You've been had.
As I said when this whole Coof thing started with a respiratory virus there was no possible way to get a vaccine developed, tested, and into arms fast enough to matter. We try to do it every single year with the flu and we suck at it because we don't know what flu strains will be prevalent in the coming winter so we have to guess. We've guessed every year for decades. Sometimes we guess better than others. Then those who want the shots take them on that guess into the fall.
Oh, they keep telling you go to get them into the winter if you want, but that's stupid because once it starts circulating the inevitable time for the antibodies to build means you get screwed worse if you're infected during that period of time. The one year I was stupid enough, given my lack of morbid factors, to listen to the incessant prattling and relented around November less than a week later I got what might have been the worst flu I've ever had. Needless to say I haven't done that dumb thing again.
But the flu shots very rarely harm people. We hand out about 160 million of them a year and out of those people roughly 25 die closely-associated with the jabs. Even though the data is that they don't work very well, indeed, I suspect a more-critical view of the data would show that they stop basically nobody from dying of influenza, they almost-never bring harm down on the person stabbed beyond a sore arm for a day or two. The biggest risk I can identify with them is that repeated flu jabs may (the science is rather short on this, but there's evidence) produce resistance to future inoculation through what is known as Original Antigenic Sin. It took us 20 years to detect that and it's a weak signal, but it's there. That is, repeated annual flu shots may make the next one less effective. If you want them to work when you're 80 and frail, in other words, it's rather stupid to take them every year through your life as you may degrade the effectiveness at the very point when it might be the difference between survival and not.
There was no special risk to this virus except in people who were severely-morbid; indeed, in children Covid-19 is materially less dangerous than influenza. The average person who died, according to the CDC, now is listed as having either four or five serious co-morbidities. Not one or two, four. The average age is also something like 78.
Life expectancy has been right around 78 now for a decade. In other words statistically-speaking Covid-19 killed nobody who wasn't going to die anyway. Of course that's not true individually and there were certainly people who died that were younger but it is true statistically.
While the CDC does not yet have full-year life expectancy numbers up for 2020 their preliminary "best guess" has a decline of 1.0 years. That sounds horrible, doesn't it?
The 1918 Flu Pandemic took fifteen years off life expectancy for that year -- to put perspective on that the next year life expectancy rose twenty eight percent and returned to trend. In one year. Most of those who died in fact passed from secondary bacterial infections; we had no antibiotics so if you got one in a weakened state you were finished. Incidentally a huge percentage of people shot in WWI died the same way; without antibiotics basically any serious abdominal wound was almost-universally fatal due to sepsis. Many people chose to finish the job themselves when wounded in such a fashion rather than go through what was an almost-universally fatal and really nasty outcome.
Note that there were exactly zero flu shots produced and jabbed into arms in 1919. It was over anyway.
The impact of Covid-19 is thus reasonably expected to be about one twentieth of that of the 1918 pandemic in terms of single-year life-expectancy loss, by percentages. In other words inconsequential. Further, there was a major one-year surge in excess death larger than that in 2020 just three years prior, in 2017, and that was much more consequential in real terms because the people who did largely did so in their productive years rather than when near or even beyond their expected end of life. Yet nobody screamed and nobody raised hell.
Again -- in 1918 nobody jabbed anyone with anything and it was over anyway. In 2020 and 2021 we're madly jabbing everyone who we can con into it with lightly-tested and, in many cases, never before used in humans technology. We have absolutely zero long-term data on the safety of these technologies. We have decades of attempting to produce vaccines against coronaviruses and other respiratory virus families such as RSV and have never succeeded in the past, with such attempts ending in either failure or worse, severe injury and death.
By the time the first jab went into the first arm the evidence was that the pandemic threat was over here in the United States. Maybe not so much in other nations, but certainly here. President Biden, Fauci and others called Texas Neanderthals for dropping masks, capacity mandates and similar with only a tiny fraction of the population having been jabbed, and the CDC itself along with the rest of the so-called "experts" said there was no possible way we'd see any meaningful suppression from "herd immunity" until 80% of the population was vaccinated.
