Vaccines that mimic infections have proved over time to be one of the medical discoveries that have saved countless lives, second only to perhaps antibiotics and surgical anesthesia. But antibiotics can and often are misused, and their misuse leads to promotion of "super strains" of bacteria that can be extremely difficult -- and, on current trajectories, it is projected impossible in the future -- to control.
The common -- and safe -- vaccines given to people all work on the same basic principle: You take a virus, either attenuate it by modifying it so it cannot replicate well in a human cell (often by passing it through other animal cells) or kill it outright and then give it to the person or animal to be protected. The recipient's immune system believes it is being attacked by the original disease and mounts an immune response.
But -- there is no, or only a very weak disease.
What you're left with is the same outcome you'd have from natural infection if you were to survive it in terms of immunity. The immune "memory", in B and T cells, along with antibodies, looks identical -- or very close to identical -- as if you got the actual disease and suffered through it.
Qualifying these vaccines is primarily a process of making sure that they do not revert to their virulent form in the body, a risk that can happen with an attenuated vaccine product. These vaccines produce "sterilizing" immunity in the recipient -- that is, you cannot get the infection again as your immune system will interdict the bug before replication can take place to any material degree, and thus if exposed later you will never have a material viral titer. Without a viral titer you cannot shed anything and thus you also can't give the infection to someone else.
It is this key fact that makes most routine vaccines safe in terms of not potentiating mutations that all viruses undergo. A vaccinated person who has "sterilizing immunity" cannot become part of a chain of replication for a mutated strain that is more-virulent because they are incapable of transmitting the virus to someone else. The exception among the common vaccines used today in the US is polio; the injected form does not produce sterilizing immunity and this is only safe to do in the US because polio has not circulated in the US since the late 1970s. When it was circulating we used a combination of both the shot and the oral attenuated vaccine for this very reason; the oral vaccine occasionally can and does produce polio but it also produces sterilizing immunity. In parts of the world where polio still circulates the oral form is still used for this exact reason.
Coronaviruses, which infect not just humans but also domesticated and food-source animals, generally cannot be vaccinated against in this fashion; neither can HIV and a few other forms of viruses. The reasons are different for each family of viruses where it does not work but all boil down to the virus' characteristics and mutation patterns, along with how your B cells respond. With coronaviruses the problem is that attenuated viral vaccine attempts have repeatedly reverted to the virulent form in the body, usually after a couple of hundred passes through cells on average. In addition these attempts in animals have repeatedly produced ADE instead of protection; in other words, instead of protecting the recipient they make a future infection worse, usually killing the infected animal (in particular this occurred with a candidate for a vaccine against a coronavirus that primarily infects cats.)
That has led to the various "novel" attempts at vaccines developed this time around for Covid-19. This is not the first time we've tried this sort of thing, although it is the first time in humans.
Unfortunately the history of vaccines in the animal world with non-sterilizing immunity has taught us lessons that we apparently have set aside in our haste for a Covid-19 answer. To understand the problem you must understand the natural progression of viruses generally.
It is to the advantage of a virus to spread widely, of course. It's not that a virus has a mind, but rather that the more-widely it spreads without killing the host the more replicants of it there are. It therefore "wins" genetically. A virus that violently attacks a host and disables or kills the host before it is passed to another victim loses; a clearly-diseased human will be shunned by others, and one that is dead cannot interact with anyone else. Thus by pure mathematics viruses as they mutate tend to favor less-virulent but more easily-transmitted mutations; those are more-successful in getting passed on to others before their more-virulent cousin manages to infect the same person and, as the population gains antibodies so long as the immunity has cross-reaction capacity those particular mutations are the ones most-likely to get passed on and the more-virulent ones are selected against.
A vaccine that mimics natural infection does not tamper with this process because from the virus' point of view a person vaccinated is someone already infected. There is no difference in regard to how the virus behaves when it encounters someone who was either previously sick or vaccinated with such a formulation.
This is not true for vaccines that do not produce sterilizing immunity or worse, do not mimic natural infections at all.
Specifically it is very possible for such a vaccine to actually make it more-likely that a deadlier form of the virus will survive and in fact thrive! If the vaccine prevents you from getting seriously ill or dying but not from developing a viral titer and being able to pass the infection to others then it erases the natural disadvantage that mutations making a virus more deadly would otherwise have.
That raises the risk of stopping or even reversing the natural mutation processes by which easily-communicable viruses decrease in their capacity to kill people.
