Chapter 3–Covid For Ethics Presentation On Vaccine For Children

The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine lacks safety

3.1 Whatdoestheevidenceshow? TheclinicaltrialsforComirnaty(BNT162b2),aswell as for the other COVID-19 vaccines, were rushed through in a very short time; this has meant that proper precautions to ensure their safety were not taken. However, animal experiments carried out before the start of clinical testing already gave reason to expect severe toxicity. Unfortunately, this expectation has been abundantly borne out in practice since the beginning of mass vaccinations.

3.1.1 Preclinical data from animal experiments indicate potential for grave harm.
Comirnaty, like all other gene-based COVID-19 vaccines, causes the expression in vivo of one specific protein of SARS-CoV-2—namely, the so-called spike protein, which is lo- cated on the surface of the virus particle. The spike protein mediates the virus particle’s initial attachment to the host cell and also its subsequent entry into the cell. The key idea behind the Comirnaty vaccine is as follows:

  1. a synthetic mRNA that encodes the spike protein is complexed with a mixture of neutral and cationic (positively charged) synthetic lipids, which cluster together in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs);
  2. after injection, the LNPs facilitate the uptake of the mRNA into host cells, where the mRNA will cause the expression (synthesis) of the spike protein;
  3. the spike protein will appear on the surface of the host cells and induce an immune reaction to itself.
    The immune reaction to the spike protein will comprise both antibodies, which may
    or may not be neutralizing (see Section, and T-lymphocytes (T-cells). Some of these T-cells are cytotoxic (also known as T-killer cells); their function is to kill virus- infected body cells.
    While this vaccination strategy may look good on paper, it has a number of drawbacks and risks. These arise both from the lipid mixture and from the spike protein, both of which have known toxic activities. Toxic and procoagulant activities of the spike protein. Severe clinical COVID- 19 disease is often accompanied by a pathological activation of blood clotting [32]. The central role of the spike protein in this complication is recognized [33]. Notably, there are at least two different mechanisms for triggering blood coagulation:
  4. If the spike protein is expressed within vascular endothelial cells—the innermost cell layer of the blood vessels—then an immune reaction to the spike protein can destroy these cells. The resulting vascular lesion will activate blood clotting. This immune reaction can involve cytotoxic T-cells, but also antibodies that trigger the complement system and other immune effector mechanisms.
  5. Spike protein molecules that are formed within the circulation, or which enter it after being synthesized elsewhere in the body, can directly bind to blood platelets (throm- boycytes) and activate them. This will again set off blood clotting.
    The second mechanism is significant because it does not involve an immune reaction;
    therefore, it can be triggered right away even in those persons who have no pre-existing immunity. The first mechanism will be most effective in those who already have immu- nity to the spike protein, due to either infection with the virus or a previous injection of vaccine. Note that the underlying mechanism of cell damage will also operate in other tissues—any cell in the body that expresses the spike protein will thereby become a tar- get for the immune system.
  6. Since Comirnaty and other gene-based vaccines induce the synthesis of active, and therefore potentially toxic, spike protein, it is important to understand how this protein with be distributed within the body. Toxicity might be limited if the vaccine, and there- fore the synthesis of the spike protein, remained confined to the site of injection, within the muscle tissue but outside the circulation. On the other hand, if the vaccine were to enter the bloodstream, then one would have to expect expression of the spike protein within the blood vessels and toxicity through the activation of blood clotting.
  7. Distribution of the vaccine in animal experiments. As it turns out, the vac- cine does indeed appear in the bloodstream very rapidly after intramuscular injection. In experiments which Pfizer reported to the Japanese health authorities [34], rats were injected with a mock vaccine sample. This material was was chemically similar to Comir- naty, but it contained an mRNA molecule that encoded an easily traceable, non-toxic model protein (luciferase) rather than the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The lipid mixture used to form the LNPs was the exact same as with Comirnaty. One of the lipids in this mixture was radioactively labelled, which permitted the distribution of the sample within the body to be traced and quantified sensitively and accurately. Several remarkable ob- servations were made:
  1. The radioactive lipid appeared rapidly in the bloodstream. The blood plasma concen- tration peaked after 2 hours; but even at only 15 minutes into the experiment, the plasma level had already reached 45% of that maximal value.
  2. Very high levels of the radioactive lipid accumulated in the liver, the spleen, the adrenal glands, and the ovaries.
  3. Comparatively low levels accumulated in the central nervous system (the brain and the spinal cord).
  4. Expression of the model protein encoded by the mRNA was studied only in the liver, where it was readily detected. Mechanism of vaccine uptake into the bloodstream. Considering that the com- plex consisting of mRNA with bound LNPs has a rather large molecular size, we must ask how it managed to enter the bloodstream so rapidly. After intramuscular injection, the bulk of the vaccine should end up in the “interstitial” space, that is, the extracellular space outside the blood vessels. This space is separated from the intravascular space (the circulation) by the capillary barrier, which permits free passage only to small mo- lecules such as oxygen or glucose (blood sugar) but is impermeable to large molecules such as plasma proteins; and the vaccine particles would be even larger than those.
    The fluid within the interstitial space is continuously drained through the lymphatic system; all lymph fluid ultimately enters the bloodstream through the thoracic duct. Par- ticles which are too large for traversing the capillary barrier can ultimately reach the circulation by way of this lymphatic drainage. However, this process tends to be consid- erably slower [35] than was observed here with the model vaccine. We must therefore ask if the model vaccine may have broken down the capillary barrier and thereby gained direct entry to the bloodstream.
    Lipid mixtures similar to those contained in the Pfizer vaccine have been used exper- imentally to penetrate the blood brain barrier after intravenous injection [36]. The blood brain barrier can be described as a “fortified version” of the regular capillary barrier—if it can be broken down, then we must expect the same with a regular capillary barrier, too. The high local concentration of the lipid nanoparticles that will result after intra- muscular injection will further promote the breakdown of the barrier. The upshot of this is that the vaccine will appear in the bloodstream, in large amounts and on short order. Complications due to blood clotting must therefore be expected.
  5. Other indications of LNP toxicity. The proposed breakdown of the capillary barrier by the LNPs implies a cytotoxic effect on the endothelial cells, which form the only cellular element of the capillary walls. Cytotoxic effects of the LNPs are also evident from damage to muscle fibres at the injection site [30, p. 49] and to liver cells [30, p. 46]. Note that these data, too, were obtained with the model mRNA encoding the presumably non-toxic luciferase enzyme. Therefore, these cytotoxic actions are not due to any direct action of the spike protein. An immunological component of the cell damage cannot be completely ruled out, but it is likely not dominant in this case, since luciferase, unlike spike protein, is not transported to the cell surface.
  6. Mechanisms of accumulation in specific organs. The high rates of accumu- lation of the vaccine in the liver and the spleen suggest uptake by macrophage cells, which abound in both organs and are generally in charge of clearing away unwanted de- bris. The accumulation in the adrenal glands, the ovaries, and again the liver suggests a role of lipoproteins in cellular uptake within these organs. Lipoproteins are complexes of lipids and specific protein molecules (apolipoproteins) that function as lipid carriers in the bloodstream. The liver has a central role in lipid and lipoprotein metabolism generally, whereas the adrenal glands and the ovaries take up lipoproteins to acquire cholesterol, which they then convert to their respective steroid hormones. Such a role of lipoproteins in the transport and cellular uptake of lipid nanoparticles is in fact accepted [37]. We must therefore expect that other organs with a high rate of lipoprotein uptake will be similarly affected. This includes in particular the placenta, which like the ovaries produces large amounts of steroid hormone (progesterone), and the lactating mammary glands, which acquire cholesterol contained in lipoproteins for secretion into the breast milk.
  7. Correlation of lipid uptake and mRNA expression. In the experimental study in question, the liver was also shown to express the mRNA that is associated with the LNPs (see [30], Section 2.3.2). As stated above, the mRNA used in this study encoded the firefly enzyme luciferase, which is the very protein that enables these animals to glow in the dark. Mammalian tissues expressing this enzyme will also become luminescent, in proportion to the amount of luciferase protein which they synthesize. Measurements of this luminescence are not very sensitive, though, which was most likely the reason why Pfizer carried them out only with the liver but not with other, smaller organs. However, in the absence of proof positive to the opposite, we must assume that the correlation between efficient LNP uptake and mRNA expression that applies to the liver will also hold with other organs. If the cargo mRNA encodes the spike protein, then these organs will be exposed to the toxicity of the spike protein, and to the immune reaction against it, in proportion to the level of LNP and mRNA uptake.
  8. Potentialriskstofertilityandtothebreastfednewborn. Ahighlevelofexpres- sion of spike in the ovaries raises the prospect of significant damage to that organ, with possible consequences for female fertility. Uptake of the vaccine by mammary gland cells opens two possible pathways of toxicity to the breastfed child: firstly, the expression of spike protein and its secretion into the breast milk, and secondly, the wholesale transfer of the vaccine into the milk. The mammary glands are apocrine, which means that they pinch off and release fragments of their own cytoplasm into the milk; thus, anything that has reached the cytoplasm might also reach the breast milk. In this connection, we note that both the VAERS database and the EU drug adverse events registry (EudraVigilance) report fatalities in breastfed newborns after vaccination of their mothers (see Section
  9. Pfizer’s failure to investigate risks evident from preclinical investigations.
  10. With the exception of fertility, which can simply not be evaluated within the short period of time for which the vaccines have been in use, all of the risks discussed above have been substantiated since the vaccines have been rolled out—all are manifest in the re- ports to the various adverse event registries (see Section 3.1.3). We must stress again that each of these risks could readily be inferred from the cited limited preclinical data, but were not followed up with appropriate in-depth investigations. In particular, the clinical trials did not monitor any laboratory parameters that could have provided information on these risks, such as those related to blood coagulation (e.g. D-dimers/thrombocytes) or liver damage (e.g. γ-glutamyltransferase).
  11. 3.1.2 Contaminations arising from the manufacturing process. The commercial scale manufacturing process of BNT162b2 gives rise to several contaminations that may com- promise vaccine safety and effectiveness. For brevity, we will here mention only two such contaminants.
  12. Contaminating bacterial DNA. The mRNA is produced in vitro using a DNA template, which in turn is obtained from bacterial cells. While steps are taken to remove this DNA afterwards, they are not completely effective, which is acknowledged in the EMA report (pages 17 and 40). Contaminating DNA injected with the vaccine may insert into the genomes of host cells and cause potentially harmful mutations. Bacterial DNA also non-specifically promotes inflammation.
  13. Lipid impurites. The EMA report also observes impurities originating from the synthesis of the lipid ingredients of the vaccine (page 24):
  14. Lipid-related impurities have been observed in some recently manufactured finished product batches, correlated with ALC-0315 lipid batches. The quality of ALC-0315 excipient is considered acceptable based on the available data on condition that specific impurities in the finished product will be further evaluated.
  15. Considering that the synthetic lipid referred to as ALC-0315 has never before been used on humans, there is no sound empirical basis for deciding on “acceptable” levels of impurities. Furthermore, it appears that the contaminating species have not even been identified. EMA’s arbitrary blanket approval of unknown contaminants of an unproven vaccine ingredient is completely unacceptable.
  16. 3.1.3 Adverse events after the onset of vaccinations. Since the introduction of the vaccines, numerous adverse events have been reported to registries around the world. We will here focus on two registries, namely, the U.S. vaccine adverse events reporting system (VAERS) and the EU monitoring system for drug adverse events (EudraVigilance). All numbers quoted below are as of May 21st unless stated otherwise.
  17. FatalitiesreportedinconnectionwithCOVIDvaccines. Withinjustfivemonths of the onset of vaccinations, EudraVigilance has accumulated 12,886 deaths in connection with the COVID-19 vaccines, of which the Pfizer vaccine accounted for almost half (6,306). In the same time period, VAERS has run up 4,406 deaths in all; of these, 91% were associated with the mRNA vaccines, with Pfizer accounting for 44% and Moderna for 47% of the total.
  18. It is impossible to know what percentage of all fatalities that occur after vaccina- tion will actually be reported to VAERS or EudraVigilance. However, note that the 4,406 COVID vaccine-related fatalities accrued by VAERS during just the past 5 months exceed the cumulative total of all other vaccines combined, over the entire previous 20 years. It is therefore clear that these vaccines are far and away the most deadly ones in history— quite predictably so, and all for a disease whose case fatality rate does not exceed that of influenza [1, 38].
  19. Severe events related to disrupted blood clotting. The litany of diagnoses in both databases that indicate pathological activation of blood clotting is almost endless— heart attacks, strokes, thromboses in the brain and in other organs, pulmonary em- bolism; but also thrombocytopenia and bleeding, which result from excessive consump- tion of thrombocytes and of coagulation factors in disseminated intravascular coagula- tion. These disease mechanisms caused many of the fatalities summarized above; in other cases, they caused severe acute disease, which will in many cases leave behind severe disability.
  20. Other severe reactions. Severe reactions also include seizures, other neurolog- ical symptoms, particularly related to motor control, and severe systemic inflammation with damage to multiple organs. Again, in many of these patients, long-lasting or even permanent residual damage is highly likely.
  21. Severe adverse reactions among adolescents. In the age group of 12-17 years, two deaths likely related to the Pfizer vaccine were already reported to EudraVigilance. Also in this age group, there were 16 cases of myocarditis, all in males, and 28 cases of seizures among both sexes, 3 of them reported as life-threatening. There also were a few cases of stroke, myocardial infarction, and severe inflammatory disease.
  22. While the numbers of adverse events are much lower than those among adults, this is simply due to the hitherto far lower rates of vaccination in this age group. Should systematic vaccination be green-lighted for adolescents, we must expect these numbers to rapidly climb to a level resembling that seen in adults.
  23. Miscarriages. As of June 21st, 2021, EudraVigilance lists 325 cases of miscar- riage among vaccinated pregnant women. While it is difficult to ascertain by just how much vaccination will raise the rate of miscarriage, most of these cases were reported by healthcare professionals, who evidently considered a connection to the vaccine at least plausible. This series of cases alone would be reason enough to pause the vaccinations and investigate.
  24. Deaths among breastfed infants. Although it does not directly relate to the age group which is the focus of this lawsuit and this expert opinion, it bears mention that both VAERS and EudraVigilance contain reports of death among breastfed children shortly after their mothers had received the Pfizer vaccine.
  25. In Section, we discussed the possibility of vaccine uptake into the placenta and the breast glands. The reported miscarriages and fatalities in newborns indicate that these risks must be taken very seriously, and that Pfizer acted negligently in not investigating them in any of their reported preclinical and clinical trials.

