MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘CDC’

Watch the Government and Media’s Credibility Crumble

Posted by M. C. on September 22, 2021

“I’m back after a brief hiatus. YouTube deleted my last video for COVID misinformation (I literally read information from the CDC), around the same time that Puerto Rico, where I live, implemented a vaccine passport, and the Biden Administration increased its use of unconstitutional dictatorial edicts to rule.”

See “parallel economies” at about 18:00.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Why “Natural Immunity” Is a Political Problem for the Regime | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 21, 2021

But some physicians aren’t as obsessed with pushing vaccine mandates as Anthony Fauci, and the evidence in favor of natural immunity is becoming so undeniable that even mainstream publications are starting to admit it.

At this point, it would be embarrassing for the regime to admit what actual scientific inquiry has shown: that natural immunity is generally superior to receiving the vaccine. The regime doesn’t like to be embarrassed, and neither do the countless doctors and nurses who have long toed the regime’s political line. So expect more of the same. 

https://mises.org/wire/why-natural-immunity-political-problem-regime

Ryan McMaken

Since 2020, public health technocrats and their allies among elected officials have clung to the position that absolutely every person who can possibly get a covid vaccine should get one.

Both the Mayo Clinic website and the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, for example, insist that “research has not yet shown” that people who have recovered from covid have any sort of reliable protection. Moreover, the CDC page points to a single study from Kentucky claiming that people with natural immunity are more than twice as likely to contract covid again, compared to people who have been vaccinated.

This narrative is reflected in the fact that the Biden administration’s vaccine mandates are a one-size-fits-all policy insisting that virtually all adults, regardless of whether or not they’ve already had the disease, receive a covid vaccine. The official position is apparently this: nothing except the vaccine can provide any sort of resistance or immunity. So get a vaccine. No exceptions!

Health technocrats have repeatedly insisted that “the science” points unambiguously toward everyone receiving a vaccine, even to the point of pushing vaccines for children. All this in spite of the fact the risk to children from covid is far less than the risk a dozen common daily risks, such as riding in an automobile.

The regime has attached itself closely to a vaccinate-everybody-no-matter-what policy, and a sudden u-turn would be politically problematic. So it’s no wonder there’s so little interest in the topic.

Indeed, in a September 10 interview, senior covid technocrat Anthony Fauci claimed that the matter of natural immunity was not even being discussed at government health agencies. Fauci’s response suggested that the facts of natural immunity warranted discussion at some point in the future. But the comment certainly fit the dominant regime narrative nonetheless: the facts of natural immunity don’t matter for now. Everyone should just get vaccinated:

CNN’s Sanjay Gupta asked if people who have already recovered from COVID-19 should still be required to get the vaccine.

“I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that,” [Fauci] said Thursday on CNN. “I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously.”

Maybe someday they’ll get to talking about it.

But some physicians aren’t as obsessed with pushing vaccine mandates as Anthony Fauci, and the evidence in favor of natural immunity is becoming so undeniable that even mainstream publications are starting to admit it.

In an op-ed for the Washington Post last week, Marty Makary of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine argues that the medical profession has hurt its credibility in pretending that natural immunity is virtually irrelevant to the covid equation. Moreover, the dogmatic “get vaccinated” position constitutes a lack of honesty about the data. Rather, Makary concludes:

[W]e can encourage all Americans to get vaccinated while still being honest about the data. In my clinical experience, I have found patients to be extremely forgiving with evolving data if you are honest and transparent with them. Yet, when asked the common question, “I’ve recovered from covid, is it absolutely essential that I get vaccinated?” many public health officials have put aside the data and responded with a synchronized “yes,” even as studies have shown that reinfections are rare and often asymptomatic or mild when they do occur.

And what are these studies? Makary continues:

More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated. This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which none who had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected. The study authors concluded that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.” And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.

The policy bias in favor of vaccines ignores many other facts as well, such as the relative risks of vaccines, especially for the young:

The current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention position about vaccinating children also dismisses the benefits of natural immunity. The Los Angeles County School District recently mandated vaccines for students ages 12 and up who want to learn in person. But young people are less likely to suffer severe or long-lasting symptoms from covid-19 than adults, and have experienced rare heart complications from the vaccines. In Israel, heart inflammation has been observed in between 1 in 3,000 and 1 in 6,000 males age 16 to 24; the CDC has confirmed 854 reports nationally in people age 30 and younger who got the vaccine.

A second dose of the two-shot mRNA vaccine like that produced by Pfizer and Moderna may not even be necessary in children who had covid. Since February, Israel’s Health Ministry has been recommending that anyone, adult or adolescent, who has recovered from covid-19 receive a only single mRNA vaccine dose, instead of two. Even though the risk of severe illness during a reinfection is exceedingly low, some data has demonstrated a slight benefit to one dose in this situation. Other countries use a similar approach. The United States could adopt this strategy now as a reasonable next step in transitioning from an overly rigid to a more flexible vaccine requirement policy. For comparison, the CDC has long recommended that kids do not get the chickenpox vaccine if they had chickenpox infection in the past.