This was a knowing, intentional lie. A person who has been infected and recovered is just as well protected, if not more-so, than one vaccinated. A huge percentage of the population has been infected. An even larger percentage may be able to be infected but won't be harmed; we knew this all the way back to Diamond Princess where two people in one cabin had one person get sick and the other not despite sleeping with each other and being quarantined in a cabin measuring about 100 square feet with no outside ventilation! There is zero probability a susceptible person will not get a respiratory virus if quarantined with someone who has it in those circumstances, yet it happened over a thousand times across the guests on that ship. For a so-called "novel" virus to which everyone is susceptible, which was claimed repeatedly for months that is not possible. Yet we now know, scientifically, it's proved: About 80% of the population has pre-existing resistance to Covid-19. Exactly what degree of protection is conferred is not known but this now known scientific fact completely explains Diamond Princess, it explains multiple nursing home outbreaks where only one of two people in a room got sick and expired and it explains a good friend of mine's grandparents who had the exact same thing happen; he got Covid and within five days was dead, she "got" it by test but never got sick at all.
Sadly there is no cheap and fast way to know if you have pre-existing resistance. There is an inexpensive test for IgG antibodies, which should be protective and indicates reasonably-recent (last three to six months) infection. How long they persist is not known with scientific certainty. What is known is that the various "NPI"s -- masks, closing businesses and schools, etc -- did not work. All they did was destroy jobs, lives, the education of our children, induce psychotic-level fear in a large percentage of the population and dramatically raise drug overdose rates along with other deaths of despair. In other words the NPIs killed people since they did kill but protected nobody at all; those who imposed them are mass-murdering monsters.
It is a fact that those places which took those steps had no positive correlation with better outcomes that were statistically material. Indeed even the CDC, with a highly-flawed "study", documented through their own paper that the difference between masked and unmasked persons in terms of potential risk of catching the virus was in fact 0.2%. Oh yes, they claimed about a 2% "statistically significant" difference but that was over eight viral generations, which means the actual difference for a person exposed in a given "generation" of the virus (that is, person has it and either does or does not pass it to someone else) was..... 0.2%.
Would you force someone to take a drug or some other action if it changed your odds of a good or bad outcome only 2 times in 1,000?
Well, then let's look at the absolute risk difference for the jabs. The absolute difference in risk was right about 1%; slightly higher for some, slightly lower for others.
That is, during the trials being jabbed reduced your risk of getting Covid by one percent. Not 95%, 92% or 99%; that was relative risk, which is highly misleading when in fact the odds of a thing happening are quite low to begin with. May I remind you that over a year's time this "highly-contagious, everyone is susceptible" virus only managed, on the CDC's data, to infect 1 in 10 Americans?
This of course assumes you believe the "infected" numbers. I don't. I believe the hospitalized numbers and I believe the number of people died who are said to have died, because in both cases it's easy to count bodies whether in beds or coffins and pretty tough to pull off a fraud involving either, but that someone is in a coffin does not mean, necessarily, that the reason they're claimed to be there is truthful. On the other hand if I'm dead why isn't really all that important to me; whether you lie about the cause or not I'm still dead.
We killed people for profit folks. We know how to stop this virus and we've known since April of 2020. We've gotten even better at it over time, but Zelenko, treating only high risk patients with a 5% chance of death (which is some 1,000 times greater than that of a child or healthy young adult) with his protocol, all with laboratory confirmed infections, resulted in crazy reductions of risk of both hospitalization and death.
Of 141 treated patients, 4 (2.8%) were hospitalised, which was significantly fewer (P < 0.001) compared with 58 (15.4%) of 377 untreated patients [odds ratio (OR) = 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06–0.5]. One patient (0.7%) in the treatment group died versus 13 patients (3.4%) in the untreated group (OR = 0.2, 95% CI 0.03–1.5; P = 0.12).
OR 0.16 means an 84% reduction in hospitalizations. An OR of 0.2 for death means an 80% reduction in death.
