by Dr. Amy Cerato and Dr. Eric Snyder
Understanding Absolute Risk Reduction versus Relative Risk Reduction
Our research over the past two years has completely shattered any illusion about the human capacity for evil as we have witnessed world governments, agencies, institutions, corporations, and select individuals practice the most inhuman, unjust, and divisive medical experiment on innocent citizens in the known history of the earth. The actions of individuals have proven conclusively that post World War II existentialism with roots to Nietzsche and Kierkegaard from the 1800s has been eradicated from our educational system and the mindset of those in power. Individual freedom, authenticity, personal responsibility, and the will to confront the most egregious evil have been replaced with silence, passivity, and fear.
A key to the resurrection of existentialism worldwide is the understanding that its roots permit individuals to respond freely and authentically to situations that people find themselves in. Today, we are in a dire situation as we must bring together millions, if not billions, of people to end this medical experiment and re-establish the sovereignty of the individual and our nations. The first step is to challenge those in power with linguistic and mathematical understanding, especially as we attempt to communicate clearly to the masses. Have the individuals informing you been clear in their definitions and calculations, or are they rooted in deceit, malfeasance, and negligence? We have shown and documented on multiple occasions in previous chapters, the power associated with redefining terminology and manipulating data, including changing the definition of herd immunity, vaccine, and vaccination. There is another important aspect of medical information that they misrepresented – efficacy. Are you surprised?
In this chapter, we will explore what we believe to be one of the biggest errors associated with communication to the layperson about the efficacy of the covid-19 “vaccines.” We will also provide data on the waning efficacy, breakthrough cases, hospitalization, and deaths of the vaccinated from international and domestic data. Finally, we will postulate why the vaccines have failed and various theories of what is causing illness.
Vaccine Efficacy and Effectiveness
What does vaccine efficacy mean? Can you define it mathematically? We have all heard the narrative spewed by our government officials, major media conglomerates, and the elites in Hollywood as they repeat over and over that the vaccines are safe and effective. Is it not peculiar that these same entities repeat that our prior election was “the most secure in history?” Perhaps these individuals should visit Israeli hospitals where 80% of serious Covid-19 cases are now found in fully vaccinated individuals. They should also watch this recent trailer called “2000 Mules” as it seems the truth train has departed and will soon arrive at the station. The safe and effective statement has been debunked and if you’re not convinced, simply read Chapters 10, 11 and 12 and then watch the 1000’s of French citizens surround Pfizer’s headquarters in protest of their products. Where is our media coverage? Let us be clear, the Covid-19 injections are the most unsafe in “vaccine” history, but safe differs from effective. This is why it is critical to explore how well they work in preventing infection, transmission, serious infection, and death, and how their efficacy is calculated.
The company counted 170 cases of coronavirus infection among volunteers who took part in the trial. It said 162 infections were in people who got placebo, or plain saline shots, while eight cases were in participants who got the actual vaccine. That works out to an efficacy of 95%, Pfizer said.”
But what does “95% efficacy” actually mean? Well, let’s start with what it does not mean. It does not mean:
- By accepting the mRNA shot a person is 95% less likely to become infected than those who do not.
- By not accepting the mRNA shot a person is 5% more likely to become infected.
If we were to poll Oklahomans in downtown OKC about a vaccine with an efficacy of 95%, how many would think their personal risk of becoming infected decreased by 95% if they were fully vaccinated? They would be wrong. The consistent use of the word efficacy, the defining of the term, and the wording of statements/headlines have coerced individuals into compliance without understanding the actual risk associated with accepting or declining the shots. It is critical for all individuals to understand the CDC’s definitional manipulation of the term “efficacy.” The term efficacy is actually referring to relative risk reduction (RRR), which differs from absolute risk reduction (ARR). Below we will explain the linguistics and mathematics used to define risk.
When a randomized controlled trial is performed, there are typically two arms; the drug arm and a placebo (control) arm. These two arms are used to determine if the drug is safe and effective. In the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers reported that 8 out of 18,198 (0.04%) vaccinated people were infected with SARS-CoV-2, and 162 out of 18,325 (0.88%) unvaccinated people were infected (Figure 1).
The efficacy (aka relative risk reduction) of the Pfizer-BioNTech phase III trial was calculated by taking 0.88% (unvaccinated infection percentage) – 0.04% (vaccinated infection percentage) = 0.84%. Researchers then divide 0.84% by 0.88%, which equates to .95445 or 95% relative risk reduction.
While this is a mathematically correct calculation, it can be a confusing way to look at risk especially if it is not explained, and individuals who don’t fully understand what relative risk reduction means might then falsely assume that their risk reduction of infection is 95% if they accept the vaccination. But there is a much better way to calculate risk using the same results from the phase three trials and then making a more precise statement to the general public. Absolute risk reduction (ARR), also called risk difference (RD) is the most useful way of presenting research results that will help inform decision making that is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in the evaluation of drug efficacy. We should also mention that the FDA REQUIRES that absolute risk reduction (ARR) be reported:
Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.” (Communicating Risks and Benefits, page 60, Chapter 7: Quantitative Information)
The absolute risk reduction (ARR) of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 equation is calculated by taking 0.88% (unvaccinated infection percentage) – 0.04% (vaccinated infection percentage) = 0.84% (See Figure 1). If we redefined efficacy to mean absolute risk reduction, individuals could then correctly understand that their risk reduction of infection would be 0.84% if they accepted the vaccination.
But the 0.84% number was NEVER what was parroted all over the media and within the medical profession was it? No. In fact, the language used specifically excluded this simple, yet crucial calculation. Instead, the narrative used relative risk reduction (RRR) as equivalent to efficacy. What was never explained to the public was that this relative risk reduction was calculated by making a relative comparison between the placebo arm and drug arm. This methodology is and continues to be discouraged from being used by the FDA when presenting risk to patients because it can cause confusion. In the case of the Pfizer trial, the 95% efficacy was all anyone ever talked about when the vaccines were being approved for emergency use authorization (EUA). Using the relative risk reduction (RRR) and couching it as “efficacy” was deceptively evil because people incorrectly thought that by taking the vaccine, they reduced their risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 by 95%. The subsequent confusion and fear led to compliance, which was the intent of Big Pharma and our government agencies.
Imagine if the evening news told you that the risk reduction of contracting a virus was 0.84% (less than 1%) if you took an experimental drug with no long-term safety studies. Would your decision be different than if you were told the risk reduction was 95%? But what if we ask the same question but implant their term “efficacy.” If you were told that the efficacy of an experimental drug was 0.84% in preventing disease would your decision be different than if you were told the efficacy was 95% in preventing disease? The fact that they used the word “efficacy” and defined it with relative risk reduction instead of absolute risk reduction is malfeasance. Playing with words and phrases is just a sophisticated way of misrepresenting the facts, if not outright lying. It is a travesty we were deceived by this wordplay, and it is unconscionable that the FDA let this happen when they have rules on the books stating clearly how risk should be calculated and portrayed to the public. Where were all the scientific journalists asking questions of our government agencies? Where were all our medical doctors asking questions about how this term was defined? Where were all the doctors and nurses explaining absolute risk reduction to their patients before they administered the shot? This information should have been front and center on the vaccine fact sheets to ensure true informed consent was given.
