 to Sept 2021. The red line indicates a 12 month moving average. Note that from 1905 to 1909, the US Bureau of the Census provided only annual data (not monthly)

Interruption and resumption of social life

Another way we might declare the end of a pandemic is by considering the imposition and lifting of public health measures or restrictions. Measures used in previous pandemics have been more fleeting and less intrusive than those that have been used in covid-19. Even for the catastrophic Spanish flu—which killed three times more people per population in the US than covid-19, with an average age of death of 28 years20—lives returned to normal in a short time, perhaps only because there was no other option. In an era before the internet, food delivery apps, and video meetings, widespread and prolonged social distancing was simply not possible, a situation that remains the case today for many workers deemed “essential.” Indeed, a brief look at past pandemics in the US shows there is no fixed or deterministic relation between the pathogenicity of a virus and the intensity and longevity of public health interventions.

By comparison with previous pandemics, the covid-19 pandemic has produced unprecedented disruption to social life. People have long experienced the tragedy of sickness and unexpected death in pandemic and non-pandemic years, but the covid-19 pandemic is historically unique in the extent to which the interruption and resumption of social life has been so closely tied to epidemiological metrics (box 1).

Contrasting historical approaches to pandemic respiratory viruses

1918 “Spanish flu”

In 1918, the pandemic’s first wave was mild and “attracted relatively little attention.”11 In response to the second wave, which “scorched its way around the globe,” some cities in the US implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions such as school closures and restrictions on public gatherings. Most countermeasures were relaxed within two to eight weeks, and the disruption of social life was relatively short lived.21

John Barry, a leading historian studying the 1918 pandemic, explained: “the whole thing was very swift.” Unlike covid-19, he said, “the stress was not continuous,” noting that many places experienced “several months of relative normalcy” between waves.22 New York and Chicago, the country’s two largest cities, never officially closed their schools despite Chicago schools reaching an absenteeism rate of nearly 50%. Where schools closed, they stayed shut for a median of four weeks (range 1-10 weeks).23

1957 “Asian flu”

The 1957 “Asian flu” pandemic reached American shores around mid-year. Over the course of the next nine months, which included two waves in late 1957 and early 1958, an estimated “80 million Americans were bedridden with respiratory disease.”24 In the first wave about 60% of schoolchildren were sick, and rates of absenteeism reached 20-30%.25 Yet even when it was estimated that 40% of pupils in some New York schools were absent with influenza, the city’s superintendent of schools advised that there was “no cause for alarm and, on the advice of the Health Department, we have curtailed no activities.”26 By late October, college football matches around the country were being cancelled because many players were ill. Team managers scrambled, lining up last minute replacements, and ultimately no major contests were cancelled.27

As during the Spanish flu, the health effect of the new H2N2 virus did not end when the 1957 pandemic was “over.” In 1960, Newsweek reported that “without the fanfare of two years ago [the] Asian-flu virus was quietly picking off almost everyone it missed the first time around.”28 Early that year it was estimated that 20% of schoolchildren in Los Angeles— around 120 000 children—and over 15% of industrial workers were absent with influenza.28 Despite their size, these epidemiological impacts did not usher in a sense that society had slipped back into a pandemic.

1968 “Hong Kong flu”

A decade later another pandemic virus arrived that officials later estimated killed one million globally. But its impact on public health interventions and social life was minimal. Historian John Barry writes that for the US, “the episode was not significantly deadlier than a typical bad flu season,” noting that “few people who lived through it even knew it occurred.”29 Historian Mark Honigsbaum points out that “while at the height of the outbreak in December, 1968, the New York Times described the pandemic as “one of the worst in the nation’s history,” there were few school closures and businesses, for the most part, continued to operate as normal.”30Box 1

Dashboards—fighting or fuelling the pandemic?

While visual depictions of epidemics have existed for centuries,31 covid-19 is the first one in which real time dashboards have saturated and structured the public’s experience.

