Ute Grabowsky/Getty Images

New study questions value of giving mRNA shots to children for 'short-lived' 26% 'protection,' while FDA and CDC double down on booster push

A new study out of Qatar has raised doubts about the efficacy of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines amid a concerted campaign by both the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under President Joe Biden to push bivalent booster shots on children. It turns out the COVID-19 boosters may be far more effective at generating profits for Pfizer and Moderna than they are at actually keeping children safe.

The rundown

Booster shots didn't appear to protect Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla, who tested positive for COVID-19 in September after having caught the virus the previous month. They also didn't protect CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, who took ill from the virus in October, one month after receiving her booster, or FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, who tested positive this week.

Despite concerns about their efficacy and whether they may exhaust patients' immune responses, the FDA authorized new COVID booster shots for people 12 years and older on Aug. 31 before testing them on humans.

The boosters, which had only been tested on eight mice, were touted as "bivalent," meaning they would target the original COVID-19 strain as well as new Omicron subvariants.

Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of both the National Institutes of Health working group on vaccines and the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, said in September that "there's not clear evidence of benefit" of the vaccine in healthy young people.

Offit told CNN: "What I fear is that they're going to say everybody should get it when in fact, the healthy young person really is unlikely to benefit from the booster dose, and so I hope they targeted more specifically, to those really who are most likely to benefit from this additional dose."

Months earlier, Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo announced that healthy children shouldn't get the vaccines, as the benefits are dubious and the risks are potentially substantial.

The FDA clearly heeded neither Offit's nor Ladapo's warnings, because on Oct. 12, it authorized the bivalent boosters for children anyway. The CDC also authorized the bivalent booster shots for children the same day.

CDC Director Rochelle Walesnky said that an "updated vaccine can help bolster protection for our children this winter."

Fox News Digital reported that to be eligible for the new bivalent booster, children must first get two doses of the outdated vaccine, which, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, has "no effect against the omicron variant."

Extra to authorizing the shots, the FDA has mounted a pressure campaign to have parents get their children boosted.

FDA vaccines chief Peter Marks stressed in a video series on social media this month that giving kids over the age of 5 the booster will help them "avoid the worst outcomes of COVID-19."

Marks told the AP, "Right now is the time for people to consider going out and getting the updated" shot.

It turns out, however, that the mRNA shots may not just be woefully ineffective at protecting pharmaceutical executives and federal officials from COVID-19.

A new academic paper published Nov. 2 in the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine discussed the results of a Qatari study that tested the effectiveness of the primary Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine series in children with no previous record of infection.

Not only did the Pfizer vaccine's effectiveness drop precipitously in children after mere weeks, but it ultimately went negative for children ages 5 to 11.

The scientists' findings "suggest the need to reconsider the value and strategies of vaccinating healthy children in the omicron era."

The study

The paper, entitled "Covid-19 Vaccine Protection among Children and Adolescents in Qatar," indicated that the Pfizer vaccine series targeting children rapidly waned in effectiveness right after the second dose, going negative for some groups after just several weeks.

Its overall effectiveness was at best 25.7% averaged across ages 5-17: 46.3% among children ages 5 to 7; 16.6% among children ages 8 to 11; 35.6% among adolescents ages 12 to 14; and 20.9% among those 15 to 17 years of age.

Although those in the older cohorts had slightly longer "protection" because they had received larger doses, scientists nevertheless observed "rapidly waning protection."

Referencing the data in the second graph from this study seen below (shared by Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg, an epidemiologist who advises Florida's Department of Health), Just the News reported that the lower confidence interval boundary for children ages 5-11 after two months and median after four months were both around -10, meaning the vaccinated kids were more likely to get infected.

Another dose

The Miami Herald reported that as of Nov. 3, over 22 million people in the U.S. had received the newest bivalent COVID-19 booster.

According to a new preprint study published Nov. 1 to medRxiv, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, those who received a third dose may have less protection against infection with the Omicron variant.

Dr. Daniele Focosi, a hematologist at Pisa University Hospital in Italy, wrote, "If you got infected with Omicron at any time, a third vaccine dose actually doubles your risk of reinfection compared to 2 doses only."

Just the News reported that while Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla claimed the bivalent booster prompted "increased neutralizing antibodies" that afforded the boosted "better protection" against Omicron subvariants BA.4/5, a Pfizer official admitted to the FDA that "there is no established correlate" between antibody levels and protection from disease.

Vinayak Prasad, a hematologist and professor of epidemiology and biostatics at the University of California, wrote on Substack that the government's "entire vaccine policy seems to be interested in giving Pfizer and Moderna a perpetual market share for a yearly vaccine. But seems to have no interest in generating credible randomized control trial evidence to inform the public. As such, they fail the American people."

FatCamera/Getty Images

Horowitz: Do the COVID shots erase natural immunity?

Why is it that years into this pandemic, the cases continue to proliferate and people seem to get the virus multiple times? A new study might shed light on this question, revealing a disturbing business model of the pharmaceutical companies to ensure that their product is always in demand because it serves as the arsonist while pretending to be the medical equivalent of a firefighter.

A new study published as a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that not only did the Pfizer shots turn negative after five months during the Omicron wave, making a vaccinated individual more likely to get the virus, but they actually erased the immunity provided by prior infection, thereby ensuring that injected people can get COVID again. In a one-of-a-kind observational study of over 273,000 children, the study divided the groups into four camps: unvaccinated children with prior infection, unvaccinated children with no prior infection, vaccinated children with prior infection, and vaccinated children with no prior infection. What were the results?

Shockingly, the authors conclude, “The rapid decline in protection against omicron infection that was conferred by vaccination and previous infection provides support for booster vaccination.”

Except their study should demonstrate the exact opposite conclusion. Take a look at these two figures side by side:

The figure on the left (C) shows the gradual waning of immunity among unvaccinated children with prior infection. The figure on the right shows a precipitous waning of immunity among children who got COVID but then got vaccinated. Among those infected in November 2021 in the vaccine group, their level of protection went down to zero within a half-year, even though they already had the virus!

The authors suggest this is reason to constantly get boosters, but that would only make sense if boosters offered temporary protection but retained the protection accorded from prior infection. Clearly, this data shows that it slides the protection from natural infection backward, as was previously hypothesized from other academic papers.

Then again, if you look at their first two figures (A and B), they appear to show negative efficacy after five months for those without prior infection and just a slightly slower decline into negative territory among the vaccinated children who already had prior infection. In other words, either way – previously infected or not – the vaccine makes the children worse off.

This study lends credence to the findings of an NIH paper from earlier this year showing that only 40% of people with a previous infection in the vaccinated group produced anti-nucleocapsid antibodies, compared to 93% in the placebo group. The possible inhibition of N-antibodies, which are more comprehensive than the S(spike)-antibodies, might be a possible culprit for this negative efficacy even after having already been infected with the virus.