Now that we have clearly defined the linguistics and mathematics surrounding the term “efficacy,” its synonymous use when calculating “relative risk reduction,” and the complete absence of a discussion and calculation of “absolute risk reduction,” we feel we can honestly inform readers about the waning vaccine “efficacy” over time. When analyzing the data that has been released over the past year, we found disturbing trends associated with the efficacy of the vaccines. In some instances, the vaccine has resulted in negative efficacy calculations where one could conclude the vaccine increases the chance of infection. Using the CDC’s efficacy equation above to calculate relative risk reduction, a number greater than 100% means the risk of a bad outcome is increased by the vaccine. Given the importance of words, negative efficacy can also be thought of as “damaged immunity.”
Waning Efficacy and Breakthrough Cases
As we type this chapter, our state is on the road to recovery from a recent snowstorm. The dry powder flakes fell for hours, quietly, and blanketed the red dirt soil without delay. As a result, our entire state entered into a deep sleep, with little human interaction other than with family, or those you sled ride with. We would say essential businesses remained open, but after the past two years we realize it is not our responsibility to identify an essential business; it is unequivocally the government’s (sarcasm should be noted). But the quietness and reduction in the pace from this storm was important, especially as we think about the world, the United States, and the role individuals in Oklahoma will play in resisting the evil that has been perpetrated on all of humanity.
It is difficult to not compare the storm to that of our major media conglomerates who reign methodical information into the minds of the manipulated. When people turn off the media streams barraging them with COVID-19 horrors, their minds have a chance to reset and heal, and people have been turning off those mainstream news feeds in record numbers. Individual podcasters like Joe Rogan now reach about 11 million individuals per episode, while talking heads like Anderson Cooper on CNN draw 238,000, a 90% decrease in a year of fake news. What the media tells us is “real” life requires us to ask what “real” means. Was the 95% efficacy of the Pfizer vaccines after two months “real” or would it have been even more “real” to tell individuals there exists a 0.84% reduction in infection risk with vaccination? Thank you, Pfizer, government officials, and medical experts for the less than 1% potential reduction in infection risk while our appreciated U.S. military members who have taken the shot have reported a 1000% increase in neurological issues among the ranks.
Have the “vaccines” ever shown an efficacy percentage to justify the emergency use authorization (EUA)? The answer to this question started to rear its head in 2021, and like a freight train, the information keeps on coming! As vaccinated individuals were becoming infected at higher rates than originally anticipated, terminology again needed to be established by world leaders, government agencies, and those taunting what is now a nefarious narrative. The term “breakthrough cases” for infections in the vaccinated population started to be commonplace for the media. But the “real” truth is that the vaccine simply failed, which is why we would use the words “vaccine failure,” as words have consequences.
By mid-2021, papers and reports were being published showing that mRNA vaccines weren’t as effective as advertised at preventing infection and transmission. Qatar found that the relative risk reduction of the vaccine against infection was 75% with Delta using data from February – March 2021, only three months after their vaccination program started. The CDC published a report in August of 2021 on an outbreak in Massachusetts where 74% (346 cases) of the Covid-19 positive cases were fully vaccinated (5 of these 469 positive cases resulted in hospitalization and 4 of the 5 individuals were fully vaccinated). Additionally, the report found evidence that viral loads were similar among 127 fully vaccinated people and 84 others who were unvaccinated, partially vaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. The CDC’s findings indicate not only vaccine failure to prevent disease, but also vaccine failure to prevent transmission risks.
When using data from national databases, researchers again confirmed that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines were not as effective as originally promised. In fact, the “relative risk reduction” reduced to 39-42% for Pfizer (Slides 7&8) and 78% for Moderna. Most authorities blamed these “vaccine failures” on the Delta variant, but Pfizer’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee briefing on September 17, 2021, hypothesized, with dollar signs in their eyes, that it was simply due to the waning efficacy of their product, which would necessitate additional inoculations. Thankfully, researchers and concerned citizens started noticing that the countries with the highest vaccination rates and most stringent public policy measures were also suffering from the highest case rates (Figure 2). Researchers theorized that the exploding cases in these countries could be attributed to vaccine mediated evolution, but the official narrative remained that the mRNA shots continued to prevent infection and transmission.
In the US, a similar correlation started to evolve with high case rates in heavily vaccinated areas. A statewide data analysis by the Bay Area News Group found that five California counties had both a higher percentage of people who are fully vaccinated than the state average and a higher average daily case rate. As the case rates within the vaccinated population became more difficult to hide, the narrative started to change quickly from:
- “if everyone gets vaccinated, the virus will stop spreading and we can return to normal,” to
- “you only need to get vaccinated with the primary shot series,” to
- “the vaccines can’t prevent infection and transmission but they still prevent serious illness and death,” to finally
- “It is clear from the data that additional vaccinations may be necessary.”
Remember when Dr. Fauci told us that herd immunity would be reached with 60% infection rate and then increased that number to 75%, then 80%, and finally 85%? Dr. Fauci followed the same narrative with the shots, first by increasing the percentage of individuals needed to return to normal, and then by adding boosters needed to “return to normal.”
As a result, health officials from various countries began to publicly lament that the vaccines were not preventing transmission and infection. The Chief Epidemiologist of Iceland expressed dismay that vaccination had not led to herd immunity. He stated that:
In the past two to three weeks, the Delta variant has outstripped all others in Iceland and it has become clear that vaccinated people can easily contract it as well as spread it to others.”
There was no mention that the reason Iceland was seeing so many cases could have been because they had one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. There was also no coverage of these comments on any of the U.S. major media stations.
If vaccination status has no bearing on the potential risk one individual poses to another in terms of transmission, then public policy permitting mandates and passports make absolutely no sense! These requirements are useless, as passengers on Carnival cruise lines experienced when an outbreak of COVID-19 surfaced despite every last person having been required to be fully “vaccinated.” The same thing happened onboard the fully vaccinated HMS Queen Elizabeth, a British Navy flagship. How about the outbreak within the remote Antarctic Ice Station’s crew who were all fully vaccinated, required to quarantine for two weeks and test negative prior to receiving clearance to travel to the Polar Station? How did the coronavirus possibly find them? Should we call these breakthrough cases or absolute vaccine failure? What seems to be clear is that the vaccinated can spread the virus and become infected by the virus. In fact, a study from Korea shows vaccinated health care workers carried 251 times MORE viral load belonging to the Delta variant than the unvaccinated individuals tested with the Alpha strains back in March/April 2020. In addition, those fully vaccinated individuals had low vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies. This could mean that the vaccinated healthcare workers were acting as super spreaders. Is this a reason we have so many breakthrough cases in highly vaccinated areas?
Should health systems drop vaccine mandates immediately, take stock of COVID-19 recovered workers who are robustly immune and consider the ramifications of their current vaccinated healthcare workers as potential threats to high-risk patients and coworkers? One private school in Florida adopted this model where teachers and staff were NOT permitted to be vaccinated and if they were, they were to be separated from students. The decision occurred in April of 2021 which resulted in the school making national news headlines in light of what now seems to be a prophetically brilliant policy decision.
By September 2021, Cornell University and the University of Georgia, were showing that despite 90-95% vaccination, their caseloads were 5-10 times higher than in 2020. Right around the same time, Harvard Business School, with a 95% vaccination rate, pushed classes online due to a Covid-19 outbreak. Were these news reports of “breakthrough cases,” enough to permit the FDA to meet with Pfizer to discuss the possibility of adding a “booster” to the vaccination schedule? Pfizer stated that:
Real-world data from Israel and the United States suggest that rates of breakthrough infections are rising faster in individuals who were vaccinated earlier in the vaccination campaigns compared to those who have been vaccinated more recently.”
