The symptoms of infection by the latest strain of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus are indistinguishable from those of the common cold: headache, sore throat, and a cough.
That's why the Omicron strain of Covid-19 is so much more infectious than earlier strains. Those who are infected treat it as they would the common cold: maybe a reason to take a day or two off work or school, but not a reason to remain in isolation for days on end, to see the doctor, or to refrain from shopping, or even attending a party.
So now, instead of being subject to strict control measures, Covid is out and about like the common cold, infecting millions. In fact, Covid-19 is now just one more common cold virus, along with several others of the corona virus type. And yes, it will go on killing the most vulnerable -- just as does the common cold.
But there are still a few billions in profits to be wrung from the vax, plus countless billions in public funds to be spewed in the name of Covid. So don't expect the government-directed fear campaigns to wind down in a hurry.
But the reason that it is the vaxxed, not the unvaxxed, who are mainly responsible for spreading Covid is clear. It is that the vaxxed believe what is implied by the vax campaign propaganda, namely, that they are protected from Covid. So naturally they circulate and socialize more freely than the unvaxxed who know that they are at risk of picking up a nasty illness.
So it is not the unvaxxed who are chiefly responsible for the spread of Covid, but stupid or dishonest, people like Justin Trudeau and British Columbia's Saint Bonnie, "be kind, be calm, be safe" Henry, who, to push the vaccine, demonize the unvaxxed.
Triple Vaccinated Trudeau in quarantine…Thus confirming that the vax doesn't prevent infection, that it does not prevent you having the same viral load as an unvaccinated person, and thus that it does not prevent you from transmitting the virus to others. That's why Trudeau and friends are so determined to severely punish all those dirty-rotten unvaxxed persons who are making it so difficult for the great international pharma corporations to ring the last few billion in profits from the vax.
Are European Vaccine-caused deaths being attributed to the Unvaccinated?... in Europe, the status of “vaccinated” first gets assigned 14 days after getting the final jab. Thus any deaths occurring before this ends up being counted as an “unvaccinated death”! So if a patient who got a vaccine dies less than 14 days later, he/she gets counted as an unvaccinated death. This is how vaccine deaths are getting hidden. And there many thousands.
Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects ... a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate ... When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).
The belief that preventative and early treatment therapies would cause people to relax their caution of remaining socially distanced, leading to more COVID-19-related infections, is not supported.
"That narrative included "false statements regarding asymptomatic spread, reliance on lockdown and masks – which obviously didn't work – the suppression of early treatment, the mass promotion of vaccines that failed."
"Politicizing the pandemic is a euphemism. In truth, thousands of Americans have died needlessly because of weaponized disinformation about China's culpability, vaccines, useful drugs, lockdowns, racial preferences, and long-care facilities."
Town Hall, July 29, 2021: Everybody wrap something around your face again even though they said you wouldn’t need to if you got vaxxed! But they didn’t lie – no, apparently a bunch of people – and not just those evil white nationalist-Christian-gun-Jesus-flag people – are refusing to get the vaccine, and the reason is that they are moral defectives somehow in thrall to Tucker Carlson’s Svengali-like powers of persuasion. You see, the people who won’t get it are stupid people who hate science because they refuse to trust the people who have spent the last year-and-a-half lying to them.
I don’t blame those folks a bit.
Let’s try a thought experiment. Let’s imagine our ruling class was not as utterly corrupt, dishonest, incompetent and downright stupid as it manifestly is. I know that’s hard, but go with me.
This weird new virus appears and starts spreading. Instead of leveraging it to take down Trump, the Democrats appear with the Republican president and GOP leadership to announce they are working together to solve the problem. Imagine that instead of shaming people, first about wearing masks, then about not wearing masks, then about not wearing two masks, then no masks, then masks again, they went with transparency.
“We are not sure how much, if at all, masks work. We’re running test trials to see and we’ll tell you what we find as soon as we have the data. In the meantime, let’s all wear them just in case.” And then, when they ran the studies, they would tell us the answer.
Have you seen any studies about masks? We get a lot of that fascist gnome and others telling us to wear masks (after initially telling us they were useless – remember that memory-holed narrative?) but where’s the actual science?
Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.
In 1957, the U.S. rose to the challenge of the ‘Asian flu’ with stoicism and a high tolerance for risk, offering a stark contrast with today’s approach to Covid-19...
"Even though freedom is its own wondrous virtue, even though freedom produces essential information that protects us, and even though free people produce the resources without which diseases kill with sickening rapidity, panicky politicians erased it in 2020 on the supposition that personal and economic desperation were the best solution for a spreading coronavirus. Historians will marvel at the abject stupidity of the political class in 2020."
AFLDS, March 25, 2021: America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.
At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population.
“I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.
