The bureaucrats have blundered: We cannot vaccinate ourselves out of the pandemic. By Robert Clancy.
Israel was used as a laboratory for the Pfizer vaccine. Six months after vaccination, there was essentially no protection against infection or mild disease, although protection against severe disease remained at 85-to-90 per cent. Thereafter came a rapid and progressive loss of protection against more severe disease. Infected vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects have similar viral loads and transmission capacity. …
By New Year 2022, it is estimated about two million vaccinated Australians will have lost protection against infection and mild disease. Infections will increase as borders are opened and we re-enter the international community. …
The “genetic vaccines” are the DNA-vector vaccine (AstraZeneca) and mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna).
Perhaps of greatest concern is the observation in the UK, and now in Sweden, that older vaccinated individuals have a higher incidence of COVID infection than those who are unvaccinated. At the same time others are describing a state of immune deficiency following vaccination with genetic vaccines. At this stage it is unclear as to whether this “deficiency” of the immune response is limited to the antibody response to COVID virus. This should not be a surprise to anyone who has done “Immunology 101”, as enhancing antibody (i.e. antibody that promotes infection, rather than limits it) is well recognised in RNA virus infections, and “antigen excess causing a downregulation of immunity” is a basic tenet of immunology. Forgotten by most is that genetic vaccines cause a large and unregulated amount of antigen (i.e. the spike protein) to be synthesised within the cells of the body, and the immune response will be a function of those unknown dynamics. …
The duration of protection following boosters is completely unknown, as is whether genetic vaccine boosters distort the immune system with net suppression.
Are we setting ourselves up for monthly boosters, higher incidence of infections, more serious adverse events, or even more concerning immune outcomes? We just do not know! If ever there was a need for a safe , cheap effective oral therapy, now is it. [That is, ivermectin and HCQ.]
The concern for all genetic vaccines is the damage caused by uncontrolled release of toxic spike protein from cells throughout the body, and cell destruction due to T cells and antibody directed against spike protein, expressed on cell surfaces. It is too early to know if there are long-term complications caused by injected mRNA due to displacement of physiological mRNA by synthetic “capped” mRNA in vaccines, or prion disease such as Parkinson’s disease, due to “prion sequences” in the spike protein.
There are disturbing signals reporting severe adverse events and post-vaccination deaths across the globe. A high percent of these “signals” appear to have a causal relationship in subsequent analyses, reinforced by post-mortem reports showing specific tissue changes. Yet we are now seeing a push to vaccinate children under 12 who neither get severe disease nor significantly spread it.
VAERS data (US) to 22 Oct 2021
The bureaucrats have blundered:
We cannot vaccinate ourselves out of the pandemic. …
There is very limited data showing prevention of serious disease, with the data presented to the FDA by Pfizer focussed on “infections” not serious disease. COVID deaths in older immunised subjects due to “enhancing antibody” need to be confirmed and investigated further. These concerns need to be resolved before booster shots are widely used. …
The Australian government continues to support genetic vaccines. Who can be advising the politicians on such a concerning course? …
Bureaucrats appear to make critical decisions for political reasons, while doctors are threatened with de-registration for supporting early drug treatment because it may affect vaccine roll-out. It is easy to conclude the system has been corrupted. The question is, who pulls the strings?
Part of the answer is that transnational organisations, such as WHO and mega pharmaceutical companies, have imprinted their political and commercial agendas all over the COVID-19 story. The genesis of their power play appears to reside in the terms of their confidential contracts with national governments. From the inadequate “investigation” of the Wuhan source of the virus to its refusal to admit IVM is the reason for successful COVID-19 control in Uttar Pradesh and its suppression of all cheap and readily available early treatments, the WHO cannot be trusted to lead the world out of the pandemic. …
Conflict exist at every level with cross-appointments between pharmaceutical companies, government bodies with financial interests in pharmaceutical companies, and research grants from pharmaceutical companies. …
Since the FDA in the US became funded through high application fees from the pharmaceutical companies, a shift in acceptance of expensive drugs offering little advantage over existing unpatented drugs has been noted.
What is difficult to understand is the groupthink acceptance of the mantra promoted by so-called experts, and by many professionals. In part this is due to the power vacuum in medical leadership that has occurred in recent years, but it may also reflect in part processes known to psychiatrists as cognitive dissonance and mass hysteria. …
An example of pharmaceutical company “vigour” occurred with the launch of new anti-psychotic drugs in the 1990’s. Companies manipulated a belief held by a few paediatricians and child psychiatrists that psychosis was common in young children, with funding, promotion and strong media support. It took several thousand deaths before sanity was restored to gullible doctors.
Uncritical acceptance of misinformation on [ivermectin], driven by pharmaceutical companies to protect their vaccines and patented drugs, and strongly reinforced by academia, government and health authorities, leads to many unnecessary hospital admissions and deaths.
The media has a concerning role in the propagation of misinformation, preferring to support an ideological narrative, rather than engage in responsible journalism. …
This article is about a watershed moment in COVID-19 management. It is brought into focus by the TGA closing down the legal use of [ivermectin] for COVID-19, while Merck promotes an inadequately documented, potentially dangerous and less effective (but patented and very expensive) “lethal-mutant” anti-viral. Yet not a squeak of concern from the mainline press.
The vaccine approach is not working. When are we going to switch to anti-virals such as ivermectin and HCQ, or whatever mega expensive anti-virals big pharma whips up in the lab?