This was the first official inkling that someone who agreed to the two-shot series would not be considered “fully-vaccinated,” and that boosters may be required in perpetuity, even though there had been zero studies on the safety or efficacy of using a third (or fourth) inoculation (even the first trials were woefully inadequate and purposely cut short). Pfizer went on to say that the evidence from the studies indicates that the,
observed decrease of vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infections is primarily due to waning of vaccine immune responses over time rather than a result of the Delta variant escaping vaccine protection.”
For the record, vaccine effectiveness is still reporting a relative risk reduction statistic. Effectiveness replaces efficacy if the study is conducted “in the field” as opposed to in a “controlled setting.” Pfizer’s quote above was citing a study from healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente that suggested protection against COVID-19 infection dropped from 88 percent in the first month of receiving the second dose to 47 percent after five months. Note how they wrote the information. They said that protection against infection dropped from 88% to 47%, but we know that is a blatant misrepresentation of what their product can do because that is in terms of relative risk reduction. What they should have said was that the absolute risk reduction of becoming infected after vaccination fell from 0.77% to 0.42%. In other words, after 5 months, there was only a 0.42% reduction in the chances of becoming infected if an individual were vaccinated.
Less than four months after Pfizer made these statements to the FDA and convinced them to green-light boosters in the US, the world found out from the Israelis that the fourth….yes, you read that correctly… the FOURTH Pfizer dose was insufficient to ward off Omicron (Figure 3):
Using the Israeli Ministry of Health’s own data, the deaths per million is currently at 5 per day in Israel, up from next to nothing at the start of January 2021 and approaching the record rate of 6.98 per million the country recorded at the peak of the alpha wave.”
Of the 822 deaths recorded since January 2021, we know that 293 were unvaccinated.
But don’t worry. The failure of the vaccines won’t deter the US government. The FDA just fully approved Moderna’s Spikevax product and shortened the interval for the booster dose to five months. Up until February 11, 2022, they planned to meet to discuss emergency use authorization for under 5 year old’s to take a two-shot Pfizer series even though clinical trials last fall showed that the low doses of the vaccine failed to generate protection in kids aged 2-5. But on February 11, 2022, Pfizer announced that they will delay completing their request for the FDA to authorize their coronavirus vaccine for children under five years old, because there’s not enough data on the efficacy of the third shot. This is probably because they do not generate protection for anyone! What a great example of ethical, evidence-based recommendations that continue to be carried out by these authorities (insert sarcasm).
But as the public remains hypnotized, Pfizer started additional clinical trials for an Omicron-specific COVID-19 vaccine with around 1,400 participants and plans to roll out the vaccines mid-March. We presume the company will go through the proper safety steps and government approvals even though the release will be at least a month after the Omicron surge has passed and most everyone has conferred immunity. Pfizer continues to work on this new variant specific vaccine “at-risk” even though US officials said in December 2021 press briefing that a variant-specific vaccine isn’t necessary right now. So why continue to develop products when the boosters work? Despite the failures seen in Israel and less than two months after they told the American people that a fourth-dose boost wouldn’t be necessary, the same US officials changed their tune. Dr. Anthony Fauci told reporters in a February 9, 2022 press briefing that,
There may be the need for yet again another boost — in this case, a fourth-dose boost for an individual receiving the mRNA — that could be based on age, as well as underlying conditions.”
Apparently, the vaccine-train keeps rolling.
A recent publication in the European Journal of Epidemiology analyzed world wide data to study the relationship between vaccination rates and case rates to quantify the trends that concerned citizens and alternative news outlets had been reporting (Figure 4). The paper found that the higher the vaccination rate, the higher the case load. The four highest transmission counties within the United States had roughly 90% vaccination rates, whereas 57 counties classified as low transmission by the CDC had vaccination rates less than 20%. They provide the data that shows Israel, a highly vaccinated country, had the highest COVID-19 cases per million people in the world, and that Iceland and Portugal showed the same high case rate with high vaccination rate. On the contrary, countries such as Vietnam and South Africa reported low case rates with less than 10% vaccinated at the time of analysis. The paper recommends not relying solely on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and suggest other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. We agree!
After this peer-reviewed paper was published, it was clear that the higher caseload in the higher vaxxed population was not an isolated phenomenon, as the trend ubiquitously spread throughout the world—except apparently in the US. Lest you not believe this 10,000 foot view, the UK country-specific data in Figure 5 shows this trend within two, 4-week periods (weeks 46-49 in 2021 and week 50 in 2021 to week 1 in 2022). Not only do the vaccinated have higher case rates than the unvaccinated in most age groups, but those case rates increased month over month. This viewpoint allowed us to start to see what a shift to Omicron looked like. The first obvious point is that the cases per 100,000 went up significantly from one month to the next. The second is that cases are far worse in the vaccinated in nearly every age category.
To make this easier to visualize, we can look at a risk ratio by dividing cases per 100,000 among the vaccinated by cases per 100,000 among the unvaccinated and any number over 1 shows that the vaccine group has a higher risk. For example, 1.5 = 50% higher cases in the vaccinated, etc. (Figure 6)
In Figure 6 the risk ratio was >1 in the vaccinated for all groups except for <18 years old and >70 and 80 years old for weeks 46-49. The risk got markedly worse in every group by weeks 50 and 51 and exceeded 1 in all age classes. This data would allow individuals to state we are in a “pandemic of the vaccinated.” What about when the data are split out over the number of vaccinations a person has injected into their body (Figure 7)? Figure 7 is the case rate by vaccination status. The vaccine is clearly failing and is consistent with Omicron being not only a vaccine escape variant, but one that preferentially infects the vaccinated.
The data provided is evidence that the entire world witnessed huge increases in case rates among the vaccinated, but the United States continues to insist that we are in a pandemic of the unvaccinated. There is a simple answer as to why this narrative remains:
The CDC does not track breakthrough cases in the vaccinated!
For some unknown reason, our CDC stopped tracking breakthrough cases in May of 2021. While the UK and many other countries meticulously tracked the relevant data to better understand how vaccines and natural immunity work for this particular coronavirus and its variants. Why is it that the United States simply refuses to collect the data on the vaccinated, but they are more than happy to collect infection data within the unvaccinated population? Remember, our government agencies also refused to collect the data on reinfections and transmission potential of those individuals who had a primary natural infection and remained unvaccinated. The government’s cronies also ran the cycle threshold of the PCR tests at different levels for the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated. This lack of accurate data collection makes it exceptionally difficult to create effective public policy rooted in science; but maybe that’s the point. Lack of better data could be a reason why the US remains asleep while other nations worldwide are protesting for freedom like the Canadian Trucker Convoy, and France, Germany, UK, Netherlands, etc. Repeat after us, “when all mandates die, the USA and Oklahoma will fly.” Although it may take years to recover.
