LESSER-KNOWN COVID TRUTHS FROM THE COVID-REALISM CAMP
Unpacking the Lies of the Biosecurity State
INTRO
There are few things I can imagine that could’ve been worse for an already polarized society than a pandemic response that led us to treat every human as a biohazard. And yet, we were led down that path by most politicians, public health leaders, and the media. With the help of the tech industry, all attempts to bring balance to the conversation and response have been suppressed, and at this point in the pandemic it seems the gated institutional narrative is impenetrable. It does appear that certain pieces to the puzzle of that led to the hysteria are being allowed into the light of corporate media, but it is difficult at this point to be optimistic that the full picture will be revealed. Renowned doctors and scientists all over the world have been silenced, consensus has been manufactured by what is relatively just a handful of people, and groupthink has fully taken hold.
The world of Covid-realism has been a very lonely place for the past 15 months and I hope that more and more people begin to question what is happening, because despite media narratives, it is possible to believe that Covid can be a dangerous virus, and still see our response as wholly unscientific.
The vast majority of people come up with their version of ‘truth’ based on just a headline, or a sensational, misrepresented, and/or anomalous media report. Those who skip the narrative and go straight to the studies and the fine print are few and far between, but they make up the group of Covid-realists that have been tragically unrepresented in this pandemic. With that in mind, I hope to share some little-known Covid truths, most of which have been evident for the past 12–15 months. Some have made it into the corporate media spotlight, and dismissed as insignificant, and others have yet to make it to the mainstream, but hopefully we can spread the word about the criminal nature of this pandemic response, and be ready for the next one.
COVID ORIGINS
While the origin of SARS-COV2 is still unconfirmed, it was clear from the outset that the Wuhan wet market story was far-fetched. The evolutionarily bogus story of a virus strain that transmitted from bat-to-human and was almost immediately perfectly adapted for human-to-human transmission became widely accepted, however, and all dissent was shouted down and/or censored.
We have long known that 6 miners became seriously ill, three of whom died, with a coronavirus in 2012 about 850 miles southwest of Wuhan. Scientists were deployed to the site to investigate and collect samples. A sample of a coronavirus that is 96.2% similar to SARS-COV2 was later delivered to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where we know gain-of-function research was taking place. Gain-of-function research is conducted to increase virus transmissibility, virulence, immunogenicity, and host tropism with the goal of preventing or mitigating pandemics, and it could possibly account for the creation of SARS-COV2. It is clear this correlation doesn’t prove the lab-leak theory, but it has certainly provided us with insight into the risks of gain-of-function research in sparking pandemics, and the failure of this research to prevent and mitigate pandemics. The censorship of the lab-leak theory also provides us with insight into the beginning of a long and criminal suppression of Covid truths and evidence by the tech and pharma industries, corporate media, and politicians.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html
PCR TESTS
From the beginning of the SARS-COV2 pandemic the PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test has been used as a diagnostic tool. This particular PCR test has many fatal design and protocol flaws, a few of which are summarized below:
· The test was created based on a theoretical sequence of the virus because at the time of creation the virus had yet to be isolated. This has not been resolved to date.
· There was no limit set to cycle threshold (magnification) for confirming a positive test result though it is well known that anything over a cycle threshold of 30 is likely only detecting dead nucleotides and is likely producing a false positive. A high cycle threshold positive test could be detecting dead nucleotides from an infection that was present nearly three months prior. Most tests in the U.S. came with cycle threshold instructions of over 35, as high as 40+, and even the NYT acknowledged that up to 63% of PCR positive tests in one sample would’ve been deemed negative had the cycle threshold protocol been set to 30 cycles or less. This is a conservative number according to a peer review of the Covid-19 PCR papers that suggest that as many as 97% of tests that were deemed positive at 35 cycles or higher are likely to be false positives.
· The genome of coronavirus is the largest of all RNA viruses that infect humans and they have similar molecular structures. The E gene specific to SARS-COV1 and SARS-COV2 was not used as a target gene for the PCR test, but a gene not specific to SARS-COV1 and SARS-COV2 was used as a target gene instead. This seems to indicate that other coronaviruses could be picked up by the PCR test and result in a false positive.