Take SARS. SARS died out quite quickly because you were not able to effectively transmit it until you were quite ill to the point that anyone who saw you would have good cause to think you were sick and it killed a large percentage of those infected. Thus it very frequently failed to find a new host; general human revulsion to people who are violently ill, once word got out that "it might be SARS" kept a person afflicted from effectively giving it to others, and as a result the virus killed itself off by failing to propagate in a very short period of time.
Now consider a vaccine that makes SARS a low-level cold nuisance or a "silent" infection but does not produce sterilizing immunity. A widely-vaccinated population would spread SARS like wildfire through the world and anyone unable to be vaccinated, who had their immunity wear off or who was not vaccinated would get it and DIE.
Such a vaccine would take the few thousand deaths from SARS and turn it into tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of deaths, selecting with vicious efficiency for extermination the elderly who poorly responded to a vaccine or were unable to take it due to serious illness where the vaccine might kill them outright, those with cancer, people with autoimmune diseases who could not be vaccinated, those who couldn't afford vaccination and those who either decided not to take the shot or who's immunity wore off.
Is this a realistic risk from the Covid-19 vaccines?
YES, and if it happens there will be exactly nothing we can do about it.
Remember that the CDC and other "authorities" are telling you point-blank that they do not believe these vaccines produce sterilizing immunity. That is, you cannot take off your mask, stop distancing and resume your normal life after being vaccinated. Why not? There is only one reasonable explanation: They do not believe the vaccines prevent you from being infected and producing a titer of virus sufficient to infect others -- the vaccines only decrease the rate of severe disease and death.
Such "vaccines" must NEVER be given on a widespread basis to the public when a particular virus is circulating in the population as doing so risks a catastrophic mutation cascade that will kill tens or even hundreds of millions of people. While numerically the risk of this occurring is likely quite small the consequence if it does happen is catastrophic and thus that course of action should never be undertaken. A vaccine that behaves this way is simply never safe in the general population; the only rational use is in very high-risk individuals who make up a too-small and non-concentrated portion of the population to form a disease chain vector for a more-virulent mutation.
Today Covid-19 is not a very virulent virus, despite all the screaming Karens. If infects easily but only kills, statistically, those who are seriously morbid in the first place. The primary factor is not age contrary to people's assertions -- the NYC Coroner data makes this crystal clear but the media and our so-called "experts" are knowingly lying even with nearly a year's worth of said data now under our belts. Simply put if you are not severely-morbid the odds of Covid-19 killing you are about 3/100,000 irrespective of age if you get infected -- that is, 0.003%. Or, if you prefer, 99.997% of the time you will survive.
The risk is not age-specific; you can literally count on your fingers the number of people over 75 who do not have one of the listed conditions that Covid-19 has killed in NYC.
This is a very mild disease in those who are not morbid -- in fact it is materially less dangerous than the flu which more-frequently kills young people with no particular morbidity. That doesn't mean it can't kill someone without one or more known risk factors -- it most-certainly can and occasionally does, just as Chicken Pox did occasionally kill a child who got it. But unless you have one of a particular list of morbid conditions you accept far more risk of death by using a passenger car, either as a driver or passenger, over a period of about six months.
Now if you do have one or more of those conditions you're at materially higher risk.
But even so -- perspective is important. We have learned how to treat this disease and in many cases how to prevent it from transmitting from one person to another using prophylaxis, not vaccines. If you are one of the people who is not going to get seriously hurt or killed from a public health perspective your infection is beneficial to the community as a whole.
The question of whether your vaccination is likewise beneficial is not known. We cannot say that it is identically beneficial as an infection because these vaccines are not mimicking natural infections; they intentionally target only part of the viral structure because attenuated vaccines are known to be unsafe with coronaviruses in that they revert and wind up causing disease -- so to avoid that they intentionally didn't use the entire virus. Instead they "engineered" an injection that causes your body to produce the spike (and only the spike) and then your immune system produces antibodies to that.
But -- this means we do not know if you can get infected and emit the virus toward others after being vaccinated. We did not study it in the lab because challenge studies are generally not ethically permissible in humans, we did not do the animal trials and there has been insufficient data from infections and monitoring the population yet here we are jabbing people willy-nilly without knowing this critical fact.
These vaccines should have never been put into widespread use until and unless we knew if they produced sterilizing immunity as that should always be a gating requirement for widespread use of any vaccine. By using them widely, if they do not produce sterilizing immunity, we take the very real risk of promulgating a much more-lethal strain of Covid-19 that would otherwise fail to find traction statistically and thus harm very few before it is outcompeted instead spreading it worldwide, and for those who have had their immunity wane, who cannot be vaccinated due to immune or medical compromise (e.g. anyone undergoing cancer treatment which damages the immune system) or otherwise that strain will result in a massive amount of mortality.