The nonscientific, ideology-induced blind spot for natural immunity also prompted The BMJ  (the journal of the British Medical Association) to note that “[w]hen the vaccine rollout began in mid-December 2020, more than one quarter of Americans—91 million—had been infected with SARS-CoV-2…. As of this May, that proportion had risen to more than a third of the population, including 44% of adults aged 18–59.”

And yet, the authors note this fact doesn’t appear to be a part of any policy discussion at all: 

The substantial number of infections, coupled with the increasing scientific evidence that natural immunity was durable, led some medical observers to ask why natural immunity didn’t seem to be factored into decisions about prioritising vaccination.

This problem is reflected in the Biden administration’s drive for booster shots—announced in mid-August—even before there was any clinical research on booster shots at all. Even by mid-September, as one hospital’s chief medical officer put it, “the data is not compelling one way or another.”

But those sorts of details don’t trouble federal “public health” officials, and the Biden administration quickly moved toward pushing booster shots for everyone. 

This Is Why There Should Be No Mandatory Medical Treatment

Of course, mandating vaccines—like mandating any medical treatment—would still be immoral even if we could list a dozen studies suggesting boosters are a boon and that natural immunity is no good.

What if there were twenty-five studies “proving” vaccines are better than natural immunity, but only twenty studies “proving” natural immunity is better? Would coercive vaccine mandates then suddenly be justified? Unfortunately, that’s exactly how many advocates for repressive covid policies think the world should work. For these people, policy is just a matter of adding up the number of studies “proving” their side is right, and then claiming this justifies forcing mandatory medications on millions of human beings. 

(It never works in reverse, of course. The fact that there’s a lot of evidence—as Makary points out—against vaccines for those who have natural immunity, the dominant narrative is nonetheless that vaccines are “necessary” and “worth it” for everybody, always and everywhere.)

In the real world, however, many medications—including these new vaccines—come with risks that must be weighed against potential benefits. These decisions can only be made at the individual level, where patients must make their own decisions about what substances to put into their own bodies. In other words, blanket policies proclaiming “everyone must receive this medical treatment immediately, or else” contradicts the realities of the uncertainties and varying risk levels that affect individuals. The facts of uncertainty and informed consent were once considered a mainstay of medical ethics—and of any political ideology that actually respects self-determination and basic human rights. Unfortunately, the philosophy of “public health” appears to be uninterested in such trivialities.

At this point, it would be embarrassing for the regime to admit what actual scientific inquiry has shown: that natural immunity is generally superior to receiving the vaccine. The regime doesn’t like to be embarrassed, and neither do the countless doctors and nurses who have long toed the regime’s political line. So expect more of the same. 

[Read More: “Debunking Biden’s Claim We Must ‘Protect the Vaccinated from the Unvaccinated’” by Ryan McMaken] Author:

Contact Ryan McMaken

Ryan McMaken is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and Power and Market, but read article guidelinesfirst.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Shockingly, CDC Now Lists Vaccinated Deaths as Unvaccinated – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 16, 2021

According to the CDC,6 you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection

In other words, if you’ve received one dose of Pfizer or Moderna and develop symptomatic COVID-19, get admitted to the hospital and/or die from COVID, you’re counted as an unvaccinated case.

the CDC has quietly changed the definition of “vaccine,” apparently in an attempt to validate calling the COVID mRNA gene therapies vaccines.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/09/joseph-mercola/shockingly-cdc-now-lists-vaccinated-deaths-as-unvaccinated/

By Joseph Mercola

Mercola.com

While public health officials and mainstream media claim the COVID-19 pandemic is now “a pandemic of the unvaccinated,”1 we now know this claim is based on highly misleading statistics.

In a July 16, 2021, White House press briefing,2 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claimed that “over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.” A few weeks later, in an August 5, 2021, statement, she inadvertently revealed how that statistic actually came about.3

As it turns out, the CDC was looking at hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021 — a timeframe during which the vast majority of the U.S. population were still unvaccinated.4

But that’s not the case at all now. The CDC is also playing with statistics in other ways to create the false and inaccurate impression that unvaccinated people make up the bulk of infections, hospitalizations and deaths. For example, we now find out the agency is counting anyone who died within the first 14 days post-injection as unvaccinated.

Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll, but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks.5 Now their deaths are counted as unvaccinated deaths rather than being counted as deaths due to vaccine injury or COVID-19 breakthrough infections!

How CDC Counts Breakthrough Cases

According to the CDC,6 you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen. This is how the CDC defines a vaccine breakthrough case:

“… a vaccine breakthrough infection is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14 days after they have completed all recommended doses of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine.”