Another explanation might be original antigenic sin, which is the priming of the body to respond to new variants with an antigen to the old strain. A study from Stanford published in Cell earlier this year might shed light on this phenomenon. Researchers observed a decreased immune response to new variants among those vaccinated for the original strain because the shots are teaching the body to respond improperly. “We find that prior vaccination with Wuhan-Hu-1-like antigens followed by infection with Alpha or Delta variants gives rise to plasma antibody responses with apparent Wuhan-Hu-1-specific imprinting manifesting as relatively decreased responses to the variant virus epitopes, compared with unvaccinated patients infected with those variant viruses,” observed the Stanford pathologists. They note that the extent to which this causes original antigenic sin “will be an important topic of ongoing study.”

Important indeed! Just as with Pfizer’s oral therapeutic, Paxlovid, the more you use it, the more you need to use it! Behold the beauty of negative efficacy, rebounding of the virus, erasing natural immunity, and the promise of endless doses to stanch the bleeding.

Imagine that these shots are still being foisted upon children. Even the U.K. government quietly suspended the COVID shots for 5- to 11-year-olds. Yet we still have some cities in America requiring them for school.

What is further astounding is that even if the shots did work to prevent COVID, the upper bounds of illness severity most children present with is no worse than even the minor symptoms from the vaccine. Even putting aside the risk of serious injury, such as heart inflammation, the CDC’s own research shows that a massive percentage of toddlers who got the shots suffered what can only be described as flu-like symptoms. An unfathomable 50%-60% of children 6 months to two years of age experienced systemic reactions to one or both doses of either Pfizer or Moderna. This means they experienced some sort of illness beyond just pain at the injection site.

Furthermore, more than 15% of children 3-5 experienced a “health impact” from the second dose of Moderna, and anywhere from 5%-18% of children couldn’t go to school the next day, depending on the type and dose of shot. About 2% required medical care. Remember, this is for children and for Omicron, at a time when most already got the virus, but now the shot will give them up front COVID-like symptoms, possibly erase their prior immunity, thereby making them get the virus again, and exposing a certain percentage to life-altering adverse effects.

Could anyone possibly have manufactured a more Orwellian counterproductive vaccine if they tried on purpose?

Donato Fasano/Getty Images

Horowitz: Study of young boys after vax shows cataclysmic prevalence of heart problems, blows open sudden death theory

What will it take for Republicans to stand united and call for the end of these shots, the investigation of their creation and distribution, and compensation for those injured? Do they really fear the vacuous pejorative of “anti-vaxxer” more than they love a generation of children?

In January, CDC researchers conceded in JAMA that the over 50,000 reported cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in VAERS are “likely” underreported. If they are willing to concede that point, it should be abundantly clear to thinking people that the number of diagnosed cases of myocarditis, and certainly those reported to VAERS, were likely the tip of the iceberg due to the prevalence of subclinical myocarditis. A new preprint study from Thai researchers confirms those suspicions in spectacular fashion with sickening ramifications.

The researchers conducted in-depth cardio health surveillance of 301 adolescent children (13-18 years old), 202 of whom were boys, before they got jabbed and followed them for up to 14 days after the second dose of Pfizer. The findings were mind-blowing. Seven of the 202 boys (3.5%) developed clinical or subclinical myocarditis/ pericarditis! This is not 1 in 5,000 or 1 in 10,000 as we were led to believe, which was bad enough. This equals 1 in 28 of all teenage boys jabbed! Oh, and remember, Moderna has been proven to be even worse for heart inflammation, likely because it is three times the dose of Pfizer.

Keep in mind that these numbers are just for 13- to 18-year-olds, but males around that age and a little older are also in the target zone for myocarditis. There are roughly 21 million boys ages 10-19. There are another 11 million ages 20-24. This means that if the bad guys got their way, there’d be roughly 1.1 million boys and young men with myocarditis of some sort! And we know the risk exists for other ages and for women, just at a lower rate.

Even for the clinical myocarditis, three developed pericarditis or myocarditis and two were hospitalized. That is a cataclysmic level of heart damage, which, if proven true, would certainly explain the anomalous excess cardiac deaths, sudden deaths among young people, and increase in EMS emergency home calls.

More broadly, 18% had abnormal ECGs, and “cardiovascular effects were found in 29.24% of patients, ranging from tachycardia, palpitation, and myopericarditis.”

Now, this doesn’t definitely prove that such a whopping percentage of people incurred heart damage from the shot just based on these markers, but it does demonstrate that subclinical myocarditis affecting an enormous number of people is a real concern at this point. It would also make sense why it appears that elite athletes suffered more severely early on because their level of exertion will bring out that latent heart inflammation much more suddenly than someone with a more sedentary lifestyle.

Before anyone dismisses this as a random preprint, the numbers harmonize perfectly with concerns expressed by the FDA BEFORE it authorized the Comirnaty shot. According the Pfizer informed consent document (p. 5), the company recognized the risk of myocarditis can be as high as 1 in 1,000. But the FDA was concerned that subclinical myocarditis might be even more of a problem.

In the Pharmacovigilance Plan Review Addendum for Comirnaty, the FDA conceded (p. 3-4), “Incidence of subclinical myocarditis and potential long-term sequelae following COMIRNATY are unknown.” However, they did note that a previous study on a smallpox vaccine “suggested an incidence of possible subclinical myocarditis (based on cardiac troponin T elevations) 60-times higher than the incidence rate of overt clinical myocarditis.”

Sixty times greater! If you do the math, that equals 1 in 17 individuals for the highest-risk group, aka young men and teenage boys. They asked Pfizer to complete a study on subclinical myocarditis, but it won’t be completed for another year, long after they pressured and sometimes mandated any teenage boy to get the shot if he wants to join the military, go to college or medical school, or compete in sports. There are still schools in America requiring children to get this dangerous shot. Meanwhile, Denmark won’t even make the shots available for children any more.

Consider that there are 51,000 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis reported to VAERS, which we already know is woefully underreported even for clinical-level illness. If subclinical myocarditis is 60 times greater, that would encompass more than 3 million people.

How has the government allowed this to be approved, much less mandated and continued long after the safety signals were glaring and blaring, without conducting cardiac MRIs on these boys on autopsies on those who die suddenly? One of the ways our government is violating the Nuremberg Code is by not warning people to check for subclinical myocarditis before it’s too late. That requires a cardiac MRI, which is very expensive and won’t be covered by insurance. Rather than funding the latest escapade in Ukraine, our government has an obligation to fund cardiac MRIs for those who got the shots, especially those most at risk for myocarditis. Why are government officials scared to randomly sample the first 5,000 people they find to undergo a cardiac MRI? They sure don’t lack the funds.