This is not conjecture folks -- it has happened in animal husbandry and has resulted in avian flu potentiation wildly beyond what used to be the case. Avian flu strains used to kill a fair number of birds who contracted it but now, as a result of vaccines that do not present sterilizing immunity it is now nearly universally fatal among poultry. If such is detected in a flock today the usual response is immediate culling of the entire population at that location because it is nearly-certain to be fatal to the infected birds anyway and if it gets out of that facility and into another one it will kill all the birds there too.
The nightmare scenario is one in which the virus mutates in this fashion and in the process evades the vaccines as well in which case you now have not a 3/100,000 risk of dying but a 1/100 or even 10/100 risk with no effective means to stop it at all.
The odds are relatively low that this will occur will but the path for it to happen has been deliberately opened up by distributing vaccines on a widespread basis, not just to those at the highest risk (e.g. nursing home patients) without first proving up that they do produce sterilizing immunity and refusing to approve those that do not.
This was and is stupid and if we lose the bet there will be literally nothing we can do about it other than suck it up and watch the worldwide population get nailed to whatever degree occurs.
I truly don't know how much more-clear I can make it than this. I understand people don't read any more, and they certainly don't do their own research. Damn near all I do is read when someone tells me something is true; I never take it at face value, especially when, if I'm wrong, I might be dead. I don't care how many letters you have after your name; with 40 years of writing code for money under my belt I've known far too many PhDs who's degree had its best and highest use as birdcage liner.
Eight minutes is all I ask folks. All the government's data, not mine. A Medical School's (full of doctors, of course) protocol, not mine. Two dozen medical studies including ten random controlled trials, the gold standard of medicine with 100% positive results.
Do this and the entire Covid mess is literally over in one week.
No bull****.
Get your jackets, your posterboard, your big Sharpie Markers and picket the Hospital, picket the local doctor's office, picket their house, picket every damned politician you can find and light up their phones to the point that their voicemail is clogged and useless. Make every one of their lives insufferable just as they've made yours while they ghoulishly watched your loved ones die, clutching their pearls and clucking at you. The willful and intentional refusal to do basic elementary school math has killed over 150,000 Americans quite possibly including your grandmother. Why the hell are you not only letting them get away with it but willing to stand in line and take a not-fully-tested shot when a $2 alternative that does the same thing and has been proved safe over more than 30 years of time is available, and it also has a remarkable record of preventing serious disease and death. This has been known for months.
We can stop Covid-19 in ONE WEEK.
One. Not five, six, eight or ten as promised by Dr. Redfield with his "masks" who, I remind you, lied. Covid-19 did not stop even though he got what he wanted.
The science and the CDC's own data says this will work in ONE WEEK.
And the risk if it doesn't work as the science and math says it will?
STATISTICALLY NONE; the drug in question has had over 3.5 billion doses dispensed worldwide and, on the data, is safer than Tylenol and the number of pills you must take is two.
Not two per day.
Two.
Folks, it's pretty simple.
At the start of this thing back in March and April I pointed out that if you cut the vectors off for this (or any other) disease it stops being a problem. I was hellbent on going after the people working in hospitals and nursing homes for this reason, since not only were they a major vector but they were giving the virus to vulnerable people that it was far more-likely to kill as well.
Nobody listened.
Well, months have gone by and now we have more data. So let's use it.
FACT: The only STATISTICALLY material transmission vectors for Covid-19 are nosocomial (by definition every transmission into a nursing home is that) and household.
The CDC in fact says that a majority (given the current Rt estimates) of transmission happens in households.
In fact here's the MMWR paper on it:
For this analysis, 101 households (including 101 index patients and 191 household members) were enrolled and completed ≥7 days of follow-up. .... Among all household members, 102 had nasal swabs or saliva specimens in which SARS-CoV-2 was detected by RT-PCR during the first 7 days of follow-up, for a secondary infection rate of 53% (95% CI = 46%–60%) (Table 2). Secondary infection rates based only on nasal swab specimens yielded similar results (47%, 95% CI = 40%–54%).
If you have it you will sustain community transmission statistically within your own household alone. That is, one person gets it for each person who has it, which means no matter how many masks you force people to wear, no matter how many schools you close and no matter how many restaurants and bars you shutter THIS WILL NEVER STOP UNTIL HERD IMMUNITY IS REACHED. If you slow it down for a bit as soon as you relax anything it comes roaring back because as soon as it gets into a house it finds enough people to keep virusing.
