Parents Appeal To U.S. Supreme Court After Vermont Courts Ruled Schools Can Vaccinate Kids Against Parents’ Wishes
All American children are constitutionally entitled to the protections of informed parental consent.All American children are constitutionally entitled to the protections of informed parental consent.Biden admin's latest vaccine push falls on deaf ears, with majority indicating they will not get the COVID-19 shot
The Biden administration has implored Americans in recent weeks to get yet another COVID-19 booster. A new poll has revealed that the majority of Americans have no interest in complying. This is especially true of Republicans.
Moderna, whose profits in recent years have been driven by COVID-19 vaccine sales, claimed in August that an early study showed its latest vaccine to be effective against the so-called "Eris" and "Fornax" subvariants. Pfizer similarly alleged that the shot it developed with BioNTech has demonstrated neutralizing activity against the Eris subvariant, at least in mice, reported Reuters.
On Sept. 12, eight days after the double-vaccinated and twice-boosted first lady Jill Biden came down with COVID-19 yet again, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that everyone 6 months and older take the updated COVID-19 vaccines.
The CDC further claimed that the "benefits of COVID-19 vaccination continue to outweigh any potential risks" and that "serious reactions after COVID-19 vaccination are rare."
Eighty-year-old President Joe Biden, who last caught COVID-19 in July 2022, got an updated booster on Sept. 22 and encouraged all Americans to do likewise.
The latest Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor poll revealed last week that 52% of U.S. adults don't feel much like following the president's lead.
According to the poll, 33% of respondents said they would "definitely not get" the vaccine and another 19% indicated they would "probably not get" the vaccine.
Conversely, 23% of adults indicated they "definitely" plan to get the vaccine and another 23% suggested they will "probably" get it.
And 94% of respondents who never received a vaccine indicated they'd likely hold fast. Only 1% indicated with any certainty they'd cave now, years after America achieved herd immunity.
When it comes to children, it appears most parents won't roll the dice.
According to the KFF, "Most parents say they will not get their child the new COVID-19 vaccine including six in ten parents of teenagers (those between the ages of 12 and 17), and two-thirds of parents of children ages 5 to 11 (64%) and ages 6 months to 4 years old (66%)."
Over half of parents of children aged five and younger gladly admitted to neither giving their child the COVID-19 vaccine nor intending to do so in the future.
A key predictor of vaccine uptake appears to be political affiliation.
Whereas 69% of Democrats indicated they would probably or definitely get the latest shot, the same was true of only 25% of Republican respondents. On the flip side, 29% of Democrats expressed resistance, whereas 76% of Republicans indicated they would not get the booster.
It appears that Democrats continue to let COVID-19 concerns dictate their lives; 58% of Democratic respondents indicated they changed their behavior to "be more COVID-conscious." Only 19% of Republicans did likewise.
There may be a link between uptake and confidence in vaccine safety and medical authorities. After all, 84% of Democrats believe the vaccines are safe. Only 36% of Republicans think likewise.
And 88% of Democratic respondents indicated they trust the CDC, and 86% said they trust the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. For Republicans, the corresponding trust levels were 40% and 42%, respectively.
As has been true throughout the pandemic, a much smaller share of Republicans (24%) than Democrats (70%) expect to get the new COVID-19 vaccine \u2013 a 46 percentage point gap, according to our latest COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor poll. https://t.co/u1INw3bC6o— KFF (@KFF) 1696169707
According to the CDC's COVID-19 tracker, only 1.8% of emergency department visits between Sept. 17 and Sept. 23 were diagnosed as having the virus.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
COVID-19 vaccines should be added to immunization schedules for kids and adults, CDC advisory panel recommends
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously on Thursday in favor of recommending that COVID-19 vaccines be placed on the immunization schedules for children and adults.
"Today, CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended updates to the 2023 childhood and adult immunization schedules, which includes incorporating additional information for approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines. CDC only makes recommendations for use of vaccines, while school-entry vaccination requirements are determined by state or local jurisdictions," a press release from the government agency noted.
"It has been almost two years since COVID-19 vaccines were first rolled out in the U.S., and nearly 630 million doses have since been administered nationwide, providing people with critical protection against severe COVID-19. ACIP's recommendation to add COVID-19 vaccines to the routinely recommended vaccine schedule represents another step in the nation's recovery," the release claimed. "The updated schedules and program guidance will be published in early 2023."
The CDC was already recommending COVID-19 vaccination for people aged 6 months and older.
While the move to add the vaccines to the vaccine schedule for kids does not impose any sort of vaccination mandate for schools around the U.S., local policy makers could potentially look to the schedule's recommendations for guidance.
