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.

Horowitz: NYT catches CDC in gravely consequential lie about outdoor transmission



From day one of this pandemic, it was abundantly clear that outdoor transmission — aside from perhaps an infected individual screaming in someone's face — is essentially zero. Had the CDC properly conveyed this fact to the public, it could have preserved an amazing quality of life for so many people that would have included continuation of children's play and sports, seniors enjoying more friendship, fresh air, and vitamin D, and a happier, less depressed society. Yet, to this day, they are continuing to force children to wear masks even outdoors in the summer heat.

In what Rush Limbaugh used to call "a random act of journalism," New York Times reporter David Leonhardt published a very thorough takedown of the CDC's outdoor masking guidance. The takedown brings into question how we can trust anything else they tell us when they seem hell-bent on playing up the danger of the virus at all costs and in all situations, over-stating the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical intervention, and underplaying the concerns about side effects from mask-wearing and the vaccines.

Several weeks ago, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stated at a White House press conference that there's "increasing data that suggests that most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors." She gave a number of "less than 10 percent of documented transmission" occurring outdoors.

The problem with this statement is that the number is really much closer to zero, and this fact was known over a year ago. As Leonhardt points out, some epidemiologists he spoke to believe it may be below 0.1 percent, and "almost all" transmission "seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation."

"Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year," writes Leonhardt. "(The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It's both true and deceiving."

This is not just a matter of semantics. As the article observes, based on this notion that there is still some very measurable transmission outdoors, the CDC is still recommending all unvaccinated people wear masks outdoors, including children in summer camp. They also continue to give people the impression that one can catch the virus naturally outdoors just casually passing someone, which is continuing to discourage those who are really fearful of the virus from even living normal lives outdoors.

Indeed, not a single known case of casual outdoor transmission has been documented in the entire world. A study of 7,324 cases in Wuhan found just one outdoor transmission in a case where someone had a sustained conversation with an individual who already had symptoms. A study in Ireland found the ratio to be 1 in 1,000.

Now extrapolate the statistical anomaly of outdoor transmission to children who are not exhibiting symptoms for a virus that doesn't even meaningfully affect them, and we are still making them wear masks in the summer heat without any evidence that masks work even indoors.

According to the New York Times, much of the reputed outdoor transmission in the academic research the CDC relied upon occurred at construction sites in Singapore that were likely indoors. And of course, nobody ever bothered to research whether those individuals were indeed wearing masks, as seems to be the case in most Asian countries, which would disprove the efficacy of masks anyway.

Rather than question the CDC's illogical premise on mask-wearing altogether, Leonhardt continues to assume masks work indoors as a law of gravity and suggests that the CDC should issue the following message: "Masks make a huge difference indoors and rarely matter outdoors."

The obvious question anyone should be asking is that if the CDC is exaggerating the need to wear masks outdoors, why are we to trust them about the efficacy of wearing them indoors? Both the CDC and the WHO have recently admitted that the six-foot rule is a complete hoax and that it's primarily aerosols, remaining suspended in the air indoors and traveling farther than six feet, that are transmitting the virus.

First, this is a further indictment of their unwillingness to categorically bless normal living outdoors, given how easy it is to transmit indoors. But more broadly, as I've explained in great detail, the aerosols that are small enough to suspend in air and travel great distances are, by definition, small enough to get through the gaps and pores of a face mask, especially ones that are not rated as high as N-95s and above. But we are somehow to believe the fake advertising of the CDC on masking as if it were brought down by Moses on the tablets.

Notice a pattern here? The misinformation always flows in the direction of creating more panic, fear, and social control, while also boosting Big Pharma, though not enough to interfere with the control, because if vaccines were that awesome, all masking should be over with. Even 14 months after amassing incontrovertible scientific data proving children are not at risk and outdoor transmission is statistically insignificant, they are still willing to advocate life-and-death policies that contradict this science. This is what we call political science, not life science.

American Academy of Pediatrics says in-school transmission of COVID-19 is 'extremely rare'



A brand-new peer-reviewed study from the American Academy of Pediatrics says that in-school transmission of the coronavirus is "extremely rare."

As such, the study — titled, "Incidence and Secondary Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Schools" — determined that data indicates "schools can reopen safely if they develop and adhere to specific SARS-CoV-2 prevention policies."

What are the details?

In a study conducted by Duke University and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, researchers determined that among 11 North Carolina school districts — comprised of more than 90,000 staff and students — there were no instances of children passing COVID-19 to adults during the period of in-person instruction.

Instead, researchers determined that there were just 32 confirmed cases of child-to-child or adult-to-adult COVID-19 transmissions over the nine-week period.

North Carolina currently mandates the wearing of masks in public schools for children age 5 years and older, as well as the implementation of social distancing mandates, hand-washing, and regular sanitization.

AAP News & Journals, the American Academy of Pediatric's news outlet, reported, "There were three clusters of at least five cases each in the same facility. One involved pre-kindergarten students who were exempt from face covering requirements and two others were among special needs classes."

The study concluded, "In the first 9 weeks of in-person instruction in NC schools, we found extremely limited within-school secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as determined by contact tracing." It also concluded that schools are safe to stay open even in communities with widespread transmission.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the study blasted "counterproductive" school policies that "ask individuals to self-quarantine if they come within 6 feet of a person infected with coronavirus for more than 15 minutes, even if both individuals wore masks."

AAP News & Journals added, "More than 3,000 children and staff were quarantined during the nine-week study period, which was especially burdensome for small districts, according to the study. Authors said some quarantine policies had little benefit such as requiring 14-day quarantine for people in close contact with an infected person even if all were wearing face coverings."

What else?

In a news release, Dr. Lee Beers, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said that it is imperative that schools follow public health officials suggested guidance.

"New information tells us that opening schools does not significantly increase community transmission of the virus. However, it is critical for schools to closely follow guidance provided by public health officials," Beers said in a Jan. 5 news release.

“Children absolutely need to return to in-school learning for their healthy development and well-being, and so safety in schools and in the community must be a priority," the statement added. "We need governments at the state and federal levels to prioritize funding the needed safety accommodations, such as improving ventilation systems and providing personal protective equipment for teachers and staff."