3.2 Missing evidence. We saw above that significant positive indications of risk were neglected in the clinical trials and subsequent rushed emergency approval of the Pfizer vaccine, with unfortunate yet predictable outcomes. Equally damning is the list of omissi- ons—potential risks that should have been investigated in preclinical or clinical trials but never were.

3.2.1 Proper pharmacokinetics. Section described some experiments pertaining to the distribution of a surrogate vaccine. While these studies did provide important and useful information, it must be noted that the expression of the spike protein instead of the presumably inert luciferase enzyme might affect the distribution due to its interfer- ence with vascular integrity, including at the blood brain barrier, and with blood clotting. EMA and other regulators should have insisted that such experiments be carried out and documented.

3.2.2 Drug interactions. The EMA report states (page 110):
Interaction studies with other vaccines have not been performed, which is
acceptable given the need to use the vaccine in an emergency situation.
Since it is clear that mortality due to COVID-19 is low (see Section 1.1.1) and therefore that no emergency exists, this argument must be rejected as specious.
Immunosuppressive effects of BNT162b2 are apparent from a drop of blood lym- phocyte numbers among those vaccinated, as well as from clinical observations of Her- pes zoster (shingles), which arises through the reactivation of persistent varicella-zoster virus [39]. This suggests that the desired immune response to other vaccines simultane- ously administered may be impaired.
Furthermore, studies of interactions should not have been limited to vaccines alone, but also been extended to other drugs. One area of concern is the experimentally ap- parent liver toxicity of BNT162b2. The liver is central in the metabolic inactivation and disposal of many drugs; any interference with the function of this organ immediately creates numerous possibilities of adverse drug interactions.

3.2.3 Genotoxicity. No studies have been carried out regarding genotoxicity, that is, damage to the human genetic material, which could lead to heritable mutations and cancer. In the EMA report [30, p. 50], this is justified as follows:

No genotoxicity studies have been provided. This is acceptable because the components of the vaccine formulation are lipids and RNA, which are not ex- pected to have genotoxic potential. The risk assessment performed by the ap- plicant shows that the risk of genotoxicity related to these excipients [i.e. the synthetic lipids] is very low based on literature data.
In reality, it is known that the LNPs contained in BNT162b2 can enter all kinds of cells—that is, after all, the purpose of their inclusion in this vaccine preparation. It is also known that, once inside the cell, cationic lipids disrupt mitochondrial function (cell respiration) and cause oxidative stress, which in turn leads to DNA damage.

It should be mentioned that two of the lipids used by Pfizer—namely, the cationic lipid ALC-0315 and the PEGylated lipid ALC-0159, which account for 30-50% and for 2- 6%, respectively, of the total lipid content—had not previously been approved for use in humans. Pfizer’s and EMA’s cavalier attitude to the use of novel and so far unproven chemicals as components in drug or vaccine preparations without comprehensive studies on toxicity, including genotoxcicity, is completely unscientific and unacceptable.

3.2.4 Reproductive toxicity. Reproductive toxicity was assessed using only one species (rats) and on only small numbers of animals (21 litters). A greater than twofold increase in pre-implantation loss of embryos was noted, with a rate of 9.77% in the vaccine group, compared to 4.09% in the control group. Instead of merely stating [30, p. 50] that the higher value was “within historical control data range,” the study should have stated un- ambiguously whether or not this difference was statistically significant; and if it was not, the number of experiments should have been increased to ensure the required statistical power. The same applies to the observations of “very low incidence of gastroschisis, mouth/jaw malformations, right sided aortic arch, and cervical vertebrae abnormalities.” Overall, these studies are inadequately described and apparently were also inadequately carried out.

3.2.5 Autoimmunity. Exposuretothevaccinewillleadtocelldamageduetothecationic lipids, and also to the immune attack on cells producing the spike protein. From the cells undergoing destruction, proteins and other macromolecules will be released; such mate- rial must then be cleared away by macrophages.
When the clearing system is overloaded because of excessive cell damage and apop- tosis (cell death), then the accumulation of cellular debris will lead to chronically exces- sive type I interferon release; this, in turn, will trigger further inflammation. With time, some macromolecules in the debris will become targets for the formation of autoanti- bodies and the activation of autoreactive cytotoxic T cells—they will begin to function as auto-antigens. This then leads to further tissue damage and the release of more auto- antigens—autoimmune disease will develop. Such an outcome is particularly likely in im- munocompromised people or in those who are genetically predisposed to autoimmune disease (e.g. those with the HLA-B27 allele).

The risk of autoimmunity induced by BNT162b2 could be adequately addressed only in long-term studies; as with fertility or cancer, the very short period of preclinical and clinical testing means that we are flying blind. It should go without saying that all of these risks are particularly grave with children, adolescents, and young adults.

3.2.6 Antibody-dependentenhancement. Whileantibodiesinprincipleservetoprotect us from infections, in some cases they can increase disease severity. This phenomenon is referred to as antibody-dependent enhancement. The principle. In Section above, we saw that antibodies may or may not neutralize the virus that elicited them. While in most cases non-neutralizing antibodies are not harmful, with some viruses they can actually make matters worse by facilitating entry of these viruses into host cells. This occurs because certain cells of the immune system are supposed to take up antibody-tagged microbes and destroy them. If a virus particle to which antibodies have bound is taken up by such a cell but then manages to evade destruction, then it may instead start to multiply within this cell. Overall, the antibody will then have enhanced the replication of the virus. Clinically, this antibody- dependent enhancement (ADE) can cause a hyperinflammatory response (a “cytokine storm”) that will amplify the damage to our lungs, liver and other organs of our body.

ADE can occur both after natural infection and after vaccination, and it has been observed with several virus families, including Dengue virus, Ebola virus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and HIV [40]. Importantly, ADE also occurs with coronaviruses, and in particular with SARS, whose causative agent is closely related to SARS-CoV-2. Attempts to develop vaccines to SARS repeatedly failed due to ADE—the vaccines did induce antibodies, but when the vaccinated animals were subsequently challenged with the virus, they became more ill than the unvaccinated controls (see e.g. [41]). SARS-CoV-2 and ADE. The possibility of ADE in the context of natural infection with SARS-CoV-2, as well as of vaccination against it, has been acknowledged [42]. More specifically, ADE due to spike protein antibodies elicited by other coronavirus strains has been invoked to account for the peculiar geographical distribution of disease severity within China [43]. However, the experimental research required to address it remains missing, even after more than one year into the pandemic.

With some experimental SARS vaccines, ADE could be mitigated through the use of inulin-based adjuvants [44]. This approach might be feasible for avoiding ADE with COVID-19 vaccines also, but so far this appears not to have been investigated with any of the existing COVID vaccines.
Pfizer and the regulatory bodies are well aware of the risk of ADE as well. The FDA notes in its briefing document [29, p. 44]:

Pfizer submitted a Pharmacovigilance Plan (PVP) to monitor safety concerns that could be associated with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The Spon- sor identified vaccine-associated enhanced disease including vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease as an important potential risk.

Here, the term “vaccine-associated enhanced disease” refers to ADE. EMA has likewise acknowledged that this risk must be investigated further [30, p. 141]:

Any important potential risks that may be specific to vaccination for COVID- 19 (e.g. vaccine associated enhanced respiratory disease) should be taken into account. The Applicant has included VAED/VAERD as an important potential risk and will further investigate it in the ongoing pivotal study and a post- authorization safety study.

Overall, it is clear that the risk of ADE is recognized in theory but is not addressed in practice. Given the abundant evidence of ADE with experimental SARS vaccines, this is completely irresponsible.

[1] J. P. A. Ioannidis: Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bull. World Health Organ. (2020), BLT.20.265892. url: online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf.
[2] J. P. A. Ioannidis: Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: An overview of systematic evaluations. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 5 (2021), e133554. pmid: 33768536.
[3] CDC COVID-19 Response Team: Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Children – United States, February 12-April 2, 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 69 (2020), 422– 426. pmid: 32271728.
[4] S. Tsabouri et al.: Risk Factors for Severity in Children with Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Pediatric clinics of North America 68 (2021), 321–338. pmid: 33228941.

[5] J. Y. Abrams et al.: Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children Associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: A Systematic Review. J. Pediatr. 226 (2020), 45– 54. pmid: 32768466.
[6] P. A. McCullough et al.: Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 21 (2020), 517–530. pmid: 33387997.
[7] C. Bernigaud et al.: Oral ivermectin for a scabies outbreak in a long-term care facility: po- tential value in preventing COVID-19 and associated mortality. Br. J. Dermatol. 184 (2021), 1207–1209. pmid: 33454964.
[8] Anonymous: WHO advises that ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials. 2021. url: advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical- trials.
[9] J. Flood et al.: Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS): Prospective, national surveillance, United Kingdom and Ireland, 2020. The Lancet regional health. Europe 3 (2021), 100075. pmid: 34027512.
[10] N. K. Shrestha et al.: Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals. medRxiv (2021). doi: 10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176.
[11] S. S. Nielsen et al.: SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity. EBioMedicine 68 (2021), 103410. pmid: 34098342.
[12] A. Grifoni et al.: Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell 181 (2020), 1489–1501.e15. pmid: 32473127.
[13] N. Le Bert et al.: SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature 584 (2020), 457–462. pmid: 32668444.
[14] S. Cao et al.: Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million resi- dents of Wuhan, China. Nat. Commun. 11 (2020), 5917. pmid: 33219229.
[15] R. Wölfel et al.: Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019. Nature 581 (2020), 465–469. pmid: 32235945.
[16] K. Basile et al.: Cell-based culture of SARS-CoV-2 informs infectivity and safe de-isolation assessments during COVID-19. Clin. Infect. Dis. (2020). pmid: 33098412.
[17] Anonymous: Covid: Secret filming exposes contamination risk at test results lab. 2021. url:
[18] K. G. Andersen et al.: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nat. Med. 26 (2020), 450–452. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9.
[19] B. Sørensen et al.: Biovacc-19: A Candidate Vaccine for Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) Developed from Analysis of its General Method of Action for Infectivity. QRB Discovery 1 (2020). doi: 10.1017/qrd.2020.8.
[20] B. Sørensen et al.: The evidence which suggests that this is no naturally evolved virus. Preprint (2020). url: https : / / www . minervanett . no / files / 2020 / 07 / 13 / TheEvidenceNoNaturalEvol.pdf.
[21] L. Yan et al.: Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Labora- tory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route. Preprint (2020). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4028829.

[22] L. Yan et al.: SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncov- ering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud. Preprint (2020). doi: 10.5281/zenodo. 4073131.
[23] S. Yang and R. E. Rothman: PCR-based diagnostics for infectious diseases: uses, limitations, and future applications in acute-care settings. Lancet Infect. Dis. 4 (2004), 337–48. pmid: 15172342.
[24] V. M. Corman et al.: Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 25 (2020). pmid: 31992387.
[25] Anonymous: Corman-Drosten review report. 2020. url: https://cormandrostenreview. com/.
[26] R. Jaafar et al.: Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction-Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates. Clin. Infect. Dis. 72 (2020), e921. pmid: 32986798.
[27] F. M. Liotti et al.: Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 RNA Test Results Among Patients Who Re- covered From COVID-19 With Prior Negative Results. JAMA internal medicine 181 (2020), 702–704. pmid: 33180119.
[28] J. Bullard et al.: Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples. Clin. Infect. Dis. 71 (2020), 2663–2666. pmid: 32442256.
[29] Anonymous: FDA briefing document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. 2020. url: https: //
[30] Anonymous: Assessment report/Comirnaty. 2021. url: en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_ en.pdf.
[31] R. W. Frenck et al.: Safety, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine in Adolescents. N. Engl. J. Med. (2021). pmid: 34043894.
[32] R. A. Campbell et al.: Comparison of the coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 and sep- sis. Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis 5 (2021), e12525. pmid: 34027292.
[33] G. H. Frydman et al.: The Potential Role of Coagulation Factor Xa in the Pathophysiology of COVID-19: A Role for Anticoagulants as Multimodal Therapeutic Agents. TH open : com- panion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis 4 (2020), e288–e299. pmid: 33043235.
[34] Anonymous: SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine (BNT162, PF-07302048) 2.6.4 Summary statement of the pharmacokinetic study. 2020. url: 2021/P20210212001/672212000_30300AMX00231_I100_1.pdf.
[35] I. C. Kourtis et al.: Peripherally administered nanoparticles target monocytic myeloid cells, secondary lymphoid organs and tumors in mice. PLoS One 8 (2013), e61646. pmid: 23626707.
[36] C. Ye et al.: Co-delivery of GOLPH3 siRNA and gefitinib by cationic lipid-PLGA nanoparticles improves EGFR-targeted therapy for glioma. J. Mol. Med. Berl. 97 (2019), 1575–1588. pmid: 31673738.
[37] R. Dal Magro et al.: ApoE-modified solid lipid nanoparticles: A feasible strategy to cross the blood-brain barrier. J. Control. Release 249 (2017), 103–110. pmid: 28153761.
[38] R. B. Brown: Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestima- tion. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. (2020), 1–24. pmid: 32782048.
[39] V. Furer et al.: Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series. Rheumatology (2021). pmid: 33848321.

[40] S. M. C. Tirado and K.-J. Yoon: Antibody-dependent enhancement of virus infection and disease. Viral immunology 16 (2003), 69–86. pmid: 12725690.
[41] C.-T. Tseng et al.: Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary im- munopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7 (2012), e35421. pmid: 22536382.
[42] F. Negro: Is antibody-dependent enhancement playing a role in COVID-19 pathogenesis? Swiss Med. Wkly. 150 (2020), w20249. pmid: 32298458.
[43] J. A. Tetro: Is COVID-19 receiving ADE from other coronaviruses? Microbes and infection 22 (2020), 72–73. pmid: 32092539.
[44] Y. Honda-Okubo et al.: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus vaccines formulated with delta inulin adjuvants provide enhanced protection while ameliorating lung eosinophilic immunopathology. J. Virol. 89 (2015), 2995–3007. pmid: 25520500

Chapter 2–Covid for Ethics Presentation On Vaccines For Children

2 The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine lacks efficacy

2.1 What does the evidence show? Pfizer persistently touts the 95% efficacy of its vaccine, based on the clinical trials that formed the basis of the emergency approvals granted by the FDA [29] and the European Union [30]. In a more recent study on ado- lescents [31], the claimed efficacy has been raised to no less than 100%. However, these claims cannot be taken at face value.

2.1.1 Absolute vs. relative efficacy. In Pfizer/BioNTech’s first reported clinical trial, 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections. The experimental vaccine (BNT162b2) was administered to 21,720 persons, and 21,728 re- ceived placebo. Across both groups, a total of 170 COVID-19 “cases” was recorded, of which 162 occurred in the placebo group, whereas 8 cases were observed in the BNT162b2 group. Based on these figures—8/162 ≈ 5%—Pfizer proceeded to claim 95% effi- cacy. Clearly, however, this efficacy is only a relative value—in absolute terms, less than 1% of the placebo group developed COVID-19, and therefore less than 1% of the vaccine group was protected from it.

The situation is similar with the subsequent, smaller test carried out on 12-15 years old adolescents [31].

Here, the vaccine group comprised 1131 individuals, whereas the placebo group included 1129 persons. In the latter group, 16 individuals were subse- quently diagnosed with COVID-19, whereas no such cases occurred in the vaccine group. True to form, Pfizer/BioNTech converted this absolute efficacy of 1.4% to a relative one of 100%; only the latter value is highlighted in the abstract of the published study.

2.1.2 Negative impact of BNT162b2 on overall morbidity in adolescents. In the cited vaccine study on adolescents, a “case” of COVID-19 was determined as follows:

The definition of confirmed COVID-19 included the presence of ≥ 1 symptom (i.e., fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhea, vomiting) and being SARS-CoV-2 NAAT-positive [= PCR-positive] dur- ing, or within 4 days before or after, the symptomatic period (either at the central laboratory or at a local testing facility and using an acceptable test).

Thus, a single symptom from a laundry list of non-characteristic symptoms, plus a positive finding from an unreliable laboratory test (cf. Section 1.2.6), was deemed suffi- cient to establish the diagnosis. While the study goes on to list several clinical criteria of severe disease, it gives no indication that any test persons actually suffered any of those. It can therefore be assumed that very few non-severe, and no clinically severe cases of COVID-19 occurred in the entire test population.

In stark contrast to these numbers pertaining to the disease from which the vaccina- tion is supposed to protect, side effects from the vaccination were exceedingly common. Apart from injection site pain occurring in a high percentage of the vaccine group (79% to 86%), fatigue (60% to 66%) and headache (55% to 65%) abounded. Severe fatigue and headache were reported by several percent of the test persons. Severe headache, in par- ticular, may be associated with underlying thrombotic events (see Section It is therefore clear that, if we consider both COVID-19 and vaccine adverse effects, overall morbidity was far greater in the vaccinated than in the placebo group.

2.1.3 Unlikely claims and contradictions in Pfizer’s evidence on efficacy. We saw above that the reported efficacy of Pfizer’s vaccine is very modest when expressed in absolute terms. Even this low efficacy, however, cannot be accepted at face value. This is apparent from the assessment reports prepared by the FDA [29] and the EMA [30]. Sudden onset of immunity on day 12 after the first injection. A key illustra- tion that occurs in both reports compares the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 among the vaccinated and the placebo group. This graph, which is shown as Figure 9 in the EMA report, is here reproduced in Figure 1B. Up to day 12 after the first injection, the cumu- lative incidences in the two groups track each other closely. After day 12, however, only

Figure 1 Reproduction of Figure 7 (A; neutralizing antibody titres on various days after the first injection) and of Figure 9 (B; cumulative incidence of COVID-19 among vaccinated and placebo groups) from the EMA assessment report [30]. Note the logarithmic y axis in B. See text for discussion.

the placebo group continues to accumulate further new cases at a steady pace, whereas the slope of the graph drops to almost zero in the vaccine group.

This remarkable observation suggests that immunity sets in very suddenly and uni- formly on day 12 exactly among the vaccinated. Since the second injection occurred 19 or more days after the first one, this would imply that one injection is enough to estab- lish full immunity. This conclusion, however, is not stated, and in fact Pfizer does not report any data at all on test persons who received one injection only.

A sudden onset of full immunity on day 12 after the first exposure to the antigen is not at all a biologically plausible outcome. Typically, immunity develops more slowly and gradually; and such a pattern is in fact reported for this very same vaccine (BNT162b2) in Figure 7 of the EMA report, reproduced here as Figure 1A. The figure shows the increase of neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 as a function of time after the first injection of the vaccine.

Table 1 Subjects without evidence of infection in vaccine and placebo groups at various time points in the clinical trial. Data excerpted from Table 4 in [30]. See text for discussion.

No evidence of infection before dose 1
No evidence of infection prior to 14 days after dose 2

Difference (= infection between day 0 and day 14 after dose 2)
93.1% 85.6%
93.0% 85.0%

Vaccine Placebo

The induction of neutralizing antibodies is the declared purpose of the Pfizer vaccine. Generally speaking, antibodies are protein molecules produced by our immune system when it encounters antigens—macromolecules that do not occur within our own bodies. These antigens are often part of infectious microbes, including viruses. An antibody binds to a specific feature on the surface of its antigen; this feature is called the epitope of the antibody in question.

In the context of virus infections, antibodies can be neutralizing or non-neutralizing. A neutralizing antibody recognizes an epitope that is essential for the function of the virus, for example because this epitope must make contact to a receptor molecule on the surface of the host cell which the virus must enter in order to replicate. A non- neutralizing antibody simply happens to recognize a surface feature (epitope) that plays no essential role in the infectiousness of the virus.

Considering the foregoing, we should expect that the blood level of neutralizing an- tibodies should reflect the degree of clinical immunity to the virus. This is, however, not at all what we see in Figure 1A.

On day 21 after the first injection, that is, a full 9 days after the purported sudden onset of full clinical immunity, the amount of neutralizing antibodies in the blood has barely risen above the background level. The maximal level of neutralizing antibodies is observed only on day 28 after the first injection, at which time most test persons would already have had their second injection. The time course of cellular (T-cell) immunity was not reported, but in the absence of proof positive to the opposite it can be assumed to resemble that of the antibody response.

It is very difficult to reconcile the two contrasting observations of sudden onset of full clinical immunity on day 12, but neutralizing antibodies appearing only weeks later. Yet, neither the EMA reviewers nor those of the FDA appear to have been interested in the problem. The Pfizer documentation contradicts itself on COVID-19 incidence after vac- cination. Table1liststhepercentagesofsubjectsinthevaccinegroupandtheplacebo group who showed no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on day 0 (before the first dose) and on day 14 after the second dose, respectively. From the differences between the two time points, we can work out that 7.5% of the subjects in the vaccine group and 8% in the control group converted from negative to positive—that is, became infected—between the two time points.

According to [29], the second dose was administered approximately 21 days after the first, although all subjects who received it between days 19 and 42 after the first injection were included in the evaluation. If we take day 35 after the first injection as the approximate time point of the comparison, we see from Figure 1B that the cumulative incidence between day 0 and day 35 is more than twice higher in the placebo group than in the vaccine group; but from Table 1, we see that it is almost the same. Moreover, with both groups the numbers are substantially higher in the table than in the figure.

Table 2 Incidence of COVID-19 among subjects not previously infected but vaccinated, or pre- viously infected but not vaccinated. Data excerpted from Tables 6 and 7 in [29]. See text for discussion.
Cases Incidence (%)
Total Cases 19965 9
18198 8
1767 1
Incidence (%)
All subjects Initially negative
Previously infected
20172 169 18325 162

These two sets of data cannot possibly be reconciled; one must be false. Since, as discussed, the sudden onset of immunity implied by Figure 1B lacks any biological plau- sibility, it is most likely that it is this data set which was fabricated. Pfizer’sdataimplythatthevaccineprotectsfromCOVIDmoreeffectivelythan does prior infection with the virus. We can also scrutinize Pfizer’s reported data in order to compare the immunity conferred by the vaccine to that induced by prior natural infection with the virus. The relevant data are summarized in Table 2.

The reported 8 cases of COVID-19 among vaccinated persons who had initially tested negative for the virus amount to an incidence of 0.044%. Pfizer also reports 7 cases among persons who had initially tested positive but were not vaccinated. Since this group is considerably smaller, those 7 cases translate into an almost ninefold higher incidence (0.38%).

t is common knowledge that vaccines will at best approach, but not surpass the im- munity conferred by the corresponding natural infection. Very robust immunity after prior natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 has recently been reported [10]; in that study, not a single case of COVID-19 was observed among 1359 individuals who had remained unvaccinated. Robust immunity after infection is also confirmed by comprehensive lab- oratory investigations [11]. Therefore, the above analysis corroborates yet again that the trial results reported by Pfizer cannot be trusted. That neither the FDA nor the EMA picked up on any of these inconsistencies does not instil confidence in the thoroughness and integrity of their review processes.

2.2 Whatevidenceislackingtomakethecase? Wehadalreadymentionedthespecious and contrived character of the endpoint used in Pfizer’s clinical trials—namely, the count- ing of a COVID-19 “case” based on nothing more than a positive PCR result, together with one or more items from a list of mostly uncharacteristic clinical symptoms. We must therefore ask if the vaccine provides any benefits that are more substantial than the claimed—but, as discussed above, most likely fabricated—reduction in the count of such trivial “cases.”

2.2.1 Prevention of severe disease and mortality. Page 48 of the FDA report sums up this question as follows: “A larger number of individuals at high risk of COVID-19 and higher attack rates would be needed to confirm efficacy of the vaccine against mortality.”
We note that this quote not only answers the posed question in the negative, but it also disposes of the entire pretext for granting emergency use authorization for this experimental vaccine. If in a study that involves 40,000 individuals the number of fatal outcomes is too small to permit the detection of any benefit of the vaccine, then surely no “emergency” exists that would justify the very grave risks, and meanwhile manifest no harm, associated with the extraordinarily rushed introduction of this and other COVID- 19 vaccines.

No fatalities at all occurred in the cited study on adolescents [31]; and we already noted that this study does not report any cases of severe disease either. Therefore, in this specific age group, too, neither a meaningful benefit nor an emergency are in evidence.

2.2.2 Effectiveness for those at high-risk of severe COVID-19. Here, the FDA report has this to say: “Although the proportion of participants at high risk of severe COVID- 19 is adequate for the overall evaluation of safety in the available follow-up period, the subset of certain groups such as immunocompromised individuals (e.g., those with HIV/AIDS) is too small to evaluate efficacy outcomes.”

The report shirks the question of risk reduction among those with more common predisposing conditions, such as for example chronic heart or lung disease. Naturally, the clinical study on adolescents [31] is completely barren in this regard. Overall, no evidence has been adduced by Pfizer’s clinical studies to prove clinical benefit in those at high risk of severe COVID-19.

2.2.3 Effectiveness against long-term effects of COVID-19 disease. The FDA report’s verdict is as follows: “Additional evaluations will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing long-term effects of COVID-19, including data from clinical trials and from the vaccine’s use post authorization.” In other words, the clinical trials pro- vided no such evidence.

2.2.4 Reduction of transmission. On this topic, the FDA report offers only that “addi- tional evaluations including data from clinical trials and from vaccine use post-autho- rization will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing virus shedding and transmission, in particular in individuals with asymptomatic infection.”
In plain language, there is no evidence that transmission is reduced, and in fact the trials were simply not even designed to prove or disprove such an effect.

2.2.5 Duration of protection. The FDA report correctly states (on page 46) that “as the interim and final analyses have a limited length of follow-up, it is not possible to assess sustained efficacy over a period longer than 2 months.” Even if we choose to believe that any efficacy at all has been demonstrated pertaining to the two-month study period, such a short duration of protection does not justify the risks associated with vaccination.

2.2.6 Inadequate efforts to determine the optimal dose. Figure 1A shows that the level of neutralizing antibodies is virtually the same with vaccine (mRNA) doses of 20μg and 30μg, respectively. This raises the question why the higher dose was employed throughout—and not only with adults, on whom these data were obtained, but also with children, whose lower body weights should suggest a dose reduction. Furthermore, the data in Figure 1B suggest that full immunity is induced already by the first dose; appli- cation of the second dose does not change the pace at which new cases accrue in the vaccine group, and therefore apparently has no effect on immunity. This would imply that a one-dose regimen should have been evaluated, which would reduce the overall likelihood of adverse events.

2.2.7 Summary. The clinical trials carried out by Pfizer contain no proof of any benefit conferred by the vaccine with respect to any clinically relevant endpoints. This applies to all tested age groups, and in particular also to adolescents.

The great vaccination farce: Twice vaccinated Boris Johnson ordered to self-isolate

By Vasko Kohlmayer from American Thinker

Boris Johnson has been ordered to self-isolate… again. The isolation order, however, was not issued because Johnson contracted the virus. Rather he has been sent packing to his country house because he came into proximity of an individual who tested positive for Covid.

You may well wonder why the British Prime Minister has been so unceremoniously put away given that he should be safe from the virus. If you did not know, in addition to having overcome the infection, Boris has received his two jabs earlier this year and upon accomplishing the feat urged everyone else to do likewise. The promise was that by getting the shots we will be kept safe from the Covid scourge, and our lives will finally return to norma

Well, it is apparently not true as the case of Johnson clearly demonstrates. It also shows that the powers that be have no confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines to protect their recipients from the virus. Why, otherwise, would they lock Boris away for ten days? And there is no way out for the hapless Premier either. He is not even allowed to take a PCR test after five days as most travelers usually can do. The double vaccinated Johnson must do ten days of hard Covid penance.

This is a farce if there ever was one. It is also a tragedy because the scam is both gross and immense. First, they told us that if we agreed to take the experimental jabs, we would get our freedom and lives back. In the process of injecting the population with their emergency use concoctions, tens of thousands of people have died following vaccination. According to data submitted to the CDC, “there were nearly 12,000 deaths during a seven-month period since the COVID-19 shots were given emergency use authorization by the FDA last December.” Meanwhile across the ocean, the European Union reported 15,472 vaccines deaths and 1.5 million vaccine injuries. It is unconscionable that while inflicting all this suffering the pharma companies raked immense profits and churned out a bevy of happy billionaires.

Paradoxically, it was clear from early on that the effectiveness of their products was questionable due to the mutating tendencies of the virus. I have pointed this out already back in April when I wrote:

The reason why the current vaccines are ineffective is because the virus that causes Covid-19 has mutated into a multitude of new variants. Some of these variants are sufficiently removed from the original strain to render the vaccines – which were aimed at that earlier version of the virus – useless… In a number of places around the world, the new variants have already become the dominant strains, making the current batch of vaccines on the market largely obsolete. That this type of virus mutates rapidly has always been known, which is why honest scientists have always warned that it is impossible to end this epidemic by vaccinations. Trying to beat this disease with inoculations is like playing cat and mouse, where we can never catch up with ever-new variants of the rapidly morphing virus. In other words, because of its nature, the virus will always be one step ahead in the vaccination game.”

This has now come to pass as Covid wards are being filled with the fully vaccinated.

Listen to a real independent expert explaining why the current vaccines are no good. His name is Knut Wittkowski and his credentials are impeccable. One of the world’s top authorities in his field, Dr. Wittkowski spent 20 years leading the department of biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design at The Rockefeller University in New York.

This is what he had to say in a recent interview:

‘This vaccine does not seem to be that good either. And here we actually know why: because the virus has already mutated so that the vaccines that we have is a vaccine against a virus that does not exist anymore.”

There you have the truth from one of the world’s leading epidemiologists. As you may have guessed, Dr. Wittkowski has been canceled by YouTube some time ago.

By the way, would you like to know who was the Covid positive individual who caused Boris’ prompt removal to the British countryside? He was no other than his new Health Minister Sajid Javid. And guess what: Sajid Javid is also fully vaccinated.

So here you have two fully vaccinated individuals deep in the Covid pickle: one who has tested positive and the other in forced quarantine.

And yet the government, pharma companies, media, and their collaborators in both the public and private sphere still feverishly urge people to get vaccinated with the same substances that have already wrought so much havoc and that have been of no help to Johnson or his health minister.

Do you now see why this whole vaccination theatre is a farce? Do you also see why it is also a tragedy?

The question is: what for? Why would anyone in their right mind want to get injected with the dangerous concoctions whose long-term effects are unknown that will not keep one from Covid or the quarantine?

Why are so few people asking this question?

One cannot avoid the feeling that we have been had. While most of the population suffer under self-contradictory, senseless, and life diminishing policies and procedures, some people are happily laughing all the way to the bank.

Welcome to the new Covid world.

Vasko Kohlmayer was born and grew up in former communist Czechoslovakia. He is the author of The West in Crisis: Civilizations and Their Death Drives.

Expert statement regarding Comirnaty—COVID-19-mRNA-Vaccine for children—-Michael Palmer MD, Sucharit Bhakdi MD, Stefan Hockertz PhD ————doctors4covidethics. This expert statement was submitted by Italian lawyer Renate Holzeisen in conjunction with a lawsuit that challenges the EU’s authorization of the use of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine on children of 12 years and older. The arguments made here specifically reference the Pfizer vaccine, but they apply similarly to the Moderna mRNA vaccine, and many also apply to the adenovector-based AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines. Permission is hereby granted to freely share and distribute this document in unchanged form. SummaryThis expertise on the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine (Comirnaty, BNT162b2) in adolescents is divided into three sections, which will deal with the following questions, in order:

Chapter One

  1. Is vaccination of adolescents against COVID-19 necessary? 2. Is the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine effective?
  2. Is the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine safe?
    The arguments presented in Section 1 pertain to all COVID-19 vaccines, whereas those in Sections 2 and 3 apply specifically to the Pfizer vaccine.
    Section 1 will show that vaccination of adolescents COVID-19 is unnecessary, because
    • in this age group the disease is almost always mild and benign;
    • for the rare clinical cases that require it, treatment is readily available;
    • immunity to the disease is now widespread, due to prior infection with the virus (SARS-CoV-2) or with other coronavirus strains; and
    • asymptomatic adolescents will not transmit the disease to other individuals who might be at greater risk of infection.
    Section 2 will demonstrate that the claims of efficacy which Pfizer attaches to its vaccine— namely, 95% efficacy in adults, and 100% in adolescents—are
    • misleading,becausethesenumberspertaintorelative,notabsoluteefficacy,thelatter being on the order of only 1%;
    • specious, because they refer to an arbitrarily defined, clinically meaningless eval- uation endpoint, whereas no efficacy at all has been demonstrated against severe disease or mortality;
    • most likely altogether fraudulent.
  3. Section 3 will show that the safety profile of the Pfizer vaccine is catastrophically bad. It will be discussed that

• Pfizer, the EMA, and the FDA have systematically neglected evidence from preclinical animal trials that clearly pointed to grave dangers of adverse events;
• thePfizervaccinehascausedthousandsofdeathswithinfivemonthsofitsintroduc- tion;
• The agencies that granted emergency use authorization for this vaccine committed grave errors and omissions in their assessments of known and possible health risks.
The only possible conclusion from this analysis is that the use of this vaccine in adoles- cents cannot be permitted, and that its ongoing use in any and all age groups ought to be stopped immediately.

1 Vaccination of adolescents against COVID-19 is unnecessary

1.1 What does the available evidence show? There are several lines of evidence that
show vaccination of adolescents against COVID-19 to be unnecessary.

1.1.1 ThecasefatalityrateofCOVID-19inthegeneralpopulationislow. Thevastma- jority of all persons infected with COVID-19 recovers after minor, often uncharacteristic illness. According to world-leading epidemiologist John Ioannidis [1, 2], the infection fa- tality rate of COVID-19 is on the order of 0.15% to 0.2% across all age groups, with a very strong bias towards old people, particularly those with co-morbidities. This rate does not exceed the range commonly observed with influenza, against which a vaccination of adolescents is not considered urgent or necessary.

1.1.2 COVID-19 has a particularly low prevalence and severity in adolescents. In the U.S. and as of April 2020, those younger than 18 years accounted for just 1.7% of all COVID-19 cases [3, 4]. Within this age group, the most severe cases were observed among very young infants [4]. This is consistent with the lack in infants of cross-immunity to COVID-19, which in other age groups is conferred by preceding exposure to regular respitory human coronaviruses (see Section 1.2.1). Among slightly older children, a peculiar multisystem inflammatory syndrome was observed in early 2020 [5]; conceivably, these patients, too, were still lacking cross-immunity.
Essentially no severe cases of COVID-19 were observed in those above 10 but below 18 years of age

[4]. This group accounted for just 1% of reported cases, almost all of which were very mild. Thus, adolescents are at particularly low risk of harm from COVID-19 infection. Vaccination of this age group is therefore unnecessary.

1.1.3 COVID-19 can be treated. Numerous experienced physicians have collaborated on establishing effective treatment guidelines for clinically manifest COVID-19 [6]. Treatment options are available both for the early stage of the disease, at which emphasis is placed on inhibiting viral replication, and for the later stage, at which anti-inflammatory treatment is paramount. Two drugs that have been used successfully at the early stage are hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Both drugs have been, and continue to be, in use against a variety of other diseases. Ivermectin, for example, is considered safe enough to be used not only for treating manifest scabies—a parasite infection of the skin that is unpleasant but not severe—but even prophylactically in asymptomatic contacts of scabies-infected persons [7].

Ivermectin is also widely used in the treatment of tropical parasitic diseases such as onchocerciasis (river blindness), and for this reason it is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines. Yet, with COVID-19, the WHO sees fit to warn against the use of this very same well-known and safe drug outside of clinical trials [8]. This policy cannot be rationally justified, and it has quite appropriately been overridden by national or regional health authorities and ignored by individual physicians worldwide.
The availability of effective treatment voids the rationale for the emergency use of vaccines on any and all age groups, including also adolescents.

1.1.4 Most people, particularly adolescents, are by now immune to SARS-CoV-2. Due to the many inherent flaws and shortcomings of the diagnostic methods in common use (see Section 1.2), it is impossible to accurately determine the proportions of those who have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and those who have not. However, there are indications that the proportion of those who have been infected and recovered is high:
• The incidence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (see Section 1.1.2) peaked in early to mid 2020, and then receded, with some slight delay after the initial wave of the COVID-19 respiratory disease itself [9].
• Approximately 60% of randomly selected test persons from British Columbia have detectable antibodies against multiple SARS-CoV-2 proteins (personal communication by Stephen Pelech, University of British Columbia), indicating past infection with the virus—as opposed to vaccination, which would induce antibodies to only one (the spike) protein.
Past COVID-19 infection has been found to protect very reliably from reinfection [10], and strong specific humoral and cellular immunity is detected in almost all recovered individuals, and also in those who remained asymptomatic throughout the infection [11]. Thus, a large proportion of individuals in all age groups, including adolescents, already have specific, reliable immunity to COVID-19. As mentioned above, most of those who do not have such specific immunity nevertheless are protected from severe disease by cross- immunity [12, 13]. This immunity will be particularly effective in healthy adolescents and young adults. Individuals with specific immunity or sufficient cross-immunity cannot possibly derive any benefit from undergoing an experimental vaccination.

1.1.5 Asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is not real. An oft-cited rationale for vaccinating individuals who are not themselves at risk of severe disease is the need to induce “herd immunity:” the few who are at high risk should be protected by preventing the spread of the virus in the general population.

A subtext of this rationale is the idea of “asymptomatic spread”—persons who have been infected but who show no signs of it other than a positive PCR test are assumed to transmit this infection to other susceptible individuals. If we accept the idea of such asymptomatic spread, then preventative mass vaccination might indeed appear as the only means of reliable protection of those at risk.
It has, however, been unambiguously determined that such asymptomatic transmis- sion does not occur. In a large-scale study, which involved almost 10 million Chinese residents, no new infections could be traced to persons that had tested positive for SARS- CoV-2 by PCR, but who did not exhibit any other signs of infection [14].

This agrees with several studies that compared PCR to virus isolation in cell culture among patients with acute COVID-19 disease. In all cases, growth of the virus in cell culture ceased as symp- toms subsided, or very shortly thereafter, whereas PCR remained positive for weeks or months afterwards [15, 16]. It was accordingly proposed to use cell culture rather than PCR to assess infectiousness and to determine the duration of isolation [16].

These findings indicate that restricting contact of persons at risk with those who show, or very recently showed, symptoms of acute respiratory disease would be effective and sufficient as a protective measure. Indiscriminate mass vaccinations of persons who are not themselves at risk of severe disease are therefore not required to achieve such protection.

1.2 Missing evidence: use of inaccurate diagnostic methods. A key element that is lacking in the current discussion of the need for vaccination is a reliable diagnostic tool for determining who is or is not currently infected with SARS-CoV-2. The diagnostic procedure most widely used for this purpose is based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The PCR is a very powerful and versatile method that lends itself to numerous ap- plications in molecular biology, and also in the laboratory diagnosis of viral infections. However, exactly because it is so powerful, PCR is very difficult to get right even at the best of times; it will yield accurate results only in the hands of highly trained and disci- plined personnel. The enormous scale on which the method has been deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic has meant that it was entrusted to untrained and insufficiently supervised personnel; in such circumstances, the mass manufacture of false-positive re- sults due to the cross-contamination of samples is a disaster waiting to happen (see for example [17]). While this alone already is reason for grave concern, the problems start even earlier—namely, with the design of the PCR tests and the guidelines used for their interpretation, which would lead to false positive results even in the hands of skilled and diligent workers.

The key conclusion from this section will be that the PCR tests which have been used throughout the pandemic, and which continue to be used, lack accuracy and specificity and cannot be relied on for diagnostic or epidemiological purposes. In order to ade- quately justify these conclusions, we must first consider the basics of the method in some detail.

1.2.1 Coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2. Coronaviruses are a large family of enveloped, positive strand RNA viruses. In humans and a variety of animal species, they cause res- piratory tract infections that can range from mild to lethal in severity. The vast majority of coronavirus infections in humans cause mild illness (common cold), although in very young children, who lack immunity from previous exposure, respiratory disease can be more severe. Note that the same clinical picture is also caused by viruses from several other families, predominantly rhinoviruses. Three clinical syndromes—SARS, MERS, and COVID-19—are associated with specific coronavirus strains that have “emerged” only within the last 20 years.

The virus that causes COVID-19 is known as Severe acute respiratory syndrome coro- navirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on January 30th, 2020, and a pandemic on March 11th, 2020. While it has been maintained that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally in a species of bats [18], a thorough analysis of the genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 and of related virus strains indicates unambiguously that the virus is in fact of artificial ori- gin [19–22]. Initially decried as a “conspiracy theory,” this explanation has recently and belatedly been gaining acceptance in the mainstream.

1.2.2 The polymerase chain reaction. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a ver- satile method for the biochemical replication of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in vitro. Immediately after its invention by Kary Mullis in the 1980s, PCR took the world of molec- ular biology by storm, finding application for creating DNA mutations, DNA sequencing, for shuffling and merging nucleic acids of different origin (recombinant DNA technol- ogy), and for the creation of novel nucleic acids or even whole genomes from scratch (“synthetic biology”). PCR also soon found its way into the field of diagnostic medical microbiology [23]. Particularly with respect to viral pathogens, PCR is now one of the mainstay diagnostic methods. Against this background, it is not surprising that PCR methods should also have been adopted in the laboratory diagnostics of SARS-CoV-2. The principle. To understand how PCR works, it is best to start with a piece of double-stranded DNA (the well-known double helix). In such a molecule, each of the paired single strands consists of four different building blocks (nucleotides), which will here be referred to as A, C, G, and T for short. Within each single strand, these building blocks are arranged like pearls on a string; the biological activity and identity of the nucleic acid will be dictated by its characteristic nucleotide sequence.

In a DNA double helix, the two strands are held together by the proper pairing of the nucleotides, such that an A in one strand is always found opposite to a T in the other, and likewise C is always found opposite G. Thus, the nucleotide sequence of one strand implies that of the other—the two sequences are complementary.

The first step in PCR consists in the separation of the two strands, which can be ef- fected by heating the DNA sample past its “melting point.” Each strand can now be used as a template for synthesizing a new copy of its opposite strand. To this end, two short, synthetic single-stranded DNA molecules (“primers”) are added; their sequences are cho- sen such that one will bind to each of the DNA template strands, based on sequence complementarity. For this binding to occur, the temperature of the reaction must be lowered.

Once the primers have bound, each is extended by the repeated incorporation of free nucleotide precursors to one of its two free ends. This is accomplished using a thermostable DNA polymerase—a bacterial enzyme that synthesizes DNA. The extension is carried out at a temperature which is intermediate between those used for double strand separation and primer binding (“annealing”). After this step has extended each of the primers into a new DNA strand, we will have created two double-stranded DNA molecules from one. We can now repeat the process—separate the two double strands and convert them into four, then eight, and so on. After 10 cycles, the initial amount of double-stranded DNA will have increased by a factor of approximately one thousand, after 20 cycles by a million, and so on—amplification proceeds exponentially with the number of reaction cycles, until the reaction finally runs out of primers and/or nucleotide precursors. PCR and RNA templates. While the above discussion referred to DNA only, PCR can also be used with RNA templates; this is important with SARS-CoV-2, since this virus has RNA rather than DNA as its genetic material. To this end, the RNA is first converted (“reversely transcribed”) into DNA, using a reverse transcriptase enzyme. The DNA copy of the viral RNA genome is referred to as complementary DNA (cDNA).

1.2.3 Potential pitfalls of PCR in diagnostic applications. We just saw that PCR allows us to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it with extraordinary efficiency. How- ever, this very efficiency of amplification creates a number of problems that must be carefully addressed in order to make the result meaningful, particularly in a diagnostic context.

  1. If we use too high a number of repeated reaction cycles, minuscule amounts of nucleic acids will be detected that have no diagnostic significance.
  2. The various temperatures used in the reaction must be carefully calibrated, and they must match the length and nucleotide sequence of the two DNA primers. If in par-

ticular the temperature for primer annealing is too low, then the primers may bind to the template DNA in a non-specific manner—in spite of one or more mismatched nucleotides—and DNA molecules other than the intended ones may be amplified. In the context of COVID diagnostics, this could mean that for example the nucleic acids of coronaviruses other than SARS-CoV-2 are amplified and mistaken for the latter.

  1. Apart from the temperature, other conditions must likewise be carefully calibrated in order to ensure specificity. These include in particular the concentrations of magne- sium ions and of free nucleotides; excessively high concentrations favour non-specific amplification.
    There is a further problem that results not from the efficiency of the amplification, but rather from a technical limitation: PCR is most efficient if the amplified DNA molecule is no more than several hundred nucleotides in length; however, a full-length coronavirus genome is approximately 30,000 nucleotides long. Successful amplification of a segment of several hundred nucleotides only thus does not prove that the template nucleic acid itself was indeed complete and intact, and therefore that it was part of an infectious virus particle.
    1.2.4 Technical precautions in diagnostic PCR. Non-specific or overly sensitive ampli- fication can be guarded against in a number of ways:
  2. All primers that are part of the same reaction mixture must be designed in such a manner that they anneal to their template DNA at the same temperature. As may be intuitively clear, a longer primer will begin to anneal to its template at a higher temperature than a shorter one; and since the bond which forms between C and G on opposite strands is tighter than that between A and T, the nucleotide composition of each primer must also be taken into account. If the primers are mismatched in this regard, then the more avidly binding primer will start to bind non-specifically when the temperature is low enough for allowing the other primer to bind specifically. The original Corman-Drosten PCR protocol [24] that was rapidly endorsed by the WHO has been criticized for exactly this mistake [25].
  3. Instead of amplifying only a single piece of the template DNA, one can simultaneously amplify several pieces, using the appropriate number of DNA primer pairs, and stipu- late that all pieces, or a suitable minimal number, must be successfully amplified for the test to evaluate as positive.
  4. One must keep track of the “cycle threshold” or Ct value for short, that is, the num- ber of amplification cycles that were necessary to produce a detectable amount of amplified product; the lower the number of cycles, the greater the initial amount of template nucleic acid that must have been present.
  5. Confirming the identity—the exact nucleotide sequence—of the nucleic acid mole- cules that were amplified. DNA sequencing has been feasible in diagnostic routine laboratories for a considerable time, and there is no good reason not to use it, partic- ularly when decisions pertaining to public health depend on these laboratory results.
    1.2.5 Real-time PCR. The third point above, and to a degree the fourth, can be ad- dressed using real-time PCR. In this method, the accumulation of amplified DNA is moni- tored as the reaction progresses, in real time, with product quantification after each cycle (quantitative PCR; qPCR for short). Real-time detection can be achieved by the inclusion of a third DNA primer, which binds to either of the template DNA strands, at a location between the two other primers which drive the DNA synthesis. Downstream of the binding of that third primer, a light signal will be emitted, and the intensity of this signal is proportional to the amount of amplified DNA present. Since binding of this primer, too, requires a complementary target sequence on the DNA template, this method does provide some confirmation of the nucleotide sequence of the target DNA.
  6. A second, simpler variety of real-time PCR uses a simple organic dye molecule that binds to double-stranded DNA. The dye displays weak background fluorescence that increases dramatically upon DNA binding. The measured fluorescence increase is then proportional to the total amount of amplified DNA; but since the dye binds regardless of DNA sequence, in this case the signal does not give evidence that the correct template DNA has been amplified.
  7. 1.2.6 Shortcomings of commercial COVID-19 PCR tests. Unfortunately, the number of amplification cycles (the Ct value) needed to find the genetic material in question is rarely included in the results sent to authorities, doctors and those tested. Most commercially available RT-qPCR tests set the limit of amplification cycles up to which an amplification signal should be considered positive at 35 or higher. Multiple studies have indicated that Ct values above 30 have a very low predictive value for positive virus cultures, and thus for infectiousness or the presence of acute disease [15, 26–28]. Considering that in many clinical trials—including the ones conducted by Pfizer (see later)—a “COVID-19 case”, or an “endpoint” amounts to no more than a positive PCR test, regardless of Ct value, in combination with one or a few non-specific symptoms of respiratory disease, the significance of the use of improperly high Ct cut-off values cannot be overstated. This systematic and widespread error alone has sufficed to gravely distort the diagnoses conferred on individual patients, as well as the epidemiology of the pandemic as a whole.
  8. Further systematic negligence concerns the verification of the identity of the ampli- fied DNA fragments. While Sanger DNA sequencing of such fragments, the gold standard, is feasible on a large scale in principle, it has not been routinely used in the ongoing mass PCR testing campaigns. The error is compounded by the very low number of independent PCR amplifications considered sufficient for a positive test—as few as two, or even only one have been considered sufficient in various jurisdictions—as well as by various other technical faults in the widely adopted and commercialized Corman-Drosten protocol, which have been discussed in detail elsewhere [25].
  9. In summary, a positive RT-qPCR test result cannot be accepted as proof that the per- son in question is currently infected and infectious—even if there is reasonable clinical plausibility of actual COVID-19 infection, as well as a significant community prevalence of the disease. Firstly, the RNA material containing the target sequences could very well be from nonviable/inactive virus; this is particularly likely if the patient in question has already recovered from the infection. Secondly, there needs to be a minimum amount of viable virus for onward transmission; but tests carried out with excessively high (yet unreported) Ct values will detect minuscule amounts of genetic material that pose no threat at all .

About the authors

Michael Palmer MD is Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He studied Medicine and Medical Microbiology in Germany and has taught Biochemistry since 2001 in Canada. His focus is on Pharmacology, metabolism, biological membranes and computer programming, with an experimental research focus on bacterial toxins and antibiotics (Daptomycin). He has written a textbook on Biochemical Pharmacology.

Sucharit Bhakdi MD is Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology and Former Chair at the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz.

Stefan Hockertz is Professor of Toxicology and Pharmacology, a European registered Toxicologist and Specialist in Immunology and Immunotoxicology. He is CEO of tpi consult GmbH. 

All three are founding signatories of Doctors for Covid Ethics

Biden’s Message: Blacklist the Vaccine Opposition.

by Dennis Santiago | Jul 21, 2021 | Media, Politics

“Facebook is not killing people,” that’s what President Joseph Biden had to say on Monday, July 19th walking back an accusation he made the previous week regarding Facebook’s role in the raging argument about COVID-19 vaccinations. Reflecting the president’s frustrations, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki went as far as to suggest in one of her press briefings that social media should identify and target for censorship persons opposed to vaccination and that social media should universally blacklist them across every platform.

My first response after hearing that, of course, was to burp up some of my beer and blurt out loud, “Looks like Tail Gunner Joe is back.” That is, of course, a reference to senator Joe McCarthy who’s reign of terror against Hollywood when hunting for communist sympathizers in America was in its heyday engaged in heavy-handed blacklisting that eventually brought him to disgrace.

Unlike his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, President Biden, and his team seem not to have mastered the intricate art form of managing opinion and emotion on the Internet as a dynamic battlespace of ideas in the same way that the previous administration was famous for manipulating it.

The key thing that Trump knew that Biden seems not to honor is that the Internet is an open market for ideas. All ideas, good and bad, compete with each other on a level playing field. This is hyper-democracy where you not only have to be aware of the message you are putting out; you also have to be keenly aware of every message opposing yours, and have a strategy for how you will prevail in the battle of rhetoric that ensues on a neutral platform environment like social media.

It is not like the highly charged messaging and influencing battleground that lies at the heart of technology that allows everyone to be equal to everyone else when they speak has changed. There are still people with fanatical beliefs and outrageous strategies filled with subterfuge to exploit traffic, trends, and metadata in the wild country of virtual space.

Indeed, due to the efforts of academics and politicians to constrain social media platforms from curating their content as publishers, social media platforms and news outlets have gone out of their way to deliberately tribalize their services so that people only see the echo chambers that make them comfortable, quieter, safer.

One of the consequences of this is that people now gather online in smaller groups that form independent opinions that are unshakable, regardless of what else is going on in the real world.

That’s what we wanted, right? Well, that’s what we’ve got.

It just turns out that some of those isolated groups are people that do not want to pay attention to either science or government. They happen to be younger. They happen not to like vaccines. They happened not to trust authority created by elders they think have blown it. And they are nearly impossible to communicate with as they circulate inside their now very closed-minded echo chambers.

The bottom line is science means little without trust.

The science that vaccines do work for the strains of COVID-19 for which they were initially designed is not intuitively understood by many Americans. It’s surrounded by myths that range from it has magical superpowers to its side effects turn you into a newt.

The rational science that the first run of vaccines was so narrowly specific that they don’t work for mutations that fall outside of the target bin of the initial round of medication isn’t that hard to understand if explained plainly. The vaccine can stop the main threat, and then we need to work on the flanks. Viruses do have as much right to survive as we do, and nature does equip them with their own tools to survive called mutations.

But we want to win. Combating a pandemic is not a one-shot stop. That only happens in movies. The real world doesn’t work like that. Fighting a pandemic is more like using a comb that needs to be stroked repetitively to eventually straighten things out.

The science that all medicines have side effects and dangers isn’t new either. Every pharmaceutical on the market comes with warnings and hundreds of search engine results about how people are both helped and hurt by them. 

It’s dangerous stuff, and everyone takes a calculated risk every time we swallow an aspirin or have messenger RNA injected into our bloodstream.

What public policymakers fail to appreciate is that, ultimately, the decision on how to interact with science is the right of the individual to make.

Stop Fumbling the Ball

None of the science will make any difference as long as the administration pursues a bumbling public policy that fails to gain enough trust to influence the opinion of the American people on the Internet. That can only be gained by earning people’s trust.

True that trust has worked with a good portion of the American people. But these were the trusting folk anyway. It clearly hasn’t worked universally across the entire population.

And here is the hard truth of it. The virus does not care about our political comfort zones; it just wants to survive in its host reservoir. And our hubris and distrust of each other, amplified by an inability to use the internet effectively, means that virus will have a reservoir in the US.

And no, Mr. President, 18-year old Tik Tok sensation Olivia Rodrigo won’t be enough to change things. It is a start in the right direction, though. I’d keep that up, sir. Just get beyond tokenism as quickly as you can. Time is not on 

our side.

Domestically, Biden’s larger problem is that instead of organizing an effective messaging campaign to inform the American people inside their echo chamber “safe spaces” in a way that helps skeptical individuals make better-informed decisions, this administration, in its frustration, tried to take the heavy-handed approach of telling detractors to shut up; and if they don’t shut up, engaging in attempts to blacklist them. 

So now we have a political backlash problem added on top of everything else, and I notice that the media is quick to jump on it in both accusatory and apologetic forms, depending on which cheek they are accustomed to kissing.

Honestly, that’s ridiculous. Human nature is predictable. 

The only thing that such heavy-handed government action ever accomplishes by attempting to silence people standing on their soapboxes is legitimizing whatever opinion they espouse, even if that opinion is idiotic. The government, in this case, is proving to the people in their echo chambers that they need to hold even harder to their beliefs.

My call? Sloppy workmanship. That won’t do. This country can do better. 

Here is my constructive criticism. 

What president Biden really needs to do is call his staff into the White House and very sternly tell them, “You people have done a lousy job of finding ways to communicate to people who are sheltering in place. Yes, sheltering within their own minds. You are not talking to them. You are taking around them. They have no reason to believe us, and that is our fault. We don’t know how to use this technology properly. That deficiency is not these companies’ fault; it’s yours. 

You need to stop being elites talking down to people from afar and learn how to communicate with ordinary people so that they trust you. Reach across the aisle if you have to achieve that trust, but solve the problem already. 

If you cannot do that, you are not serving this country properly. Now get to work.”

Will he do that? I dunno. We seem to be muddling through a lot of things right now. At least I have my echo chamber and my woobie. Don’t get me wrong; I’m still an American. I will help in any way I can. It’s my civic duty. Yours too.

Dennis Santiago is an author and commentator on national policy and global stability issues. His subject matter expertise was developed during the Cold War as a strategic warfare systems analyst, missile defense architect, and arms control analyst. He is the author of the US Imperfect Defense Theory of Strategic Missile Defense. Dennis has worked on conventional warfare, nuclear warfare, and asymmetric warfare. His expertise includes combat aircraft, ordnance, electronic warfare, command and control, campaign design, and game theory.

Beware of Totalitarian Scare-Mongering.

Donald J. Boudreaux, American Institute of Economic Research 

– July 19, 2021

The most iconic line from The Godfather is, “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.” Don Corleone wasn’t horsing around. The Hollywood producer to whom this ‘offer’ was made was threatened with terrible consequences if he refused to accept it. The Don’s ‘offer’ was not refused.

This famous line came to mind as I heard Washington Post columnist – and CNN regular – Dr. Leana Wen (she boasts an M.D.) insist that the government needs “to make vaccination the easy choice.” 

Such innocent words! Indeed, they sound downright sweet. Who doesn’t like ‘easy?’ But there’s nothing sweet or even innocent in Dr. Wen’s words. They signal authoritarianism.

By “make vaccination the easy choice” Wen means – as she admits – that “it needs to be hard for people to remain unvaccinated.” She wants government to subject unvaccinated individuals to invasions of their private affairs so restrictive and obstructive that these persons will soon conclude that the “easy choice” is to get vaccinated.

This logic, of course, is the same as that which motivates armed robbers. 

When told, as you stare down the barrel of a thief’s gun, “Your money or your life,” your choice at that moment is indeed easy. Yet for obvious reasons no one applauds armed robbers for making it easy for their victims to ‘choose’ to relinquish control over their property. No one reckons that, because these victims ‘choose’ to turn over their money under threats of coercion, that these victims are not wronged by the robbers. And no one concludes that, because armed robbers formally give their victims a ‘choice,’ these robbers thereby act reasonably and in good faith.

In a free society, if Ms. Jones wishes to persuade Mr. Smith to take some particular action, Ms. Jones must offer to improve Mr. Smith’s well-being without being able to reduce his well-being.

‘If you give me $5.00, Mr. Smith, I’ll give you this hamburger” is a legitimate offer by Jones, for if Smith refuses the offer he is not made worse off than he was before Jones made the offer. In contrast, “If you give me $5.00, Mr. Smith, I’ll not kill you” is not a legitimate offer. The reason is that Ms. Jones promises, if Mr. Smith does not agree, to make him worse off than he was before encountering Jones.

Put differently, in a free society there is a powerful presumption against anyone using threats of coercion to change the baseline from which each individual bargains. Armed robbers coercively – and of course without any justification – change the baseline from which their victims are then compelled to ‘bargain.’ Before encountering the bandit, the right to your life was controlled by you. Control of your life was part of the baseline from which you bargain with others. 

But by the very act of threateningly pointing a gun at you, the armed robber unilaterally transfers control of your life from you to her; the armed robber unilaterally changes the baseline from which you are now obliged to bargain.

Also in a free society, part of each individual’s baseline is the freedom to go about the ordinary affairs of life – to go to work, school, church, restaurants, hotels, museums, theaters, stadiums, beaches, the homes of family and friends. There is a powerful presumption against using force to unilaterally alter this baseline. 

Yet Wen blithely proposes that government fundamentally and unilaterally worsen the baseline from which individuals engage with the state. It seems that in Wen’s view, rights – and the freedoms they enable – are not properties that individuals naturally possess. For her, apparently, these are privileges owned by the state to be leased to individuals at the discretion of the state and on terms that it dictates.

Wen would no doubt defend herself by insisting that Covid-19 is a contagious disease, the dangers of which justify government dramatic restrictions on the freedom of any and all persons who refuse to get vaccinated. Yet as I argued in this space last week, the mere existence of a dangerous contagious disease is no automatic ticket for the exercise of authoritarian powers. Every society at all times swarms with dangerous contagious diseases. In every society at all times people take actions that increase the risks of strangers suffering harm.

In a free society, those who would restrict freedoms – including the freedom to remain unvaccinated – in the name of combatting some specific disease bear a heavy burden of proving that the presumption of freedom should in the particular case be rejected. 

Yet no dispassionate assessment of the evidence of SARS-CoV-2’s lethality and pattern of incidence, and of the effectiveness of vaccines at protecting the vaccinated from Covid, comes close to revealing this particular pathogen as one that justifies the authoritarian measures for which Leana Wen repeatedly bleats.

What’s the Evidence?

Evidence that Covid is not as dangerous as it would have to be to justify government using coercion “to make vaccination the easy choice” is supplied by Wen herself. When writing about Covid she consistently fails to put data into proper context.

An example appears in Wen’s May 25th, 2021 Washington Post column ominously titled “The pandemic isn’t over – especially for our children.” There she wrote:

It’s true that children are unlikely to become severely ill from covid-19. Of the 3.9 million children diagnosed with coronavirus, just more than 300 have died.

Although here conceding that the number of children diagnosed with coronavirus who’ve died of the disease is small – in percentage terms it’s 0.0077 – Wen doesn’t put this statistic into perspective to reveal just how small it actually is. Such perspective, however, is easily gotten by a quick check of data compiled by the CDC on the ten leading causes of death in the U.S.

In 2019, the number of people in the U.S. 14 years of age and younger whose lives were taken by any one of these top-ten causes was 20,660. Of this figure, the number of children (including those up through the age of 17) killed since 2019 by Covid – 335 as of July 14th, 2021 – is a mere 1.6 percent. (This percentage would be even smaller if we were to include in the 2019 data the number of Americans ages 15 through 17 who died of any one of those ten leading causes of deaths. Unfortunately, the CDC doesn’t break the data down along these lines.)

By the way, comparing Covid deaths only to deaths caused by motor-vehicle crashes shows that the number of children who’ve so far died from Covid is a mere one tenth of the number of Americans ages 19 and younger (3,219) who died in 2019 as a result of such crashes.

After conceding that the number of children who died of Covid is minuscule, Wen quickly tries to scare readers by throwing out numbers that seemingly are large:

However, some children have become seriously ill, with more than 16,000 hospitalizations reported from a database of 24 states and New York City. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention documents more than 3,700 instances of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, a potentially severe consequence of covid-19 that results in inflammation of the heart, lungs, kidneys, brain and other organs.

The implication is that, nationwide, Covid caused about 32,000 children to be hospitalized, and that even for children Covid’s side effects are serious and significant.

Sounds frightening indeed – until context is provided. According to the CDC, in 2019 alone 6.7 percent of all Americans under the age of 18 had at least two visits to hospital emergency rooms. That is, the number of American children who in 2019 at least twice suffered injuries or illnesses serious enough to warrant visits to emergency rooms was about 4.1 million. (4.1 million is roughly 6.7 percent of the 61,175,933 Americans under the age of 18.) 

Even if only one percent of these children required overnight hospitalization on just one of their visits, the resulting number of these non-Covid hospitalizations – 41,000 – would have been 28 percent higher than is the number of children hospitalized for Covid.

As for the more than 3,700 instances of (typically quite treatable) multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) in children, the number of Americans ages 0-19 who in 2017 were diagnosed with cancer was three times higher than those diagnosed since Covid with MIS. 

The number of American children who in 2018 suffered from asthma was about 1,200 times higher, and the number of American children who in 2018 suffered from respiratory allergies was about 1,600 times higher.

Perspective makes all the difference.

Before closing, I can’t resist mentioning one final reason for ignoring any and all advice offered on Covid by Leana Wen. Recall that Wen wrote in May that the number of children killed by Covid is “just more than 300” – meaning that, as she then correctly conceded, “children are unlikely to become severely ill from covid-19.” 

But as if to further prove herself to be an untrustworthy source of information on Covid, less than a month later, on June 15th – and with hardly any change in the number of children killed by Covid – Wen described Covid as “one of the leading causes of death among children.” 

Her ‘evidence’ for this wildly incorrect assertion is a “thought experiment” that she shared with her readers combined with a link to this New York Times report from which she simply copied the line word-for-word (and in which no evidence in support of the assertion is offered).

I sincerely hope that Dr. Wen is a much better physician than she is a journalist.


Perspective matters. Truth matters. Failure to provide either is an easy way to dupe people into accepting from the state an awful offer that they certainly should refuse.

Donald J. Boudreaux is a senior fellow with American Institute for Economic Research and with the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University; a Mercatus Center Board Member; and a professor of economics and former economics-department chair at George Mason University. He is the author of the books The Essential Hayek, GlobalizationHypocrites and Half-Wits, and his articles appear in such publications as the Wall Street Journal, New York TimesUS News & World Report as well as numerous scholarly journals. He writes a blog called Cafe Hayek and a regular column on economics for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Boudreaux earned a PhD in economics from Auburn University and a law degree from the University of Virginia.

National Institutes Of Health Lose Court Case . Must Provide Information To The Public On Vaccines.

After months of NIH objecting, and after seeking Court intervention, ICAN’s ( Informed Consent Action Network) attorneys have won a motion which now forces the NIH to unredact and disclose safety-related data they tried to withhold from Moderna’s Phase 1 clinical trial report.

As a result of a FOIA request, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided ICAN a copy of an internal 322-page Safety Summary Report along with over 700 pages of Appendices to that report, detailing safety data from Moderna’s Phase I clinical trial for its and NIAID’s COVID-19 vaccine.  This report was previously shared with ICAN supporters and was the first and only time we are aware of that this report was made public.  It can be downloaded here.

After reviewing the report, ICAN challenged the redactions made within the document, explaining their importance to the public.  NIH fought back but the Court, in its June 24, 2021 decision, ultimately ruled in ICAN’s and the public’s favor holding that the “NIH cannot articulate a sufficient privacy interest to justify redacting” the information that it did and that “the public interest in seeing the full data outweighs any individual privacy concerns” of the clinical trial participants.  The unredacted data will be provided within a few days and ICAN will immediately make it available so that everyone can see what information is being withheld from the public.

ICAN also challenged the adequacy of the agency’s search and believes there are likely more responsive documents in NIH’s possession.  To address this issue, ICAN has not filed additional FOIA requests to obtain copies of these documents, and any new productions will be shared.  ICAN will never rest in its fight to expose the truth regarding these products or in demanding full transparency and full informed consent for any and all vaccines, especially as these manufacturers seek FDA licensure for these experimental COVID-19 vaccines.

Senator Paul Accuses Fauci Of Lying

From Breitbart News

Rand Paul and Anthony Fauci Clash on NIH Funding in Wuhan: ‘It Is a Crime to Lie to Congress’

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) grilled Dr. Anthony Fauci during a hearing on the Chinese coronavirus Tuesday over his prior claim that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has never funded gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Paul’s presentation triggered President Biden’s chief medical adviser, who refused to retract his May 11 statement and instead snapped at the Kentucky senator, brazenly telling Paul, “you do not know what you are talking about.”

‘Dr. Fauci, as you are aware it is a crime to lie to Congress,” Paul began during the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions hearing Tuesday, reminding Fauci of his previous remarks to the committee on May 11th, during which the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director stated that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

‘And yet, gain-of-function research was done entirely in the Wuhan Institute … and was funded by the NIH,” Paul said, citing Wuhan Virology paper entitled, “Discovery of a Rich Gene Pool of Bat SARS-Related Coronaviruses.”

‘In this paper … she credits the NIH and lists the actual number of the grant that she was given by the NIH,” Paul said. “In this paper, she took two bat coronavirus genes, spiked genes, and combined them with a SARS-related backbone to create new viruses that are not found in nature.”

He continued (emphasis added):

‘These lab-created viruses within to shown to replicate in humans. These experiments combine genetic information from different coronaviruses that infect animals but not humans to create novel artificial viruses able to infect human cells. Viruses that in nature, only infect animals were manipulated in the Wuhan lab to gain the function of infecting humans. This research fits the definition of the research that the NIH said was subject to the pause in 2014 to 2017— a pause in funding on gain of function. But the NIH failed to recognize this, defines in a way, and it never came under any scrutiny.

Paul also cited Dr. Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist from Rutgers, who described the research in Wuhan as matching the “definition of gain of function research done entirely in Wuhan for which there was supposed to be a federal pause.”

‘Dr. Fauci knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11 where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan?” Paul asked:

But Fauci would not retract his statement and maintained that gain of function research did not occur.

‘Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress and I do not retract that statement. This paper that you were referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain 0f function — let me finish!” he said as Paul interjected.

‘You take an animal virus and you increase this transmissibility to humans, you’re saying that’s not gain of function?” Paul asked.

‘Yeah that is correct, and Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly. And I want to say that officially. You do not know what you are talking about,” he said as Paul interjected again.

‘This is your definition that you guys wrote. It says that scientific research that increases the transmissibility among animals is gain of function. They took animal viruses that only occur in animals and they increase their transmissibility to humans. How you can say that is not gain of function?” Paul asked.

‘It is not,” Fauci said as Paul continued.

‘It’s a dance, and you’re dancing around this because you’re trying to obscure responsibility for four million people dying around the world from a pandemic,” Paul added.

In May, Fauci admitted the NIH funded the Wuhan lab but continued to deny gain of function research, defining it as “taking a virus that could infect humans and making it either more transmissible and/or pathogenic for humans.”

‘That categorically was not done,” Fauci claimed.

Paul has since said Fauci “lied to the American people.” Speaking on Real America’s Voice, Paul explained:

There was gain of function research going on with Dr. Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute.

In her paper, she actually thanked Dr. Fauci and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is a part of National Institutes of Health (NIH) that Dr. Fauci runs.

It’s listed at the end of the paper. This paper was fined by NIAID research, and it lists a ten-digit number that identifies the research money she got from the United States. Was it gain of function?

Well, it took a SARS virus, which is a coronavirus, that’s 15 times more deadly than COVID, and it added to it S protein, which is something in the surface of it, to make it more easily infectious to epithelial cells for the respiratory tract. 

That, to me, is gain of function.

Will COVID Shots Drive Mutated Variants? Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola —— Based on the scientic evidence, the narrative that unvaccinated people are viral factories for more dangerous variants is false

 Just as antibiotics breed resistance in bacteria, vaccines put evolutionary pressure on viruses to speed up mutations and create more virulent and dangerous variants

 Viruses mutate all the time, and if you have a vaccine that doesn’t block infection completely, then the virus will mutate to evade the immune response within that person. That is one of the distinct features of the COVID shots — they’re not designed to block infection. They allow infection to occur and at best lessen the symptoms of that infection
 In an unvaccinated person, the virus does not encounter the same evolutionary pressure to mutate into something stronger. So, if SARS-CoV-2 does end up mutating into more lethal strains, then mass vaccination is the most likely driver
 So far, SARS-CoV-2 variants are at most 0.3% different from the original Wuhan virus. Such minor variation means the virus will not present itself as a new virus. If you’ve recovered from COVID-19, your immune system will still recognize it
Will COVID shots drive the mutation of SARS-CoV-2, creating ever more variants? Or are the mutations primarily occurring in unvaccinated people? In the video report above, The Last American Vagabond host Ignatius Reilly dives into the scientic research to nd out.

As noted by Reilly, unvaccinated Americans are actually in the majority, still, despite what you’re hearing on the news. Those saying “no” to participating in a medical gene modication experiment are not a small fringe group.

We are the majority, at just over half (51%) of the United States population over the age of 18, as of July 12, 2021. (More specically, 56% have received one dose, and 49% are fully vaccinated, which for Moderna and Pzer means having received two doses.1)

Based on the scientic evidence, the narrative that unvaccinated people are viral factories for more dangerous variants is simply false. Worse, it’s the complete opposite of the truth and hides the fact that mass vaccination may be putting us all in a far direr situation than necessary.

Vaccines Drive Viruses to Mutate

As explained in “Vaccines Are Pushing Pathogens to Evolve,” published in Quanta Magazine,2 “Just as antibiotics breed resistance in bacteria, vaccines can incite changes that enable diseases to escape their control.”

The article details the history of the anti-Marek’s disease vaccine for chickens, rst introduced in 1970. Today, we’re on the third version of this vaccine, as within a decade, it stops working. The reason? The virus has mutated to evade the vaccine. The virus is also becoming increasingly deadly and more dicult to treat.

A 2015 paper3 in PLOS Biology tested the theory that vaccines are driving the mutation of the herpesvirus causing Marek’s disease in chickens. To do that, they vaccinated 100 chickens and kept 100 unvaccinated. All of the birds were then infected with varying strains of the virus. Some strains were more virulent and dangerous than others.

Over the course of the birds’ lives, the unvaccinated ones shed more of the least virulent strains into the environment, while the vaccinated ones shed more of the most virulent strains. As noted in the Quanta Magazine article:4

“The ndings suggest that the Marek’s vaccine encourages more dangerous viruses to proliferate. This increased virulence might then give the viruses the means to overcome birds’ vaccine-primed immune responses and sicken vaccinated ocks.”

Vaccinated People Can Serve as Breeding Ground for Mutations

As noted by Reilly, before 2021, it was quite clear that vaccines push viruses to mutate into more dangerous strains. The only question was, to what extent? Now all of a sudden, we’re to believe conventional science has been wrong all along.

Here’s another example: NPR as recently as February 9, 2021, reported that “vaccines can contribute to virus mutations.” NPR science correspondent Richard Harris noted:5
“You may have heard that bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics and, in a worst-case scenario, render the drugs useless. Something similar can also happen with vaccines, though, with less serious consequences.

This worry has arisen mostly in the debate over whether to delay a second vaccine shot so more people can get the rst shot quickly. Paul Bieniasz, a Howard Hughes investigator at the Rockefeller University, says that gap would leave people with only partial immunity for longer than necessary.”

According to Bieniasz, partially vaccinated individuals “might serve as sort of a breeding ground for the virus to acquire new mutations.” This is the exact claim now being attributed to unvaccinated people by those who don’t understand natural selection.

It’s important to realize that viruses mutate all the time, and if you have a vaccine that doesn’t block infection completely, then the virus will mutate to evade the immune response within that person. That is one of the distinct features of the COVID shots — they’re not designed to block infection. They allow infection to occur and at best lessen the symptoms of that infection. As noted by Harris:6

“This evolutionary pressure is present for any vaccine that doesn’t completely block infection … Many vaccines, apparently, including the COVID vaccines, do not completely prevent a virus from multiplying inside someone even though these vaccines do prevent serious illness.”

In short, like bacteria mutate and get stronger to survive the assault of antibacterial agents, viruses can mutate in vaccinated individuals who contract the virus, and in those, it will mutate to evade the immune system. In an unvaccinated person, on the other hand, the virus does not encounter the same evolutionary pressure to mutate into something stronger. So, if SARS-CoV-2 does end up mutating into more lethal strains, then mass vaccination is the most likely driver.

COVID Variants Are More Similar Than You Think

Now, the fearmongering over variants is just that: fearmongering. So far, while some SARS-CoV-2 variants appear to spread more easily, they are also less dangerous. The Delta variant, for example, is associated with more conventional u-like symptoms like runny nose and sore throat than the hallmark COVID-19 symptoms involving shortness of breath and loss of smell.7

In an interview for the documentary “Planet Lockdown,”8 Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a life science researcher and former vice-president and chief scientist at Pzer, pointed out the fraud being perpetrated with regard to variants. He actually refers to them as “simians,” because they’re near-identical to the original. And, as such, they pose no greater threat than the original.
“It’s quite normal for RNA viruses like SARS-CoV-2, when it replicates, to make typographical errors,” Yeadon explains. “It’s got a very good error detection, error correction system so it doesn’t make too many typos, but it does make some, and those are called ‘variants.’

It’s really important to know that if you nd the variant that’s most different from the sequence identied in Wuhan, that variance … is only 0.3% different from the original sequence.

I’ll say it another way. If you nd the most different variance, it’s 99.7% identical to the original one, and I can assure you … that amount of difference is absolutely NOT possibly able to represent itself to you as a different virus.”

Your immune system is a multifaceted system that allows your body to mount defenses against all sorts of threats. Parasites, fungi, bacteria and viruses are the main threat categories. Each of these invades and threatens you in completely different ways, and your immune system has ways of dealing with all of them, using a variety of mechanisms.

Whether you’re going to be susceptible to variants has very little to do with whether or not you have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, because antibodies are not your primary defense against viruses, T cells are. What this means then, is that getting booster shots for different variants is not going to help, because these shots do not strengthen your T cell immunity.

The importance of T cells has been known for a long time, and their role in COVID-19 was conrmed early on in the pandemic. Scientists wanted to nd out if patients who recovered from SARS-CoV-1, responsible for the SARS outbreak some 17 years ago, might have immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

As it turns out, they did.

They still had memory T cells against SARS-CoV-1, and those cells also recognized SARS-CoV-2, despite being only 80% similar. Now, if a 20% difference was not enough to circumvent the immune system of these patients, why should you be concerned with a variant that is at most 0.3% different from the original SARS-CoV-2?

‘When your government scientists tell you that a variant that’s 0.3% different from SARS-CoV-2 could masquerade as a new virus and be a threat to your health, you should know, and I’m telling you, they are lying,” Yeadon says.
“If they’re lying, and they are, why is the pharmaceutical industry making top-up [booster] vaccines? …

There’s absolutely no possible justication for their manufacture.”

Mutations Are Good for Vaccine Business

Of course, by pushing fear of variants, vaccine makers ensure a steady supply of people willing to participate as guinea pigs in their for-prot business scheme. Pzer plans to ask for EUA authorization for a third COVID booster shot in August 2021, Bloomberg reports.

According to Pzer’s head of research, Dr. Mikael Dolsten, initial data suggest a third dose of the current Pzer shot can raise neutralizing antibody levels by anywhere from vefold to 10-fold.10 The company is also working on variant-specic formulations.

Dolsten points to data from Israel, where Pzer’s mRNA injection was used exclusively, which shows a recent uptick in breakthrough cases. This suggests protection starts to wane around the six-months mark. For now, the FDA is not recommending boosters,11 but that can change at any moment, and most likely will.

Pzer recently announced it intends to raise the price on its COVID shot once the pandemic wanes,12 and during a recent investor conference, Pzer’s chief nancial ocer Frank D’Amelio said there’s “signicant opportunity” for prots once the market shifts to annual boosters.13
In an April 2021 article, The Defender reported expected prots from current COVID shots and boosters in coming years:14

Pzer expects a minimum revenue of $15 billion to $30 billion in 2021 alone
Moderna expects sales of $18.4 billion in 2021; Barclays analyst Gena Wang forecasts the company’s 2022 revenue to be somewhere around $12.2 billion and $11.4 billion in 2023
Johnson & Johnson expects sales of $10 billion in 2021

Vaccine Treadmill Ahead

The way things have been going, it seems inevitable that we’re facing a vaccine treadmill, where new variants will “necessitate” boosters on a regular basis. Boosters will also drive the “need” for vaccine passports to keep track of it all. As reported by The Defender:15
“Annual COVID booster shots are music to the ears of investors. But some independent scientists warn16 that trying to outsmart the virus with booster shots designed to address the next variant could backre, creating an endless wave of new variants, each more virulent and transmissible than the one before …

According to Rob Verkerk Ph.D., founder, scientic and executive director of Alliance for Natural Health International, variants can become more virulent and transmissible, while also including immune (or vaccine) escape mutations if we continue on the vaccine treadmill — trying to develop new vaccines that outsmart the virus.

Verkerk said ‘if we put all our eggs’ in the basket of vaccines that target the very part of the virus that is most subject to mutation, we place a selection pressure on the virus that favors the development of immune escape variants.”

Vaccinologist Dr. Geert Vanden Bosche,17 whose resume includes work with GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, published an open letter18 to the World Health Organization, March 6, 2021, in which he warned that implementing a global mass vaccination campaign during the height of the pandemic could create an “uncontrollable monster” where evolutionary pressure will force the emergence of new and potentially more dangerous mutations.

“There can be no doubt that continued mass vaccination campaigns will enable new, more infectious viral variants to become increasingly dominant and ultimately result in a dramatic incline in new cases despite enhanced vaccine coverage rates. There can be no doubt either that this situation will soon lead to complete resistance of circulating variants to the current vaccines,” Bossche wrote.19
Will COVID-19 Shots Save Lives? Probably Not

As noted in the BMJ paper20 “Will COVID-19 Vaccines Save Lives? Current Trials Aren’t Designed to Tell Us,” by associate editor Peter Doshi, while the world is betting on gene modication “vaccines” as the solution to the pandemic, the trials are not even designed to answer key questions such as whether the shots will actually save lives.

In an October 23, 2020, response21 to that paper, Dr. Allan Cunningham, a retired pediatrician, provided a summary of papers dating back to 1972, showing vaccines have been notoriously ineffective. In many cases, deaths have actually risen in tandem with increased vaccination rates, suggesting they may actually have a net negative effect on mortality.

Cunningham also lists studies arguing that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has exaggerated u mortality statistics in an effort to increase uptake of the u vaccine. They’re clearly doing the same thing with COVID-19 mortality statistics. If people had not been so misled by government authorities about the true lethality of COVID-19, half the country would not have rolled up their sleeves to take an experimental gene modication injection. As noted by Cunningham:22
“2020: A 14-year study nds that inuenza vaccines are associated with an 8.9% increase in the risk of all-cause mortality in elderly men … During six A/H3N2-predominant seasons their all-cause mortality increase was 16.6%! …

The unfortunate history of inuenza vaccines should warn us against repeating the process with Covid-19 vaccines. Peter Doshi may be understating the case when he suggests that inuenza vaccines have not saved lives. The foregoing history and other observations suggest that in whole populations over the long run seasonal u campaigns have actually cost lives …
This idea is hard to grasp in the face of massive publicity and reports of ‘vaccine effectiveness.’ The vaccines provide modest short-term protection against seasonal u, but the VE studies completely ignore adverse effects (e.g. high fever, seizures, narcolepsy, oculo-respiratory syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome) … We don’t need another vaccine treadmill that could do more harm than good.”

Natural Selection Will Win

As we move forward, it’s really important that we not cast aside hard-won science lessons in favor of politically-driven propaganda. The propaganda is not science. Do not confuse the two.

“ If you don’t have these pathogens evolving in response to vaccines, then we really don’t understand natural selection. ~ Evo”lutionary Biologist Paul Ewald, University of Louisville

If there’s a silver lining to this whole mess, it’s that more and more people are starting to get educated about health, biology, virology and vaccinology. These are heady topics, but to begin to tease out truth from ction, many are now taking the time to listen to doctors and scientists who are explaining the science behind it all.

The obvious and blatant lies and propaganda and over-the-top censorship is starting to wake up tens of millions of people in the U.S. about the vaccine frauds; not only the COVID jabs but the whole lot of them. It’s getting easier by the day to tell the quacks from the real McCoy, because the truth tellers will actually explain how things work, whereas the propagandists juggle catchphrases and attack those who ask questions.

In closing, here are two more excerpts from articles detailing the inevitability of vaccines driving the mutation of viruses through natural selection. Quanta Magazine writes:23

“Recent research suggests … that some pathogen populations are adapting in ways that help them survive in a vaccinated world … Just as the mammal population exploded after dinosaurs went extinct because a big niche opened up for them, some microbes have swept in to take the place of competitors eliminated by vaccines.

Immunization is also making once-rare or nonexistent genetic variants of pathogens more prevalent, presumably because vaccine-primed antibodies can’t as easily recognize and attack shape-shifters that look different from vaccine strains.

And vaccines being developed against some of the world’s wilier pathogens — malaria, HIV, anthrax — are based on strategies that could, according to evolutionary models and lab experiments, encourage pathogens to become even more dangerous.24 Evolutionary biologists aren’t surprised that this is happening.

A vaccine is a novel selection pressure placed on a pathogen, and if the vaccine does not eradicate its target completely, then the remaining pathogens with the greatest tness — those able to survive, somehow, in an immunized world — will become more common.

‘If you don’t have these pathogens evolving in response to vaccines,’ said Paul Ewald, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Louisville, ‘then we really don’t understand natural selection.'”

Similarly, Alliance for Natural Health International points out:

“‘Mutants of concern’ are clearly on most of our radars. An important question is: are they growing or declining in frequency? In some countries, including ones where vaccinations have occurred at a high rate … they are increasing and have already become dominant … That should be a very large, appy, red ag to anyone who has a reasonable grasp of evolutionary selection pressure on viruses with pathogenic capacity.

More infection — including more silent infection among asymptomatic people (even if reduced by vaccination) — provides more opportunities for mutation. If we continue to drag out the time it takes for the virus to just become another endemic component of our virosphere, there will be more opportunities and more mutations. Not dissimilar to a game of Russian roulette — so why don’t we start counting our chances?

If variants become both more transmissible and more virulent, while also including immune (or vaccine) escape mutations — all trends we are witnessing in some parts of the world — we could be in deep trouble down the road.

At the very least, we stay on the vaccine (or monoclonal antibody) treadmill, trying to develop new vaccines (or monoclonal antibody therapies) that outsmart the virus when we should know better; that the virus will continue to outsmart us if we maintain such intense selection pressure on it …

Let me throw in one more concept that is ecological in nature: herd immunity. The base equation used by government scientists that estimates around 70% of the population need to be vaccinated or exposed to the virus to achieve herd immunity is flawed.

It is predicated on a number of assumptions that don’t apply: equal mixing of populations and successful sterilization of the virus in vaccinated people and those exposed to wild virus being just two. This just isn’t the case. In the real world, the situation is much more complex than in an idealized model.

Randolph and Barreiro remind us in their review in the journal Immunity that ‘[e]pidemiological and immunological factors, such as population structure, variation in transmission dynamics between populations, and waning immunity, will lead to variation in the extent of indirect protection conferred by herd immunity.’

For vaccinated people, antigen-specic antibodies bind firmly to virus particles and competitively oust natural antibodies, giving vaccinated people potentially less cross-immunity to mutant variants that are more infectious and the wave of infectivity continues.”

Sources and References
1 USA Facts Vaccine Tracker Updated July 12, 2021
2, 4, 23 Quanta Magazine Vaccines Are Pushing Pathogens to Evolve 3 PLOS Biology July 27, 2015 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198
5, 6 NPR February 9, 2021

7 Unity Point Health July 12, 2021 8 Planet Lockdown
9, 10 Bloomberg July 8, 2021
11 July 8, 2021
12 Fierce Pharma March 17, 2021
13 Renitiv Streetevents Transcript March 11, 2021
14, 15 The Defender April 19, 2021
16, 25 April 15, 2021
18, 19 Letter to the WHO March 6, 2021 (PDF) 20 The BMJ October 21, 2020; 371: m4037
21, 22 The BMJ 2020; 371: m4037 Rapid Response Dr. Cunningha

More Vaccinations , More Cases ,This Past Weeks -And More Deaths and Injuries From The Vaccines ————?????

I know you can do what you want with numbers and context is important And there may be all kinds of good reasons for this picture—-

Last week over previous week 

North America

Cases  up 390,000 versus 285,000, even though more people are vaccinated week over week. The US and Mexico , the two most populous countries, saw their cases go up 56% and 38% respectively. The US has 48% of its population fully vaccinated and 55% partly vaccinated. Mexico has 17% fully vaccinated with 30% partly vaccinated. 


Spain —-the cases went up 74% even though the country has 50% of repopulation fully vaccinated and 62% partly vaccinated 

Switzerland—- cases went up 89% even though 43% of the population is fully vaccinated and 52% Party vaccinated 

UK saw a 44% rise in cases with 53% of the population fully vaccinated and 68% partly vaccinated. 


Malaysia, Thailand and Bangladesh all saw significant rise in cases, 39%, 26%, and 90% respectively., while more people were vaccinated although lower percentages than the countries of North America and Europe. 

Given the over 20,000 deaths from the vaccines in North America and Europe alone and over a million injuries as well, and that this only represents 1% to 10% of the real total on these two continents and now that we know that fully vaccinated  people are still getting the virus , and with the increases noted above and the fact that the big drug companies are already testing booster shots before FDA approval on the original vaccines ——-

Should not Governments ——PAUSE ——AND TAKE STOCK???