This marks every bit of sanction on businesses, schools and mask orders in public places worthless by simple mathematics. You cannot maintain those public constraints forever but even if you could it does not matter as transmission in households is sufficient standing alone to keep the virus spreading in the community.
But... this also means that if you shut both of those vectors down so that transmission through them effectively ceases then nothing else matters the in other direction either (masks, shutdowns, capacity limits, etc) because all of those other vectors together are insufficient to maintain transmission (Rt) over 1.0 and as a result it's over.
We know how to do it. Right now. Today. For pennies.
FOR REAL.
Got it folks? This is health care workers using standard PPE as control, and the trial group added Ivermectin and carrageenan (snorted, basically; it's a cheap food additive but is not probably actually active. Won't hurt you though -- it's an extract from a species of red seaweed)
Zero infections occurred in the trial group.
ZERO.
That's ONE HUNDRED percent effective .vs. 11% who got infected using MASKS without the Ivermectin -- these are health care workers who have been trained to maintain protocol which nobody in the general public has been or will.
Adverse events in the trial group from taking the drug? ZERO.
That's right -- not one adverse event. Unlike the vaccines which are reported to be very uncomfortable -- and we hope there's nothing nasty that surfaces when we start using them on a mass basis. Do remember that this drug in particular has had billions of doses dispensed and consumed -- not a few tens of thousands.
So how do you cut Covid off?
SIMPLE.
All health care workers are offered the protocol after personal medical advice.
All nursing home and other high-risk persons are offered this protocol under personal medical advice. Ivermectin is extremely cheap, about a buck a pill if that, unbelievably safe and not a daily pill, in this use it's once a month.
If you test positive you are handed a pill for yourself and each member of your household with instructions to eat them immediately again, under personal medical advice rendered to you and your household members. That both treats you and provides a high degree of protection for everyone else in the house from getting it from you.
The Egyptian study showed 80% effectiveness as prophylaxis for Ivermectin among household members of confirmed infected persons.
It also cut the early use mortality rate from 4% to ZERO.
The expected results of oral Ivermectin distribution to at-risk, health care, and everyone in the household of someone diagnosed including the patient?
80% prevention of contagion to other members of the household.
80% reduction of transmission to at-risk people.
Nearly 100% reduction in death for those who are given the drug early. Yes, it won't work for everyone I'm sure. But if it's 90% that's a hell of a lot better than we have now, and the Egyptian data says that 99% of those who you intervene early with never need a hospital. In other words the entire hospital "overload" problem disappears immediately.
In addition the Rt, effective transmission rate, is dampened by approximately 0.5 which is enough to drop it under 1.0 everywhere in the United States. There is no need for masks, for business or school closures or capacity limits of any sort because the primary vectors are eliminated and transmission cannot be maintained.
Do this and the entire "pandemic" is over in ONE WEEK.
I WILL REPEAT MYSELF JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
IF WE DO THIS IT ENDS THE PANDEMIC IMMEDIATELY AND PERMANENTLY -- AND COSTS ABOUT $2/PERSON WHO IS INFECTED OR EXPOSED.
The two primary vectors are cut off and that's the end of it. Those who get it are, with a high degree of reliability, treated and recover at home. Statistically nobody goes to the hospital and nobody dies.
Statistically zero people who are not today infected need to die from this point forward.
Zero.
Further, if you're one of the people who wishes to claim this is "unproved" no it isn't. As documented in Senate testimony it has been proved in multiple parts of multiple nations which adopted this regime and saw the infection and death rate immediately collapse against other parts of the same region or nation. Never mind that there is effectively zero risk to adopting this strategy; if some county or state takes this step and it does not work you will know within a week and you've harmed nobody. But if it does work you also will know within one week as the change will be immediately evident and continue.
Note that this is not simply the ranting of some Internet wunderkind; it is in fact the protocol recommended by EVMS (edited 9/18/2021 -- now pointing at FLCCC as EVMS went "woke"), originally developed as potentially effective by a medical group in Broward FL six months ago and used in multiple other nations and portions of nations which is how all this data has been generated.
I remind you we've known that Ivermectin works since June, so everyone in the political, medical and so-called "science" communities who have sat on their ass and screamed about MAAAASSSSSSSKKKKSSSS for the last five months instead, sending people home with nothing until they're choking to death are in fact murderous bastards.
We've known how to cut this bug off at the knees by making it unable to infect another person, on average, for each person infected for nearly six months and every one of those *******s willfully and intentionally ignored this in favor of "vaccines" and WORTHLESS mask orders.
Cut the bull**** folks.
Willful ignorance is not an excuse.
IT IS MANSLAUGHTER.
Come and get it!