“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.
“In the U.K., it’s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering ‘vaccines’ to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call ‘mechanistic’: inbuilt in the way they work.
“But all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don’t perish from the virus. In this large group, it’s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.
“In no other era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention.
“Since I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive?
“While I don’t know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one of which relates to money and that motive doesn’t work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it’s something else.
“Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, ... that’s what I interpret to be an evil act.
“There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these ‘vaccines’ results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune ‘complement system’), I’m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.”
AFLDS: The Israel Supreme Court decision last week cancelling COVID flight restrictions said: “In the future, any new restrictions on travel into or out of Israel need, in legal terms, a comprehensive, factual, data-based foundation.”
“The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that’s the best comparison that anyone can provide.
“The evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They were actually also protected against SARS CoV-2, because they’re so similar; it’s cross immunity.
“So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it’s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people’s T cells were the same as if you’ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained. So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.”
In other words, previous exposure to SARS – that is, a variant similar to SARS CoV-2 – bestowed SARS CoV-2 immunity.
The Israel government cites new variants to justify lockdowns, flight closures, restrictions, and Green Passport issuance. Given the Supreme Court verdict, do you think it may be possible to preempt future government measures with accurate information about variants, immunity, herd immunity, etc. that could be provided to the lawyers who will be challenging those future measures?
Yeadon: “What I outlined in relation to immunity to SARS is precisely what we’re seeing with SARS-CoV-2.
The study is from one of the best labs in their field.
“So, theoretically, people could test their T-cell immunity by measuring the responses of cells in a small sample of their blood. There are such tests, they are not “high throughput” and they are likely to cost a few hundred USD each on scale. But not thousands. The test I’m aware of is not yet commercially available, but research only in U.K.
“However, I expect the company could be induced to provide test kits “for research” on scale, subject to an agreement. If you were to arrange to test a few thousand non vaccinated Israelis, it may be a double edged sword. Based on other countries experiences, 30-50% of people had prior immunity & additionally around 25% have been infected & are now immune.
“Personally, I wouldn’t want to deal with the authorities on their own terms: that you’re suspected as a source of infection until proven otherwise.
“You shouldn’t need to be proving you’re not a health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others.
And in any case, once those who are concerned about the virus are vaccinated, there is just no argument for anyone else needing to be vaccinated.”
“My understanding of a “leaky vaccine” is that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop transmission; it therefore allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus.
For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek’s Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death to how a leaky vax is utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated.
Stronger strains usually would not propagate through a population because they kill the host too rapidly, but if the vaccinated experience only less-serious disease, then they spread these strains to the unvaccinated who contract serious disease and die.
Do you agree with this assessment? Furthermore, do you agree that if the unvaccinated become the susceptible ones, the only way forward is HCQ prophylaxis for those who haven’t already had COVID-19?
Would the Zelenko Protocol work against these stronger strains if this is the case?
And if many already have the aforementioned previous “17-year SARS immunity”, would that then not protect from any super-variant?
“I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.
“As a general rule, variants form very often, routinely, and tend to become less dangerous & more infectious over time, as it comes into equilibrium with its human host. Variants generally don’t become more dangerous.
“No variant differs from the original sequence by more than 0.3%. In other words, all variants are at least 99.7% identical to the Wuhan sequence.
“It’s a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to “escape immunity”.
“Not only is it intrinsically unlikely – because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person (whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant – but it’s empirically supported by high-quality research.
“The research I refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which recognize ALL the variants.
“This paper shows WHY the extensive molecular recognition by the immune system makes the tiny changes in variants irrelevant.
“I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE.
I am concerned there is a very malign reason behind all this. It is certainly not backed by the best ways to look at immunity. The claims always lack substance when examined, and utilize various tricks, like manipulating conditions for testing the effectiveness of antibodies. Antibodies are probably rather unimportant in host protection against this virus. There have been a few ‘natural experiments’, people who unfortunately cannot make antibodies, yet are able quite successfully to repel this virus. They definitely are better off with antibodies than without. I mention these rare patients because they show that antibodies are not essential to host immunity, so some contrived test in a lab of antibodies and engineered variant viruses do NOT justify need for top up vaccines.
“The only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and/or ill and do not wish to receive a vaccine (as is their right).
“The good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did not need to become a public health crisis.”
Do you feel the FDA does a good job regulating big pharma? In what ways does big pharma get around the regulator? Do you feel they did so for the mRNA injection?
“Until recently, I had high regard for global medicines regulators. When I was in Pfizer, and later CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco, later acquired by Novartis), we interacted respectfully with FDA, EMA, and the U.K. MHRA. Always good quality interactions.
“Recently, I noticed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) had made a grant to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)!