In other words, if you’ve received one dose of Pfizer or Moderna and develop symptomatic COVID-19, get admitted to the hospital and/or die from COVID, you’re counted as an unvaccinated case. If you’ve received two doses and get ill within 14 days, you’re still counted as an unvaccinated case.

The problem with this is that over 80% of hospitalizations and deaths appear to be occurring among those who have received the jabs, but this reality is hidden by the way cases are defined and counted. A really clever and common strategy of the CDC during the pandemic has been to change the definitions and goalposts so it supports their nefarious narrative.

For example, the CDC has quietly changed the definition of “vaccine,” apparently in an attempt to validate calling the COVID mRNA gene therapies vaccines. In an August 26, 2021, archived version7 of vaccine, the CDC defines it as a “product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

But a few days later, a new definition appeared on the CDC’s website,8 which now says a vaccine is a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” The differences in the definitions are subtle but distinct: The first one defined a vaccine as something that will “produce immunity.”

But, since the COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to stop infection but, rather, to only lessen the degree of infection, it becomes obvious that the new definition was created to cover the COVID vaccines.

Different Testing Guidelines for Vaxxed and Unvaxxed

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

CDC: People With Dirt On Clintons Have 843% Greater Risk Of Suicide

Posted by M. C. on August 28, 2021

https://babylonbee.com/news/cdc-people-dirt-clintons-843-greater-risk-suicide

ATLANTA, GA – According to a report from the Centers for Disease Control released on Thursday, people with inside, compromising knowledge of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s financial and political dealings are 843% more likely to commit suicide.

“We’ve never seen a single risk factor cause a spike of this magnitude,” a CDC spokesperson told reporters. “Interestingly, in spite of their increased suicide risk, people with dirt on the Clintons rarely show any warning signs of suicide, and they never leave a suicide note.”

Remarking about how abnormal it is, the spokesman again stressed the significance of the data.

“Therefore, we advise any American with detrimental information about Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, or the Clinton Foundation to forget about it as quickly as possible to avoid a greatly increased probability of taking your own life,” he cautioned.

“And—I swear—that’s all we know.”

Bee seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Do Public Health Agencies Reject Natural Immunity? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 27, 2021

The elephant in the room, however, is the absence of actual symptomatic illness. The study only looked at positive test results, and we do not know whether more vaccinated people were symptomatic than the unvaccinated, or vice versa.

As has been explained many times before, a positive test result is not the same as active infection. A person with natural immunity may be re-exposed to the virus, and traces of it may show upon testing, but their immune system has effectively killed the virus and prevented illness.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/08/joseph-mercola/why-do-public-health-agencies-reject-natural-immunity/

By Joseph Mercola

Mercola.com

According to U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy, if you’ve already recovered from a bout of COVID-19, the full-spectrum immunity mounted by your body may not be enough to prevent reinfection with the Delta variant, so your best bet is to get the COVID shot. Mid-August 2021 he told CNN:1

“… what we’ve understood, actually, from the studies about natural immunity, we are seeing more and more data that tells us that while you get some protection from natural infection, it’s not nearly as strong as what you get from the vaccine, especially with the Delta variant, which is the hardiest and most contagious variant we’ve seen to date. We need all the protection that we can get. That’s why the vaccines are so effective.”

Data Analysis Claims Unvaccinated More Prone to Reinfection

August 6, 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a case control study2,3 claiming that unvaccinated people are “more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus.”

The study used data reported to Kentucky’s National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (NEDSS) to assess SARS-CoV-2 reinfection rates in Kentucky during May through June 2021 among those who’d had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and December 2020.

The NEDSS data were then imported into a REDCap database that tracks new COVID-19 cases. A case-patient was defined as a resident with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 and a subsequent positive test result during May 1, 2021, through June 30, 2021.

Vaccination status was determined using data from the Kentucky Immunization Registry. Patients were considered fully vaccinated if a single dose of Johnson & Johnson or a second dose of an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna) had been administered at least 14 days before reinfection. Compared to fully vaccinated residents, unvaccinated residents were 2.34 times more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.

The Obvious Flaw in CDC’s Study

The elephant in the room, however, is the absence of actual symptomatic illness. The study only looked at positive test results, and we do not know whether more vaccinated people were symptomatic than the unvaccinated, or vice versa.

As has been explained many times before, a positive test result is not the same as active infection. A person with natural immunity may be re-exposed to the virus, and traces of it may show upon testing, but their immune system has effectively killed the virus and prevented illness.

So, merely looking at positive test results is not the best way to ascertain whether the COVID jab actually provides better protection than natural immunity. And there are many reasons to suspect that it does not.