This is the "devil drug", of course, HCQ.
Zelenko started this protocol very early in the pandemic. He was slammed for it as HCQ turned into a political football. We now know that on peer reviewed science it works. We also know Ivermectin works. We know Budesonide works. We know all three of those have very low serious side effect risk.
So which would you rather have? A 0.2% reduction in the risk that the guy next to you with Covid will give it to you from a mask mandate, screwing your kids out of a year of education and blowing up the economy or leave all of that alone, accept the 0.2% greater risk of infection and rely on an 80-90% reduction in risk of hospitalization and death by taking three pills a day if you get sick?
That's what we did folks -- we forced an 0.2% reduction in the risk of getting the virus and both slammed a protocol that was good for an 80% reduction in the risk of serious disease and death and, in some states, actually prohibited pharmacists from dispensing the drug. We let the media including all the big social media giants censor and even throw people off their platforms for daring to mention the protocol and its rate of success.
We knew all of this by the summer months and into the early fall. We deliberately ignored that data and let hundreds of thousands of people die so EUAs could issue for what has, in time, proved to be nearly-worthless shots even if they are effective as they simply arrived too late to matter. Those who were going to get the virus in large part had already gotten it; the virus was running out of victims to infect before the first jab went in the first arm.
We had a strategy to stop the death and didn't use it, on purpose. It was known and being used in the Spring of 2020.
The people responsible, including every media and social media executive personally, along with the NIH, CDC, FDA and your local medical societies, corporate medical practices and hospitals deliberately allowed at least 80% of those who died "of" Covid-19 to expire by willingly withholding working treatment, and that's without refining and using more effective protocols which we learned of as time went on. In fact the data is that the risk reduction for both hospitalization and death with these three inexpensive and available drugs is in excess of 90%, and in high risk people where prophylaxis is used we may be able to get between 95-99%.
Today there's plenty of reason to believe those protocols (e.g. FLCCC's) will produce at least a 90% reduction in hospital admission and death. I personally would add budesonide to it on the strength of this study and the fact that COPD and Emphysema patients, many of which are on this drug for control of those conditions, died at a rate in 2020 that was lower than that in 2019 despite Covid-19 ravaging the land. That sort of "natural experiment" lends a lot of statistical weight to what would otherwise be a relatively small trial, particularly since the drug, like ivermectin, has decades of safe use behind it having been on the market since 1981.
That is better than a vaccine using drugs for which we have decades of longitudinal, long-term risk data where with the jabs we have none. The simple fact is that these treatments are not only at least as effective as a vaccine they are much safer since we have decades of data on their safety and precautions and interactions, if any, in humans while we cannot even claim to have one year worth of data from the various jabs. We will not have equivalent safety data on any of these jabs for a decade or more and in the case of ivermectin and budesonide it will be 2060 before we can claim to have an equivalent safety profile for the jabs.
These are facts folks and this is the bottom line on the question of "jab or no?"
1. The actual loss of life expectancy was a tiny fraction, 1/20th approximately, of the 1918 pandemic.
2. We knew how in March and April to treat this infection early and aggressively in high-risk persons and deliberately did not.
3. Said aggressive treatment was in the first evolution from March and April in 2020 at least 80% effective in preventing hospitalization and death.
4. Said aggressive treatment produced zero serious side effects, including the claimed "cardiac risk" that was in fact, on the data, non-existent. The people who so-claimed were lying.
5. Remdesivir, which was touted and used, was later found worthless via scientific study but is expensive and has severe cardiac risk. It is still being used today if you are hospitalized with Covid-19; it was not withdrawn.
6. Said aggressive and early treatment has improved in protocol to the point that a reasonable expectation of reduction of hospitalization and death risk today, without prophylaxis and treating only on presentation of disease, is at least 90%. With the exception of monoclonal antibodies all of these drugs are oral, pill or inhalation-based medications and can be taken at home and are inexpensive. With prophylaxis in high-risk individuals it is reasonable to believe that risk can be cut by another 50%, to a 95% reduction in total. We have long-term longitudinal data on all of these drugs; they have been used in humans for decades and every one of them have extraordinary safety records.