Can that ever be appropriate? They’re funded by public money. They should never accept money from a private body.
“So here is an example where the U.K. regulator has a conflict of interest.
“The European Medicines Agency failed to require certain things as disclosed in the ‘hack’ of their files while reviewing the Pfizer vaccine.
“You can find examples on Reiner Fuellmich’s “Corona Committee” online.
“Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us.
“Recently, we wrote privately to them, warning of blood clots, they ignored us. When we went public with our letter, we were completely censored. Days later, more than ten countries paused use of a vaccine citing blood clots.
“I think the big money of pharma plus cash from BMGF creates the environment where saying no just isn’t an option for the regulator.
“I must return to the issue of ‘top up vaccines’ (booster shots) and it is this whole narrative which I fear will he exploited and used to gain unparalleled power over us.
“PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them.
“As there’s no need for them, yet they’re being made in pharma, and regulators have stood aside (no safety testing), I can only deduce they will be used for nefarious purposes.
“For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the world's population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it.
“It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.”
Have non-pharmaceutical interventions, including lockdowns and social distancing, enabled more dangerous virus variants to thrive?
At the beginning of 2020 we embarked upon a nationwide epidemiological experiment in an attempt to reduce the mortality burden of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus. The premise of the experiment, though never formally defined, was to trial the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions with respect to the infection rate and subsequent death toll of an airborne respiratory virus.
The hypothesis was treated as a foregone conclusion and presented with little doubt. A significant reduction in person-to-person interactions within a population will lead to a decreased infection rate and reduce the number of deaths associated with the virus. The scientific community were so confident in this hypothesis that they did not present it as a hypothesis at all. The experiment was not defined as an experiment. The resulting data was subsequently ignored.
No matter how certain we are of the outcome, good science is about asking questions
It’s easy to see why. Given our most basic understanding of how viruses spread from one person to another, any measures that suppress the transmission of viruses should inevitably lead to a reduction in associated mortality. But given that we have never actually investigated this correlation in a real-world setting, perhaps assumptions based on our “most basic understanding” are not sufficient. No matter how certain we are of the outcome, good science is about asking questions. If the answers contradict your assumptions then those answers should bring about a shift in your understanding.
One year into the great experiment, we have a wealth of global data to inform our conclusions. This data largely contradicts the confident hypothesis with which we embarked upon this journey and has therefore been ignored. Scientists and politicians have clutched at straws, manipulated data or simply ignored the evidence in an attempt to safeguard the integrity of the original idea.
Through fear and hysteria, millions actually believed the authorities when they put forward the absurd suggestion that they could “Control the Virus.” In fact, what they then proceeded to do was “Control the People.” The idea that Lockdowns “Control the Virus” and reduce mortality has been shown by more than 30 studies to be a fallacy; whereas the truth that Lockdowns “Control the People” is blindingly obvious, and should be apparent to everyone after a year of often mad restrictions that have curtailed perfectly normal activities....
The use of universal lockdowns in the event of the appearance of a new pathogen has no precedent. It has been a science experiment in real time, with most of the human population used as lab rats. The costs are legion.
The question is whether lockdowns worked to control the virus in a way that is scientifically verifiable. Based on the following studies, the answer is no and for a variety of reasons: bad data, no correlations, no causal demonstration, anomalous exceptions, and so on. There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control....
to those under 40 and barely more so to those over 40:
After you have examined that graph showing essentially zero Covid 19 mortality in infants and children under the age of 14, consider this insane fact:Moderna starts COVID-19 vaccine trial in infants and young childrenYet 96% of Covid-19-related excess deaths in Europe were in people over 70 years old. So what did Western governments do? While the vaccine vendors were intent on vaccinating babies who are naturally immune to the disease, they locked up the entire population, while forcing Covid-19-infected people from hospital into care homes for the elderly, setting off one lethal epidemic after another and accounting for around half of all Covid-19 deaths. Brilliant: Well done BoJo, Justin, and Governor Cuomo of New York, etc.What other apparent lunacy did these governments commit? Well having stripped a large proportion of the population of their livlihood, governments compensated the people by handing out free money. In the process, Canada, for example, blew up a Government deficit of $20 billion dollars in 2019 to $382 billion (projected, underestimated, whatever) in 2020. In the US, the Feds printed so much money to buy votes and keep the terrorized population docile, that 40% of all US dollars ever created were created within the year. And that, surely, is the wonderful payoff for the Money Power. Massive money printing, equals inflation, which, wait for it, means a decline in real wages, something employers love. it also means a devaluation of debt, something so welcome to corporate borrowers everywhere. So if you think Covid only robbed you of a year of productive life, think again. If you're a worker, it likely has cost you a large chunk of future real earnings. Still, we can take comfort from the World Health Organizations statement on vaccine effectiveness:
Does it prevent infection and transmission?