Other Shortcomings

The study authors also admit there are several other limitations to the findings, including the following:4

“First, reinfection was not confirmed through whole genome sequencing, which would be necessary to definitively prove that the reinfection was caused from a distinct virus relative to the first infection …

Second, persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested. Therefore, the association of reinfection and lack of vaccination might be overestimated. Third, vaccine doses administered at federal or out-of-state sites are not typically entered in KYIR, so vaccination data are possibly missing for some persons in these analyses …

Fourth, although case-patients and controls were matched based on age, sex, and date of initial infection, other unknown confounders might be present. Finally, this is a retrospective study design using data from a single state during a 2-month period; therefore, these findings cannot be used to infer causation.”

It is correct that association does not equate to causation, and we’ve been repeatedly told to dismiss Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data for this very reason. Perhaps the same standard should be applied to this CDC investigation, as it tells us very little about the actual risk associated with reinfection.

For all we know, those with natural immunity tested positive for reinfection but had no symptoms, while vaccinated people tested positive and were actually ill. Which, in that case, would be the preferable outcome?

Hospitalization and Mortality Rates Are a Better Gauge

A far better gauge of how well the COVID jabs are working would be serious infection, hospitalization and death rates, and when we look at those, a different picture emerges.

In Israel, where vaccine uptake has been very high due to restrictions on freedom for those who don’t comply,5 data show those who have received the COVID jab are 6.72 times more likely to get infected than people who have recovered from natural infection.6,7,8

That too refers to test results, so let’s look at hospitalization rates instead. Here, we find a majority of serious cases and deaths are in fact occurring among those injected with two doses.

The following is a screenshot of graphs posted on Twitter.9 The red is unvaccinated, yellow refers to partially “vaccinated” and green fully “vaccinated” with two doses. The charts speak for themselves.

Do not be deceived by claims that unvaccinated patients make up 99% of COVID-19 deaths and 95% of COVID-related hospitalizations in the United States.10

These statistics were manufactured by looking at hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021 — a time frame when COVID jab rates were low. January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot so, clearly, unvaccinated made up the bulk of COVID-related hospitalizations last winter. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots,11 and as of June 30, just 46.9% were “fully vaccinated.”12

Why COVID Shot Cannot End COVID Outbreaks

Overall, it doesn’t appear as though COVID-19 gene modification injections have the ability to effectively eliminate COVID-19 outbreaks, and this makes sense, seeing how it’s mathematically impossible for them to do so. Since the absolute risk that needs to be overcome is lower than the absolute risk reduction these injections can provide, mass vaccination simply cannot have a favorable impact, even with a vaccination rate of 100%.

The four available COVID shots in the U.S. provide an absolute risk reduction between just 0.7% and 1.3%.13,14 (Efficacy rates of 67% to 95% all refer to the relative risk reduction.) Meanwhile, the noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio across age groups is a mere 0.26%.15

Since the absolute risk that needs to be overcome is lower than the absolute risk reduction these injections can provide, mass vaccination simply cannot have a favorable impact, even with a vaccination rate of 100%.

Don’t believe it? There’s proof. July 14, 2021, BBC News reported16 there’d been an outbreak on the British Defense aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. Despite the entire crew being fully injected, 100 crew members tested positive. (It’s unclear whether any of them actually had symptoms.)

The recent outbreak onboard a Carnival cruise line ship is another example. All crew and passengers had presented proof of being jabbed, yet that didn’t prevent an outbreak from taking place.17

The reason is very simple. Just as we have been telling you from the beginning, the shot does not prevent you from getting infected with the virus or spreading it around. “Vaccinated” individuals have actually been shown to be just as infectious as unvaccinated people. Even if they have fewer or milder symptoms, their viral load is just as great when infected, according to the CDC.18

There’s No Control Group to Compare Against Anymore

For some reason, government leaders and health officials want a needle in every arm, and they don’t care what the side effects of the shots might be. This is evident by the fact that we now have tens of thousands of reported deaths (according to one whistleblower, 45,000 deaths have occurred within three days of injection19,20) and well over half a million injury reports following COVID “vaccination,”21 yet no action is taken to slow down or halt the campaign.

Historically, mass vaccination campaigns have been halted and drugs withdrawn after 25 to 50 deaths (depending on the product). We’re so far past that now, one wonders if there actually is a threshold at which authorities will take action to protect the public from unnecessary medical injury and death.

VAERS is tricky to maneuver, so the easiest way to get a glimpse into the current status is to go to OpenVAERS.com, where you get a simple summary breakdown of current COVID-related reports.

Equally telling is the fact that all control groups have been eliminated from the still-ongoing injection trials,22 with full support from a World Health Organization Expert Working Group23 so, in the end, we’ll have no way of really evaluating side effects.

This is the perfect way to hide the truth about these shots, and it violates the very basics of what a safety trial has always been required to have. You simply must incorporate a control group to compare the effects of the drug against in the long term, otherwise you will have no clue as to what complications have arisen.

Safety evaluations have also been intentionally undermined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which chose not to require vaccine makers to implement robust post-injection data collection and follow-up on the general public.