Dr. Kirk Milhoan, a pediatric cardiologist and former flight surgeon in the Air Force, tells CR that the heart issues were obvious from early on, given the toxicity of the spike protein, which is why this should never have been given to an entire population, even if it had efficacy against the virus. “We give known cardio-toxins for those with difficult-to-treat cancers that are not amenable to less toxic chemotherapeutic agents. We should never give such an agent to healthy children and adults, whose risk of hospitalization and death is much less than 1%.”

Milhoan cites a new study touted by the American Heart Association demonstrating that the spike protein is cardio-toxic. “This has been clear clinically, and now the cellular mechanism has been identified. No one should be given a cardio-toxic therapeutic for the SarsCov-2 infection. Even more, we should not be asking the body to be making the cardio-toxic protein via DNA or mRNA injectable products.”

The public has been convinced to credulously believe a dastardly lie that somehow there is a substantial risk of myocarditis from natural infection, even more so than from the vaccine. Let’s put aside the fact that these shots do not work to stop such infection anyway. The data simply does not bear this out. A Danish study of 74,611 children found 0 diagnosed with myocarditis in the two months following a COVID infection, compared to a 1/2,700 rate in adolescent boys following two doses of Pfizer. Now, obviously, this study only measured diagnosed cases, not nearly as thorough a physical workup as conducted by the smaller Thai study, but it clearly shows that in an apples-to-apples comparison, the risk for myocarditis from the shots is exponentially higher than the risk from the virus.

In fact, it’s not clear altogether that there is a risk of myocarditis from the virus above the background rate at all for those who don’t suffer critical illness, which is nearly every teenager. A recent Israeli retrospective cohort study of 197,000 patients within the Israeli Clalit Health Services Organization concluded based on the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in the system from March 2020 to January 2021 (pre-vaccine COVID era) that the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-infected patients was not increased relative to uninfected, matched controls.

“There is not yet definitive EMB/autopsy proof that SARS-CoV-2 causes direct cardiomyocyte damage in association with histological myocarditis,” wrote the Israeli researchers in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. “Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis (aHR 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.56) or pericarditis (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.13). We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection.”

How is it that to this day, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is the only one raising concerns about these shots and Ron Johnson is the only senator in D.C.? We are long past the point where not only should these shots be destroyed, those who knowingly promoted them despite their dangers and continue to do so despite glaring safety concerns should face a Nuremberg-style reckoning.

Horowitz: Army recruitment down 23% amid mandates, as Army tosses requirement for high school diploma



No high school diploma? Be all you can be in the military. No COVID shot after years of meritorious service? Goodbye, as we ask illegal aliens to take your place. That is the state of play in the U.S. military.

The time has come for Republican “defense hawks” to finally show some concern for the quality, morale, and mission of the military, not just throw endless money at it while the military self-immolates, expels those who don’t get Pfizer’s shot, and then complains that it can’t meet its recruiting goals. Last week, the Military Times reported, “The Army has hit 40% of its recruiting goals this year, with the struggle to fill the ranks seemingly so grim the Defense Department reduced its planned total force size because prior recruiting goals were out of reach.”

Pentagon officials announced that across the military branches, annual target recruitment goals are down 23%. To accommodate growing recruitment problems, the military is offering more financial benefits rather than emphasizing the motivation of patriotism, because clearly, in this environment, it doesn’t work. Now they are abolishing the requirement for a high school diploma or GED as a prerequisite to joining basic training for those who sign up before the end of this fiscal year. That’s how desperate they are to meet recruitment benchmarks.

Here’s a novel idea: Before we lower standards to appalling levels, how about we stop kicking out some of the most seasoned, battle-hardened soldiers for not getting the shots? Up to 40,000 National Guardsmen risk expulsion from the force if they fail to comply with the mandate by tomorrow. That is 13% of the National Guard – and as much as 30% in some states. So, our government would rather recruit those without high school diplomas than relent on a mandate for a shot.

It’s important to remember in the context of recruiting new teenagers that some of the most patriotic military families are those who did not get the shots, especially among teenagers. Those 16- to 18-year-olds who didn’t get the shots in the past year made the right choice, even based on the original risk-benefit analysis. Yet all those young boys who didn’t want to risk myocarditis cannot follow in the footsteps of their fathers or grandparents. Instead of embracing these kids from a pedigree of hundreds of years of U.S. military service, the Pentagon is looking to further reach out to illegal aliens to serve in the military.

Which brings us to the fiscal year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This is considered a must-pass bill because it’s been signed into law every year going back almost to WWII. Republicans have so much leverage to fix this problem and abolish the mandates and other policies that are destroying morale in the military and motivation to join it. Yet all they do is use their leverage to fight for more money to throw at the military rather than change the corrosive policies. After all, an authorization bill is not an appropriations bill and should be more about policy than money.

Last Thursday, every single Republican on the House Armed Services Committee voted for the NDAA, after Democrats and several RINOs voted down an amendment to block the vaccine mandates. Republicans are proud that they tossed another $37 billion into the Pentagon coffers, raising the spending for the national defense budget to an unfathomable $850.4 billion. But to what end? It contains another billion for Ukraine, ironically a country with a low vaccination rate.

Republicans think they are being pro-military and patriotic by passing the NDAA unconditionally and offering a raise to the troops, but the current and potential recruits would much rather join a military that doesn’t mandate every Pfizer product for eternity, groom them into transgenderism, teach them white people are racist, and send them to fight for every other country’s border but our own. They seem more concerned about performing abortions than about combat readiness. Perhaps focusing on those issues instead will solve the recruitment problem among the patriotic families who led our nation in recruitment based on family tradition.

According to the Pentagon’s 2020 propensity report, only 11% of teens and young adults, between 16 and 21 years old, planned on future service in the military. The top three reasons respondents gave for joining the U.S. military were: pay/money, pay for future education, and travel. Defending the country was not among them. And for good reason. Kids who come from the sort of families who would join to defend the country would not exactly be drawn to a military that gives tutorials on how to create safe spaces for pronouns. Thus, bribing people with endless monetary benefits is the only recruitment tool left to “be all that you can be.”

Republicans have the leverage to hold up both the defense appropriations bill and defense authorization bill in the Senate until the mandates are ended. Additionally, Republicans governors should assert their Title 32 control over their respective national guardsmen to prohibit any discharge on account of not getting the shots. They should also use all of the printed federal dollars that are going to fund Pfizer and other illogical COVID policies to create a state-based (non-federalized) guard as a landing place for those discharged from the military, like Gov. Ron DeSantis did in Florida.