"The ACIP voted unanimously to add the Covid vaccine to the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule for kids. The CDC will likely approve it. The CDC already recommends everyone 6 months and older receive the vaccine so the vote today was not a surprise, merely a formality," Dr. Nicole Saphier tweeted. "Today's vote in itself is not a mandate. When state/local authorities form vaccine requirements for school & other activities, they often defer to the CDC’s immunization schedule. It is to be seen whether Covid vaccines will be required for some kids to attend school," she added.
\u201cToday\u2019s vote in itself is not a mandate.\n\nWhen state/local authorities form vaccine requirements for school & other activities, they often defer to the CDC\u2019s immunization schedule. \n\nIt is to be seen whether Covid vaccines will be required for some kids to attend school. 2/2\u201d— Nicole Saphier, MD (@Nicole Saphier, MD) 1666288710
Florida surgeon general Joseph Ladapo tweeted on Wednesday, "Regardless of what @CDCgov votes tomorrow on whether COVID-19 vax are added to routine child immunizations - nothing changes in FL. Thanks to @GovRonDeSantis, COVID mandates are NOT allowed in FL, NOT pushed into schools, & I continue to recommend against them for healthy kids."
\u201cRegardless of what @CDCgov votes tomorrow on whether COVID-19 vax are added to routine child immunizations - nothing changes in FL. \n\nThanks to @GovRonDeSantis, COVID mandates are NOT allowed in FL, NOT pushed into schools, & I continue to recommend against them for healthy kids.\u201d— Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD (@Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD) 1666127639
Tirachard/Getty Images
Horowitz: Almost every single COVID death in Australian state was vaccinated
Unlike America, Australia did it “right.” The country implemented a “real” lockdown and de facto travel ban until vaccines were distributed. As such, the few deaths Australians experienced prior to the vaccines should be gone by now, right? In fact, nearly all their deaths have taken place after most vulnerable people got at least three doses of the magic juice. Indeed, not so magical after all.
An Australian writer has collated the recent reports from New South Wales Health and found that out of 798 reported COVID deaths in the most populous Aussie state over the past eight weeks, just two of them might have been unvaccinated. For the latest full week ending on July 16, all 142 reported deaths were jabbed and 68% of them were triple-jabbed.
They tend to avoid using the word “unvaccinated” and resort to telling people how many were fully vaccinated, so it’s unclear whether the two had one jab or zero jabs, but for argument’s sake let’s just say they were unvaccinated. This means that just 0.0025% of the COVID deaths in the state over the past eight weeks were unjabbed, even though the unjabbed compose 5% of the population.
Now, inevitably, naysayers will suggest that most of the vulnerable people are seniors, and they have a nearly 100% vaccination rate, so of course the deaths will be among the vaccinated. The problem with this premise is that it would only work if the raw numbers of deaths decreased, not increased, with the vaccination. In other words, you’d have even fewer deaths than pre-vaccination, but the few deaths there are would be among the vaccinated seniors. That is what you would expect from a vaccine that has anywhere near the efficacy against death that its proponents are suggesting.
As you can see, Australia didn’t really begin to start having problems with COVID deaths until the beginning of 2022, after nearly every Australian senior had been vaccinated. As of now, 94% of seniors have had three doses, and 60% even had their fourth! Yet 98% of their deaths took place in 2022 with Omicron, the least pathogenic version of the virus. And they are just getting warmed up, because they currently have one of the highest death rates in the world.
In fact, the only reason why Australia is not claiming the international title right now is because it is being outstripped by New Zealand, which, by far, has the highest death rate in the world. Just like Australia, New Zealand had a strict lockdown and travel ban until the vaccines were distributed. More than 98% of its deaths occurred after March 2022 – more than two years after the pandemic began.
Already in February, before the Omicron wave hit, 75% of those eligible for boosters in New Zealand had their third dose. The bottom line is that if this vaccine had any degree of efficacy even against death and serious illness, we should not be seeing endless curves only after everyone is boosted, much worse than ever before in these countries. This is occurring in all the Pacific Rim and Far East countries.
Prior to 2022, there were two parts of the world that skated through the pandemic without excess deaths: the Far East and Africa. Yet since 2022 began, the Far East has finally gotten its share of deaths, while Africa seems to be doing just fine with herd immunity. Take a look at the difference between some of the Far East countries and Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country.
What is the characteristic distinguishing these countries from Nigeria (and most other African countries) that occurred sometime in 2021, after both parts of the world seemed to do well with COVID?
Elmo advertises COVID-19 vaccination for kids under 5 in new PSA
"Sesame Street" is promoting COVID-19 vaccines to children under 5 after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted emergency authorization to use the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech shots in young children earlier this month.