On top of that, the trials also do not appear to have oversight boards, which is standard practice for all human clinical trials. There’s no Data Safety Monitoring Board, no Clinical Event Committee and no Clinical Ethics Committee. How could this be?

If vaccine makers simply forgot to follow standard practices, it would mean we’re dealing with a truly staggering level of incompetence, as all COVID jab developers have made the same mistake. Which might be worse in this case? Intentional negligence or unintentional incompetence?

COVID-19 Shots Confer Narrow Immunity

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

2 Things Mainstream Media Didn’t Tell You About FDA’s Approval of Pfizer Vaccine • Children’s Health Defense

Posted by M. C. on August 26, 2021

Second, the FDA pointed out that the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing, EUA Pfizer vaccine are “legally distinct,” but proclaims that their differences do not “impact safety or effectiveness.”

There is a huge real-world difference between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed.

And because adults injured by the vaccine will be able to show that the manufacturer knew of the problems with the product, jury awards could be astronomical.

Pfizer is therefore unlikely to allow any American to take a Comirnaty vaccine until it can somehow arrange immunity for this product.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mainstream-media-fda-approval-pfizer-vaccine/

By  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Meryl Nass, M.D.

Buried in the fine print of Monday’s approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the Pfizer Comirnaty COVID vaccine are two critical facts that affect whether the vaccine can be mandated, and whether Pfizer can be held liable for injuries.

The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free.

Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a biologics license application for the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine.

The press reported that vaccine mandates are now legal for military, healthcare workers, college students and employees in many industries. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has now required the vaccine for all teachers and school staff. The Pentagon is proceeding with its mandate for all military service members.

But there are several bizarre aspects to the FDA approval that will prove confusing to those not familiar with the pervasiveness of the FDA’s regulatory capture, or the depths of the agency’s cynicism.

First, the FDA acknowledges that while Pfizer has “insufficient stocks” of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine available, there is “a significant amount” of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine — produced under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) — still available for use.

The FDA decrees that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used “interchangeably” (page 2, footnote 8) with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.

Second, the FDA pointed out that the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing, EUA Pfizer vaccine are “legally distinct,” but proclaims that their differences do not “impact safety or effectiveness.”

There is a huge real-world difference between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed.

EUA products are experimental under U.S. law. Both the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations provide that no one can force a human being to participate in this experiment. Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), “authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,” it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject. Instead, potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse EUA vaccines.

U.S. laws, however, permit employers and schools to require students and workers to take licensed vaccines.

EUA-approved COVID vaccines have an extraordinary liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act. Vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers and government planners are immune from liability. The only way an injured party can sue is if he or she can prove willful misconduct, and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.

The government has created an extremely stingy compensation program, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, to redress injuries from all EUA products. The program’s parsimonious administrators have compensated under 4% of petitioners to date — and not a single COVID vaccine injury — despite the fact that physicians, families and injured vaccine recipients have reported more than 600,000 COVID vaccine injuries.

At least for the moment, the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine has no liability shield. Vials of the branded product, which say “Comirnaty” on the label, are subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products.

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices places a vaccine on the mandatory schedule, a childhood vaccine benefits from a generous retinue of liability protections.

But licensed adult vaccines, including the new Comirnaty, do not enjoy any liability shield. Just as with Ford’s exploding Pinto, or Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, people injured by the Comirnaty vaccine could potentially sue for damages.

And because adults injured by the vaccine will be able to show that the manufacturer knew of the problems with the product, jury awards could be astronomical.

Pfizer is therefore unlikely to allow any American to take a Comirnaty vaccine until it can somehow arrange immunity for this product.

Given this background, the FDA’s acknowledgement in its approval letter that there are insufficient stocks of the licensed Comirnaty, but an abundant supply of the EUA Pfizer BioNTech jab, exposes the “approval” as a cynical scheme to encourage businesses and schools to impose illegal jab mandates.

The FDA’s clear motivation is to enable Pfizer to quickly unload inventories of a vaccine that science and the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System have exposed as unreasonably dangerous, and that the Delta variant has rendered obsolete.

They know they can’t win this argument on the science and that’s why they had to abolish the public process and independent oversight.

SIGN UP #TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66Edfiw5https://t.co/b6oj4bmnEo

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) August 23, 2021

Americans, told that the Pfizer COVID vaccine is now licensed, will understandably assume COVID vaccine mandates are lawful. But only EUA-authorized vaccines, for which no one has any real liability, will be available during the next few weeks when many school mandate deadlines occur.

The FDA appears to be purposefully tricking American citizens into giving up their right to refuse an experimental product.

While the media has trumpeted that the FDA has approved COVID vaccines, the FDA has not approved the Pfizer BioNTech vaccines, nor any COVID vaccines for the 12- to 15-year age group, nor any booster doses for anyone.