There are several more SARS-COV2 PCR test flaws that can be found summarized here:
The NYT samples and stats can be found via this link:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.amp.html
The flaws in the PCR testing protocols have corrupted our data, and subsequently our response, in a way that cannot be understated. Some outcomes include:
· Grossly overstated cases, classifying non-infectious people as infectious
· Overstated deaths associated with COVID-19 that should’ve been attributed to other pneumonia-inducing pathogens or attributed to ‘co-morbidities’
· Other pathogens being diagnosed as COVID-19 due to PCR testing confirming a prior infection weeks/months earlier (i.e., someone with other virus testing positive for SARS-COV2 due to a prior SARS-COV2 infection weeks/months earlier)
Due to the pitfalls the SARS-COV2 PCR test, the COVID-19 case tallies cannot be taken seriously, and hospitalization and death tallies are highly suspect.
DEATH COUNTS
While excess deaths in the U.S. in 2020 were significant, due to PCR test protocols and death reporting protocols it is hard to know how many people actually died ‘of Covid’ as opposed to dying ‘with Covid.’ On top of this conflation, it is important to realize that all-cause death totals in the U.S. have been rising steadily for nearly a decade. This increase is, in part, the result of an aging boomer population, the oldest of which turned 74 years old in 2020.
Life expectancy in the U.S. pre-Covid was about 78 years old. The average Covid decedent in the U.S. is also about 78 years old with an average of 2.6 co-morbidities, not counting obesity. The CDC reports 94% of those that died of Covid had co-morbidities on death certificates. The CDC also reports that 78% of those hospitalized with Covid were overweight or obese.
As of 4/28/21, less than 25,000 people under 50 have died of Covid in the U.S. and less than 8,500 people under 40 have died of Covid. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/
It is clear that Covid played a significant role in excess mortality in 2020, but an aging population, a population with declining health, and a population with deteriorating mental health, exacerbated the impact of an illness that largely kills unhealthy people at, near, or beyond their life expectancy.
DEATH RISKS
Death risks associated with Covid have been exaggerated and sensationalized by the media and politicians from the beginning of the pandemic. They have continued to focus on a combination of anomalies and numbers that seem large when presented out of context. Early on, a cruise ship outbreak provided a perfect study setting for assessing death and hospitalization risks but it was largely ignored. Fortunately, many studies came out later showing that Covid is only about 2.5 times more deadly than the average seasonal flu, but only for those over 60 years of age. With flu strains varying from year to year, it can also be said some semi-recent flu strains have likely been as deadly as Covid, namely the flu strains in the 1957 and 1968 pandemics. Reported death counts by nation in those pandemics cannot be compared to this one due to the huge differences in the technology and protocols of the eras, but the media continues to make an unprovable claim that this is the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu of 1918.
Despite the real risks of Covid, it has long been clear that the risk to the young and healthy is very low. In the general population (non-institutionalized population), the risk of death to those between 12 and 40 years old is about .01%, and the risk of death for those under 60 years of age is .12%. Children are, at most, at equal risk of complications from the flu than they are of COVID.
In the chart below, Covid infection-fatality rates by sex and age group paint a clear picture of the age-stratified risk of Covid and our disproportionate response. It is worth noting that these fatality rates are based on actual deaths that largely skew to those who are obese with other underlying conditions. Expected risks for healthy individuals in these age groups would skew much lower.
Despite this readily available data, our response and compliance has been driven by fear-mongering narratives. These narratives have severely damaged people to the point of irrational fear. In a Gallup poll the evidence of this is clear in a survey asking people, by party affiliation, about their risk of hospitalization with Covid. The actual hospitalization risk ranges from about 1% to 5%, with averages for the young and healthy likely falling below that floor.
With Covid risks being extremely age-stratified, it was clear early on that focused protection of the vulnerable was the correct strategy for protecting the most people from the most public health risks. Instead, we went with the blunt, ineffective, and devastating strategy of trying to protect all risk groups with sweeping mandates.
