This is an interesting article in Medpage Today but, like so much about the Covid-19 outbreak and our response to it, misses the essential point.
Here in the U.S., there are also metrics that need to be met before we contemplate widespread dosing of hundreds of millions of people with booster shots. Specifically: show me the data! I have no doubt that a third mRNA shot will lead to higher neutralizing antibody titers. For that matter, I would guess six shots would outperform three on that metric. But the burden of evidence to accept boosters is not simply a change in antibody titer -- or even demonstration of improved titers for rare variants.
We must show that boosters improve clinical endpoints before we ask Americans to roll up their sleeves again. A large randomized trial of vaccinated individuals powered for reduction in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 or (better yet) severe COVID-19 is needed to justify the harms and inconvenience of boosters.
Before we do anything further we must establish all of the following for the existing shots.
- We must force the existing manufacturers and FDA to prove that giving someone a vaccine if they have pre-existing resistance has value to them in reducing serious or fatal outcomes, and by how much. 80% of the population had known resistance to Covid-19 before the virus got here. The study establishing this was first published in the summer and then, peer-reviewed, was released in September before the first jab went into the first arm. We knew this had to be true all the way back to Diamond Princess and I reported on that fact but we did not know why; June told us why, and September scientifically established both the fact and the reasons for it beyond reasonable challenge. If the companies and FDA, whether through malice, speed or incompetence destroyed the ability to collect and analyze that data by polluting the data set it all must stop now because there is no way to easily detect if you're in that 80% and if, by January, you hadn't gotten seriously sick the odds are very high you are in that resistant and cannot become seriously ill with Covid-19 simply because the odds of you having being exposed by then are overwhelming. The very first element of evidence for any medical intervention of any sort is that you can personally benefit from it. This must be established with scientific certainty -- not that you get antibodies from the shot but that you actually get a material benefit in excess of where you were in terms of risk before you got jabbed. It is wildly unethical, immoral and constitutes gross malpractice to advise anyone to take a medical treatment from which there is no reasonable possibility of benefit. This was intentionally not done before we issued EUAs due to "Warp Speed" -- that is, speed (and profit) came before proof of benefit.
- We must force both pharma and the regulators, along with our government at all levels to account for now-apparent, clear and outrageous failure of the existing shots along with the flat-out lies being told today as regards their efficacy. Specifically, 100 out of 700 (1/7th) of the crew on the HMS Queen Elizabeth have become infected with Covid-19. Every one of the crew was fully vaccinated and thus any attempt to blame this on "plague rats" that aren't vaccinated is obvious bull****. I note that this rate of infection (14%) is within statistical spitting distance for population pre-existing resistance as documented in June of 2020 (80%) which strongly implies that the jabs are very close to worthless if not completely worthless in preventing both infection and transmission. Through March of 2021 just 24 military personnel in the US have died allegedly from Covid out of nearly 170,000 cases, or a rate of approximately 0.014%; as such "serious and fatal" events on the HMS QE are unlikely even if nobody had been vaccinated. In short the British Military jabbed everyone and put them at risk of severe or fatal adverse effects for zero benefit; the existing shots have no statistically-material benefit in preventing either infection or transmission of the virus. In addition we have known since the polio vaccine development that using non-sterilizing vaccines during an active outbreak causes mutational adaptation and escape and thus is dangerous. It is for this reason that IPV (non-sterilizing) was followed by OPV (sterilizing) in the United States until well after there was no circulating polio in America. There is no longer any scientific dispute in this regard and anyone claiming otherwise is a lying sack of crap. All alleged "public health" justification for the existing shots has been conclusively and scientifically destroyed by this event and, in addition the shots have now been conclusively identified as placing the population at severe and direct risk of mutational escape.
- We must identify and publish detailed, de-identified associated harms from the jabs and norm them to the population segment and existing morbidities as a whole. Every health insurance company in the private sector and CMS (Medicare and Medicaid) have this data and, since the vaccine rollout is in fact not "free" if you're insured (it's billed to your insurance company) the firms know conclusively what events coincided with or were closely associated with these shots and how that compares with their last five years of data in the same population and morbidity segments. In short the data across over 150 million Americans does exist to show what, if anything, is happening and at what rate. This excess forms the denominator of harms from the shots. This is not a function of nor can it be dismissed as "clinical judgment"; there are many reports of doctors refusing to make entries into VAERS or otherwise dodging that the jabs are related to new illnesses, hospitalizations and concerns. I don't care what a doctor thinks; I care very much about who's getting paid to do what and how that has changed over the last eight months. Until that data is released to the public under penalty of life in prison if falsified or otherwise misrepresented there must be no further activity with regards to these shots. THE PEOPLE MUST HAVE THE DENOMINATOR -- THAT IS, THE ADVERSE EVENT NUMBER, AGAINST THE NUMBER OF VACCINATED PERSONS BOTH FOR DEATH AND ANY OTHER SERIOUS CONDITION INVOLVING A HOSPITAL ADMISSION OR TRIP TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM.