Elmo — the children show's beloved three-year-old red Muppet character — received the COVID-19 vaccine in a new public service announcement released Tuesday by Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit educational organization behind "Sesame Street." In a short video, Elmo's Muppet dad Louie says he talked to their family pediatrician about having his son vaccinated.
"I had a lot of questions about Elmo getting the COVID vaccine. Was it safe? Was it the right decision?" Louie said in the PSA. "I learned that Elmo getting vaccinated is the best way to keep himself, our friends, neighbors and everyone else healthy and enjoying the things they love."
\u201cIt's okay to have questions about COVID-19 vaccines for children! Elmo's dad Louie talked to their pediatrician, and learned that Elmo getting vaccinated is the best way to keep him and his whole neighborhood safe and healthy! #CaringForEachOther\u201d— Sesame Street (@Sesame Street) 1656423000
The PSA directs parents of young children to go to GetVaccineAnswers.org if they have questions related to vaccinating their kids. It was produced in partnership with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
"Nearly 5.7 million child cases of COVID-19 have been reported nationally in 2022 alone, making vaccination an important step to protecting both kids and their families against the highly contagious virus and its variants," Sesame Workshop said in a press release.
The FDA approved the vaccines for use in children under 5 years old earlier in June after an expert panel recommended the agency do so.
Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine may be administered as a primary series of two doses, one month apart, to infants as young as six months old through 17 years of age. A third primary dose is authorized to be administered one month after the second dose for immunocompromised children.
The Pfizer vaccine is given in three primary doses, with the first two doses administered three weeks apart and a third dose given eight weeks after the second dose for individuals six months through four years of age.
As of June 22, nearly 30% of children ages 5 to 11 and almost 60% of children ages 12 to 17 have been fully vaccinated, according to CDC data.
“As with all vaccines for any population, when authorizing COVID-19 vaccines intended for pediatric age groups, the FDA ensures that our evaluation and analysis of the data is rigorous and thorough,” FDA official Dr. Peter Marks said on June 17.
“In addition to making certain the data for these vaccines met FDA’s rigorous standards, the agency’s convening of an advisory committee was part of a transparent process to help the public have a clear understanding of the safety and effectiveness data supporting the authorization of these two vaccines for pediatric populations,” he added.
Sesame Workshop's PSA is the continuation of a campaign the company launched last year to encourage adults and children to get vaccinated against COVID-19.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who had previously called the nonprofit's vaccine PSAs "government propaganda," criticized "Sesame Street" for the new PSA with Elmo and asserted there is "ZERO scientific evidence" to support COVID-19 vaccination in young children.
\u201cThanks, @sesamestreet for saying parents are allowed to have questions!\n\nYou then have @elmo aggressively advocate for vaccinating children UNDER 5. \n\nBut you cite ZERO scientific evidence for this. Learn more:\n\nhttps://t.co/Ss20TmFTSB\u201d— Ted Cruz (@Ted Cruz) 1656434353
Cruz and a handful of other Republican lawmakers sent a letter to the FDA on June 8 requesting information to assess the risk COVID-19 poses to children under 5 and the necessity of vaccination for that age group.
Dr. Jeanette Betancourt, senior vice president of U.S. social impact at Sesame Workshop, said that parents will "understandably have questions about the COVID-19 vaccines for young children.
“With help from Elmo and his dad Louie, we want to model real conversations, encourage parents’ questions, and help children know what to expect,” Betancourt said. “We’re proud to continue our efforts with the Ad Council, COVID Collaborative, CDC, and AAP to help families get connected to information and keep their children, neighbors, and communities safe and healthy."
Horowitz: Is it time for unvaccinated passports?
If a suspicion that vaccine-free people are spreading a virus would necessitate and justify vaccine passports, then shouldn’t the reality of vaccinated people spreading the virus at higher rates necessitate and justify “unvaccinated passports”? After all, if the shots really work so amazingly against serious illness — a premise undermined by Scottish data — the vaccinated by definition cannot be harmed by the unvaccinated. On the other hand, if the vaccinated are really unnaturally spreading the virus at a higher rate, there is the potential for worse outcomes with some form of vaccine-mediated viral enhancement, as was observed with the unvaccinated chickens devastated by the chickens vaccinated with the leaky Marek’s disease shot.
While none of us support such apartheid in either direction, if this is really about “following the science,” the continuous granular data from the U.K. would justify “unvaccinated passport” requirements to live a functional life. This chart made by my friend Don Wolt from data culled from the U.K’s latest weekly vaccine surveillance report is worth a million shots:
The negative efficacy for the double-vaxxed was so appalling that the U.K. has jettisoned that data point and now only compares the rates of infection for the unvaxxed to the triple-vaxxed. But even the boosters have evidently already gone into negative efficacy territory. As you can see, for the first time, the rate of infection among the triple-vaxxed, even for the 18- to 29-year-old cohort, is now higher than that of the unvaccinated. The degree of negative efficacy for all the older groups continues to increase in each weekly report, demonstrating a troubling trend of the vaccine making people more vulnerable to infection even quicker than we saw with the double-vaxxed last year. Unlike with all the vaccine-free adult cohorts, the infection rate actually got worse in this week’s report in several age cohorts among the vaccinated.