HOSPITAL CAPACITY
While there was a strain on hospitals for small stints during the pandemic, the strain has been overstated most of the time. Hospitals are designed to be at near 100% capacity during flu season because they are for-profit businesses, like hotels. Any increase in the concentration of mortality during peak season will result in full and strained hospitals. Regardless, the reporting on hospital capacity has been sensationalized and numbers (again) have been presented without context. Most hospitals set aside an area of the hospital to deal specifically with Covid patients, and when those designated areas were full, reports would come that the hospital was 100% full and/or overwhelmed. The reality is that most all hospitals in the country have had plenty of space and equipment throughout the pandemic but they have failed to flex for the influx of pneumonia-type illness patients. There has been almost zero effort on the part of the healthcare system to adapt and instead the entire country was asked to adapt instead, with little to no impact on virus spread.
See Texas (a state w/ some of the highest case peaks) hospital stats below:
See change to definition of hospital beds to ‘acute care’ beds over the same time period to inflate the percentage of capacity number in Washington state over the same time period:
‘LONG COVID’
In much of the pandemic reporting, Covid has been presented as a completely novel virus that is unlike anything we have seen before. Not surprisingly, it turns out that Covid is very similar to other respiratory illnesses in almost every way. It follows pronounced cold/flu seasonal fluctuations, and it can result in post-viral symptoms, mostly in severe cases. Chest scan abnormalities following a severe pneumonia-type illness are not uncommon regardless of the pathogen causing it. Other post-viral symptoms that were reported were simply artifacts of people responding to a survey, likely after they’d already heard of ‘long Covid’ in the media or on social. And out of the over 3700 survey participants, less than 16% of them had tested positive for Covid at any time prior to the survey. The anxiety, depression, brain fog, and other symptoms that were frequently reported following even mild Covid infection are more likely to be artifacts of the general cultural hypochondria of our time, lockdown measures, media coverage, and resulting Covid infection stigma, and amount to correlation-is-causality fallacy. In any case, post-viral symptoms appear to be limited to severe cases and unremarkable in the world of respiratory viruses. See study findings below:
See article debunking COVID heart:
https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/14/setting-the-record-straight-there-is-no-covid-heart/
COVID TREATMENTS
The Covid treatment story for the past 15 months has been nothing short of scandalous. It started with the ill-advised overuse of ventilators, despite decades of medical experience with respiratory viruses, that likely led to many unnecessary deaths. And though we corrected our course on the ventilator front, promising COVID-19 treatments have been suppressed, censored, and/or willfully under-studied. The FDA and NIH put all of their eggs in the proverbial vaccine basket and shut out treatment possibilities that could’ve saved thousands of lives. It certainly seems like no coincidence that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) can only be granted for a vaccine if there is no known effective treatment for the illness the vaccine is meant to prevent.
One such suppressed treatment is the use of the drug Ivermectin, a drug that is inexpensive, readily available, and has a very long track record of use and safety. In many RCT’s Ivermectin was shown to reduce COVID-19 mortality by 68%-91%. It has been shown to comparably reduce hospitalizations due to COVID-19 and has been shown to prevent infection by up to 90% as a prophylaxis. Despite this evidence early in the pandemic, and a reasonable mechanism for the drug’s effectiveness, the WHO and NIH have largely ignored it, and in some cases, endeavored to discredit the RCT’s. One cannot fault the WHO and NIH for questioning the accuracy of the studies, but their failure and apparent refusal to conduct their own large-scale study, and possibly save lives, is criminal. Based on the unusual and immoral actions of these organizations, the motive of protecting EUA for the COVID vaccines cannot be ruled out, and it should be investigated.