At some point, money can’t buy you a moral, competent, and combat-ready military if we are left with a pool of recruits who perhaps need the allure of free castration surgery and hormone therapy to join. The feds can print an unlimited amount of money, but they can’t print warriors.
Artur Widak/Getty Images

Horowitz: Why there is an urgent need to study effects of COVID shots on reproductive health

When a private actor seeks to get a product approved for human use, the company must prove conclusively using the scientific method that the product is safe. How much more that principle applies when governments endorse, market, and mandate the use of the product. Yet here we are, 16 months into the release of this product, with endless safety signals showing a diverse array of injuries from the shot, but we are the ones being forced to conclusively prove that it causes each one of these maladies to the Nth degree. Meanwhile, the shots are still mandated in the military, for health care workers, and for many others.

Nowhere is the principle of “unsafe until proven safe” applied more rigorously in the world of pharmaceuticals than products marketed to pregnant women and young children. Yet the shots and other COVID therapeutics were approved for pregnant women and children without running proper short-term, much less long-term, safety studies, regardless of the health status or risk factors of those people, including those who already had COVID.

In the FDA’s “Summary Basis for Regulatory Action on Comirnaty” – published nearly a year after the shot had already been administered and, in some cases, mandated upon pregnant women – the drug regulator stated plainly that proper information for use for pregnant and nursing women is missing. "Missing information: Use in pregnancy and lactation; Vaccine effectiveness; Use in pediatric individuals <12 years of age," the FDA divulged.

Incidentally, this disclosure is right next to the admission that Pfizer knew about both the risks of heart inflammation and vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease, the latter of which might be the culprit for recent trends of negative efficacy, with the vaccinated appearing to get sicker from the virus.

It should also be noted that in Comirnaty’s (Pfizer BNT162b2) purple cap package insert, the label states unambiguously that “available data on Comirnaty administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”

Then, of course, there is Pfizer’s informed consent document (p. 10), which states, "The effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on sperm, a pregnancy, a fetus, or a nursing child are not known."

That right there demonstrates that the pressuring and even mandating of the shot on pregnant women violates the Nuremberg Code, and anyone who claims that the vaccine has been affirmatively proven safe in pregnant women is publishing false information.

It is in that vein that I present the latest report on stillbirths and infant deaths in Iceland by local daily paper daily Frettin, based on new data from Statistics Iceland. Given that Iceland is a small nation of just 366,000, it is easy to pick up on sudden shifts in health outcomes, which makes the fact that there has been a precipitous rise in stillbirths in 2021 all the more alarming. In 2021, there were 17 stillbirths and 35 first-year infant deaths reported in Iceland, up from just 9 and 19 respectively in 2020. In other words, stillbirths and first-year infant deaths nearly doubled.

According to Frettin, when you factor in the number of births every year, the average stillbirth per 1,000 live children for the last nine years (2011-2020) is 2 per 1,000. The increase for 2021 over the previous nine-year average was 75%. The increase in perinatal mortality (includes both stillbirths and children who die within the first week) is 82% in 2021 compared to the average of the previous nine years before that. The number of deaths in infants for the entire first year increased by 100% compared to the average of the previous nine years.

We don’t know the cause of the increase, but we do know there was no increase in 2020 when we only had COVID has a novel public health crisis but did not yet have the shots on the market. We don’t know if the shots had anything to do with this increase, but we do know the shots have caused a ubiquitous disruption in menstrual cycles, we do know that the lipid nanoparticles are deposited liberally in the ovaries, and we do know that the lipid nanoparticles are hyper-inflammatory. Again, why should we have to wait years to study these safety concerns to take the shots off the market until they are proven unsafe, rather than removing them from the market until they are proven safe?

There are other concerning data points from two hospitals in Israel revealed by Josh Guetzkow via an Israeli FOIA request. In May 2021, Rambam hospital in Haifa, Israel, had 42 SBMAs (stillbirth, miscarriage and abortion), which was nearly double the average of the May total from the previous two years and 30% higher than the highest number of any month in the previous two years. Moreover, the rate among vaccinated women in that hospital was 34% higher than among the unvaccinated. Also, Sheba Medical Center, Israel’s largest hospital, experienced the highest SBMA count in June, right around the time of the vaccine take-up for pregnant women. There were 146 SBMAs that month, 30% higher than the average of the previous two years and 11% higher than the largest number of SBMAs for any month in the previous two years, which was 132 in March 2019.

To this day, not a single government has attempted to follow up on these safety signals and determine what is indeed causing these increases. We already know from Pfizer’s released documents that the company knew of thousands of maladies and injuries reported after the first few months of its vaccine campaign. Moreover, a confidential Pfizer document (p. 29) recently revealed that the company has not and will not conduct genotoxicity and carcinogenicity tests, which are standard for vaccine products.

Thus, they have no desire to find out whether the shots can cause mutations in DNA or cancers. Remember, one study from Sweden has already found “the spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding key DNA repair protein BRCA1 and 53BP1 recruitment to the damage site.” That doesn’t exactly sound like a product I’d want to give to those who want to have children until we have better studies.According to the Declaration of Helsinki on medical ethics, “Physicians may not be involved in a research study involving human subjects unless they are confident that the risks have been adequately assessed and can be satisfactorily managed.” This is not just any research study but one involving 2 billion human beings, with hundreds of thousands of pregnant women being used as lab rats before adequately assessing risks and after some risks are already apparent. It’s a new bio-medical paradigm of “mandate first, study never.”

Horowitz: CDC issues alert for child hepatitis, but will we discover the cause?



One after another, we are seeing mysterious illnesses pop up throughout the world, with many young people either dying or getting ill suddenly. Over the past year and a half, we have injected half of all humanity with multiple doses of a dangerous mRNA gene therapy that has already clearly caused numerous neurological, hematological, and cardiac illnesses, and there are over 1,000 others observed by Pfizer in the first few months of the rollout. Yet the government agencies are taking a “see no evil, hear no evil” approach and won’t even investigate the shots as a potential cause of any of these maladies.

The latest craze in the media is the sudden occurrence of severe hepatitis among young children in the U.S. and several European countries. After several weeks of media reports across both continents of mysterious outbreaks of pediatric hepatitis, the CDC issued an alert last Thursday asking pediatricians to be on the lookout for hepatitis, which is liver inflammation, often expressed symptomatically with jaundice and gastroenterological problems.

There have been nine cases of hepatitis in children in Alabama and two in North Carolina, several of whom needed liver transplants. The CDC, in its statement, seems to have eliminated COVID or the typical hepatitis viruses that cause the inflammation as a culprit. However, the agency appears to be focusing its investigation on adenovirus as a potential cause, because it claims some of the kids were infected with adenovirus type 41.

However, while this concern should not be ruled out, notice what is never ruled in? The inflammatory gene therapy that was just introduced to the entire population. Adenoviruses are almost as common and as mild as rhinoviruses in children, and we’ve never experienced this problem before. Why would adenovirus suddenly become pro-inflammatory in the liver without any other confounding factors? Why wouldn’t we look at the brand-new product that is known to cause inflammation and produce auto-antibodies in numerous parts of the body, but most prominently in the liver, where the highest concentration of the lipid nanoparticles is deposited?