Why're infection rates growing faster, since Omicron arrived, in boosted adults \u226550? In cohorts \u226540, why does infection rate growth increase with the length of time since the cohort became >50% boosted? Why is rate growth in the unvaxxed fairly consistent across age groups?pic.twitter.com/3KUPPOmitH— Don Wolt (@Don Wolt) 1643486988
The latest numbers measure the infection rate from the last week in December through the first three weeks of January.
Here is the raw data from table 13 showing the negative efficacy even of the triple-vaxxed relative to the unvaccinated in the adult cohorts:
How are none of the public health officials concerned about this trend? They tried to claim that the two shots really needed a third dose in order to work. However, we are seeing the booster go negative on an even shorter timetable than the original doses. How can someone look at these numbers and not conclude that the shots are problematic? Why is there no concern that a shot that seems to make someone more likely to get the virus is also causing vaccine-mediated enhancement in the form of either antibody dependent disease enhancement (ADE) or original antigenic sin?
Consider the fact that CDC Director Rochelle Walensky was evidently shocked to find out, half a year after the shots were released, that they did not stop transmission. In an interview with the New York Times, Walensky describes the moment she realized the injection didn’t stop transmission as a “heart sink.” How could she not have known this was a non-sterilizing vaccine from the beginning? And if she didn’t know it failed to stop transmission, and now we see it goes negative over time – even after a booster – then how can we be sure she understands the concept of ADE and vaccine-mediated viral enhancement? With vaccines, a half a loaf is not better than no loaf; it’s often a poisonous loaf.
Moreover, notice how quick the CDC was to terminate the monoclonal antibodies based on the premise that they don’t work for Omicron, but somehow the vaccine-induced antibodies, which were even more outdated, would still work, even as the triple-vaxxed rack up greater infection rates.
As such, what will it take to finally start investigating the correlation between the shots and some form of viral enhancement? Everyone knows that the testing ground for the vaccines is Israel. Ninety percent of the people there are double-vaxxed, 80% are triple-vaxxed, and unlike in any other country, 500,000 people are quadruple-vaxxed. So how are they doing? Israel now has more recorded cases so far in January than all of 2021 combined. Even if the country ramped up its testing rates, we should not be seeing such results. The Israelis now have the highest per capita infection rate in the world. The country with the most vaccines is the country with the most cases. Compare theses results to low-vaccinated South Africa:
27% of South Africans fully vaccinated. Israel among most vaccinated countries in the world. Onto 4th jab. Something\u2019s up pic.twitter.com/zuXcVrOlyH— Mark Dolan (@Mark Dolan) 1643208439
Israel does test at a high rate, but so does India, which has a much lower vaccination rate:
Another complex question:\n\nComparing Omicron in India vs Israel, currently exhibiting identical test positivity, are we looking at the difference of impact between natural immunity vs vaccine immunity?pic.twitter.com/1S8N7Ly7NF— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1643212224
What is particularly disturbing is that Israel also has a pretty high rate of ICU admissions for something as mild as Omicron. Israel’s COVID ICU admission rate per 1 million people is now higher than during the winter 2021 peak, which was during a more virulent strain and with very few people vaccinated. Here is a comparison to the U.K. and Denmark, two countries that experienced a prolific Omicron wave this month:
Some of those Covid trends are completely baffling...pic.twitter.com/osiRsVSNRG— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1643193387
No wonder Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla admitted to CNBC that the shots seem “to produce not very durable immune protection so it’s going to be coming again and again.” But what we are seeing from the canary in the coal mine country is not just a lack of durability, but a clear warning of negative efficacy. Why is nobody demanding a suspension of all the shots until a full investigation is made to see if this is causing ADE, as Fauci himself cautioned Mark Zuckerberg during a March 2020 interview?
Our current situation-pic.twitter.com/eVgE6Blgr8— Dr. Lynn Fynn (Fan Account) (@Dr. Lynn Fynn (Fan Account)) 1643376851
Now consider the fact that after everything we know about the safety and efficacy of these shots, and clearly everything we know Fauci himself understands about imperfect vaccines, he is nonetheless pushing this shot on babies and toddlers – three doses’ worth!