And the FDA has not licensed any Moderna vaccine, nor any vaccine from Johnson & Johnson — so the vast majority, if not all, of vaccines available in the U.S. remain unlicensed EUA products.

Here’s what you need to know when somebody orders you to get the vaccine: Ask to see the vial. If it says “Comirnaty,” it’s a licensed product.

If it says “Pfizer-BioNTech,” it’s an experimental product, and under 21 U.S. Code 360bbb, you have the right to refuse.

If it comes from Moderna or Johnson & Johnson (marketed as Janssen), you have the right to refuse.

The FDA is playing bait and switch with the American public — but we don’t have to play along. If it doesn’t say Comirnaty, you have not been offered an approved vaccine.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s avatar

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s reputation as a resolute defender of the environment stems from a litany of successful legal actions.

Meryl Nass, M.D.'s avatar

Meryl Nass, M.D.

Meryl Nass, MD, ABIM, is an internist with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War illness, fibromyalgia and toxicology.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

CDC: Vaccine Efficacy Tanking. So Now What?

Posted by M. C. on August 25, 2021

The biggest flip-monoclonal antibodies now better than vaccines.


“Also…Fauci is NOW saying that early treatments, particularly monoclonal antibodies, for covid can cut hospitalizations by 85 percent” Florida Governor DeSantis was attacked for saying the same thing last week

https://youtu.be/pLbfZfAgxDg

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

CDC Buries Study Finding That Student Masking Has ‘No Statistically Significant Benefit’ | ZeroHedge

Posted by M. C. on August 23, 2021

Epidemiologist Tracy Hoeg, author of a different CDC study on Covid-19 transmission in schools said that “The summary gives the impression that only masking of staff was studied,” adding “when in reality there was this additional important detection about a student-masking requirement not having a statistical impact.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/cdc-buries-study-showing-student-masking-has-no-statistically-significant-benefit

Tyler Durden's Photoby Tyler Durden

Less than three months ago, the Centers for Disease Control published a mostly-ignored, large-scale study of Covid-19 transmission in US schools which concluded that while masking then-unvaccinated teachers and improving ventilation was associated with lower levels of virus transmission in schools – social distancing, classroom barriers, HEPA filters, and forcing students to wear masksdid not result in a statistically significant benefit.

A few major news outlets covered its release by briefly reiterating the study’s summary: that masking then-unvaccinated teachers and improving ventilation with more fresh air were associated with a lower incidence of the virus in schools. Those are common-sense measures, and the fact that they seem to work is reassuring but not surprising. Other findings of equal importance in the study, however, were absent from the summary and not widely reported. These findings cast doubt on the impact of many of the most common mitigation measures in American schools. Distancing, hybrid models, classroom barriers, HEPA filters, and, most notably, requiring student masking were each found to not have a statistically significant benefit. In other words, these measures could not be said to be effective. -NYMag

According to the report, scientists believe that the CDC’s decision to intentionally omit the findings on student masking from a summary of the study amounts to “file drawering” the findings – the practice of burying studies that don’t have statistically significant results.

“That a masking requirement of students failed to show independent benefit is a finding of consequence and great interest,” according to Vinay Prasad, an associate professor in University of California, San Francisco’s Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics. “It should have been included in the summary.”

Epidemiologist Tracy Hoeg, author of a different CDC study on Covid-19 transmission in schools said that “The summary gives the impression that only masking of staff was studied,” adding “when in reality there was this additional important detection about a student-masking requirement not having a statistical impact.”

As Twitchy notes, NYMag‘s David Zweig questioned why the US is requiring masks when other countries don’t.

A 3,000 word deep dive into the evidence behind student mask mandates

Many countries around the world – with vax rates, case rates, and mortality above and below the US – do not require masks on students. Why does the US?

My latest for @NYMag https://t.co/r2nYIHVPNj — David Zweig (@davidzweig) August 20, 2021

David was joined by others pointing out similar facts:

“Many of America’s peer nations around the world — including the U.K., Ireland, all of Scandinavia, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Italy — have exempted kids, with varying age cutoffs, from wearing masks in classrooms.” https://t.co/kYoEkjq1FE — Matt Welch (@MattWelch) August 20, 2021

 More via Twitchy:

But it’s not just this CDC study. There are no studies that Zwieg — or anyone — can find that “show conclusively that kids wearing masks in schools has any effect on their own morbidity or mortality or on hospitalization or death rate in the community around them”:

“I’m not aware of any studies that show conclusively that kids wearing masks in schools has any effect on their own morbidity or mortality or on the hospitalization or death rate in the community around them.”

@davidzweighttps://t.co/pCut7MCfhX — Jennifer Sey (@JenniferSey) August 20, 2021

Meanwhile, as we’ve noted a few times in the past week, there are plenty of studies which conclude that masks provide minimal to no protection. 