While the CDC is correct that inflammation of the liver “can be caused by viral infections, alcohol use, toxins, medications, and certain other medical conditions,” it is missing one major cause: autoimmune hepatitis. Here’s why, at a minimum, you’d want to investigate the shots as a potential culprit or contributing factor:

1) We know that the shots seem to trigger an uncontrolled antibody response all over the body, with the mRNA coding the tissue to produce spike proteins throughout the body. The spike protein triggers the inflammatory auto-antibody response throughout the body, but is carried most prominently to the liver. The Canadian bio-distribution table (p. 23) shows that the Pfizer shot’s lipid nanoparticles are deposited in the liver more than anywhere else after the injection site itself.

After just 48 hours, roughly 16% of the 50-microgram dose was deposited in the liver. Several months ago, researchers at Thomas Jefferson University found that the lipid nanoparticles used in the mRNA vaccines were hyper-inflammatory in mice. “The mRNA-LNP platforms' potency in supporting the induction of adaptive immune responses and the observed side effects may stem from the LNPs' highly inflammatory nature,” concluded the paper, published in Science Direct.

2) The European Medicines Agency has an assessment of the animal trials on Comirnaty and found (p. 49) liver inflammation in some rats:

If you trace the areas of inflammatory responses in the rates, they coincide with the areas that received a substantial deposit of lipid nanoparticles, such as the bone marrow, spleen, and lymph nodes.

3) In February, a bombshell study was published in Sweden the showed that in vitro, Pfizer mRNA vaccines use a reverse transcriptase enzyme called LINE-1 to potentially reverse-transcribe the genetic code of the vaccine into the DNA. Guess which cell tissues were used in that study? Liver cells! “In the BNT162b2 toxicity report, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided,” observed the authors. “Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects.”

Given what we know about reverse transcription and the concentration of the vaccine depositing in the liver, how could we rule out the vaccine as the cause of liver inflammation?

4) Last year, Dutch researchers posted an observational study of an 82-year old patient who they believe suffered a reactivation of hepatitis C infection after receiving the Pfizer shot, which “manifested with jaundice, loss of consciousness, hepatic coma and death.” A number of acute hepatitis injury cases have been recorded in VAERS and linked back to the shots.

of Hepatitis from the CDC Wonder Data Base\n\nNot exhaustive, just what I have tweeted thus farhttps://twitter.com/JeanRees10/status/1457170848486416385\u00a0\u2026
— Jean Rees (@Jean Rees) 1650161397

The bottom line is that we are seeing epidemics of autoimmune diseases pop up everywhere. Every doctor I’ve consulted on the issue of COVID treatment and vaccine injury attests to a sudden, unnatural spike in Epstein-Barr virus (the virus that causes mononucleosis) and shingles, two autoimmune diseases believed to be triggered by the shots. It doesn’t mean that every sudden mysterious ailment is caused by the shots, but what it does mean is that the medical community will never have interest in even investigating the shots as a contributing factor.

Earlier this year, an Israeli Health Ministry survey found that roughly 24% of people with pre-existing autoimmune disorders reported a worsening or reactivation of their condition after taking a Pfizer booster. There is no doubt that the shots are triggering certain autoimmune disorders. We also know that autoimmune hepatitis exists and certain auto-antibodies can inflame the liver and attack liver cells. When in history have we ever liberally handed out a shot that triggers an uncontrolled antibody response throughout the body to a very pro-inflammatory spike protein that happens to be deposited in the liver?

Just as with the uncanny explanations for youngsters suddenly getting strokes and heart attacks, it will at least be grimly amusing to watch the array of theories presented for the sudden spike in liver inflammation.

Horowitz: Who are actually the super-spreaders?



“Businesses Now Requiring Positive COVID Test As Proof Of Vaccination.” This was a headline from the Babylon Bee, but increasingly, satire is the new reality.

If a picture is worth 1,000 words, then this data showing negative efficacy of the shots in nearly every age group from my friend Don Wolt is worth 1,000,000 words.

The U.K. has done the world a service by being the only country to put out granular and continuous weekly data breaking down infection rates by vaccination status and by age cohort. For quite some time, the U.K. data has been showing negative efficacy in all but the youngest age group. This means that the infection rates per capita have been higher among the vaccinated. This was true with Delta, but with Omicron, the vaccines have blown the infection rates off the charts.

Yesterday, the U.K. Health Security Agency published its first “COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report” of 2022, which collates infection rate data for the final weeks of 2021 (weeks 49-52). These are not raw numbers, but case rates per 100,000 divided by age group and vaccination status. The results are simply devastating to the cause of the vaccine altogether, much less support for mandating it.

This is from table 13 of the report:

If you factor vaccine efficacy based on the case rates by age group, here is what you get:

As you can see, aside from children, there is clear negative efficacy of the shots in terms of likelihood one will become infected with COVID. For age groups between 18 and 60, the vaccinated are roughly twice as likely to test positive for COVID than the unvaccinated. But what is very telling is the dramatic shift over the past few weeks since Omicron. This is where Don Wolt’s chart is so illustrative.

The beauty of this chart is that it stacks the weekly changes in case rates of each age group and vaccination status next to each other and tracks the progression of the data over the course of five months. As you can see, for a short period of time, the elderly age brackets stopped going negative from the vaccine during November when they got the boosters. It barely registered in positive territory, but it didn’t go negative. Now, Omicron has proven that the boosters don’t help in reversing the vaccine-mediated enhancement, and the seniors are therefore back in negative territory.

Although Omicron, as a mild but very transmissible ailment, caused case spikes among all people, you can see the rate of growth over the past week is exponentially higher among the vaccinated, especially in the younger age groups, who appear to be hit by Omicron more than the seniors. For whatever reason, unvaccinated children seem to have a lot of cases, but that could be a function of testing. Remember, in this same report, the data show that not a single child under 18 died of COVID these past four weeks.

There is simply no way to escape the fact that the vaccines always went negative after a few months, the boosters offered an even shorter degree of partial protection than the original doses, and now with Omicron, there is a clear inverse relationship between case rates and vaccination rates. This point is exemplified in Don’s second chart showing the rate of growth in cases since the previous week’s U.K. report:

With this week's report, infection rates rose in all age cohorts, vaxxed & unvaxxed, except for among Unvaxxed <18. Growth rates from the last UKHSA report (Week 51) are much higher among the fully vaxxed.pic.twitter.com/e8taRwNxG5
— Don Wolt (@Don Wolt) 1641489887

The fact that we are seeing negative efficacy grow the more shots one gets lends credence to a theory that not only are the shots ineffective against Omicron, but they are creating viral immune escape. A recent study from the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark studied secondary attack rates (SAR) inside households during Omicron as compared to Delta. “Surprisingly, we observed no significant difference between the SAR of Omicron versus Delta among unvaccinated individuals,” note the authors. However, when it came to the vaccinated, they found that secondary attack rates were 2.61 times higher for Omicron than Delta, and among booster-vaccinated individuals, it was 3.66 times higher. “This indicates that the increased transmissibility of the Omicron VOC primarily can be ascribed to immune evasion rather than an inherent increase in the basic transmissibility,” concludes the authors.