Note: This is a PDF with hyperlink footnotes; you need PDF reader software to be able to view it. The preview is of course worthless since the blog code sees each page as an overlaying "layer". Click the image to get the actual PDF file.
Oops.... the Danish Study was published.
This is the best sort of science -- a random controlled trial. It is trumped only by a meta-analysis of multiple random controlled trials.
Dr. Fauci repeatedly stated that he would not fund or allow random controlled trials for masks because that would be "unethical." This is exactly the sort of bull**** he ran during the original AIDS years in the 1980s and early 1990s when he actively worked to deny Bactrim to AIDS patients who had a high risk of PCP, which routinely killed said patients. We knew Bactrim worked to stop PCP in immune-compromised people because we had been using it for more than five years at that point in Leukemia patients, and in fact it is one of the major factors that caused leukemia to become a much more-survivable disease.
Over 30,000 Americans were shoved in the hole as a result of that denial -- until it was eventually reversed when Fauci's "recommendation" was overridden and ultimately dropped. At the same time AZT, which was a failed cancer drug that failed safety trials -- that is, Phase 1 -- was pushed hard by the same Dr. Fauci. AZT was later shown to be a direct DNA poison. In the meantime, however, it was tremendously profitable since it was an on-patent drug while Bactrim was off-patent and thus cheap.
Well, now we have the same thing here. Annals published the study despite other journals refusing to do so. It is not hard to see why the others refused; the confidence interval shows that there is a very real possibility that masks might increase infection rates by as much as 23%.
Post-hoc computation (which attempts to draw inferences and conclusions by sub-segregating the control and trial groups) was even worse:
In the first, which included only participants reporting wearing face masks “exactly as instructed,” infection (the primary outcome) occurred in 22 participants (2.0%) in the face mask group and 53 (2.1%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.2 percentage point [CI, −1.3 to 0.9 percentage point]; P = 0.82) (OR, 0.93 [CI, 0.56 to 1.54]; P = 0.78).
If you don't know how to read that I'll do it for you -- there was no statistical improvement whatsoever between those who reported wearing face masks exactly as instructed and the control group. The confidence interval was extraordinarily wide and statistically centered on 1.0, or no effect, with a possible range of from ~44% improvement to a 54% increase in risk.
This was worse than the trial group overall, which strongly implies that the group which was most-compliant with the conditions had the worst results. That is, while everyone in the trial group was told to wear masks and supplied them, among those who reported they did exactly as instructed had the worst results out of all.
On the face of the scientific evidence masks are not only worthless the post-hoc analysis implies (but does not prove) they do harm.
Not that we needed this study to know. Masks failed in 1918, a fact that the Washington Post mentioned in April from the historical record and in fact there is 40 years of hard science that says they do not work, as I've noted, even in operating rooms where everyone is presumed to follow protocol as they are all trained medical professionals and the surrounding area is sterile, eliminating confounding factors.
But the reason this study was blackballed by a number of journals is actually in the data itself; it is a plaintiff's bar wet dream. Having the confidence interval cross 1.0 simply proves statistical worthlessness. Having it do so to such a large degree means employers who have mandated masks are suddenly open to massive lawsuits from employees who got Covid while under an employer mandate and there is a decent chance the employers will lose.
In addition the study authors in this case prevented the potential pollution of the results by false PCR tests, defining the endpoint as detection of Sars-CoV2 antibodies where they were previously absent. This was one of my concerns and remains so given the hard evidence over the last couple of months that false positive results have made computing suppression prevalence in the various states worthless; PCR testing has become nothing more than a tool of fear and panic porn over the last six months as CT40 (or higher) tests return many positives that have no culturable virus found, as has been disclosed by other studies. If you have no culturable (live) virus then you either had the bug some time in the past and what is being picked up are viral debris, not actual virus or you were immune, inoculated, and your body fought it off successfully without becoming infected. Indeed someone who ultimately is vaccinated will likely be able to test positive on a PCR test if challenged yet they do not become infected either. In any such case you can neither transmit the virus to others nor will you become ill. The added filter of testing for the absence of antibodies when the study began and then again to prove actual infection in those in which the challenge failed means that those false positive indications are conclusively excluded.
Bottom line: Mask orders are bull**** and thus must be immediately removed. They do nothing on the strength of the scientific evidence, which we knew for the last 40 years but intentionally ignored and lied to the American people. We must thus conclude that such orders are not actually in furtherance of public health but rather are mechanisms of submission imposed without cause or any scientific justification whatsoever.
The bull**** has been exposed and should be immediately shoved down the throats of those who attempt to maintain same.