Two years into this circuitous cycle of failure, it’s time for the very people complaining about the failure to stop wagging their fingers, ascribing blame, and dictating the next failed course of action. It’s time for them to look in the mirror.Horowitz: The very concerning data from Scotland
“The vaccines are incredibly safe. They protect us against Omicron; they protect us against Delta; they protect us against COVID." Those were the words of fully vaccinated CDC Director Rochelle Walensky while testifying before the Senate Health Committee with two masks on her face on Jan. 11.
Scottish data shows that the COVID-19 age-standardized case rate is highest among the two-dose vaccinated and lowest among unvaccinated! It further shows this trend of negative efficacy for the double-vaccinated persisting for hospitalizations and deaths. Something is very wrong here, and together with other data points, it raises concerning questions about the negative effect of waning antibodies, constant boosting, and the consequences of a leaky vaccine with narrow-spectrum suboptimal antibodies against an ever-evolving virus.
Every Wednesday, Public Health Scotland (PHS) has been publishing a weekly report on COVID data juxtaposed to vaccination rates. Table 14 of this week’s “Public Health Scotland COVID-19 & Winter Statistical Report” lays bare in plain English (and math) a rate of negative efficacy for the vaccine:
As you can see, while the overall Omicron wave seems to be receding in Scotland, age-standardized case rates per 100,000 people were the lowest in the unvaccinated cohort every week for the past four weeks. Thus, it’s not just the fact that the unvaccinated accounted for only 11.5% of cases the past two weeks, but even adjusted for age-stratified vaccination rates (PHS already does the math for you) the unvaccinated had the lowest infection rate out of the four cohorts – especially during the peak of Omicron. Furthermore, we see that even the triple-vaccinated clearly have no efficacy against infection, although they have some degree less negative efficacy than the double-vaccinated.
Here is a linear presentation of the depth of the Omicron wave by vaccination status, where you can see that the unvaccinated had the shallowest wave:
This also coincides with the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency of the entire United Kingdom. This data now shows higher rates of infection among the triple-vaccinated in all but the youngest people.
Triple-Jabbed Over-30s Have Higher Infection Rates Than the Unvaccinated, UKHSA Data Show https://dailysceptic.org/2022/01/20/triple-jabbed-over-30s-have-higher-infection-rates-than-the-unvaccinated-ukhsa-data-show/\u00a0\u2026pic.twitter.com/z5TnXT0sA7— Andrew Bostom, MD, MS (@Andrew Bostom, MD, MS) 1642700314
Full stop right here. Any public policy measure – from vaccine passports to discrimination – cannot be justified under the science, even if one’s conscience is OK with apartheid. In fact, clearly this shows that, especially with Omicron, the vaccinated are the super-spreaders. Before we get to hospitalizations and deaths, the notion that the unvaccinated are somehow responsible for the continued spread of this virus is completely contradicted by the data. Some might suggest without evidence that the unvaccinated possibly have a higher rate of prior infection; however, Omicron seems to attack even those who already had previous versions of SARS-CoV-2.
Now onto hospitalizations and deaths. While the vaccines clearly provided some degree of protection for some people for several months against severe illness (while possibly causing even more spread), the Scottish data paints a concerning picture of the long-term consequences of the mass vaccination. People like Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche have been warning that if you mass-vaccinate with a leaky, narrow-spectrum (only recognizes spike protein) vaccine in middle of a raging pandemic, the virus would get more virulent over time.
This concern manifests itself at two time periods when the antibodies are “sub-optimal.” There is a period of a few weeks after the jab when the antibodies are strong enough to bind but not strong enough to neutralize, and then at the back end (estimated at four to six months for the original shot, but likely much shorter for the booster), a period when they wane. The media and public health tyrants like to focus your attention on a snapshot of time, but ignore the totality of circumstances that the shots are creating negative efficacy before and after, while using accounting gimmicks to mask the problem.
Remember how the lockdowns were hailed as a success for a number of countries that initially did well, while Sweden now has the lowest rate of excess mortality in Europe in 2021?
\u201cSweden now has a lower death rate than countries that went down the full lockdown route, including the UK, France, Spain and Italy\u2026 Economic recovery has been brisk\u2026 Sweden has not caused damage to the life chances of its children.\u201dhttps://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/02/a-wounded-pm-and-ailing-economy-forces-england-to-go-swedish-on-covid?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other\u00a0\u2026— Prof. Freedom (@Prof. Freedom) 1641237709
Just as with lockdowns, the mass vaccination needs to be judged after all nine innings of the ballgame.
With that said, let’s take a look at tables 15 and 16 – the acute COVID hospitalization and death rates, respectively:
What is clearly evident both from the hospitalizations and deaths is that the double-vaccinated are now worse off per capita even against critical illness, and that pattern appears to be accelerating. Again, this evidently shows a pattern of negative efficacy even against critical illness over time as the shots wear off, increasingly quickly with Omicron. Why is there no desire to study the source of this negative efficacy and whether the fact that the vaccine is non-sterilizing, wanes quickly with sub-optimal antibodies, is narrow-spectrum, and is increasingly out of synch with the changing virus is going to make the pandemic worse in the long run?