Thankfully, Omicron is exponentially less deadly than Delta, but it is being used as pretext to force vaccine passports at a time when it is abundantly clear that the vaccines are causing the super-spreading of Omicron. The public health frauds have consistently propagated a narrative that the unvaccinated are driving mutations, but it never made sense that people with zero antibodies could be creating evolutionary pressure on a virus. It’s suboptimal antibodies that do that, and clearly, to the extent one believes these mutations are a problem, it’s the vaccine that is to blame.

The Israeli data harmonizes very well with the theory of shots creating more viral immune escape. If there is any country that “did it right,” it’s Pfizer’s personal laboratory, aka Israel. So many have three shots and they are already onto their fourth, yet cases are have soared past record levels. But over the past few weeks with the rise of Omicron, there is a clear decoupling based on how many vaccines you had.

The vaccinated drive the new infection wave in Israel.\n\nIn particular the boosted.pic.twitter.com/QvCLuGb0Xe
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1641487016

At present, the unvaccinated are 29% of the population but compose less than 14% of the new cases.

Israeli data shows a feature now seen in many countries:\n\nvaccination appears to augment the odds of Covid infection.\n\nDoes it increase the risk of other respiratory infections?\n\nDoes it increase the risk of other viral infections?\n\nDoes it increase the risk of other diseases?pic.twitter.com/hn1zZE2Gs1
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1641459081

Again, just like in the U.K., while the shots always lost efficacy even during Delta, they actually go negative much quicker with Omicron, including with three shots.

Omikron go BRRRRpic.twitter.com/HX9S4xNETQ
— Jon Snowflake (@Jon Snowflake) 1641472175
Wales has one of the highest booster rates in the world, with 63% of everyone over 12 having had a booster shot already on top of the 90+% vaccination rate\n\nThey also have had a mask mandate since September 2020 and use vaccine passports, so uh\u2026why are cases so out of control?pic.twitter.com/giHLU3drcm
— IM (@IM) 1641496512

Data from Denmark seems to show a similar picture, with cases rising among those with three shots quicker than anyone else, especially in younger and middle-aged adults.

Danish new case incidence data per age group shows a clearly growing problem with booster shots in younger adults...\n\nno vaccination\n 2 shots full effect (no previous infection)\n boosted (no previous infection)\n previously infected\n\nhttps://covid19danmark.dk/#gennembrudsinfektioner\u00a0\u2026pic.twitter.com/3RGCccPl5Q
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1641409797

A recent study from Public Health Ontario was equally devastating to the vaccine cause and fits perfectly with the U.K. data. “Receipt of 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines was not protective against Omicron infection at any point in time, and VE was –38% (95%CI, –61%, –18%) 120-179 days and –42% (95%CI, –69%, –19%) 180-239 days after the second dose,” concluded the Ontario health officials in a preprint study. What about the booster? Out of the gate, it was only 37% effective but then rapidly wanes.

At this point, now that we know the vaccines go negative, and even quicker with Omicron, what is it going to take to ban the shots? After all, if a scientific reality of the unvaccinated getting the virus more often justifies the implementation of vaccine passports, shouldn’t a reverse scientific reality justify getting rid of the shots?

Horowitz: 6 important COVID data points that destroy the prevailing narrative



“When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. And in other words, you become a dead end to the virus.” ~Dr. Fauci, Face the Nation, May 16, 2021

“Negative efficacy.” Get used to that term, because every day more data suggests we are already in the vaccination twilight zone of all pain and no gain – just as with the lockdowns.

It is tearing humanity apart. COVID fascism is the most serious human rights threat we’ve faced in our lifetimes, and the latest science and data demonstrate that it’s all built upon a false premise. While people tuned out the news over the holiday week, many have missed the growing incontrovertible evidence that not only is there risk and zero benefit to taking any of the COVID shots, but there is actually negative efficacy against the virus. In other words, not only does it put you on the hook for known and unknown short-term and long-term injury without stopping COVID, it now actually makes you more vulnerable to COVID.

As you read these latest points, just remember that this is the injection for which police in Europe are now using dogs and batons against those protesting it. All these human rights abuses for a shot that, especially with the new variant, has become moot.

1) 96% of all Omicron cases in Germany among vaccinated: The respected Robert Koch Institute reported last week that among the 4,206 Germans infected with Omicron for whom their vaccination status was known, 95.58% were fully vaccinated. More than a quarter of them had booster shots. Given that the overall background rate for vaccination in Germany is 70%, this means that the shots now have a -87% effectiveness rate against Omicron.

Data from Robert Koch Institute shows only 4% of Omicron cases coming from the 30% of the country which is unvaccinated.\n\nIn other words, not being vaccinated has 87% efficacy against infection in Germany, using the same calculation that vaccine advocates have employed. https://twitter.com/Tim_Roehn/status/1476575806969335812\u00a0\u2026pic.twitter.com/rYLHnVNYOH
— PLC (@PLC) 1640926860

2) Omicron among vaccinated outpacing unvaccinated by 28% in Ontario: The government in Ontario posts continuous data on case rates by vaccination status. The fact that the vaccinated have rapidly overtaken the unvaccinated in new infections demonstrates a clear negative effect of the shots against Omicron.

Vaccinated 28% ahead of unvaccinated now in Ontario.pic.twitter.com/cm7PHWculu
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1640881781

3) In Denmark, 89.7% of all Omicron cases were among fully vaccinated: As of Dec. 31, just 8.5% of all cases in Denmark were unvaccinated, according to the Statens Serum Institut. Overall, 77.9% of Denmark is fully vaccinated, and Omicron seems to hit younger people for whom there is a greater unvaccinated pool, which indicates clear negative efficacy. Even for non-Omicron variants, the un-injected composed only 23.7% of the cases.

4) Just 25% of the Omicron hospitalizations in the U.K. are unvaccinated: Not only are the vaccinated more likely to contract Omicron, but they are likely more at risk to be hospitalized. While American hospitals put out unverifiable information about “nearly everyone seriously ill with COVID being unvaccinated,” the U.K. continues to put out quality continuous data that shows the opposite. According to the U.K.’s Health Security Agency’s latest “Omicron daily overview,” just 25% of those in the hospital with suspected Omicron cases are unvaccinated.