- We must have full, free and open access to inexpensive and known safe drugs for early interdiction as an option. This means Ivermectin, Budesonide and HCQ + Doxycycline or Zpak for starters. All of these are drugs that are known to be quite safe, they are all off-patent and inexpensive and it must be the choice of the patient whether to use them if suspected or confirmed infected. It is their ass, not the doctor's, and thus their choice. Any doctor who refuses must lose their license. Any medical group that promotes or enforces a policy adverse to this must be destroyed, literally and to an individual employee, director and officer, as they have and are killing people for money. This is especially true when there are no approved treatments under full FDA protocol and Remdesivir, which is under EUA, has twice proved worthless in formal studies, a third now shows it causes harm and yet the EUA is still there and it is still being recommended and used. Whether said drugs are inferior, equal or superior to a vaccine is immaterial. It is the patient's decision.
- We must have full debate on the apparent fact that out of Israel the data is that you are almost seven times more likely to be infected with Covid-19 if you got vaccinated as opposed to having recovered from the infection naturally. This feeds directly into the point above; even if the above drugs have some effect but are less effective than a vaccine if the result of infection is seven times the immune resistance to a subsequent infection then the better option is to treat early and fast rather than vaccinate for all but the most-seriously morbid. That's the math.
- We must hold the media and government accountable for the repeated lie that "all the deaths (and hospitalizations) at this point are unvaccinated people." No they're not. Fact: Massachusetts accidentally told the truth; about 20% of the recent Covid deaths have been in vaccinated people. This sort of repeated bull**** isn't an accident it's a flat-out lie promulgated for the explicit purpose of convincing you to do something dangerous. This wasn't a mistake or accident, it's intentional with actual knowledge of falsity and thus must be treated as manslaughter. We are well-past the point where the deceased's families and friends should insist on blood for these lies.
- We must have the data on the spread of adverse events between the first and second jab for two-dose regimes and, before anyone proposes a third, prove, scientifically, that there is no expansion of risk ratios with subsequent jabs. If that cannot be done then any such attempt must be denied until and unless it is.
- We must norm the denominator of risk of the shots against the base risk you accept if you get infected. Johns Hopkins has put up an online calculator for the latter. How accurate it is I do not know but it makes clear that there's no argument for a non-morbid person of under 50 to take the vaccines as on the VAERS data we have now they are more-dangerous over a year's time than infection is, and we know VAERS, being voluntary, understates the true adverse event rate. Remember, this calculator is from the same people who claim to be "the experts" and it documents that the school's own vaccine mandate is not only stupid it's criminally insane and constitutes proof of intentional attempted manslaughter on the part of the school in that the risk of the shots exceeds the risk of the virus for virtually every student on campus.
This last point, standing alone should result in an immediate revocation of the EUA for anyone under the age of 50 unless the person in question has one or more serious morbidities that grossly raise their risk. To jab people with a profile of risk that exceeds that of getting the disease itself is outrageous.
The HMS Queen Elizabeth incident proves the shots are entirely ineffective and statistically worthless to prevent either infection or transmission of the virus. That standing alone ought to be enough to immediately withdraw them for anyone who is not at materially-elevated risk of serious or fatal outcome from infection. To continue to claim they're effective in the face of this scientific proof of failure is fraud and, to the extent people rely on it and die, it is manslaughter or even depraved indifference leading to death, that is Murder 2.
Further, we must demand the FDA, CDC, State Health Departments and media stop lying about the overall risk. The CDC publishes hospitalization data in very close to real time (one week delayed.) There is no surge. We have repeatedly been told "wait 2 weeks" -- first with Florida, then Texas, and on and on. In exactly zero cases has the projection come true. Pandemic viruses always become endemic and continue to cause mild and moderate illness along with a few serious and fatal outcomes -- the key word being few. It has happened with every single pandemic virus through history; exactly zero have wound up being a permanent source of mass-death.
"Cases" are meaningless, even if symptomatic. We don't shut down society or scream at people over a symptomatic cold or flu.
What matters is serious disease and death.
I have repeatedly pointed out all the way back to the start of this thing that we must accept and live with this virus. It is not leaving and due to having animal reservoirs we will never be rid of it. That's a fact, like it or not. That we have never successfully vaccinated against a coronavirus is also a fact, like it or not. We are now finding that the virus is escaping the vaccines and the evolutionary pressure we are putting on it via them is exactly as I and a few others expected to happen based on history; we went down the wrong road. We must stop with the panic porn, severely sanction those who continue it, and live with these facts and this virus whether we like it or not. If, as appears to be the case, we, meaning multiple actors including those in the US, EU and China, released this thing into the wild through a series of negligent and outrageously stupid actions those who did so must be held to account but none of that changes the fact that Covid is with us, like it or not, for what is likely to be all of eternity from here forward.