Some will look at the chart and conclude that the boosters are amazing. But first it’s important to recognize that even the boosters don’t stop transmission at all even in the short run, and then, based on the latest hospitalization data, appear to wane just like the original shots. Relatedly, you will notice a pattern: the unvaccinated and two-dose cohorts always appear worse and the one-shot and three-shot cohorts always appear better. This is where the most important part of the data set comes into play.
You see, all cases during the first 21 days after the first shot are counted in the “unvaccinated” cohort, while the first 14 days after one receives the 3rd shot is counted among the two-dose cohort. See the definitions from Appendix 6 of the report.
We know from numerous studies (see here and here) that people are actually the most vulnerable to COVID during the first few weeks on the upswing of the antibodies, when T cells are likely suppressed. This is why the health departments smartly count them in the unvaccinated pile. Hence, for all these months, all the cases and deaths from those made more vulnerable from the first shot – which is caused by the mass vaccination, not the unvaccinated – are counted against the unvaccinated. Over time, as the shots waned on the back end, the truth became evident. Now they are starting the cycle all over again by making the two-dose group look even worse than they are by dumping all of the cases caused by the initial take-up from the third dose into the cohort of double-vaccinated.
It’s the ultimate pandemic Ponzi scheme. Just wait another two months and see what the fourth-shot group looks like relative to the triple-dosers, as the immediate vaccination causes an even greater spike in cases. In other words, you have to look in totality where we are headed rather than manipulating a snapshot of time.
What this report shows is that just 18.5% of the hospitalizations in Scotland were unvaccinated, but even that number includes numerous people within 21 days of the first shot, which is clearly a very vulnerable time. It’s akin to telling someone in a foxhole to run across the field of fire to get to a bunker that might be safer, but he runs an even higher risk of getting cut down before reaching the bunker. Then, after a few hours, the bunker will get overrun by the enemy and you have to run through a new field of fire to get to the next bunker.
Likewise, when a therapeutic lowers symptom severity through immune suppression, it’s a flash in the pan. Eventually, that mechanism of action will come back to bite you in the proverbial arm. And this is even before we get to the long-term concern that multiple shots will create permanent immune suppression by creating original antigenic sin, a position now articulated by the European Medicines Agency and top Israeli immunologists.
Just how prominent is the infection rate within the first 14-21 days of getting the shot, thereby completely distorting the epidemiological data and ultimate perception of efficacy of the shots? Although we don’t have data from the U.K. or U.S. on the timing of infection relative to vaccination period, Alberta, Canada evidently publishes some of that data. According to U.K. researcher Joel Smalley, who screenshotted the chart from the Alberta government’s website before it was taken down, roughly 40% of cases, 47.6% of hospitalizations, and 56% of deaths among the vaccinated occurred within 14 days of vaccination! Here is the graphical presentation that was on the website, according to Smalley. The top chart represents cases, the middle is hospitalizations, and the bottom is deaths:
Alberta, like many governments, counts the first 14 days as unvaccinated. In Scotland, they are counting the first 21 days after the first dose as unvaccinated and 14 days following subsequent doses in the cohort of the previous numbered dose. Obviously, we can’t mix the Alberta time-based data with the overall Scottish data, but common sense dictates that a bunch of cases from the immune suppression period of the initial vaccination are being blamed on the unvaccinated, and the perception of the booster shots is also likely being ameliorated at the expense of the double-jabbed cohort. For example, in Alberta, it appears that roughly 60% of the hospitalizations in the vaxxed cohort got COVID within 21 days of the shot, which in Scotland, would all be counted as unvaccinated cases. Thus, they deliberately chose the cutoff date for designation of vax status after the inflection point where they see the most COVID cases post-vax!