Although that is roughly in line with the percentage of unvaccinated overall in the U.K., we know that Omicron cases are overwhelmingly among younger people who have a greater share of the unvaccinated. Dr. Abdi Mahamud, the WHO’s incident manager for COVID, said last week that Omicron has not hit most of the elderly yet.

According to the latest U.K. vaccine surveillance report (p. 21), between 32% and 40% of the age groups under 40 are unvaccinated. Which means that, with a 25% hospitalization rate, the unvaccinated are very possibly underrepresented in the Omicron hospitalized population, which again indicates negative efficacy to the shots.

5) 33 of 34 hospitalizations in Delhi hospital were vaccinated: The Indian Express reported that 33 of the 34 people hospitalized for Omicron in Delhi’s Lok Nayak hospital were fully vaccinated. Two of them received the booster shot. While some of them were international travelers, it’s important to remember that India has a much lower vaccination rate than the West. This is another small indication that not only might one be more likely to get Omicron after having gotten the shots, but possibly could be more vulnerable to hospitalizations, very likely due to some form of antibody dependent disease enhancement (ADE).

6) Vaccinated exponentially more likely to get re-infected with COVID: A new preprint study from Bangladesh found that among 404 people re-infected with COVID, having been vaccinated made someone 2.45 times more likely to get re-infected with a mild infection, 16.1 times more likely to get a moderate infection, and 3.9 times more likely to be re-infected severely, relative to someone with prior infection who was not vaccinated. Although overall re-infections were rare, vaccination was a greater risk factor of re-infection that co-morbidities!


Hence, the findings of this first-in-its-kind study harmonize with what a Public Health England survey found in October; namely, that the vaccines seem to erase a degree of N (nucleocapsid) antibodies generated by prior infection in favor of narrower S (spike) antibodies. "Recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination,” stated the week 42 report from the U.K. (p. 23).

This finding also correlates with what researchers from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid found last year – that the second dose of the vaccine “determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response." In that report, researchers already observed that other research has shown "the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals."

At this point, how is there any benefit, much less a net benefit, from the shots? There are currently 21,000 deaths reported to VAERS, along with 110,000 hospitalizations and over 1 million total adverse events. Most deaths and injuries are never reported to VAERS. Now that the efficacy is, at best, a wash and at worst negative, why are we not discussing the short-term and long-term liabilities of the shots?

Remember, the VAERS numbers don’t even begin to quantify the long-term concerns, such as cancer and auto-immune diseases. A heavily redacted analysis of the Pfizer shot (p. 16) from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Agency (TGA) flatly conceded, “Neither genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies were performed.”

Consider the fact that the CEO of Indiana-based life insurance company OneAmerica, which has been around since 1877, revealed last week that the death rate among 18- to 64-year-old Hoosiers is up 40% from pre-pandemic levels. That is four times above what risk assessors consider catastrophic. Yes, some of this has been due to the virus, but given the age group, OneAmerica CEO Scott Davidson said that most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths. Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, who spoke at the same news conference as Davidson, said that Indiana hospitals are flooded with patients “with many different conditions.” Any wonder what those ailments are if not COVID itself?

Indeed, those who say the injections are a “medical miracle” are correct, just not in the way they meant it.

Flashback: Remember when Rachel Maddow said 'the virus does not infect' vaccinated people?



Folks skeptical of the various COVID vaccines out there have presented all sorts of reasons for their leeriness. Some of them reasonable, some of them ... not so much.

One reason so many Americans have been cautious about the jabs lately is that the new shots don't follow the traditional understanding of how vaccines work: by keeping you from getting whatever bug you've been inoculated against.

You know — the normal understanding of "vaccine."

But what "vaccine" means has been tweaked over the last several months.

The Centers for Disease Control and Infection infamously edited its definitions of "vaccination" and "vaccine."

As the Miami Herald — and many other media outlets — reported in an effort to explain away the CDC's vocabulary change, the term "vaccination" once said "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease," but the agency replaced "immunity" with the word "protection."

Similarly, "vaccine" was changed from "a product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease" to "a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases."

Of course, those who get off on trashing anyone who dares say their skepticism of the shots might be based on the apparently fluid definitions of "vaccine" and "vaccination" will claim that the new definitions simply reflect the reality of what we've always said about inoculations.

But do they?

Left-wing MSNBC host Rachel Maddow sure didn't think so earlier this year when she was celebrating the vaccines during the March 29 episode of her show.

"Instead of the virus being able to hop from person to person to person, potentially mutating and becoming more virulent and drug-resistant along the way, now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person," Maddow asserted, echoing the understanding most people had at the time of vaccines and how they work.

"A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them," she continued. "The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people."

"That means the vaccines will get us to the end of this, if we just go fast enough to get the whole population," Maddow added.

Interestingly, Maddow's bit wasn't censored by social media or lambasted by the big brains in mainstream media for spreading a false definition of vaccines.

Rachel Maddow on March 29, 2021.pic.twitter.com/OoJTUD0Fb7
— Chris Field (@Chris Field) 1640633617

Just a few months after Maddow stated what was essentially everyone's understanding of what it meant to get vaccinated, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky admitted that the vaccines don't stop people from transmitting COVID but said they do help prevent severe illness and death.

"Our vaccines are working exceptionally well," she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Aug. 5. "They continue to work well for Delta, with regard to severe illness and death — they prevent it. But what they can't do any more is prevent transmission."

Horowitz: Science mag that warned about danger of leaky vaccines in 2018 posts false editor’s note to cover for COVID shots



Leaky vaccines are worse than no vaccine at all. That is the unmistakable conclusion one would derive from a May 2018 article in Quanta magazine, a top scientific publication, about the unsuccessful attempts to create vaccines for HIV, malaria, and anthrax that aren’t leaky and don’t run the risk of making the pathogens more dangerous.

Yet now that we are seeing such a microbiological Frankenstein play out in real life and people like Dr. Robert Malone have been citing this article to raise red flags about the leaky COVID shots, Quanta magazine took the unprecedented step of slapping an editor’s note on an article three and a half years later to get people to stop applying it to the leakiest vaccine of all time.

But the assertion that the shots reduce transmission is patently false, and the fact that these vaccines indeed don’t stop transmission or reduce viral load makes them the perfect candidate for the nightmare scenario the article’s author, Melinda Wenner Moyer, once warned about.

In order to distract from the failure of the shots to stop transmission, the injection cult focused on their purported ability to protect against severe illness. But as so many more vaccinated became severely ill as well – following like clockwork the timeline of events we witnessed from the leaky Marek’s disease chicken vaccine – they then focused on boosters to distract from the next failure. But any way you slice it, there is no way to run or hide from the fact that these shots have not reduced transmission one iota. In fact, some of the most prolific spreads are happening in places with near-universal vaccination rates among adults, often the most vaccinated region in the country having the highest number of cases per capita.