NPI’s (Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions)
Once it was evident that the Covid outbreak was worldwide, China strongly urged all nations to adopt their lockdown model (NPI’s) to contain spread. Despite China’s claim of lockdown success, this tactic had never before been implemented on such a scale to contain a pandemic, and even smaller scale implementations in the past were harshly criticized as devastating and inefficacious. The ACLU in 2008 published some of these ‘lessons from history’ regarding pandemic responses:
American history contains vivid reminders that grafting the values of law enforcement and national security onto public health is both ineffective and dangerous. Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have justified abuses of state power. Highly discriminatory and forcible vaccination and quarantine measures adopted in response to outbreaks of the plague and smallpox over the past century have consistently accelerated rather than slowed the spread of disease, while fomenting public distrust and, in some cases, riots.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/asset_upload_file399_33642.pdf
The ‘lessons from history,’ though widely accepted in public health, were abandoned immediately across the globe at the persuasion of China coupled with hysteria rooted in exaggerated individual and community risk. As cases declined (due mostly to seasonality) following spring lockdowns, lockdowns were fallaciously accepted as efficacious interventions. Fourteen months and many lockdowns later, the evidence against lockdowns is palpable. The chart below shows Covid hospitalizations for the 25 least restricted states vs. the 25 most restricted states:
This next chart shows COVID hospitalizations for the 10 least restricted states vs. the 10 most restricted vs. the middle 30:
While there are outliers on both sides of restriction stringency as it relates to COVID outcomes, the overall U.S. data clearly show that more stringent restrictions, in an effort to control an already endemic virus, do not lead to better COVID outcomes. The more likely indicators of COVID outcomes are clearly prior immunity, regional obesity rates, average age, general health-consciousness, and level of risk-aversion.
It is certainly true that limiting human interaction will reduce one’s risk of contracting a virus, but avoiding viral contraction/transmission is but one of many human needs for physical, mental, and economic health. Despite this obvious fact, there has still yet to be any mainstream acceptance of the reality that, inefficacy aside, the costs of lockdowns were far greater than the benefits. Lockdown support continues to simply be a feature of subscription to a narrative over the totality of the data.
There are, of course, examples of early and extreme lockdowns that lockdown supporters point to as successes. China is the most obvious example but to trust any data or narrative out of China is likely unwise. The other examples include Australia and New Zealand but their ‘success’ is easily explained by geographic isolation in the southern hemisphere. When it became clear we were in a pandemic, Australia and New Zealand were in their late summer/early fall, and they were able to quickly close their island borders and identify/isolate cases before the virus was endemic and before cold/flu/COVID season started in the southern hemisphere. Regardless, the Australia and New Zealand strategies are not at all sustainable in a world where, despite vaccines, COVID will remain endemic. Even if one envies their current situation, there is no sustainable and sensible off-ramp.
Several other factors make comparing responses from country-to-country problematic. Many countries with bad flu seasons in 2019 seem to have fared better in COVID outcomes simply because the most vulnerable of their populations were significantly diminished before COVID became endemic. There is also growing evidence that SARS-COV2 was circulating long before it was identified as a novel virus which means certain populations could’ve been exposed previously and would’ve had some level of immunity.
In any case, when comparing the Covid outcomes in a single country by NPI’s and by region it is abundantly clear that the ACLU’s 2008 conclusion on NPI efficacy holds true. Data supporting that conclusion aside, any attempt to let one health risk, in a world of many health risks, dictate policy is destined to come with serious collateral damage. This collateral damage is palpable for anyone looking, and we will be fighting the effects of it for years and years to come. Death by pathogen is a part of life, death stemming from lockdown is murder.
SCHOOL CLOSURES AS NPI
There have been many school closure comparisons in the states proving that Covid in schools is basically a flu risk at most, but the unions in education have fought hard enough to keep schools closed in many states. The largest study on schools comes out of Sweden, showing that the risk of child hospitalization in schools, with no distancing and no masks, was about 1 in 130,000. Children were also shown to be very unlikely vectors of Covid with high rates of asymptomatic cases, posing a miniscule risk to others. School closures in America have, and will continue to, come with devastating consequences, and we’ve known since last spring that they were not scientific.