We know how to interdict serious and fatal outcomes for this virus and we will continue to get better at it over time. We give out Tamiflu for influenza and indeed even use on a prophylactic basis in some cases, especially in nursing homes. Why aren't we doing the same thing with Ivermectin and Budesonide (Pulmicort) in this instance? Tamiflu is widely known to "not do much" but we use it anyway. Even if Ivermectin and Budesonide do little they carry such a low risk of adverse events that not using them is stupid. I am not concerned with the adverse side effects of these drugs.
I am very concerned with the adverse side effects from the jabs as the data is being intentionally concealed and nobody ever tries to hide good news. When something is being concealed there is only one reason for it -- you wouldn't like it and might even string someone up if you knew about it.
We're 18 months into Covid-19 and seven months into jabbing people; there is utterly no excuse for failing to present hard data which every health insurance company and CMS has. The only reason not to present it is that the data makes clear that the jabs are causing significant harm and nobody wants to talk about the actual denominator and put it up against, for example the NY Coroner's data as to your relative risk of Covid-19 killing or seriously injuring you if you get infected.
Yet that is the only basis on which a decision to take a vaccine or not -- say much less any other medical treatment -- can possibly be made on an intelligent basis. You would never take a cancer drug unless you had cancer since you can't benefit from it. You don't take HIV PrEP unless you are engaged in activity that has an enhanced probability of contracting HIV because the drugs can cause harm and without a reasonable expectation of benefit taking the drug is stupid. You don't take high blood pressure medicine unless you have high blood pressure for the same reason, even though said medicine is typically well-tolerated.
Likewise you should never take a Covid-19 vaccine unless you have an enhanced risk of being seriously harmed or killed by Covid; if you are in the 80% that we've known since March of 2020 has resistance or you already had it and thus are presumptively immune you're stupid to take said shot. Doing stupid things sometimes kills or seriously injures you and this is no exception. Since determining whether you're in that 80% is not possible via a cheap and easy test this decision must always be a function of personal choice informed, in the main, by your risk profile of a bad outcome from infection based on your personal medical status exactly as we do not try to force everyone to take HIV PrEP. We instead strongly urge it for those who engage in anal sex, use injected street drugs or are sexually involved with someone who does either of those two things. This is true even though HIV is contagious, you can get it without knowing you have it, you can spread it to others unknowingly, you could be raped and thus be exposed through other than consensual conduct and if you do get it there's no known way to get rid of it; you're stuck with it for life.
If the data is intentionally withheld that would support the Covid-19 jabs, and it is being intentionally withheld, then any reasonable person is forced to conclude that the reason it is withheld is that it does not support the action the government and medical "experts" are arguing you should take, universal acceptance of said jabs, because if it did support the case they'd run the data on the front page of the NY Times and Washington Compost daily instead of making TikTok videos with bubble-headed young music stars devoid of any data whatsoever, instead appealing to "feelz" including the use of sexual attraction which I remind you is the same sort of hucksterism found in ads attempting to sell sports cars. boats and Peloton exercise bikes.
I strongly support vaccinations that are in turn supported by scientific, publicly-disclosed data without evidence of fraud or concealment. There are myriad vaccinations where this is the case; measles, polio and even Chicken Pox. The latter, I remind you, took twenty years to develop said scientific evidence to a sufficient level and authorize it for use in children, despite the known fact that if you got Chicken Pox not as a child, but as an adult you were 25x more likely to wind up in the hospital or die.
These "vaccinations" lack said scientific and publicly-disclosed data. In fact there is evidence of intentional concealment and lying related to the said data, along with deliberate coercion to not report adverse events. There is further evidence in the slide deck presented to the FDA prior to the EUA approvals that these adverse effects were known risks and investigation to determine the scope and scale of said risks (e.g. close monitoring via blood work in the study participants) was not undertaken. Since the risks are now documented (via the "fraction of a second" slide since uncovered during said presentation) to have been known this refusal to investigate was deliberate.
In addition the reason it takes so long to qualify a vaccine is that only with an extended period of time do you learn whether actual protection against infection and transmission occurs. The presence of antibodies is not sufficient and neither is very small absolute risk changes; the former has zero scientific proof of efficacy and the latter has no statistical power; to otherwise state is fraud.
Now we are learning that not only are the adverse effects real evidence is emerging that as with every other attempt at vaccinating against a coronavirus transmission is not interrupted nor is infection, meaning that all you have left is potential personal reduction of serious or fatal outcome risk. For people without significant morbidity factors it appears, now that we have solid data emerging on same, that the absolute risk reduction compared with the adverse effect risk is profoundly unsound on a statistical and medical basis for both healthy young people and healthy adults.
"Strong urgings" without facts that the government and private industry both have at this point and are refusing to disclose must be met with a stern "NO."
If said "strong urging" is attempted to be turned into a mandate via any form of coercion whatsoever, including employment or educational sanction or disability that attempt must be met with whatever amount of pre-emptive force is necessary to stop it, as at that point we've gone from attempting to convince people to do a dangerous thing by intentionally refusing to disclose the evidence what is proposed is dangerous to actual attempted manslaughter or worse and that, my friends, is just cause for whatever must be undertaken to put a stop to not only the demanded action but those attempting to enforce it.