In many ways, this vaccine is much leakier than even the ones Moyer warned about in 2018. This is why Israel needs to authorize a fourth shot already for those with three shots, just to get them some protection from serious illness. The Pfizer CEO declared this week that in the U.S., “I think we will need a fourth dose.” At least 68 health care workers in a Spanish hospital got the virus despite already having been jabbed three times. 90% of those who recently rested positive on a flight from South Africa to the Netherlands were vaccinated, and all 14 who tested positive for Omicron were vaccinated. And of course, there is no denying the negative efficacy we are seeing on infection rates in the U.K. among the vaccinated.

Studies have consistently shown that transmission rates and viral loads were not different from vaccinated to unvaccinated people. An Oxford study even showed that the vaccinated did not experience lower rates of “long COVID” from infection. Researchers from the CDC’s COVID-19 Response Team recently posted a preprint study of prisoners and found that “no significant differences were detected in duration of RT-PCR positivity among fully vaccinated participants (median: 13 days) versus those not fully vaccinated (median: 13 days; p=0.50), or in duration of culture positivity.” They concluded, “Clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons.”

So now that we’ve established that, contrary to the editors of Quanta, the vaccine is as leaky as it comes, what are the consequences? The 2018 article warns that unlike standard vaccines that drop in efficacy over time, leaky vaccine “failures caused by vaccine-induced evolution are different” because “these drops in vaccine effectiveness are incited by changes in pathogen populations that the vaccines themselves directly cause.” Moyer warns that RNA viruses have “a mutation rate as much as 100,000 times greater than that found in human DNA.”

But what if you threw 8.23 billion doses (and counting) of a leaky, non-sterilizing vaccine up against a mutant-prone RNA virus like a coronavirus? While the article focuses on potential leaky vaccines for HIV and malaria, working from the lesson of the Marek’s disease chicken vaccine, the concern that “these new vaccines may incite a different, and potentially scarier, kind of microbial evolution” should apply doubly for the COVID shots. Quoting professor Andrew Read of Penn State, Moyer shows how leaky vaccines in humans could potentially allow the virus to have its cake and eat it too – become very transmissible while remaining dangerously virulent, just like the learned experience with Marek’s chickens.

The problem with leaky vaccines, Read says, is that they enable pathogens to replicate unchecked while also protecting hosts from illness and death, thereby removing the costs associated with increased virulence. Over time, then, in a world of leaky vaccinations, a pathogen might evolve to become deadlier to unvaccinated hosts because it can reap the benefits of virulence without the costs — much as Marek’s disease has slowly become more lethal to unvaccinated chickens. This virulence can also cause the vaccine to start failing by causing illness in vaccinated hosts.

It's hard not to get goose bumps when observing that this is exactly what has been occurring since around July – roughly when the vaccines began leaking. The virus became extremely transmissible and was at least as virulent, as so many younger and healthier people were crushed by the virus. First it appeared to mainly affect the unvaccinated, then over time, as witnessed by the weekly data reports from the U.K., it began affecting even the protection from serious illness in the vaccinated – to the point that public health authorities could no longer hide the failure and had to throw a hail Mary calling for boosters.

12.2.21: UK infection rates among fully vaxxed remain higher vs the unvaxxed in most adult cohorts. Both vaxxed & unvaxxed of all ages continue to get infected & spread - and in most age groups, the vaxxed much more so - rendering vaxx passports & mandates pointless.pic.twitter.com/vJPLnW0Rrv
— Don Wolt (@Don Wolt) 1638466743

Moyer notes that Read found a similar phenomenon with a leaky malaria vaccine in mice as with Marek’s disease vaccines in chickens:

In a 2012 paper published in PLOS Biology, Read and Vicki Barclay, his postdoc at the time, inoculated mice with a component of several leaky malaria vaccines currently being tested in clinical trials. They then used these infected-but-not-sick mice to infect other vaccinated mice. After the parasites circulated through 21 rounds of vaccinated mice, Barclay and Read studied them and compared them to malaria parasites that had circulated through 21 rounds of unvaccinated mice. The strains from the vaccinated mice, they found, had grown far more virulent, in that they replicated faster and killed more red blood cells. At the end of 21 rounds of infection, these more quickly growing, deadly parasites were the only ones left.

Now extrapolate that nightmare to humans, and you will understand the insane infection rates of a virulent virus creating death and mayhem since July at much higher rates than we saw before the vaccines ever appeared. Researchers at Queen Mary, University of London, noticed a strange phenomenon from ONS England mortality data that seemed to show a spike in deaths from the unvaccinated every time there was a large vaccination drive.

4.Correlating unvaccinated mortality with vaccine roll out we see curious patterns (dotted line the proportion of people getting first and second doses). Why are the unvaccinated dying after NOT getting the 1st dose? Why are the single dosed dying after NOT getting the 2nd dose?pic.twitter.com/dgLL3CFBGd
— Martin Neil (@Martin Neil) 1638550769

What would the two factors have to do with each other? Could this be the effect of those vaccinated with a leaky virus – before their protection from severe illness wears off – absolutely blasting the unvaccinated with a more virulent and aggressive virus made stronger by the suboptimal evolutionary pressure placed upon it by the vaccine?

Moyer ends the article by noting that, as Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche has warned, “the most crucial need right now is for vaccine scientists to recognize the relevance of evolutionary biology to their field.” However, she quotes Professor Read as saying that “researchers are afraid: They’re nervous to talk about and call attention to potential evolutionary effects because they fear that doing so might fuel more fear and distrust of vaccines by the public.”

So even three years ago, vaccination was just as sacrosanct in that you were not allowed to raise any red flags about flaws in some vaccines. And that is what we are seeing today. No matter how many red flags we see with this vaccine – from individual injuries to micro-evolutionary concerns about creating stronger resistant strains – you can never question any form of vaccine under any circumstance for any reason. And doing so will even get the publication to place an editor’s note three and a half years after publication wrongly suggesting that the leakiest vaccine of all time doesn’t leak.

Indeed, professor Read has already been forced to publicly denounce any comparison of COVID shots to his research on leaky vaccines, even if that required him to falsely assert that the COVID shots reduce transmission.

As New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern warned, “There’s not going to be an endpoint to this vaccination program.”

New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern says "There’s not going to be an endpoint to this vaccination program" www.youtube.com

She is correct. There is no endpoint to a leaky vaccine that directly induces viral immune escape. Precisely because those vaccines don’t work and actually make the virus stronger are why there is always a need for more vaccines that will make even more resistant pathogens so you can keep vaccinating and use the fear generated from the failures of the first round to facilitate the marketing of the second round. After all, we wouldn’t want a vaccine program to become a victim of its own success.