  1. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v1.full-text
  2. https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
  3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560/
  4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/
  5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/
  6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222/
  7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159777/
  8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
  9. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1
  10. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2
  11. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
  12. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214
  13. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567
  14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
  17. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
  18. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_pdf/-char/en
  19. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736
  20. https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf90148-2/pdf)
  21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf
  22. https://web.archive.org/web/20200717141836/https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
  23. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25776/rapid-expert-consultation-on-the-effectiveness-of-fabric-masks-for-the-covid-19-pandemic-april-8-2020
  24. https://www.nap.edu/read/25776/chapter/1#6
  25. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
  26. https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744
  27. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6599448/
  28. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342
  29. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-020-01704-y
  30. https://clinmedjournals.org/articles/jide/journal-of-infectious-diseases-and-epidemiology-jide-6-130.php?jid=jide
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1130147308702355

So why are we making American kids wear oat bags every day?

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

US Investigates Moderna Jab After Data Show 2.5x Higher Risk Of Heart Inflammation | ZeroHedge

Posted by M. C. on August 21, 2021

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/us-investigates-moderna-jab-after-data-show-25x-higher-risk-heart-inflammation

Tyler Durden's Photoby Tyler Durden

The Internet’s social-media censors have been extremely vigilant at suppressing every tidbit of COVID vaccine “misinformation” that comes their way. So, as readers might imagine, drawing attention to publicly released data about the rare (but sometimes deadly) side effects associated with both mRNA and adenovirus-vector jabs has been…a challenge.

Hey @jack what happens to all those who were banned for warning about this?https://t.co/E9mFoFLqGS — zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 20, 2021

But let’s back up: over the past couple of months, health authorities in the US and Israel connected rare instances of myocarditis – that is, inflammation of the heart – to the mRNA jabs produced by Pfizer and Moderna. After a hurried secret meeting with its advisors in late June, the FDA reluctantly released a warning about a “likely association” between incidences of myocarditis and the new side effects.

And now, a new twist: On Thursday evening, the Washington Post published a report claiming that the Moderna coronavirus vaccine may be associated with a higher risk of myocarditis in younger adults than previously believed. The report relies on new data from a Canadian study that has yet to be released.

How much more dangerous is the Moderna jab than the Pfizer? Well, the preliminary data leaked to WaPo show the risk of myocarditis might be as much as 2.5x higher for the Moderna jab.

The news represents the latest bump in the road for Moderna’s high-flying stock, as patients (especially younger men in their 20s and 30s deemed at highest risk to suffer the side effect) now have an incentive to prefer Pfizer’s jab over Moderna’s (if they still have any confidence in the mRNA jabs at all, that is).

WaPo’s sources stressed that the new research hasn’t yet been concluded, and that there’s still plenty of work to be done before the FDA decides whether to attach another warning label to the Moderna jabs. The sources also claimed that the new data “are not slam bang”.

The investigation, which involves the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is focusing on Canadian data that suggests the Moderna vaccine may carry a higher risk for young people than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, especially for males below the age of 30 or so. The authorities also are scrutinizing data from the United States to try to determine whether there is evidence of an increased risk from Moderna in the U.S. population.

The two people who described the investigation spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing review because they were not authorized to discuss it.

One of the people familiar with the review emphasized it is too early to reach a conclusion. The person said the agencies must do additional work before deciding whether to issue any kind of new or revised warning or recommendation about the situation. In June, the FDA added a warning label for the Pfizer and Moderna shots — both known as mRNA vaccines — about increased risk of myocarditis.

“We have not come to a conclusion on this,” one of the people familiar with the investigation said. “The data are not slam bang.”

The FDA and CDC both said they’re looking into the data. To be sure, WaPo notes that the side effects remain “extremely rare” – or at least “very uncommon.” Probably…

The myocarditis side effect is extremely rare and even if it is more likely in people receiving the Moderna vaccine, it probably is still very uncommon. Officials want to be careful not to cause alarm among the public, especially when officials are trying to persuade more people to be vaccinated amid a surge of cases fueled by the fast-moving delta variant.

So far, the FDA and CDC’s official position is that the threat posed by COVID is far worse than any threat posed by vaccine side effects, and that all Americans over the age of 12 should get the jab. But as with any recent scientific judgment, there are others in the community who disagree – some who believe that the risk of side effects for young people might just outweigh the risk of harm from contracting COVID, which – as we have reviewed before – is virtually nil.

