With Pfizer conducting trials of an omicron-specific mRNA product, it’s imperative we educate the public about the science surrounding SARS-CoV-2 and the so-called vaccines being pushed on the public.
The mRNA and viral vector COVID shots are therapeutics not vaccines. Health authorities admit this now (they are even now claiming that these products were meant to be therapeutics all along). These products reduce symptoms of disease without immunizing people from disease. There is no such thing as “breakthrough cases” (which is why the term is almost always in quotes in the medical literature as it always in on Freedom and Reason); people contract and spread the virus whether or not they are vaccinated.
The mass vaccination program thus comes with a (let’s assume this is the case) unintended consequence: many of those who have been vaccinated carry more virulent mutants (or variants, as they are popularly known) of the virus but feel well enough to go out into public and spread those mutants; by enhancing the ability of sick people to interact with others, these products disrupt the natural process of the virus, which is to mutate towards greater transmissibility and diminished virulence. Omicron notwithstanding (Omicron originated in the least vaccinated population in the world), technology affords more virulent mutants an unfair competitive advantage.
As noted, Pfizer is now conducting trials of the omicron-specific mRNA therapeutic. If this product is released before omicron completely subsides (it has already substantially subsided, as you can see below), and the company can get enough people to take it—or persuade other companies and governments to mandate it—we will see the likely a continuation of the pandemic, with possible mutants more virulent than omicron (which isn’t particularly virulent) emerging, possibly more virulent than delta and earlier mutants. Indeed, as I write this, public health authorities have detected an Omicron mutant hat may be more virulent. They are reporting that it has arrived on America’s east coast.
In light of the history of these technologies (mRNA and viral-vector), the campaign to inject tens of millions of children with mRNA technology is especially troubling. Thankfully, Pfizer has back off seeking authorization from the FDA for its mRNA platform for administration to children under five years of age (“need more data”). But it is still shooting spike protein into the bodies of children five and older.
On Sunday, the busiest day of the news cycle, The New York Times published a blockbuster: “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects.” The subtitle: “The agency has withheld critical data on boosters, hospitalizations and, until recently, wastewater analyses.” The opening paragraph is a bombshell: “For more than a year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has collected data on hospitalizations for Covid-19 in the United States and broken it down by age, race and vaccination status. But it has not made most of the information public.”
Why? There are actually two “whys” here. Why is the CDC withholding data and why is the NYTimes now reporting this fact? The CDC says it’s withholding data because they they are worried about vaccine hesitancy. According to the NYTimes, “The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.” How could misinterpretation be a possibility given how successful the government and the media have portrayed these vaccines? Are we to understand that the claims of efficacy are not beyond reproach? Are we really prepared to accept that the government is withholding evidence for our own good? What is in these data?
We know that the data the CDC is particularly worried about concerns the booster they pushed on 18- to 49-year-olds. Severe COVID for this very large age cohort is rare. Excepting those with metabolic disorder (obesity) and immune deficiency, boosters are really unnecessary for these individuals. Public health has never been the reason for pushing boosters on younger Americans. This cohort is targeted for profit and to rationalize expansion of the biosecurity state. Do the data show little or no benefit? (Any benefit would likely only be statistically marginal in light of cohort size.) Do the data indicate poor safety profile for the technology? Do the risks of death and injury from these therapeutics outweigh their marginal benefits? Otherwise, why worry about hesitancy (i.e., reluctance to justify the government transferring billions of dollars into the pockets of Big Pharma)?
The second “why” strongly suggests a desire to get out ahead of the story—which was always waiting to be written—that the CDC and FDA have been lying about the threat of COVID-19 and the safety of these products. The Biden regime turned to the NYTimes to soften the blow. When in the future references are made to the CDC coverup, it can be dismissed as “old news.” It is up to us to continue pushing the story out there.
The desire of the power elite to limit the ability to push out news like this, as well as the wealth of research and the army of experts who contradict the official narrative, California Assemblyman Evan Low (Democrat) introduced Assembly Bill 2098 on Feb. 15 that would prevent licensed physicians and surgeons from “spreading COVID-19 misinformation.” If passed, the law would sanction disciplinary actions by the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California to those who promote alleged misinformation. What is COVID-19 misinformation? As suggested above, any scientific position that is at odds with the narrative established by corporate-captured doctors and scientists and their institutions. Such censorship is contrary to the norms of science—and make no mistake, this bill is an attempt to formalize corporate state censorship using the legitimacy of the law. Even rightwing libertarians would have to concede that this is censorship. If passed, this law would serve as a model for other state legislatures.
This Friday past (the slowest of day of the news cycle), the White House released its Notice on the Continuation of the National Emergency Concerning the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. (I am sure all of my readers are aware of the vote in the Canadian parliament that affirmed Prime Minister Justice Trudeau’s declaration of the state of emergency.) Biden’s notice extends the national emergency beyond March 1: “Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency declared in Proclamation 9994 concerning the COVID-19 pandemic.” Therefore what? The pandemic is over. The biofascist regime persists despite the fact that the pandemic is over.
One suspects that part of this is a scheme to give secretaries of state reason to override state constitutions and pursue another round of postal voting, which will help Democrats in the upcoming primaries and elections that are sure to go sideways unless progressives perpetrate another act of massive voter fraud.
I want to close with a reality check. I know the reservoir of good will towards doctors and appreciation of scientists and technologists runs deep. But doctors, scientists, and technologists are human, and as humans they are corruptible and can be greedy and self-serving and often are. President Eisenhower warned us about what would happen when the corporate state captured the experts. Developments in the meantime have fulfilled that prophecy.
Remember, as I reported recently on Freedom and Reason, the third leading cause of death in America is medical error. This is an industry that is comfortable with death and injury. They know the likelihood of being punished for following orders, let alone criminally charged for harming patients, is next to nil. Do you really think the “side effects” of these vaccines bother doctors and scientists captured by the system? To them, you’re a consumer (in many ways, you are a commodity, one that is already worked by the food industry). It’s not personal. Their bed-side manner and pretense to beneficence are a charade. That’s public relations. You are manipulated into trusting them for business.
No notion is more indicative of the technocratic mindset and of the anti-principle of profit over people than that we should let doctors and scientists determine our freedom.
freedom and reason 