Some historians have observed that pandemics do not conclude when disease transmission ends “but rather when, in the attention of the general public and in the judgment of certain media and political elites who shape that attention, the disease ceases to be newsworthy.”8 Pandemic dashboards provide endless fuel, ensuring the constant newsworthiness of the covid-19 pandemic, even when the threat is low. In doing so, they might prolong the pandemic by curtailing a sense of closure or a return to pre-pandemic life.

Deactivating or disconnecting ourselves from the dashboards may be the single most powerful action towards ending the pandemic.

This is not burying one’s head in the sand. Rather, it is recognising that no single or joint set of dashboard metrics can tell us when the pandemic is over.

The end of the pandemic will not be brought to you

History suggests that the end of the pandemic will not simply follow the attainment of herd immunity or an official declaration, but rather it will occur gradually and unevenly as societies cease to be all consumed by the pandemic’s shocking metrics. Pandemic ending is more of a question of lived experience, and thus is more of a sociological phenomenon than a biological one. And thus dashboards—which do not measure mental health, educational impact, and the denial of close social bonds—are not the tool that will tell us when the pandemic will end. Indeed, considering how societies have come to use dashboards, they may be a tool that helps prevent a return to normal. Pandemics—at least respiratory viral pandemics—simply do not end in a manner amenable to being displayed on dashboards. Far from a dramatic “end,” pandemics gradually fade as society adjusts to living with the new disease agent and social life returns to normal.

As an extraordinary period in which social life was upturned, the covid-19 pandemic will be over when we turn off our screens and decide that other issues are once again worthy of our attention.

Unlike its beginning, the end of the pandemic will not be televised.

_________________

**Comment**

A voice of reason in an insane world.  Turn off your TV.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02243-1/fulltext

COVID-19: Stigmatising the Unvaccinated is Not Justified

Published: November 20, 2021DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02243-1
In the USA and Germany, high-level officials have used the term pandemic of the unvaccinated, suggesting that people who have been vaccinated are not relevant in the epidemiology of COVID-19. Officials’ use of this phrase might have encouraged one scientist to claim that “the unvaccinated threaten the vaccinated for COVID-19”.But this view is far too simple.
There is increasing evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in transmission. In Massachusetts, USA, a total of 469 new COVID-19 cases were detected during various events in July, 2021, and 346 (74%) of these cases were in people who were fully or partly vaccinated, 274 (79%) of whom were symptomatic. Cycle threshold values were similarly low between people who were fully vaccinated (median 22·8) and people who were unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown (median 21·5), indicating a high viral load even among people who were fully vaccinated.
In the USA, a total of 10,262 COVID-19 cases were reported in vaccinated people by April 30, 2021, of whom 2725 (26·6%) were asymptomatic, 995 (9·7%) were hospitalised, and 160 (1·6%) died.In Germany, 55·4% of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in patients aged 60 years or older were in fully vaccinated individuals,and this proportion is increasing each week. In Münster, Germany, new cases of COVID-19 occurred in at least 85 (22%) of 380 people who were fully vaccinated or who had recovered from COVID-19 and who attended a nightclub.
People who are vaccinated have a lower risk of severe disease but are still a relevant part of the pandemic. It is therefore wrong and dangerous to speak of a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
Historically, both the USA and Germany have engendered negative experiences by stigmatising parts of the population for their skin colour or religion. I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatisation of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens, and to put extra effort into bringing society together.  (See link for sources)
__________________
**Comment**
Wouldn’t that make the perfect Christmas present – bringing society together rather than pushing hate?
Meanwhile, our commander in Chief gave a stark prediction of severe illness and death for the unvaccinated.  He must not have gotten the memo that the “vaccinated” can be just as sick, are driving viral mutations, and are even dying from COVID. The only difference is that the unvaccinated aren’t dying from the COVID shots.  The same can not be said for the “vaccinated.”  The unvaccinated also have long-lasting and robust immunity after infection.  The same can not be said for the “vaccinated.”
And the following quote is a pure lie:

“There’s good news; if you’re vaccinated and you have your booster shot, you’re protected from severe illness and death,” he said.  – President Biden

Sadly, a school district in NY sent an email warning parents of sudden cardiac arrests in students grades K-12.  And why might that be?  Could it have anything to do with pushing an unproven, experimental, fast-tracked injection rubber-stamped by the FDA upon children who rarely become seriously ill from COVID, and the fact there have been 1,784 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people under the age of 30 after these injections, which only represents approximately 1% of true adverse events.  Or how about the following ad for some additional peer-pressure?

http://

Best Gift – Child

Category:

Activism, Viruses

Lab Leak “Most Likely Source Of COVID. Investigator Funded by Chinese Communist Party Removed From Corrupt WHO Team Now Calling on ‘Justice’

http://  Approx. 6 Min

Gravitas: Lab leak “most likely” source of Covid-19, Researchers Tell British MPs

Dec. 16, 2021

Researcher Dr. Alina Chan told British MPs that a lab leak is “the most likely” source of the Wuhan virus. She also asked the Lancet to share the research it received from Chinese scientists. Palki Sharma tells you how the lab leak theory is back in focus.  Researchers raising COVID the lab leak theory are branded as being “anti-science,” as they are departing from the accepted narrative.

“We know now that this virus has a very unique feature, called the furin cleavage site that makes it the pandemic pathogen it is. So, without this feature, there’s no way this would be causing this pandemic.

“Only recently in September did a proposal get leaked showing that scientists from the EcoHealth Alliance were in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology developing this pipeline for inserting novel furin cleavage sites, these genetic modifications, into SARS-like viruses in the lab.”- Dr. Chan

Chan stressed that the burden was on the scientists in question to show that their work did not result in the creation of SARS-COV2, the virus behind COVID-19, and that an investigation of documents being made available by US-based EcoHealth Alliance could hold the key.  Source

“We also need to know to deter bad actors who are watching this episode and thinking that unleashing a pandemic is something they could get away with.” – Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of ‘The Lancet’

The news video states the WHO investigators completely ignored the lab leak angle.  Dr. Chan followed the investigation closely and states that the investigators went into a room and simply asked scientists in front of Chinese officials if they had anything to do with creating this virus and then voted on it. 

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/scalp-koopmans-removed-from-who-team/

SCALP: COVID Investigator Funded By Chinese Communist Party Removed From WHO Team Following National Pulse Exposé.

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.

Koopmans appears to have suffered a similar fate to fellow World Health Organization (WHO) Peter Daszak – an American researcher whose Wuhan Institute of Virology collaborations were funded by Anthony Fauci.  (See link for article)

________________

Summary:

  • Koopmans was listed as one of 28 members on WHO’s Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO)
  • SAGO’s updated member list fails to include Koopmans as a contributor to the effort to allegedly uncover the origins of COVID-19
  • The National Pulse unearthed her role on a scientific advisory board of the Centers for Disease Control of Guangdong China
  • She has also authored scientific research papers and journal articles supported by Chinese Communist Party grants
  • Not surprisingly, Koopmans became incensed when the head of the WHO called the first investigation’s findings “premature”

Hypocritically, Koopmans is calling on “justice” for online threats she is receiving while she apparently has no trouble with the injustice she has allowed by her conflicts of interest which completely thwarted an investigation into a so-called ‘pandemic’ which has shut the world down and caused needless deaths.  Meanwhile, Dr. Evil, the doctor who has no qualms funding research that forced children to ingest harmful and dangerous chemotherapy drugs, did abominable experiments on dogs, experiments torturing monkeys, and putting fetal scalps on rats, and then taking American tax-dollars to fund illegal ‘gain of function’ research to make coronaviruses more virulent in humans, is calling for comrade Koopmans’ protection.  He too has no issue with conflicts of interest and has many.

Did anyone ponder the fact that when injustice is allowed to blatantly flourish, people just might get a wee bit frustrated?