“There might be a 2.5 times higher incidence of myocarditis in those who get the Moderna vaccine compared with Pfizer’s vaccine.” Any risk at all for young people under 17 is unacceptable https://t.co/vz1REfaaj8 — Sue Cook (@SueC00K) August 20, 2021

The Internet’s social-media censors have been extremely vigilant at suppressing every tidbit of COVID vaccine “misinformation” that comes their way. So, as readers might imagine, drawing attention to publicly released data about the rare (but sometimes deadly) side effects associated with both mRNA and adenovirus-vector jabs has been…a challenge.
Hey @jack what happens to all those who were banned for warning about this?https://t.co/E9mFoFLqGS
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 20, 2021
But let’s back up: over the past couple of months, health authorities in the US and Israel connected rare instances of myocarditis – that is, inflammation of the heart – to the mRNA jabs produced by Pfizer and Moderna. After a hurried secret meeting with its advisors in late June, the FDA reluctantly released a warning about a “likely association” between incidences of myocarditis and the new side effects.



And now, a new twist: On Thursday evening, the Washington Post published a report claiming that the Moderna coronavirus vaccine may be associated with a higher risk of myocarditis in younger adults than previously believed. The report relies on new data from a Canadian study that has yet to be released.
How much more dangerous is the Moderna jab than the Pfizer? Well, the preliminary data leaked to WaPo show the risk of myocarditis might be as much as 2.5x higher for the Moderna jab.
The news represents the latest bump in the road for Moderna’s high-flying stock, as patients (especially younger men in their 20s and 30s deemed at highest risk to suffer the side effect) now have an incentive to prefer Pfizer’s jab over Moderna’s (if they still have any confidence in the mRNA jabs at all, that is).
WaPo’s sources stressed that the new research hasn’t yet been concluded, and that there’s still plenty of work to be done before the FDA decides whether to attach another warning label to the Moderna jabs. The sources also claimed that the new data “are not slam bang”.
The investigation, which involves the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is focusing on Canadian data that suggests the Moderna vaccine may carry a higher risk for young people than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, especially for males below the age of 30 or so. The authorities also are scrutinizing data from the United States to try to determine whether there is evidence of an increased risk from Moderna in the U.S. population.
The two people who described the investigation spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing review because they were not authorized to discuss it.
One of the people familiar with the review emphasized it is too early to reach a conclusion. The person said the agencies must do additional work before deciding whether to issue any kind of new or revised warning or recommendation about the situation. In June, the FDA added a warning label for the Pfizer and Moderna shots — both known as mRNA vaccines — about increased risk of myocarditis.
“We have not come to a conclusion on this,” one of the people familiar with the investigation said. “The data are not slam bang.”
The FDA and CDC both said they’re looking into the data. To be sure, WaPo notes that the side effects remain “extremely rare” – or at least “very uncommon.” Probably…
The myocarditis side effect is extremely rare and even if it is more likely in people receiving the Moderna vaccine, it probably is still very uncommon. Officials want to be careful not to cause alarm among the public, especially when officials are trying to persuade more people to be vaccinated amid a surge of cases fueled by the fast-moving delta variant.
So far, the FDA and CDC’s official position is that the threat posed by COVID is far worse than any threat posed by vaccine side effects, and that all Americans over the age of 12 should get the jab. But as with any recent scientific judgment, there are others in the community who disagree – some who believe that the risk of side effects for young people might just outweigh the risk of harm from contracting COVID, which – as we have reviewed before – is virtually nil.
“There might be a 2.5 times higher incidence of myocarditis in those who get the Moderna vaccine compared with Pfizer’s vaccine.” Any risk at all for young people under 17 is unacceptable https://t.co/vz1REfaaj8
— Sue Cook (@SueC00K) August 20, 2021

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

CDC Approves Internment Camps | Armstrong Economics

Posted by M. C. on August 18, 2021

The vast amount of people will line up to surrender all their constitutional and human rights and those of the family for decades to come simply on the world of those in power.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/conspiracy/cdc-approves-internment-camps/

by Martin Armstrong

The vast amount of people will line up to surrender all their constitutional and human rights and those of the family for decades to come simply on the world of those in power. The FIRST thing people must realize is that the top “public servants” view that title the same way insurance companies call DEATH INSURANCE the opposite LIFE INSURANCE. Everything else is named for the threat from fire, accident and theft. They could not sell DEATH insurance because people thought they were not ready to die and it would be bad luck so they flipped the name to LIFE and people lined up to buy it. The real view from above is not that they “serve” the public, but we are just stupid sheep to obey the politicians and hence we “serve” them.

All the conspiracy theories are coming true. They have been letting them out one drop at a time. That way you will never notice the big picture until it is too late. The CDC has now formally snuck in that they can create internment camps. Note the shift from you have COVID to you are simply now at “HIGH RISK” for them to determine. That can include fully vaccinated because now the variants are proving to be resistant to the vaccine, but it can also mean all the unvaccinated. The CDC states:

“The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.1,2They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.”

CDC approval

Little by little they are doing away with democracy. Was the election rigged? Absolutely. This is a global agenda and I fear that Lindell was pointed in the wrong direction of China which was to divert any claims of rigging the election from the real sources behind the curtain. Lindell was correct about one thing. The attempts to rig election began before 2020.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »