We must also be aware that the basic data on this disease--statistics on number of cases and deaths--are unreliable. Positive PCR tests were counted as "cases" despite the fact that the test tells you nothing about the health of the person tested. As the Nobel-Prize winning inventor of the test said, it "can find almost anything in anybody" and "It can't tell you that you're sick." This was known and reported by knowledgeable scientists, and even the NY Times, for over a year, and has just been re-discovered by The Atlantic and other publications, but its significance is completely ignored. If "as many as 9 out of every 10 [confirmed COVID-19 infections in the U.S.] may not be infectious at all," then... well, as Prof. Beda M. Stadler says: "No other virus, ever, on this planet, has been accompanied by so much testing, and testing that's created so much nonsense and panic!"
Compounding that, on explicit orders from public-health authorities, anyone who died with a positive PCR test within 60 days (and everybody entering a hospital was given a PCR test) was considered to have died from Covid. Dr. Deborah Birx, speaking as the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, declared: "If someone dies with Covid-19, we are counting that as a Covid-19 death." The Illinois Director of Public Health directed: "Even if you died of a clear alternate cause... it's still listed as a Covid death... that does not mean that was the cause of the death" [her emphasis]. By "clear alternate cause" of death, they mean things like intentional injury and poisoning, motorcycle accidents, and gunshot wounds, As one epidemiologist told The Atlantic: "Those patients who are there with rather than from COVID don't belong in the metric." But there they are.
This, unprecedented, scientifically specious, and misleading distortion of basic data, makes it impossible to know how many Covid cases and deaths there actually have been. It has been a deliberate deception that forms the basis of radically disruptive social policies. It's difficult to think it was done for any reason other than to promote panic for political and pharmaceutical-industry benefit. It has been severely damaging to our understanding of the disease and to the scientific process itself--damage compounded by the ridicule and  censorship of anyone who points that out.
So, given a ~0.27% IFR even with these distortions, I think it's fair to say that Covid is a disease not to be taken lightly, but far from an apocalyptic social threat. How does this require an unprecedented, radical regime of mandates and passports that annul fundamental rights of bodily integrity and informed consent and create a checkpoint society?
If there were some Children of Men scenario, it might be necessary to consider abrogating such rights and proclaiming, "My Body, Society's Choice," but not for a 0.27% decrease in fertility. This isn't a science fiction movie, and Anthony Fauci isn't Dustin Hoffman.
Escape Room
Furthermore, not only are the mRNA vaccines the U.S. relies on not getting us back to normal, as was promised; there is evidence that they are making things worse.
An important analysis in that regard is the "immune-escape" proposition of Geert Vanden Bossche, who has worked on vaccines with GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It's complex and counter-intuitive, and Bossche presents it in some long interviews (here, here, here, here) that you really should take a look at if you want to understand all the scientific issues that some of us are worried about. I will try to summarize it.
As a prefatory note, it's important to understand how the mRNA treatments differ from traditional vaccines. The traditional vaccines put a killed or inactivated whole virus into our bodies, accompanied by various adjuvants. Our immune system then recognizes the virus as a threat and mounts a reaction that neutralizes the virus, and will attack the virus if it appears again.
The mRNA therapies, on the other hand, do not put a virus into our bodies; they inject a package of genetic code that enters our cells and make them produce one part of the virus, the spike protein (actually a slightly modified version thereof). Our immune systems will recognize and mobilize against that specific protein, and will attack it again if it enters the body as part of the virus.
The other difference is that, unlike most vaccines we are familiar with, these mRNA jabs, it is now clear ('cause you really don't know what's going to happen until you give it to a lot of people--warp speed, and all), are very "leaky." A leaky, or non-sterilizing vaccine, is one that "keeps a microbe from doing serious harm to its host, but doesn't stop the disease from replicating and spreading to another individual."
Here's my abbreviated, simplified version of Bossche's "immune-escape" analysis: Because these vaccines lessen symptoms and mortality but do not confer sterilizing immunity, and because, unlike traditional whole-virus vaccines or wild virus infections, they provoke immunity targeted specifically on a single element of the virus (the spike protein), they create, in vaccinees, propitious conditions for the incubation of new variants. In vaccinees, the virus, under "sub-optimal" pressure and still capable of replicating, will evolve in ways that change enough of the spike protein to escape the specific immune response the vaccine trains the immune system for.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