How about these crooks go to jail?  That would probably end all the threats.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/11/24/who-institution-of-corruption

The WHO Is an Institution of Corruption

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked
Nov. 24, 2021

Video interview of Wolfgang Wodarg

Story at-a-glance 

  • Fundamental corruption at the World Health Organization (WHO) contributed to manufacturing a “test pandemic”
  • Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, former head of health at the Council of Europe, explains that a pandemic used to be associated with widespread severe illness and death, but by changing the definition, removing the severity and high mortality criteria, WHO can now make a pandemic whenever it wants
  • COVID-19 was a “test” pandemic, not a virus pandemic, because PCR tests may give a positive result when it detects fragments of coronaviruses that have been around for 20 years, a fragment of virus too small to make you ill or a fragment of COVID-19 that was there weeks ago
  • The mass COVID-19 shot campaign is riddled with conflicts of interest at a fundamental level, and these conflicts are putting people’s lives at risk by putting vaccine production ahead of disease prevention
  • As Wodarg noted, if you want to earn money producing vaccines, you need new markets in which to use them, and new diseases so you can sell your vaccine

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, an internal medicine doctor and former head of health at the Council of Europe, spoke with Planet Lockdown on the fundamental corruption at the World Health Organization and how it contributed to manufacturing a “test pandemic.”1

The seeds were sown more than a decade ago during the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic. In 2010, Wodarg accused pharmaceutical companies of influencing WHO’s pandemic declaration, calling swine flu a “false pandemic” that was driven by Big Pharma, which cashed in on the health scare.2

According to Wodarg, the swine flu pandemic was “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”3 As noted by Planet Lockdown, Wodarg, then a member of the German Parliament, “knew something wasn’t right when 800 cases in Mexico was declared a pandemic”:4

“He dug into the issue and discovered a hornet’s nest of lies and corruption inside the WHO. He floored a bill called Fake Pandemic and did much to deflate that fake scare at the time, to the consternation of the corrupt functionaries of these institutions.”

With a Definition Change, WHO Could Create Pandemic Anytime

Secret agreements were made between Germany, Great Britain, Italy and France with the pharmaceutical industry before the H1N1 pandemic began, which stated that they would purchase H1N1 flu vaccinations — but only if a pandemic level 6 was declared by WHO.

Six weeks before the pandemic was declared, no one at WHO was worried about the virus, but the media was nonetheless exaggerating the dangers.5 Then, in the month leading up to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, WHO changed the official definition of pandemic, removing the severity and high mortality criteria and leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”6

This switch in definition allowed WHO to declare swine flu a pandemic after only 144 people had died from the infection worldwide.7 While the swine flu scare was eventually deflated, this wasn’t so with COVID-19, even though the real signs of a pandemic are absent. As Wodarg explained, it used to be that a pandemic was associated with widespread severe illness and death, but that’s no longer the case:8

“There was an explanation of what a pandemic is and it always was going with many, many people dying from infections. Many severe diseases, hospitals being overcrowded. It was such a catastrophe … and everyone in the street would notice that there is a pandemic because the neighbors would get ill, the people at work would get ill. In the bus, you would see people coughing.

In a pandemic … it’s something each of us would experience. This was a pandemic. And WHO changed it.”

By removing the severity and high mortality criteria, WHO could make a pandemic whenever they wanted. “The pandemic is just a picture spread by the media, making us afraid. But what the people experience is not what we used to understand when we used the word epidemic or pandemic,” he said.9 Now, the word pandemic has to do with fear, not illnesses. “It’s a brand for fear.”

COVID-19 Is a ‘Test’ Pandemic

If there hasn’t been a true pandemic, in the old definition of the word, then how are the media and government getting all of these high case numbers for COVID-19? This is due to the PCR test.

“It was accepted by WHO, and they said when the test is positive, we have a case of COVID-19. And this is how they started counting the cases,” Wodarg said. “What they counted was the activity of testing. And the more they tested, the more cases they found.”10

Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests are not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as they cannot distinguish between inactive (noninfectious) viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.11

Inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick from it and you cannot spread it to others. Further, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.”

The higher the cycle threshold (CT) — i.e., the number of amplification cycles used to detect RNA particles — the greater the chance of a false positive. While any CT over 35 is deemed scientifically unjustifiable,12,13 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended running PCR tests at a CT of 40.14

A test known as the Corman-Drosten paper and tests recommended by the World Health Organization were set to 45 cycles.15,16,17 When labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a grossly overestimated number of positive tests, so what we’re really dealing with is a “casedemic“18,19 — an epidemic of false positives.

Wodarg says COVID-19 “was a ‘test’ pandemic. It was not a virus pandemic,”20 because PCR tests may give a positive result when it detects coronaviruses that have been around for 20 years. He explained:21

“The SARS viruses, they are very long RNA viruses. There are 30,000 letters in this genetic information. The PCR test only takes a very small part of them, or two parts of them. So two words out of a whole book … before you start testing, you can already estimate how often this test will be positive. If you take a sequence which is in many varieties of viruses, you will have many positive tests.”

The PCR test only tests for certain sequences of the RNA. It gives a positive result when it only finds a small fragment; it doesn’t need the whole virus. If the virus was there weeks ago or you have a touch of the virus present, but no infection, it can still test positive and add another COVID-19 “case,” even though you’re not actually sick.

COVID-19 Shot Conflicts of Interest Putting Lives at Risk

The mass COVID-19 shot campaign is riddled with conflicts of interest at a fundamental level, and these conflicts are putting people’s lives at risk by putting vaccine production ahead of disease prevention. As Wodarg noted, if you want to earn money producing vaccines, you need new markets in which to use them, and new diseases so you can sell your vaccine.

“This is a very serious matter,” he said, which has nothing to do with health or hygiene — “it has to do with criminology”:22

“When they want to sell their vaccines, they need people who are ill so they can make clinical studies. So when there is an outbreak, and they want to make clinical studies with their vaccine to protect people against this disease just breaking out … there is a conflict of interest.

If you have normal ways to stop the infection, with hygiene, with distancing, with isolating, with consulting with people, giving advice how to behave … if you stop the disease quickly, you’re not able to have enough cases for your study.”

So we have a “pandemic” that’s based on a test that doesn’t prove infection, but what it did do was make people afraid. And that fear was the basis for saying we need a vaccine. The shots, however, aren’t effective.

In November 2020, Pfizer, in a joint venture with Germany-based BioNTech, announced that their mRNA-based injection was “more than 90% effective” in a Phase 3 trial.23 This does not mean that 90% of people who get injected will be protected from COVID-19, however, as it’s based on relative risk reduction (RRR).

The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the jab is less than 1%. “Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the jab, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a jab, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs,” researchers wrote in The Lancet Microbe in April 2021.24

Nonetheless, the jabs received emergency use authorization, which has paved the way for vaccine mandates and other assaults to your freedom and health.

Will Vaxxed People End Up Sicker?

The lack of effectiveness is one key reason why Wodarg believes most people do not need a COVID-19 jab. The other reasons include serious risks of adverse events from these experimental jabs, and the fact that, Wodarg says, cross-immunity exists due to multiple previous exposures to other coronaviruses in most people.25 “The genetically produced so-called vaccines are not necessary, because we have immunity.”26

As he stated, your immune system is well-equipped to protect you, and new viral exposures each year help to keep this complex system updated. Risk increases when you avoid regular viral exposures to keep your immune system ready:27

“Those new ones that come, this is some work for your immune system to get an update, but it doesn’t make most people very sick, only in a few, rare cases.

When we are not trained, or we didn’t have contact with viruses for a very long time, because we were isolated somewhere alone, not having our grandchildren on our knees, not experiencing any training — it’s the same when you are out of training and you suddenly have to climb a high mountain. Maybe your heart goes into failure and you die — maybe you die when you have contact with something your immune system has forgotten.”

The spike protein that the shots stimulate your cells to produce is also deeply concerning, since it’s toxic:28

“Vaccines are made to stimulate our cells, we don’t know which cells, or where the injection goes, but those cells that get contact with the vaccine, they produce spike proteins, which are very toxic. Normally, those spike proteins don’t come into the blood, this is why we don’t get seriously ill from coronaviruses. When you inject them, you bypass the natural immunity.”

This is a likely reason why there are so many side effects associated with the shots, as injecting these spike proteins is unnatural and very dangerous. It’s since been revealed that the spike protein on its own is enough to cause inflammation and damage to the vascular system, even independent of a virus.29

Further, Wodarg says, once your body has been injected with the spike protein, it may have an overreactive response the next time it comes in contact with a typical coronavirus, potentially leading to a dangerous cytokine storm.

When counting COVID-19 cases this winter, Wodarg believes it is important to ask whether the person received a COVID-19 shot or not.

“I am quite sure,” he said, “that those people vaccinated will be the severe cases and that those who are not vaccinated will just experience a normal flu.”30

What’s more, once you’re vaccinated, they have all your data — the batch of the shot, the date and time. So, you’re essentially part of a clinical trial that you’ve never agreed to, and there’s no transparency about the risks involved. Wodarg believes that the pandemic “emergency” is being prolonged from month to month because it helps their injection studies, even as there are massive conflicts of interest involved.

If you listen to the media, you’ll be brainwashed that the jab is necessary, but don’t fall for the hype, including that getting the shot will earn you your freedom back. Wodarg said:31

“You won’t be free to travel. You will be controlled nevertheless, because the next virus already comes, the next jab is waiting. They want to perpetuate this game with us, with vaccines and with vaccine passports. It’s just the perfect control by this market and it has nothing to do with health. So we have to stop it.”

____________________

**Comment**

History repeats itself.

You may remember Wodarg’s name from this March 2020 post where he stated that politics are driving the COVID ‘pandemic’ – not science:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/17/stunning-insights-into-the-corona-panic-by-dr-wolfgang-wodarg/

For a review of the Swine Flu Scam that killed 144 people worldwide:

Category:

Activism, Viruses

COVID Shot Vials “Alive” When Warmed to Body Temperature & COVID Passport Microchip is Here

https://rumble.com/vqys67-pfizer-and-moderna-thawed-warmed-vials-become-alive-self-moving-organism  Video Here

Pfizer and Moderna Thawed: Warmed Vials Become “Alive” Self-Moving Organism

A group of South Korean doctors have banded together and now call themselves the “Korea Veritas Doctors for Covid 19.” They have secured partial vials of the Pfizer and Moderna Vaccines, and upon close observation they claim to have observed “moving organism.”

Dr. Jane Ruby joins The Stew Peters Show to discuss.

For more:

____________________

https://www.activistpost.com/2021/12/the-covid-19-passport-microchip-is-here

The COVID-19 Passport Microchip Is Here

December 18, 2021

By Mayukh Saha

What one year ago would be considered a crazy conspiracy theory is now becoming a reality.

A Swedish company, Epicenter, has brought forward new tech where they created a subdermal implant to show COVID-19 vaccination certificates. This makes it possible for people to keep their vaccination certificates, right under their skin in a microchip.  (See link for article and video)

_________________

Summary:

  • The chip has a Near Field Communications (NFC) implant that contains data that can be accessed with a NFC-compatible smartphone or reader.
  • IDs, bus passes, gym members, and pretty much any data inserted into the body can be accessed.
  • While this may make you gasp, Epidenter, a Swedish company has been implanting microchips into its employees since 2015. They function as “swipe cards” and open doors, operate printers, or buy smoothies.  They hold parties for those who get chipped.
  • They state it’s all for “convenience.”
  • There are obvious security and privacy issues, and one expert points out hackers could gain huge swathes of information, raising ethical dilemmas.
  • Besides vaccination status, it could contain private health info, your location, how often you work, how long you work, if you are taking breaks, and your buying habits, among other personal data.
  • The Swedish government announced that COVID passports will be required at all events, having more than 100 people.  Approximately 6000 people in the country have had a chip inserted into their hands.
  • While not for sale yet, Epicenter hosts “implant events” for the people who want to be chipped.
  • Steven Northam, director of BioTeq in the UK, believes that being chipped will become a common in the next 10 to 15 years.
  • Young Americans for Liberty tweeted, “It’s just 6 feet. It’s just a mask. It’s just 15 days to slow the spread. It’s just a lockdown. It’s just a ‘vaccine’ mandate. It’s just a microchip implanted in your arm.”
  • Read about the shadowy CIA Data Firms behind the creation of digital “vaccine” passport IDs.

Category:

vaccines, Viruses

Narrative Crumbling: Big Pharma Exec Admits Gene Therapy Marketed As “Vaccines.” FOIAs – Fauci’s Illegal Bioweapons Schemes. More Emails Detail Propaganda. Fully “Vaxxed” Getting Omicron

https://www.lifezette.com/2021/12/big-pharma-exec-admits-gene-therapy-marketed-as-vaccines-as-they-push-depopulation-with-gates-klaus

Big Pharma Exec Admits Gene Therapy Marketed As Vaccines As They Push Depopulation With Gates & Klaus

Depopulation fanatics want to force you to inject drugs for your health?

By

Stefan Oelrich, president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division, admitted to international “experts” this week that the mRNA COVID-19 shots are indeed “cell and gene therapy” marketed as “vaccines” in order to get trust from the public.

Oelrich said this while speaking at the World Health Summit, which took place in Berlin back in October.

“We are really taking that leap [to drive innovation] – us as a company, Bayer – in cell and gene therapies … ultimately, the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy. I always like to say: if we had surveyed two years ago in the public – ‘would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?’ – we probably would have had a 95% refusal rate,” Oelrich said.  (See link for article)

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Despite Natural Immunity Confirmed As Better Than Shots, New Bill to Force Unvaccinated to Pay For Health Care in the Works

**UPDATE April 2022**

Similarly to Fauci’s flip-flipping on the uselessness of masks and the “fatal flaw” in the COVID tests, Fauci pre-2019 stated:

“The Most Potent Vaccination Is Getting Infected Yourself” ~ Dr. Fauci

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/another-study-finds-natural-immunity-protects-better-against-infection-pfizer-vaccine

Another Study Finds That Natural Immunity Protects Better Against Infection Than Pfizer Vaccine

by Tyler Durden
Monday, Dec 13, 2021

Authored by Noah Carl via DailySceptic.org,

At the end of August, a study was published showing that natural immunity provides much better protection against infection than the Pfizer vaccine. It was described by UCL’s Francois Balloux as “a bit of a bombshell”.

Subsequent studies have compared natural and vaccine-induced immunity at the cellular level. One found that infection-induced antibodies “exhibited superior stability and cross-variant neutralization breadth” than vaccine-induced antibodies, suggesting that people who’d already been infected had better immunity against the then-novel Delta variant.

However, as I noted in my write-up of the “bombshell” study, its findings still needed to be replicated.

After all, certain datasets or methods of analysis can sometimes yield quirky results, which don’t survive independent empirical tests.

Encouragingly, the findings now have been replicated – by another team of Israeli researchers, using a different data set.  (See link for article)

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/vaccinated-english-adults-under-60

Vaccinated English adults under 60 are dying at twice the rate of unvaccinated people the same age

And have been for six months. This chart may seem unbelievable or impossible, but it’s correct, based on weekly data from the British government.

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.  (See link for article)

___________________

**Comment**

In October Berenson posted the COVID injections will prohibit you from acquiring full immunity even if you were infected and recovered from COVID.  He reprinted the following quote from UK Health Security Agency data:

“N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination.” (Page 23)

The injections interfere with your body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against the spike protein and other pieces of the virus, which means the “vaccinated” are far more vulnerable to mutations even after infection and recovery.