We do not know whether the vaccine will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission. Immunity persists for several months, but the full duration is not yet known. These important questions are being studied.
LOL. That should give you confidence -- confidence that :"persists for several months." But after that, don't worry, they'll have another "jab" for you. In fact, before this is over you may find you've been transformed into a human pin cushion.
# The PCR test used to determine cases overestimates by a factor of 30 to 1
# Asymptomatic spread is negligible to non-existent (so much for masking healthy people)
# Children under the age of 10 are rarely sick with Covid and thus do not transmit it, which means that elementary school closures are entirely unwarranted
# Mortality due to Covid among children under 18 is less than that from influenza
# The mRNA "vaccine" won't protect you from infection. At best, it will induce the production of antibodies that will save you from being sick from infection, such protection being good for no more than a few months, and perhaps being no good at all following infection by a novel Covid strain.
# Long-lasting protection from infection depends on T-cell immunity induced by a previous infection or a real vaccine. It is likely that 30 to 50% of the population have protection from infection by Covid due to T-cell immunity induced by past infection by a corona virus -- for example, certain common cold viruses.
# You can protect yourself from severe Covid by exercising out of doors (which means getting some sunlight with which to make Vitamin D), and supplementing your diet with vitamins C and D, zinc, and magnesium.
300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases.
DID YOU KNOW YOUR RISK OF DEATH FROM COVID-19 IS HIGHLY DEPENDENT ON YOR AGE? IN PARTICULAR, FOR THOSE UNDER 30, THE RISK IS ONE IN THOUSANDS, FOR THOSE UNDER 50, THE RISK STILL AVERAGES ONE IN THOUSANDS. ONLY FOR THE OVER 60'S DOES THE RISK EXCEED ONE PERCENT.
Governmental sources are remarkable cagey about providing clear information on this vital fact. Why? Surely, so the public does not challenge the lunacy of shutting schools and businesses.
For greater clarity on the age effect, here are statistics from the Province of Ontario Canada showing the estimated Province-wide Covid-19 infection fatality rate by age until May 19, 2020.
What the data show is that:
Among children nine years of age or younger the estimated risk of death from Covid-19 is 0.002%, or one in 50,000.
For other age groups the estimated Infection Fatality Rates (IFR) are:
Age IFR (%) IFR (Proportion)
10-19 0.007 1 in 14,000
20-29 0.031 1 in 3,226
30-39 0.084 1 in 1,190
40-49 0.161 1 in 621
50-59 0.595 1 in 168
60-69 1.93 1 in 52
70-79 4.28 1 in 23
80+ 7.80 1 in 13
But those numbers are based on reported cases, which totaled only 0.25% of the population. The actual number of cases will certainly have been greater than the number of reported cases and probably many times greater. Moreover, it is reasonable to suppose that cases proving fatal were more likely to have come to the attention of the Medical authorities than non-fatal cases. It is certain, therefore, that the actual infection fatality rates were lower, and probably much lower, than those indicated above.
7. SO ONE MORE QUESTION: DO YOU REALLY THINK IT MAKE SENSE TO YOU THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT TRASHED THE ECONOMY -- CAUSING THE CLOSURE OF ONE IN FIVE CANADIAN BUSINESSES, DEBAUCHED THE CURRENCY, DISRUPTED EDUCATION, AND NOW IS DETERMINED TO JAB YOU WITH AN UNTESTED VACCINE FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN A TEMPORARY BUMP IN THE RISK OF DEATH WHICH, FOR THOSE UNDER 50, IS SLIGHT TO NEGLIGIBLE?
Here's the title of a post I made yesterday here on Google's Blogger:
Covid-19, and the Weird World of Ron Unz
Now you might think, if only because Google is the publisher of that post, that Google's search engine would have been able to locate the post right away in response to a search on the exact title.
But if you were inclined to think that, you'd be wrong.
The former publisher of The American Conservative is a case study in contrarianism gone haywire
That's an interesting result, but it's not the the post I published on Google's blogger with the exact title as the search string.
And you cannot read the American Conservative article unless you're a subscriber to the American Conservative magazine (though they may allow you a month's access for free. Try it and see. Essentially, the article on Unz paints him, not as a devious propagandist for some unacceptable cause but merely a nutter. I'm not so sure. What the Am. Con. article does make clear is that although Unz is so vehemently anti-Semitic (though himself of Jewish origin), he firmly supports the Jewish plan for the European majority nations: extinction of the European peoples of traditional Christian faith and their replacement by people from elsewhere. That's pretty much Google's plan too.)
Odd though, innit -- the difficulty of finding content hosted by Google in a Google search. Maybe even worth thinking about.