The reason it is important to track breakthrough cases is so we can provide actual data to the public instead of biased data that skews the out-of-hospital reported cases toward the unvaccinated. This marginalizes the unvaccinated, heightens fear, and makes it look as if the unvaccinated cases are the lion’s share, when in fact, they probably are not. Unfortunately, the US governmental agencies lost and continue to lose the opportunity to really understand the impact of the illness and the vaccines. If vaccination is the only way to end this crisis, data collection is one way to improve the “vaccines.” But instead of making decisions based on sound science, they simply recommended a booster shot of the same original formulation and allowed individuals to mix manufacturers without any safety data, hoping it would work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. As expected, that first booster (third shot) did not work, just as the Israelis found out with their 2nd booster (4th shot). Our sincerest hope is that the US has figured out that the shots are not working, but if the latest amendments to the EUA’s and February 9, 2022 press briefing are any indication, we highly doubt it.
At some point, government officials and leaders will have to answer questions about the unprecedented vaccine campaign for an illness with an overall survivability rate of 99.7% across all demographics and all medical histories. This is especially true given that we know there is a much higher risk of severe adverse effects from the vaccine than there is from contracting the illness (see Chapters 10, 11 and 12). As evidenced above, we also know that vaccinated individuals get infected preferentially (negative efficacy or relative risk reduction above 100%) and transmit the virus at the same rate that unvaccinated people do. In addition, those with convalescent immunity from a prior infection have been shown to have superior protection than the vaccine, that now even the CDC admits, and so creating two warring classes of unvaccinated and vaccinated makes no sense.
Vaccination is NOT the way “out of this pandemic.” We have a less severe variant with many safe and effective antivirals and nutraceuticals to use. With new data everyday showing breakthrough cases (vaccine failure) and lower efficacy (relative risk reduction) in vaccines than what was originally assumed, why would we subject our children, who have a 99.997% survivability rate and generally get very mild cases if infection, to an experimental new technology that has millions of reported adverse effects and is now proven to NOT prevent infection?
At the current time, and according to the experts, the failed vaccines only prevent individuals from severe disease and death. At this point individuals should not care about another individual’s vaccination status; it becomes a treatment protocol that an individual chooses to take in with hopes that it will mitigate their own severe outcomes. There is NO reason to impose lockdowns or require “papers” to fully engage with society. Why not require, instead, Vitamin D and Zinc levels, some sort of obesity value and proof of consistent and adequate movement and exercise? Imagine if the U.S. government or Oklahoma required individuals to show proof of consistent exercising. Now that would start some protests!
But was the sudden pivot in mid-2021 due to overwhelming real-life data that would justify the narrative change? Why did we shift from “we now know that vaccines can’t protect you from infection or transmission” to “we still believe they protect you from severe disease and death?” Is it actually true that these shots protect individuals from severe disease and death?
Protection against Hospitalization and Death
The international data regarding caseloads, hospitalizations and deaths are seemingly opposite of what the United States’ government, via Main Stream Media (MSM) and Big Tech are telling us. We keep hearing about a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” but the data we’ve presented discredits the narrative. While unvaccinated people (who have never had a prior infection of Covid and never been vaccinated) may become sick, they do not seem to be ending up in the hospital at the rates claimed by the media and proven false by the CDC’s own data (certainly not 99% as the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative parroted). It seems specific timeframes were collected to achieve those statistics as the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January 2021 through June 2021. It does not include more recent data or data related to the Delta or Omicron variant. The problem with the prior analysis was the fact that most of the United States population was unvaccinated during that time frame and the caseloads were at their peak.
This kind of rhetoric and false narrative induces fear and drives compliance as well as divides people who do not take the time to read the science. Contrary to popular belief this event is not about the “vaccinated” versus the “unvaccinated” as both groups have been represented in the hospital setting, and both have succumbed to the illness. A small number of severe cases have warranted hospitalizations, but this number is closer to 50-50 between vaccinated and unvaccinated, and because of age stratification, we know that most serious cases were found in the elderly who were vaccinated. How is it possible to explain how other countries are seeing a scientifically different result than the United States in their population to the same “variant?”
When Delta was the focal point in mid-summer of 2021, it proved less severe than Alpha, albeit more transmissible; meaning that people (even fully vaccinated people) may have contracted this variant strain, but it was typically less severe. In fact, the UK put out a report that showed the Delta variant had a case-load fatality rate LESS than the common flu! The case fatality rate (CFR) in the UNVACCINATED population was 0.1% and the VACCINATED was 0.2%, (see Table 4 Tech Briefing 16 here: June 2021, 37 deaths out of 17,642 vaccinated and 34 deaths out of 35,521 unvaccinated). All of the technical briefings are found here, and here. They switched the location to here after mid-September. Now all the data is split over 8 age groups (instead of 2) and four tables instead of one. As mentioned in previous chapters, please bookmark these data locations as the British do an acceptable job of presenting the data clearly and the UK is typically 4-6 weeks ahead in terms of coronavirus trends. These reports are an indication of what is to come to the United States, which is good news, because on January 19th, 2022, Boris Johnson announced an end to all Covid-19 passes, mandatory wearing of face masks, and guidance to work from home.
Initially, this low case fatality rate of Delta was excellent news because the virus was acting like other coronaviruses – where each mutation and variant becomes less severe until an endemic phase is reached, like the common cold. As we entered the fall, however, the case fatality rate of Delta began to climb in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated (Figure 8).
Were leaky vaccines driving Delta variant evolution and making it more deadly? Some researchers postulate that the rising CFR was due to vaccine mediated evolution (VME), where the virus chooses nastier strains because vaccinated people can carry and spread them without being hospitalized or dying. From this CFR data, it does not look like Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) or Original Antigenic Sin (OAS) was to blame, because logically, the CFR would rise only in the vaccinated but not the unvaccinated, and in this case, both are moving similarly. ADE is the phenomenon that researchers discovered in animal testing with vaccines for SARS in 2003 and its manifestation is why all other vaccines manufactured to stop corona viruses throughout history have failed. We talk more about these theories in the next section.
If we look at the number of deaths across all age brackets by vaccination status, we see that the double vaxxed death numbers are a problem, as we discussed in Chapter 10 (Figure 9). When adjusting these numbers per population, you can see that the death rates show the double vaccinated worse off than the unvaccinated in the 60+ cohort and roughly matching the unvaccinated in the 50-59 age group (Figure 10). The death rates below 50 years old are negligible, although in the 50-59 age group, the unvaccinated have a slightly higher death rate than the doubly vaccinated.
Why do double vaccinated individuals have a higher death rate than those not vaccinated? Could part of the reason be how deaths are defined? Remember that any death within 14 days of the third dose would count as a death of the double-vaccinated. Furthermore, we know that the shot suppresses the immune system for at least 14 days post-inoculation. By encouraging booster shots while in the midst of a surge that preferentially targets the vaccinated, public health officials made our most vulnerable even more vulnerable.
If it was the intent of the public health officials to keep their populations as safe as possible while still promoting the “vaccinate every human on earth” mantra, the narrative should have been “wait until the surge is over before getting another shot.
Even back in July of 2021, the UK was reporting hospital admissions for the virus which consisted of 808 (55.1%) unvaccinated cases with 512 (34.9%) fully vaccinated (two-dose) patients. Then, the August 6th, 2021 UK variants of concern report was released and revealed that 54% of COVID deaths were among the fully vaccinated.
In September of 2021 the UK’s data on Covid-19 hospitalizations and deaths showed that “Britain has recorded one of the highest COVID death tolls in the world for its population size and one of the deepest recessions of wealthy nations as a result of the pandemic, but also has one of the world’s highest vaccination rates.”………. “While 81.3% of people over 16 have received two vaccine doses, there are currently 8,340 COVID-19 patients in hospitals in Britain, compared to just 1,066 a year ago.” Why? Clearly something is going on with the vaccines and the immune system and it isn’t positive. People are sicker now than they were without the COVID-19 shots.
You can clearly see that this trend in vaccinated versus unvaccinated deaths in the UK has not changed in six months (Figure 9). While relatively small overall, the deaths were higher in the individuals vaccinated with two vaccinations (which could mean within the 14-day window of receiving a booster). If you’re infected with Covid-19 after having been vaccinated, according to this data, you are much more likely to die than if you were not vaccinated! Obviously, some allowance must be made for elderly people being vaccinated, but not enough to change the bottom line: these shots are not as effective at preventing severe outcomes as advertised.
The daily death count from Covid-19 in the UK steadily rose since mid-2021 despite having more than 80%+ fully vaccinated in adults above age 16 (Figure 11). But remember, the experts tell us that the vaccines are still very effective against serious illness and death. Really?
Across the English channel, as discussed in Chapter 10, Public Health Scotland also had much higher case rates in the single, double and triple vaxxed than the unvaccinated, and has increased hospitalizations and deaths through the Omicron wave (Figure 12). Beware of the extremely low numbers, especially in the singly vaxxed.
These increases in death rates in the vaccinated have been persistent since the third Covid-19 wave that began in July of 2021 in Scotland. Official data on hospitalizations and deaths showed roughly 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 were vaccinated. In addition to these Covid-19 deaths, the number of deaths from all causes registered in Scotland in a week in September was 1,257 or 25% more than the five year average.
Deaths from all causes were 25% higher than the five-year average. There has been a sustained period of excess deaths, with registered deaths above the five-year average in each week since week 21 (24th to 30th May).”
But even excluding those, non-Covid deaths are running more than 10% above normal – as they did all summer and fall up until the end of 2021, at which point they started to equalize (Figure 13).
Even in the U.S., we found evidence of fully vaccinated deaths; although the CDC holds no official central repository of this data. Illinois health officials announced that more than 160 fully-vaccinated people died of Covid-19 and at least 644 had been hospitalized as of July 2021. A transmission event with the Delta variant in Houston among fully vaccinated people resulted in one death. If you search for information on fully vaccinated deaths from COVID-19 at the CDC or any other government health agency, you won’t find anything as of February 1st, 2021. Even if you search individual state’s health departments, you won’t find this information for most states. Why not? Our elected leaders should be demanding this data be collected and reported in a transparent manner, but for two years, the public has been kept in the dark. These vaccinated covid deaths along with the increasing all-cause mortality across the US that we reported on in Chapter 11, helps explain why Matthews International Corp, a leading manufacturer in caskets, memorials, and funeral home items, had a full-year sales increase of 17.2% in 2021.
As the first country to achieve widespread coverage by the vaccine, Israel’s daily case numbers have reached new record levels as the Omicron variant penetrates the “vaccines” protection – penetrates up to FOUR doses of protection (Figure 14). Not only have their case numbers skyrocketed, but Covid-19 deaths have hit an all-time daily high on February 4, 2022, despite 95% of adults over 50 being vaccinated and 85% receiving at least one booster. Pandemic of the unvaccinated? How can anyone view these charts as evidence of anything except, at best, complete vaccine failure and at worst evidence that the mRNA gene therapies are interacting with Omicron in a way that is worsening outcomes.
But Israel has been plagued with seriously ill vaccinated covid-19 patients since the beginning. A paper in Eurosurveillance studied a Covid-19 outbreak in an Israeli hospital in July 2021 that shows despite a 96% vaccination rate (238 out of 248 of exposed patients and staff had been fully vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine) and despite a universal masking policy, (all patients and staff were required to wear surgical masks when they were in the same room, and staff on the Covid-19 unit wore N95 masks and face shields), 39 out of the 238 exposed vaccinated people (16 percent) were infected, along with 2 out of 10 unvaccinated people. Most significantly, five patients died and another nine had severe or critical cases. All were vaccinated. The two unvaccinated infected patients both had mild cases. The researchers conclude that…
This communication… challenges the assumption that high universal vaccination rates will lead to herd immunity and prevent COVID-19 outbreaks… In the outbreak described here, 96.2% of the exposed population was vaccinated. Infection advanced rapidly (many cases became symptomatic within 2 days of exposure), and viral load was high.”
Israeli data has shown since mid-2021 that at least half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated, 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations were among the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated also accounted for 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients.
Interestingly, their country’s death increases correspond with each dose of their vaccine rollout. And yet, they continue to vaccinate. For example, the first Pfizer jab was given in December 2020 and the first booster was available July 29, 2021. The second booster series (4th shot) started Friday, December 31st, 2021. Map those dates with Figure 14 and see for yourself. Right after they introduced each shot series, the deaths increased rapidly. Coincidence? How many booster shots will people let governments mandate before they begin to question the increased case rates and death rates after each subsequent shot? Is this why Pfizer added language warnings of “unfavorable clinical or clinical safety data” within their Q4 disclosures? Slipping in language like this could be bad for business especially as investors take notice! But what did the FDA and WHO disclose about booster shots?
Officials from the FDA and WHO collaborated on a peer-reviewed paper that was published in the Lancet in September 2021 and found no evidence to suggest that the general population needs a Covid-19 injection booster shot. The authors revealed that booster shots could lead to more harmful side effects in the general population and concluded that,
There could be risks if boosters are widely introduced too soon, or too frequently, especially with vaccines that can have immune-mediated side-eﬀects (such as myocarditis, which is more common after the second dose of some mRNA vaccines, or Guillain-Barre syndrome, which has been associated with adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines).”
Given the statement above, and intelligibly listening to this scientific advice, on September 17th, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met and voted 16-2 against approving booster doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for all adults ages 16 and over but recommended boosters for those at high risk for serious illness and people over the age of 65. The FDA took their Advisory Committee’s advice and amended the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine on September 22, 2021 to allow for use of a single booster dose to be administered at least 6 months after completion of the primary series in individuals 65 years and older, individual 18-64 at high risk of severe covid-19 and whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications. However, on November 19th, despite warnings from their own peer-viewed paper and the vote of the Advisory committee, the FDA amended the EUA to allow the use of a single booster to ALL individuals over the age of 18. So much for science.
- On December 9, 2021, the FDA amended the EUA to authorize the use of a single booster dose to individuals 16 and 17 years of age.
- On January 3, 2022 the FDA amended their EUA yet again to allow booster shots to be given to 12-15 year old’s, shorten the time between completion of the primary vaccination and booster to five months and allow for a 3rd primary series dose for certain immunocompromised children 5-11 years of age.
What’s next on the approval and amended list? Clearly Big Pharma isn’t ready to give up the cash grab. Will a 2nd booster shot of the variant specific type be approved and required to be considered fully vaccinated? Yes, we think so.