This deep dive into the data from Scotland should serve as a Rosetta stone for the macro observations we have seen from day one. We are seeing the most vaccinated nations and states being hammered with more cases than ever in a way that defies anything we should expect to see from a safe and effective vaccine. Here are just a few of the many examples:
I mean. When you compare case rates and vax rates for the past 3 weeks you'd think that the line wouldn't look like this. But it does. That trend line should be going in the other direction.pic.twitter.com/85Wdgj9Z2b— Justin Hart (@Justin Hart) 1641840740
JUST IN - Israel: Over 14,000 IDF personnel are currently infected with COVID. In addition, 9,732 personnel in quarantine (JPost)— Disclose.tv (@Disclose.tv) 1642598226
Israel , the only quadruple-vaxxed country in the world (also using mask mandates and Covid passports), just broke global record for daily Covid cases pic.twitter.com/G1ZDuVG2Ru— Dr. Eli David (@Dr. Eli David) 1642537647
With N95 mandates, vaccine passports and 2 months of a lockdown for unvaccinated people, cases in Austria have reached a new high\n\nIt\u2019s amazing how consistently and comprehensively COVID authoritarianism and The Science\u2122 fails & how uninterested media outlets are in covering itpic.twitter.com/O1ABBdOOOO— IM (@IM) 1642530717
UK HSA data shows infection rate growth correlates with vaccination rate for age cohorts >50. The more highly vaxxed an age cohort is - whether fully vaxxed or boosted - the faster the infection rate growth. Infectn rate growth in the unvaxxed is fairly consistent across cohorts.pic.twitter.com/40l01thdtS— Don Wolt (@Don Wolt) 1642360856
Quebec, in midst of draconian lockdown, (unlike Ontario) publishes new hospitalization data by age group, vax status https://msss.gouv.qc.ca/professionnels/statistiques/documents/covid19/COVID19_Qc_RapportINSPQ_HospitalisationsSelonStatutVaccinalEtAge.csv\u00a0\u2026 \n\nThese are real counts, neither "normalized" relative to population nor "adjusted" by Ontario Science Table (or CDC). What do you notice?pic.twitter.com/2Q5hPfxam0— Stephen McIntyre (@Stephen McIntyre) 1642354931
Sigh...pic.twitter.com/zeVA6mtZSi— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1641995379
Omicron waves in Israel and South Africa, per capita.\n\nIsrael has given 4x more vaccine shots to its population than South Africa.\n\nYesterday, Israel was exhibiting the higher incidence per capita in the world among large countries.pic.twitter.com/tIryUthm6j— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1642778142
Dr. Fauci recently told Bloomberg news that “there are some inherent ‘non-believers’ that no matter what you say, they give you a real problem.” He’s right. It takes a true religious level of adherence – like a believer – to continue supporting his narrative, despite the plain facts before our every eyes.
Biden: 'There is no federal solution' to coronavirus pandemic
President Joe Biden put responsibility for ending the coronavirus pandemic on state governments, admitting "there is no federal solution" to the Omicron variant during a White House COVID-19 briefing with the National Governors Association.
The White House's COVID-19 task force held its 40th call with the NGA on Monday, with the president addressing about 25 state governors virtually before hosting a closed-door question-and-answer session on the federal response to the virus.
Speaking ahead of the president, NGA Chairman Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, thanked Biden for his administration's efforts but raised concerns that the federal plan to increase testing capacity with a half-billion at-home COVID-19 tests could interfere with "the supply chain for solutions we might offer as governor."
In response, Biden said that state governments are ultimately responsible for fighting the Omicron variant by getting people vaccinated, including with booster shots.
"Look, there is no federal solution. This gets solved at a state level," the president said. "And then ultimately gets down to where the rubber meets the road, and that's where the patient is in need of help or preventing the need for help."
"As I said last week, Omicron is a source of concern but it should not be a source of panic," Biden reiterated. "If you're fully vaccinated, you get your booster shot and you're highly protected. If you're unvaccinated, you're at a high risk of getting severely ill from COVID-19, being hospitalized, and in rare cases even dying."
He said that if governors need federal help, they must "say something," summarizing the actions his administration has taken to follow through with his coronavirus response plan.
Last week, Biden announced a federal plan to provide 500 million at-home rapid tests that will be given to Americans for free. But the government was unable to deliver those tests before holiday travel began, and hundreds of flights were canceled over the weekend as airline staff tested positive for the virus.
The president did concede that demand for COVID-19 testing has so far outstripped his administration's ability to provide testing kits, acknowledging that the sight of long testing lines over Christmas weekend "shows that we have more work to do."
"The bottom line is I want to assure the American people that we're prepared," Biden said. "We know what it takes, and as this group of bipartisan governors has shown, we're gonna get through by working together."
Biden's remarks were immediately criticized by the Republican National Committee, which pointed out that as a presidential candidate, Biden promised to "shut down the virus" and now says there is no federal solution to do so.
BIDEN, TODAY: \u201cThere is no federal solution\u201d to COVID.\n\nBIDEN, 2020: \u201cI\u2019m going to shut down the virus.\u201dpic.twitter.com/3d1RaHRcyX— RNC Research (@RNC Research) 1640623403
Horowitz: Iowa conservatives introduce gold standard bill to fight the dangerous COVID mandate
There is nothing free-market about "private" businesses joining in the violation of the Nuremberg Code. In fact, the entire concept of a rushed therapeutic that wanes quickly and causes a shocking number of known and unknown injuries never would have gotten off the ground under the free market. Socialism, subsidization, monopolization, government using taxpayer funding to create, market, coerce, censor, and reshape society with the shot — all the while being exempt from legal liability — are the only reasons why any business even under 100 employees, much less a larger business, would be mandating it at this point. The only effective, prudent, fair, and free-market position is to use equal and opposing force to restore the balance of the free market. It's show time for the state legislatures.