Further, more data from the UK hows the double jabbed have lost 50% of their immune system capability and are losing a further 4-5% every week.  Further:

Everybody over 30 will have lost 100% of their entire immune capability (certainly for Covid and most likely for viruses and certain cancers – following the evidence from Cole Diagnostics in Idaho and Dr Nathan Thompson and Dr Ralph Baric) within 18 weeks.  Source

The COVID injections wiping out your immunity has been discussed before, by numerous experts.  To watch a board-certified pathologist explain how these shots reprograms the innate immune response, go here.

It’s worrisome that vaccination appears to deplete neutralizing Abs against the Spike protein gained by infection. It’s puzzling that vaccination appears also to deplete neutralizing Abs against the RBD (receptor-binding-domain) SARS-CoV-2 protein because the vaccines do not target that protein. – Dr. James Lyons Weiler

Important quotes:

To boost the immune system to produce more antibodies that do not work is madness. (Regarding boosters)

From an evolutionary standpoint, durable immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is expected to be more resilient and far, far more effective – and last decades – where dozens of types of memory B- and T-cells have been generated, preventing the emergence of types that can surpass the immune escape threshold. Multifactorial approaches to control viremia are also available – and will help reduce viremia in every patient, instead of forcing them to sit at home and incubate new variants (See: Who Are the World’s Leading Authorities in COVID-19 Treatments?).  Dr. James Lyons Weiler  Source

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/new-bill-to-force-the-unvaccinated-to-pay-for-health-care/

unvaccinated

New Bill to Strip the Unvaccinated of Health Insurance if They Get Sick, Force Them to Pay Out of Pocket

Matt Agorist December 9, 2021

To those who are paying attention, the demonization and discrimination against the unvaccinated is eerily similar to extremely dark times throughout human history. These historical events are riddled with the suffering and death of millions of innocent people all because the media and government dehumanized a group of people and convinced the majority that they need to rid themselves of the “unclean.”

Unscientific vaccine mandates are laying waste to human rights across the planet. Lacking all logic and reason, even if you’ve had covid-19 and have superior immunity over someone who only took the jab, you are denied entry into public places and treated like a second-class citizen.

In Australia and Austria, the unvaccinated are fined and even arrested if they attempt to go out in public. Mainstream news outlets across the world continue to shame the unvaccinated, stoking fear and hatred against them over their personal medical choices.

President Biden even took to demonizing the unvaccinated, blaming them for the economic downturn, supply chain debacle, and claimed — without merit — that they are “costing jobs.”

Now, the state of Illinois is taking the segregation and discrimination against the unvaccinated one step further by attempting to strip them of their health insurance if they get sick from covid-19 — forcing them to pay for their medical treatment out of pocket.

“I think it’s time that we say: ‘You choose not to get vaccinated, then you’re also going to assume the risk that if you do catch COVID, and you get sick, the responsibility is on you,’” State Representative Jonathan Carroll told the Chicago Sun-Times this week.

(See link for article)

_____________________

**Comment**

This is so predicable, and has been acutely felt by Lyme/MSIDS patients for 40 years.

Those that claim to be following the “science,” lead by no other than real live Dr. Evil who claims HE IS science, are “trying to do the right thing,” as if the only right thing is taking an experimental, fast-tracked jab that has caused more injury and death than any other vaccine in the 30 years of VAERS.

Further:

  • the latest headlines show hospitalizations are spiking — among the fully “vaccinated”
  • states with the highest “vaccination” rates are currently seeing the highest hospitalization rates, including Vermont, which has more than 72%  fully “vaccinated”
  • New Hampshire’s new daily cases shot up 84% in November (compared with a 7 percent jump over the same period nationwide), despite 63 percent of its population being fully inoculated
  • New Mexico, new daily cases are up 46% in the same period, even though 63%  are fully “vaccinated”
  • New York, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and California are all seeing similar spikes despite over 60% being “vaccinated”

__________________

For more:

Category:

vaccines, Viruses