7. Had we used that protocol originally instead of damning people to die for the benefit of jab development the total deaths in the US would be somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000, statistically identical to a bad flu season. There would have been zero reason to close anything, to destroy even one job, to mask anyone or to close a single school for a single day. As the protocol improved the failure rate (20%) would have been cut roughly in half (10% or less) in time for the entire late fall and winter surge.
8. The political and jab-based focus not only failed to prevent death it greatly accelerated death by a factor of at least five in addition to adding deaths of despair from drug overdoses and similar.
And finally, the whopper: I only use the treatment, with said decades of safety data, if I get infected. Therefore whatever risk, which we have decades of data on, is only taken if I get sick and when I take it I have the benefit of time and further improvement in the protocol between now and then. If I take a jab I take the unknown safety risk immediately despite not being sick and if the formulas for the vaccines improve I cannot benefit since I already took it.
It is for this reason -- you are accepting the risk of the vaccine "as it is" right now .vs. treatment options that may improve over time which you use if and only if you get infected that traditional vaccines have always been required to be much safer than treatment alternatives in order to be approved, and in fact they are -- usually by a factor of somewhere around 100.
I've got at least a half-dozen scientific papers at this point which argue for potential severe intermediate and long-term risks from these jabs. A recent publication summarizes most of the pertinent ones. They run the gamut from the spike protein itself being pathogenic, a fairly-clean explanation of why some people get hammered with blood clots and platelet disorders to the distribution of antibodies produced including a very large percentage of binding .vs. neutralizing antibodies which raises a serious risk of ADE down the road as titers wane. None of the risks are quantified into a probability or excluded at this point and the reason we usually take 5-10 years or more to qualify a vaccine is to explore these sorts of risks, get them in the literature and test them before we shove needles in the arms of millions of people.
If even one of these papers proves up as a real and material risk anyone who took the jab has a significant probability of being screwed with exactly nothing they can do about it. I remind you that even fully approved drugs have this happen from time to time -- Vioxx anyone? That was a prescription COX-2 NSAID somewhat related chemically to ibuprofen which went through the full FDA approval process. It was pulled from the market five years later when further studies showed that it doubled heart attack risk but not before it had been taken by 4 million Americans, caused about 140,000 heart attacks and killed 60,000.
It was later shown that there was an indication of possible serious harm with Vioxx but it was not run down before approval; there are, in this case, more indications of possible serious harm through multiple potential pathways, zero of which have been excluded.
If the same result was to occur here with about 30x as many people taking the jabs the outcome would be 1,800,000 dead Americans and who knows how many permanent disabilities from events such as heart attacks and strokes. That is more than three times the number of people killed by Covid-19 thus far.
When there are more than a half-dozen distinct and coherent mechanisms of serious harm found in the scientific literature for a given therapeutic path being pursued you are lying if you claim it is safe until every one of them have been disproved. It will take years to do so. Vioxx had some indications of potential trouble too, but the FDA gave it full approval after approximately two years of study work.
I trust data that has been collected over decades in many nations all over the world, and I can look at and examine it. I do not trust six months worth of data or even necessarily two years of it, no matter where it comes from, especially when there are indications of potential trouble that have not been disproved.
Until you can present longitudinal data sufficient to convince me that a jab is equal or better in both result and risk on a risk-of-infection basis than what we knew how to achieve in April of 2020 and refused to use, on purpose, never mind the evolution of that knowledge and its improvement over time (which has been substantial) you can take your jab and shove it up your ass.
I choose the alternative for which there is decades of safety data and which is at least as effective in preventing hospitalization and death. I have had access to and maintained said alternative, replacing and augmenting the protocol as it has evolved over the last year, since April of 2020 and will continue to do so. If I get infected -- but not until -- I will use it. Only an insane or psychotic individual selects the option for which there is zero long-term safety data when an equally-effective alternative that has three or more decades of safety information to rely on exists and is both readily available and cheap.