MASKS AS NPI
The most true thing said about masks in the mainstream came from Anthony Fauci at the beginning of the pandemic. He told 60 Minutes that masks may block the occasional respiratory droplet but they don’t offer the full protection that people think they do. And while Fauci claimed later that he was lying to protect the mask stocks for those who really needed it, the truth is that he was just saying what the majority of pre-COVID studies had suggested up to that point. Even though the CDC only recently updated COVID spread guidance to show that it is mostly spread through viral aerosols, this has been known by scientists and doctors from very early on in the pandemic. These smoke-like aerosols go right through your mask and also out the gaps between your mask and face. A non-N95 mask may slow the diffusion of viral aerosols but you are extremely unlikely to infect someone in passing or in brief encounters anyway. For longer encounters in enclosed spaces, this slowing of aerosol diffusion is of little help. N95 respirator masks have been shown in a few studies to block some larger viral aerosols, but anything shy of that, surgical masks, cloth masks, etc., just do not stop viral aerosols. If one can smoke a cigarette or vape through your mask, which is almost always the case, your mask is not significantly protecting you or others.
There have been many studies on masks over the years, most all of them show little to no benefit. Here are several studies showing mask (including N95) inefficacy:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x
Claims that masks and social distancing stopped the spread of the flu are absolutely false. Influenza is also commonly spread via viral aerosols which are not blocked by masks, and flu spread was significantly reduced worldwide in places without mask and social distancing guidelines/mandates. The likely cause of a decline in flu cases is something called viral interference. Viral interference, also known as superinfection resistance, is the inhibition of viral reproduction caused by previous exposure of cells to another virus. In this case, the dominant virus, COVID, is creating resistance in populations to other viruses such as the cold/flu, thus reducing cold/flu infections and transmission.
Claims that high contagiousness of COVID change the math on masks are also not rooted in science. Influenza-like illnesses have a secondary attack rate between 10% and 20% and the secondary household attack rate for COVID is 16.6%.
It is clear that masks as a recommendation and/or mandate were more for psychological effect than an actual epidemiological effect, and the credibility of our public health institutions will likely never be restored in the minds of those who focus on the data over the narrative.
ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD
The idea of significant asymptomatic transmission of SARS-COV2 in public spaces still lies at the root of COVID hysteria and remains the major justification for lockdowns, masks, and social distancing. Early on, based on nothing more than the apparently high number of asymptomatic ‘infections’ and a few widely spread anecdotes, health ‘experts’ pushed the idea that as many as a third or half of all COVID cases were transmitted via asymptomatic carriers. This conjecture was adopted quickly as truth and suddenly people all over the world began to see their fellow humans as biohazards.
The limitations of the asymptomatic transmission studies later became clear, but the myth lived on. Even as early as summer 2020, the WHO described asymptomatic spread as ‘extremely rare’ before collective covid-hysteric outrage encouraged them to walk back that statement. In addition to that, a meta-analysis of 54 relevant studies found that the secondary household attack rate for SARS-COV2 in asymptomatic cases was about .7%.
Here is a review of some of the initial asymptomatic spread studies:
https://www.hartgroup.org/asymptomatic-spread/
With a secondary household attack rate this low in the case of asymptomatic cases, there is no justification for believing that asymptomatic spread outside the home is even slightly significant, which explains the negligible to non-existent effects of NPI’s on transmission.
COVID VACCINES AND VARIANTS
Every pandemic in history came to an end (regionally) in about 18–24 months with or without a vaccine thanks to a phenomenon called herd immunity. Despite the WHO changing their online definition of herd immunity to immunity achieved by vaccinating a large enough percent of the population, herd immunity remains something that can be achieved by natural immunity, or a combination of natural immunity and vaccine-induced immunity. Regardless of this very obvious fact, the COVID-19 pandemic was presented to us as something that would only end once we get a vaccine, and only when almost everyone has gotten the vaccine. This ‘no one is safe until everyone is safe’ approach to the vaccine roll-out has created an unscientific and divisive vaccine mania that certainly does more harm than good.
‘Variant’ fear-mongering has become the latest strategy for feeding the vaccine mania fire, and thanks to evolution and the inevitability of virus mutations in perpetuity, this strategy will clearly be employed for the foreseeable future unless more people educate themselves on cross-immunity.
Ironically, cross-immunity played a role in the invention of vaccines. The smallpox vaccine was developed by realizing that milkmaids seemed immune to smallpox courtesy of their exposure to cowpox, a genetically similar pathogen. Despite this age-old knowledge of cross-immunity, the tv ‘experts’ insist on spreading fear that variants will possibly become so genetically different that they will evade vaccine protection. We know that a vaccine can provide significant protection against virus strains that are as low as 80% similar to the strain for which the vaccine was designed to protect. As of fifteen months into the pandemic, the most unique variant was only .3% different from the original Wuhan COVID strain. At that rate of evolution it will be a very long time before we have to worry about variants that would evade vaccine protection. The idea that any day soon we’ll see a variant spring up that evades vaccine protection is evolutionarily bogus.
The idea that variants that are far more transmissible and far more deadly will spring up has been presented as a statistical likelihood as opposed to the true remote possibility. Even when it was reported we had variants in regions that were 60% more transmissible, the R number following this discovery never sustained a 60% increase. The reality is that endemic viruses are mutating all the time and it is usually of little consequence. There is no reason to think this virus is more likely to mutate in some devastating way than others.
The tv ‘experts’ have also been quick to claim that the unvaccinated will increase the likelihood of variants and increase their threat. While it is true that the more hosts the virus finds, the more likely it is to replicate and therefore it will be more likely to go through mutations. The issue, however, with blaming unvaccinated people for mutations is that it assumes that vaccines are the only tool we have for stopping virus replication. The reality is that our immune systems, particularly those of the young and healthy, are quite effective at fighting respiratory viruses which minimizes replication. Vaccines are effectively immune system enhancement, and it is illogical and unscientific to assume that everyone, including those with statistically almost zero risk of serious illness, need this enhancement for this virus.
It is also worth noting that because the vaccine doesn’t block contraction, even vaccinated people are likely to have the pathogen in their systems where it will replicate to a certain degree. While it appears the vaccines prep you for the immune response needed to minimize virus replication, vaccinated bodies are not holy temples where mutation is impossible. In fact, a young and healthy person is about as likely to host virus mutations as a vaccinated vulnerable person. This fear of the unvaccinated is unwarranted and unhealthy, and the media personalities and politicians pushing this should be removed from their positions.
THE NEW AGE OF VACCINES
(Disclaimer: This is not intended to persuade anyone against vaccination. Do your research and make the decision that makes sense for you).
All of the COVID-19 vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) are examples of a new approach to vaccine technology. Instead of presenting the body with a weakened form of the virus for which you are being vaccinated against, all COVID-19 vaccines deliver code to your cells that prompts them to effectively produce genetic replicas of the SARS-COV2 spike protein with the goal of eliciting an immune response that will provide future protection. The non-mRNA vaccines generally use either a human or chimpanzee adenovirus vector as the delivery vehicle, and the mRNA in mRNA vaccines are encased in lipid nanoparticles (LNP’s).
Based on the data available, all vaccines under FDA EUA appear effective at reducing COVID symptoms in most cases. The largest real life study to date came from Israel with nearly 600,000 people vaccinated and nearly 600,000 people unvaccinated. Risk reduction is apparent, but not as pronounced in 42 days as was reported in U.S. clinical trials. (see below)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33626250/
As for vaccine safety, beyond clinical trials with smaller samples, there is very little reliable data. The VAERS site for reporting vaccine adverse events shows over 4,000 vaccine-related deaths and over 18,000 vaccine-related serious injuries as of late May 2021, but anyone can report to VAERS and these reports appear to go largely uninvestigated and unconfirmed. Faith in the correlations in VAERS or not, it is an outrage that there isn’t a better system for the investigation of vaccine-related adverse events in 2021. And unfortunately, this leaves us in a place where the dismissal of vaccine and adverse event correlation, and the acceptance of vaccine and adverse event correlation, are equally unproven and neither are likely to be proven in the future.
Lack of mass reliable safety tracking notwithstanding, it is undeniable that vaccines come with known and unknown risks, and one should decide whether their statistical risk of serious COVID-19 illness warrants medicinal prophylaxis. A blood clot risk with the J&J adenovirus vector vaccine, albeit seemingly very low, has been established, and the cationic LNP’s in the mRNA vaccines are undeniably toxic to varying degrees depending on dosage. In a study of cationic LNP’s they were deemed safe in expected dosages despite documented issues in higher doses, such as splenic necrosis and minimal heart hemorrhage in the monkey. There were also changes in coagulation parameters at all doses in the rat, an issue that could pose problems for certain at-risk recipients.
In addition to the mostly undisclosed level of toxicity, there is also the unknown and unknowable regarding the mass deployment of vaccines that code the body to produce foreign pathogen replicas to elicit an immune response. While most of the data available suggests that the vaccines are mostly safe, the pharmaceutical industry and politicians would better serve their cause of vaccine take-up with transparency as opposed to using the word ‘safe’ as an absolute.
THE INDISCRIMATE VACCINE TAKE-UP PUSH
The push to get the young and healthy, children, and the previously infected vaccinated, regardless of personal risk and risk to the community, can only be described as pharmaceutical company profiteering and campaign donation procurement by politicians. Children have almost zero personal risk and almost zero risk to the community; the young and healthy in general pose a miniscule risk to everyone except the unvaccinated vulnerable who have chosen to accept that risk; and the previously infected have long-lasting natural immunity despite the unscientific, sole focus on antibodies for measuring immunity. The reality is that B-cells and T-cells play a significant role in immunity. In fact, survivors of SARS-COV1, a virus similar to SARS-COV2, were shown to have T-cell immunity 17 years after infection. And while T-cell memory doesn’t guarantee protection against reinfection, reinfection with SARS-COV2 has already been shown to be a serious anomaly. As of late February 2021, there were only 57 confirmed cases of COVID reinfection. And when incredibly rare symptomatic reinfection takes place, it is almost always an extremely mild case.
Considering these clear cases of miniscule absolute risk reduction, the indiscriminate vaccine take-up push is obviously rooted in the goals of pharmaceutical profits and absolutist public health messaging, as opposed to science and true public health.
VACCINE HESITANCY
Unfortunately, the vaccine push has devolved into mainstream calls to ostracize the unvaccinated. This ostracization ranges from collective shaming to proposed adoption of private/domestic/international vaccine passports. The reality, of course, is that shaming the vaccine hesitant is not only an ineffective mode of persuasion, it is the very definition of bigotry. And the push for domestic vaccine passports is not only a threat to bodily autonomy, it also flies in the face of reported vaccine effectiveness. To borrow a phrase: if the vaccines work, vaccine passports serve no purpose…and if the vaccines do not work, vaccine passports serve no purpose.
The COVID vaccine hesitant have largely been dismissed as COVID deniers, anti-vaxxer’s, or tin foil hat conspiracy theorists, but the truth is that the there is a sizeable group of generally pro-vaxx people that are exclusively opposed either COVID vaccines, vaccine mandates, or both. Some reasons for their hesitancy include:
· They’ve already had COVID and have natural immunity
· Know they can protect others by simply staying home when they are sick
· Trust in their immune system to deal with low overall COVID complication risk
· General dislike of medicinal intervention
· Vaccine makers are immune from liability regarding vaccine adverse events
· All vaccines are only currently under EUA as opposed to full FDA approval, and all utilize new-to-market technology
· Only short-term vaccine adverse events can be known at this point, and adverse event investigative systems are insufficient to track, confirm, and report issues to the public
· Pharmaceutical companies, public health agencies, and medical doctors have a history of failed medicinal interventions and/or corrupted public health guidance, i.e., tobacco, the food pyramid, sugar, opioids, AZT, etc., just to name a few
· Concerns of possible Vaccine Enhanced Disease a.k.a. Antibody Dependent Enhancement, a condition where a vaccination causes cytokine storm when patient meets virus in the wild resulting in serious injury or death, a hurdle in early coronavirus vaccine animal trials
· 250,000 people are estimated to die every year from medical error in the U.S.
· Low Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR instead of Relative Risk Reduction — RRR of 90–95%) of around 1% for all COVID vaccines
Despite these valid reasons for vaccine hesitancy in many, the social/political pressure for everyone to get the EUA vaccines continues to gain strength. We were told our goal throughout the pandemic was to protect the hospitals and protect the vulnerable, and now that 60%+ of our population is vaccinated, and an estimated half of the unvaccinated have natural immunity, the vulnerable are protected if they’ve chosen to be, and the hospitals are not at any abnormal risk of being overwhelmed. It’s as though the goal has shifted to a goal of near or full COVID eradication, something completely unfeasible when dealing with respiratory viruses that cannot be clinically diagnosed by pathogen. Still, the majority seem hellbent on senselessly marching us to that unrealistic goal with the disregard of bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is arguably the most precious of civil liberties and no fear, rational or irrational, should lead us to a place where we call for exceptions.
Though it is hard for many to understand, it is possible to see the data available (and even believe the data) showing that COVID infection poses higher risk than a vaccination (albeit slim in the young and healthy), and still choose not to be vaccinated. For some, there is a preference for the ‘organic risk’ of COVID contraction over the ‘synthetic risk’ of a COVID vaccination, risk-gap notwithstanding. While there are many known side-effects of both COVID contraction and COVID vaccines, there are sure to be many others that are rare enough to remain undiscovered. We know that genes in cells can be ‘turned on and off’ and environmental changes, such as pathogens and medicines, could very likely be triggers for things for which we may never be able to establish a causal link. This leaves us in a place where we are limited to only known risks of in our assessments of medicine & pathogens and that simple truth should guide our policy. The reality is that the word ‘safe,’ when used to describe these vaccines, is not synonymous with ‘innocuous.’ We are talking about toxic substances and synthetic foreign substances designed to code your cells to do something unnatural, i.e., produce pathogen replicas to elicit an immune response. We are not dealing in absolutes & medicinal intervention must always be a choice, and no one should be shamed or discriminated against for declining to participate. There is no civil liberty protecting people from risk of death by pathogen. Risk of death by pathogen is a part of life, risk of death by forced or coerced medicinal intervention, no matter how small, is criminally inhumane.
CONCLUSION
I believe we are clearly in a 1957/1968-type pandemic that has been exaggerated in scope resulting in a panic not experienced in those years. If we could go back to those pandemics and superimpose our bogus PCR test creation, our current PCR-testing regime, current case and death definitions, current case and death tally protocols, the 24 hour news cycle, social media, and the current medical climate, we’d fuel the same hysteria we’re experiencing today. The virus is not to blame…we are. We know from experience that viruses that are clinically undiagnosable with relatively low fatality rates, will do what viruses do, yet we killed many more with countless knock-on effects of the induced hysteria and draconian measures.
Agreeing to cancel life for a year (and counting), or choosing to kill someone by potentially giving them a virus, was a false dichotomy. Livelihood is life. The need to work for food, shelter, water, and clothing, and the need to connect with loved ones are both essential to human life, and to risk passing on a dangerous virus to engage in those necessary activities is a part of life, and not at all immoral.
The past and present cherry-picked public health ‘experts’ were handed the reins of the world in 2020 by politicians and we let it happen despite their poor track records. Diet and exercise continue to be our greatest weapons against illness, yet they are almost never discussed by these groups, and the past year is no exception. With their silence and ineptitude, they spread disease of the gluttonous and sedentary, and then they benefit alongside Big Pharma by medicating for the symptoms. They have created a culture of medicinal intervention as the first course of action, resulting in a population that is largely unwell, but living on the ‘life-support’ of drugs. Our goal, and the goal of our public health leaders, should not be for us to simply be alive, but instead be alive and well.
It is abundantly clear that, by the disproportionate and devastating response to this virus, and the concerted effort to silence and censor dissent, this pandemic was absolutely weaponized by a ‘cabal of powerful elites’ for political and economic gain. In fact, just before Covid, our pandemic playbook was tossed aside in plain sight and rewritten based on models. At this point, it would be nothing shy of a tin foil hat conspiracy theory to believe that the media and politicians (both funded by Big Pharma), and public health ‘experts’ truly care about overall public health.
There will certainly be more pandemics with varying fatality rates, and when the big one comes, a highly transmissible, novel virus that brings a slow but high rate of death to healthy and vulnerable alike, the propaganda machine will not have to sell the populace on how dangerous it is. In the meantime, we need to spread the word about the unscientific and authoritarian approach to this pandemic and refuse our allegiance to anyone that supported it.
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
― Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