On February 11, 2021, the CDC published a research study suggesting that a fourth-dose boost may be necessary to prevent severe disease in adults and Dr. Fauci previewed those research findings in a press brief on February 9, 2022. The study showed that protection against emergency department and urgent care visits dropped to 66 percent within four or five months, and to just 31 percent after five or more months of receiving the third shot, the researchers found. But those are relative risk reductions right? So let’s put them into an absolute risk reduction format to follow the mandatory FDA reporting rules that apparently Big Pharma and the government medical administrators refuse to use. In Pfizer’s Phase 3 clinical trial, there were ten severe cases; 9/18,325 in the placebo arm and 1/18,198 in drug arm. Therefore, their Phase 3 clinical trial showed an 89% efficacy, or relative risk reduction, in preventing severe disease. That equates to an Absolute Risk Reduction of only 0.04%. They pushed this vaccine incessantly for a risk reduction in severe outcomes of 0.04%? But now, they say the efficacy against severe disease is down to 31% five months post third-dose booster. That means that the absolute risk reduction went from a mere 0.04% to 0.02%!
The absolute risk reduction of severe disease five months after the third-dose boost is just 0.02%.
Less than one-tenth of one percent reduction of severe outcomes after the third-dose boost? That is rapidly nearly a zero benefit. Yet, they want to recommend a fourth-dose booster? The Israeli’s just proved that even a fourth-dose booster doesn’t work (Figure 3), so what are we doing? Apparently not following sound scientific principles or common sense, but definitely making Big Pharma, big money.
Will three doses of mRNA gene therapies be available for 0-5 year old’s eventually? We are confident the “vaccine” manufacturers have been working on new concoctions that will omit all ingredients upon approval. In fact, Pfizer recently announced their variant specific vaccine will be ready for deployment (if it passes its 1400 person safety trial) about a month after the Omicron variant has peaked.
Surprisingly, on February 4, 2022, less than one month after they SHORTENED the primary to booster timeline, the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel endorsed elongating the time between primary mRNA doses from 21 days (Pfizer) and 28 days (Moderna) to 8 weeks in healthy children and adult groups due to concerns over increased risk of cardiac events. Did the FDA coronavirus update on June 25th, 2021 not provide enough information to the CDC about cardiac concerns? They literally added a warning to the fact sheet! Instead, it took the vaccine advisory panel reviewing data from Canada and England, which have both extended the interval, to suggest that the extended time period between the first and second doses increased vaccine effectiveness and lowered rates of myocarditis and pericarditis. As of February 12th, 2022, the CDC has not yet decided whether to accept its advisory panel’s recommendation. We are not surprised! Perhaps the CDC should recommend not giving ANY doses of the vaccine until further research is completed!
It is troubling though, that it took the United States of America so long to acknowledge and react to the large number of healthy individuals who suddenly suffer from cardiac issues and other adverse events after the second primary dose. And it is troubling that we keep waiting on other countries instead of looking at our own pharmacovigilance data and making decisions based on our own glaringly obvious safety signals. While our international community has basically removed the vaccination schedule completely for those healthy individuals 30 years old and under due to the increased risk of severe cardiac events, the US still continues to recommend the shots for all Americans 5 and older asserting that the vaccines prevent more hospitalizations than the heart inflammation cases they cause.
Clearly these vaccines do not work. In the past month we have witnessed record cases, ICU admissions and deaths in Israel, higher case rates in vaccinated than unvaccinated, unexplainable excess mortality and vaccinated individuals who continually become reinfected. When analyzing the data, all highly vaccinated countries are worse off now than they were without the vaccines. Why anyone would continue to agree to take these injections in perpetuity is perplexing, especially in the pediatric population. Even the WHO agrees that the booster mania should stop. On January 11, 2022 the WHO Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-Co-VAC) released a statement that said,
With near- and medium-term supply of the available vaccines, the need for equity in access to vaccines across countries to achieve global public health goals, programmatic considerations including vaccine demand, and evolution of the virus, a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.”
In Australia, apparently our globe’s newest totalitarian country, the deaths per day (Figure 15) have well exceeded any previous peak despite the complete lockdowns, masking, and quarantine concentration camps. The Australian government has openly coerced and discriminated against the unvaccinated to “succeed” in achieving a 93.6% vaccination compliance rate in citizens aged 16 and over. Those figures effectively represent full vaccination. Back in July 2021, reports surfaced that all but one person hospitalized for COVID-19 was vaccinated (watch the video within the link). Australia is currently showing similar numbers. It reported that in the week ended Jan. 1, 2022, 22 people who died of Covid were fully vaccinated (65%), compared to only 7 who were unvaccinated (5 others were partially vaccinated or had an undetermined status) (see Table 6). They also reported that 71.4% of all cases were fully vaccinated and the number of hospitalizations and admissions to ICU and death is greater among the fully vaccinated. Australians were not only sold a vaccine that does not work, they gave up their rights in the process. We wonder—would Australians like to reconsider their decision to give up their fire-arms?
In the United States, once the vaccination campaign started, accurate data discredited the narrative but required individuals to search far and wide to find that data, since it was not reported on by any mainstream media outlet. For example, in Vermont, the data collected showed that 24% of hospitalized patients and 76% of deaths (25/33) were fully vaccinated in September of 2021 and still to this day (February, 2022), Vermont, over 92% vaccinated, has high numbers of hospitalizations and deaths among the fully vaccinated (Figure 16). These trends exist in many other states.
Perhaps most important though is the need for individuals to recognize how much data has been manipulated. What pains researchers the most is the fact that we may never know the true numbers of any COVID-19 specific parameter given the scale of the criminal behavior. While the election fraud was referred to as death by a thousand cuts, the Covid-19 fraud should be referred to as death by millions of shots. It seems as if we see additional whistleblowers continuing to come forward weekly. Most recently on February 9th, 2022 a whistleblower from Hawaii, Abrien Aguirre, discussed how medical facilities committed fraud for profit in three different Covid-19 units. There has also been additional leaked information that continues to crush the Main Stream Media narrative from attorneys like Thomas Renz and Michael Yoder.
Attorney Thomas Renz published leaked Medicare Data in the fall of 2021 that showed “As the Delta variant became predominant, COVID-19 cases increased five-fold in the [over-65] population,” the report states. “In this 80% 65+ population, an estimated 60% of COVID-19 hospitalizations occurred in fully vaccinated individuals in the week ending August 7th.” The “fully vaccinated” also made up more than 71 percent of COVID-19 cases as of August 21, 2021, according to the presentation, which was published online by the analytics firm Humetrix, a Project Salus partner. Anecdotal evidence was also provided to show the great results of Ivermectin and HCQ (and how cheap they are) but how the US won’t use them… unless you are vaccinated. “The nurses revealed to me that patients that are vaccinated are getting Ivermectin, which is proven to heal people. But if you are unvaccinated, they put you on Remdesivir in the hopes that you will die” said Attorney Thomas Renz. Clearly this entire two-year crisis has NOTHING to do with science.
Decline in Vaccine Efficacy, Vaccine Spoilage or Vaccine Mediated Evolution (VME) or Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE)?
It should be quite apparent from the data presented that the higher the vaccination coverage of a country, the higher the number of cases. If vaccines were working correctly, the opposite would be true; the higher the vaccination uptake, the lower the case rate. This is unfortunate for those that believed the vaccines were the key to “stop the spread” and return to normal, as the majority of the illness around the world is within the vaccinated population. Even more unfortunate is that a percentage of those in the hospital who have died have been vaccinated; clearly vaccine “efficacy” quickly fell off the original 95% mark, for both transmission and infection, but also for protection against severe outcomes. But why? Are these severe outcomes due to age and health status or antibody dependent enhancement, vaccine mediated evolution or something else? Are the vaccines not equipped to work against variants? Is the vaccine encouraging original antigenic sin? Would it not be prudent to pause and figure out the issue before we keep recommending more of the same “vaccines”?
Dr. Noorchasm thinks that all vaccinations should be followed up with an antibody test to ensure the vaccine worked. (Video). However, the Government is ACTIVELY discouraging the testing, saying that “antibody testing is not effective in determining immunity among the vaccinated.” Why? Dr. Noorchasm fails, for some reason, to mention testing for T- and B- cell immunity. He thinks there is a significant failure rate in the vaccination program, to the tune of 20-25% spoilage which is why we are seeing so many breakthrough cases. He also believes that convalescent immune people should NOT be vaccinated and that there is not a “one-size-fits-all” approach to stopping this pandemic. However, he is playing both sides as he fails to acknowledge breakthrough cases may be caused by ADE and he fails to acknowledge that the vaccination program may be contributing to spinning off variants. We do not necessarily agree that the breakthrough cases are caused by ineffective vaccines, but it is one hypothesis that needs to be explored along with many others.
What if the vaccines were simply made to control the original coronavirus strain and could not handle any variants, no matter how similar they were in the phylogenetic tree? Why have we seen so many variants in such a short time? Most of the time, viruses mutate into LESS severe strains until we get to the common cold. We are not done with variants until the powers to be say we are! Omicron being the latest variant to sweep across the globe with Omicron BA.2 apparently coming soon. Some say that our mass vaccination for a coronavirus with animal reservoirs is probably responsible for pushing out major variants at an unprecedented rate. They call that antigenic drift, vaccine mediated evolution (VME) or the Marek Effect, when a “leaky” or “not entirely effective” vaccine causes adaptation of the virus, making it more pathogenetic.
It seems very plausible that mass vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and the rise of the Delta variant were related; we aren’t so sure about Omicron as discussed in Chapter 9, although it is interesting that Omicron seemed to preferentially target the vaccinated. Is this because there is something in the vaccine that increases infection rates? Omicron could have very well been mutating for over a year in an animal reservoir before hopping back to humans, although it also could have been intentionally released. You should ask yourself why heavily vaccinated countries like Israel, UK and Scotland (and states like Hawaii and Vermont) have seen such a surge in cases. In Scotland, vaccinated people were found to be more than twice as likely to be infected with Omicron as the unvaccinated – and people who have received a booster are 30 percent more likely.
It is important to realize that Omicron is more or less serving as a live attenuated vaccine, and that this is a unique opportunity. Because Omicron was able to free up the sterilizing capacity within the vaccinated, thanks to the increased level of resistance of Omicron to the vaccine antibodies that are no longer capable of outcompeting the innate antibodies, we may have a unique opportunity to achieve herd immunity. It becomes, therefore, important that we leave people alone, and that we leave the children alone. We shouldn’t vaccinate against this Omicron variant, and we shouldn’t have lockdowns to stop the spread. We argue that we shouldn’t have vaccinated against the entire coronavirus and it would have most likely become endemic much sooner with slower moving variants.
Even before Omicron, in the midst of the Delta surge, a California study found that vaccinated individuals are more susceptible to COVID variant infections than unvaccinated (see Figure 17). In addition, the increase in the frequency of more antibody-resistant strains in the population correlates with the increase in the frequency of vaccination in the population. They conclude “that selection pressure in a highly vaccinated community (>71% fully vaccinated as of early August 2021) favors more infectious, antibody-resistant VOCs such as the gamma and delta variants, and that high-titer symptomatic post-vaccination infections may be a contributor to viral spread. Concerns have also been raised regarding waning immunity resulting in decreased effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing symptomatic infection over time.”
This is why vaccinating into a virus with animal reservoirs is not a good idea because a virus with animal reservoirs means that the disease has a zoonotic (animal) origin and can jump from animal to human and back to animal again in an endless cycle (eg., Study 1, Study 2, Study 3, Study 4, Study 5). How significant are the selective pressures of these different host environments on the evolution of the virus? Is this something to be concerned about?
Given the fact that we are now dealing with a number of variants and sub-variants that are circulating and that infection rates went through the roof, and that we already have a number of animal populations that are serving as a reservoir for the virus, the likelihood that viral variants are now recombining and building reassortments within one and the same host is probable. This means “that it will become increasingly difficult to trace the origin of new variants, and that it will be even more challenging to predict the characteristics of those new variants in terms of infectiousness, in terms of virulence, pathogenicity, and also in terms of resistance to vaccinal antibodies or to vaccines in general.” (Video here). Because of these animal reservoirs, we will never rid the earth of SARS-CoV-2, but we can stop vaccinating and hope it keeps attenuating toward a less transmissible common cold. In the meantime, we can treat our COVID-19 patients with appropriate early treatment options and keep them out of the hospital.
Not only can vaccines put pressure on the virus to mutate faster, or show evolutionary escape, into hotter strains, it can put pressure on the body to react more violently to a wild virus when exposed after vaccination. All the previous corona virus vaccination trials that were conducted on animals (e.g., mice), resulted in death of the animal after exposure to the wild virus, so ADE is a valid concern in humans. They’ve documented ADE caused by vaccines in other diseases, like Dengue (and here and here, a comparison with SARS-CoV-2) and Measles and RSV. If you are interested, here’s a good summary article of ADE and corona viruses and by the way… it seems possible that people who have survived a natural infection from Covid may be at risk for ADE down the line with a future strain of the virus, so this is something our research community needs to continue to investigate.
The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE (e.g., Study 1 and Study 2) should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.
Dr. Malone discusses the dangers of Antibody Dependent Enhancement, vaccine efficacy, viral loads in the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated and the significant adverse effects due to the Spike in the injection. In that video, Dr. Malone says that,
[The push to vaccinate every single human on Earth] is the great paradox that fuels my angst; it is irrational, it doesn’t make good sense in terms of public policy, it doesn’t make good sense in terms of medical management, and there is this stack of ‘this just doesn’t make sense cards’ that are this high. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life, in terms of the propaganda and information and messaging control, globally, during an infectious outbreak.”
Do we look at excess deaths of vaccinated people to decide if it is related to ADE? How do we determine that it is actually ADE and not waning vaccine efficiency or incomplete immunity?
And what if it turns out that all the serious breakthrough cases, the ones that end up in hospital or death, are due to ADE? Then what do we do?
Remember our discussion on Original Antigenic Sin (OAS)? A new paper shows that OAS plays a big role in the virus infecting so many of the vaccinated. They show that the mRNA jabs hamper the immune response to new variants. The research presented also destroys comforting fictions about the mRNA shots, including that the body quickly destroys the genetic material in the jabs – as narrative pushers have long insisted. They found vaccine mRNA in the germinal centers of lymph nodes for 60 days after the shots (as long as they checked). They also found spike protein in the blood following mRNA shots at levels as high as those produced by coronavirus infection itself. Vaccine advocates have generally argued that those proteins remain bound to the cells where they were produced. The persistence of the spike and mRNA in the body for so long may help explain the huge numbers of reported vaccine adverse events.
Throughout this world event, we have remained committed to exploring science from as many angles as possible. Because of this, we should not ignore theories that have surfaced and could help explain how illness presents itself in individuals. A more recent theory from Spanish researchers has evolved with evidence to suggest that the human body can be impacted by electromagnetic frequencies found within our everyday environment (cell phones, microwaves, 5g towers, etc). While viral and germ theory is critical to the Covid-19 narrative, especially in light of the gain-of-function research with involvement from our universities and government officials, the impact of radiation and electromagnetic frequencies on the human body is an area that cannot be ignored. This is especially true because we know that lipid nanoparticles were utilized to deliver mRNA throughout the body in the vaccines. These lipid nanoparticles can include the use of graphene oxide, aluminum, titanium and other metallic substances. News articles from MSM reflected government outrage when individuals were destroying 5g towers and arguing that it was linked to illness and Covid-19. These individuals were called “conspiracy theorists.” We’ve heard that narrative before. If the future proves the past, and truth always prevails, we will probably learn about the validity of this theory in the future.
Ricardo Delgado Martin, founder of La Quinta Columna (The Fifth Column) is certainly at the forefront of this research. His group shared their findings on The Jerusalem Report with Ilana Rachel Daniel last week, and Dr. Jayne wrote about the report here. In this specific episode, the researcher disclosed what they found within the “vaccine” vials – graphene oxide as well as micro-technology found in the Pfizer vaccine after evaporation of the hydrogel. While the scientists have only explored a handful of vials, it is important for other scientists around the world to either confirm, or discredit the findings. This may prove to be difficult given the variance that exists between the shot manufacturers and the products they’ve injected into humans (see “How Bad is my Batch” for evidence as it contains data on 5000 of the most toxic batches by brand).
This compilation of scientific papers (bibliography in Spanish) discuss graphene oxide effects in the body, which shows evidence of the need for further scientific inquiry. While we will not go into depth about this phenomenon, it does remain peculiar especially as aviation experts and others have recently complained about the number of 5g towers and their ability to interfere with flight. This complaint from these experts was clearly serious enough that the White House delayed the rollout. Is it possible that 5g testing, upon activation, emits electromagnetic radiation that can poison individuals? Is it possible that the frequency and strength associated with the radiation can produce various symptoms much like that of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy? Could the graphene oxide or metallic specimens utilized in lipid nanoparticles react negatively to the frequencies, causing illness in the vaccinated at a higher rate than the unvaccinated? These questions should be explored and experts should be questioned about their validity.
The FDA/CDC/NIAID/NIH, etc., have already made it clear that they will not listen to anyone except Big Pharma, especially when almost all the officials approving the vaccines are receiving significant annual patent royalties under 15 U.S. Code 3710C (rate of at least 15% of what the US government receives for the licensee, capped at $150K/year/patent payable until death). For a 20-year patent, this could equate to $3M per scientist/patent. How is this not a conflict of interest? We find this especially egregious since these officials are using millions of taxpayer federal reserve notes to fund drug testing on patients and clinical trial participants. Were these financial interests disclosed to patients being recruited as test subjects? The scope of ethical and legal violations and corrupt human recruitment practices by researchers at America’s premier medical research institutions are akin to a mile-wide, slow moving F5 Tornado. They are destroying everything in their path as the public distrust is severed. Self-regulation and peer review have proven to be as reliable at ensuring ethical and scientific integrity as expecting the Mafia to vouch for the honesty of one of its own. How do we fix this broken system?
Can we convince our elected officials to pass a law with penalties to fit the crime, like the Sarbanes Oxley Law, written to protect investors from fraudulent financial reporting by corporations? Do we have an external enforcement mechanism, like a “corrupt science practice” division at the Department of Justice to keep scientists honest? Scratch that. The DOJ is completely corrupt too. What about effective whistleblower protection laws? The more we think about ways in which to prevent any of this nonsense from happening again, the more we realize that we must remove the majority of government officials and rebuild the system using constitutional principles. We dismantled the US constitution over the last half century which allowed the federal government to become much too powerful and entrenched in ways our framers never imagined. How do we, within the current system, take the power back? Is this even a possibility? Are we to vote for the person that is most likely to take power away from the government, regardless of party, and defend the rights of the people? This cannot happen until we figure out how to stop rigged elections. Some will argue that it’s not possible at all. But we digress.
What we know from this chapter is:
- We MUST continue to challenge those in power with linguistic and mathematical understanding.
- The definitions of Vaccine Efficacy/Vaccine Effectiveness & Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) versus Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) requires strict scrutiny from experts to clarify the details to the public.
- Vaccine Efficacy, using Relative Risk Reduction calculations, has plummeted since the first clinical trial. Vaccine Efficacy, using Absolute Risk Reduction, would have best informed the public of the risks associated with taking the inoculations.
- The term breakthrough cases should be replaced with “vaccine failure.”
- Our government institutions stopped tracking breakthrough cases in May of 2021.
- International and domestic hospitalizations and deaths of the vaccinated have risen substantially as the shots do not pass established safety thresholds for use in humans, nor do they protect from infection, transmission, or severe symptoms.
- The Absolute Risk Reduction of severe outcomes five months after the third-dose boost is less than one tenth of one percent (0.02%).
- The theories of vaccine spoilage, vaccine mediated evolution (VME), antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), Original Antigenic Sin (OAS) and the use of metallic lipid nanoparticles in the vaccine all warrant further inquiry from the scientific community.
- This world event has resulted in “death by thousands of shots,” as each variable (e.g., testing, therapeutics, natural immunity, vaccinations, data collection) has been manipulated to harm the public.
It is clear the goal of this entire experiment has been to inoculate as many humans as possible, even though most countries (except the UK apparently) have had higher death tolls from COVID-19 today than prior to the vaccine rollout. The US just had more weekly confirmed COVID-19 deaths in the Omicron wave of January/February 2022 than we did with Alpha in March of 2020. Heavily vaccinated countries should not have struggled with so many COVID-19 deaths, especially if Omicron is as mild as health officials tell us it is. Are some of our sickest patients really suffering from Omicron or do they still have the Delta variant, which was known to be rather virulent? Do we sequence every serious case? If Omicron is so mild, then why have a majority of vaccinated people gotten infected, and why are vaccinated people dying in higher numbers fourteen months into a mass vaccination push? Are vaccinated individuals suffering with more severe cases due to Antibody Dependent Enhancement? The diabolical efforts to control individuals continue to have massive implications as malevolent leadership manipulates minds.
- What is the difference between Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) and Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) and how were some of the ways in which these terms were obfuscated and manipulated to confuse the public?
- Why is vaccinating into a virus with animal reservoirs not recommended and in some experts’ opinions, actually makes the virus worse?
- How can we better understand medical information that is presented to us? Who do we trust to provide us unbiased, factual information so that we can make our own informed choices?
- What are the differences between vaccine mediated evolution, Marek’s Effect, Original Antigenic Sin and Antibody Dependent Enhancement and how do we use the data to try to understand why the high vaccination rate/high case rate phenomenon is occurring?
- Will Omicron supersede vaccine antibodies and provide robust natural immunity against future variants to those who were previously vaccinated?
- How will additional booster shots to “variant-specific” strains be handled? Will the CDC continue to recommend boosters?
- Is it appropriate to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine of healthcare workers when there is no protection against infection and transmission, and data have shown that the vaccinated were preferentially infected with variants like Omicron?
- How do we make sure that true scientific inquiry and academic freedom are preserved for scientists to research various topics in the United States?
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.” – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.