Legislative bodies throughout the country are meeting over the next few weeks to debate measures that would counter the mandates being illegally promulgated by the Biden administration. Most GOP-controlled states are going to take some form of action, but the question is whether they will take the right action or be intimidated by the visceral response of the big business and health care cartel that has become a giant arm of government tyranny. Several Iowa lawmakers have put together a bill that is the gold standard of what other red states should adopt this coming week.
The crux of the bill, Iowa SF 193, sponsored by Sens. Guth, Johnson, Schultz, Whiting, and Carlin, categorically bans all human rights violations in relation to "Pfizer" government mandates. It prohibits an employer from failing or refusing to hire, discharge, penalize, or otherwise discriminate against an employee with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on the employee's vaccination history or the refusal of the employee to receive a vaccine or provide proof of immunity. It provides a cause of action in court to anyone discriminated against, along with a prescribed remedy of back pay plus 10% from the employer.
This is what we do in the context of every other form of discrimination, including when employers legitimately terminate problematic workers. So, until we get rid of all those laws and the EEOC at the federal level, we don't need to hear about "the free market."
Next, rather than providing an exception to this rule for hospitals and health care settings, this bill specifically bans any discrimination against health care workers or discrimination on the treatment side for patients in a health care setting. It spells out every form of medical professional, including medical students and residents. Importantly, this bill bars any health care provider licensing authority from denying or revoking a license to any applicant because they decline the shot.
At this point, it is abundantly clear that the shots provide no more protection against transmission than not having the shots, which makes any form of any mandate unjustified, even if we are to believe one can govern another's body. For example, in health care settings, where health organizations are arguing that they must protect cancer patients who didn't get the shot, those patients are at least as likely to get the virus from a supposed vaccinated person as from an unvaccinated person, especially if the latter individual already had the virus. Moreover, research has consistently shown that people within 14 days of the first or second shot are the most vulnerable to catching COVID because of the suboptimal levels of antibodies. Having thousands of health care workers suddenly get the shots within a period of a few weeks would expose those patients to the most risk in health care settings.
Another important provision of the Iowa bill is that it bars all insurance companies from discriminating against those who don't get the shot. This means they cannot reject; deny; limit; cancel; refuse to renew; increase the premiums for; limit the amount, extent, or kind of coverage available to; or otherwise adversely affect eligibility or coverage for the group health policy, contract, or plan for health insurance.
We'd all love to live with a market in which any providers can offer any insurance plan they wish. But that ship sailed with Obamacare. The only things worse than full socialist mandates are half-manipulated mandates, which induce totalitarianism in addition to socialism. Thanks to Obamacare, we cannot start our own insurance companies because of the actuarily insolvent mandates. Yet the same government that pushed universal coverage now gets to manipulate the government-sponsored "private" monopoly companies to bar coverage for large groups of people based on zero scientific evidence. Repeal Obamacare, and then we will remove this provision. Until then, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Next, the bill bars any owner or manager of a public accommodation from discriminating in services against someone who has not taken the shot. Again, this virus has been used as an excuse to prohibit all landowners from evicting anyone, including those who are disruptive, destructive, and late on rent. We will not allow the socialists to use their control over the "private" sector to suddenly encourage them to discriminate against people with no cause. I'm fine with ending most discrimination laws. But if we are going to have them, the worst outcome is for government to manipulate a perfectly perverse standard of who is subject to them and who is exempt from them. When businesses can deny services or employment to those with HIV or with certain sexual behaviors, or thwart Obamacare, Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, OSHA, and ADA regulations, then come back to me about "the private sector can do what they want."
More provisions of SF 193 include the following:
- A prohibition on including someone's immunization status on their driver's license.
- Expansion of the exemption process for vaccine requirements in schools related to existing vaccines.
- Anyone administering the vaccine must obtain written consent from the patient prior to reporting the administration of the vaccine or immunization to the statewide immunization registry.
At present, all private businesses over 100 employees are on the hook for a looming federal mandate to require a shot that the government has essentially created and manipulated with taxpayer funding that the free market never would have sustained. Both government and the pharmaceutical companies are exempt from liability. This is not free market; this is fascism. As such, for any state to merely pass a neutral law without providing equal and opposing force to prohibit (rather than exempt from) the federal mandate is not an exercise in free market ethos but in submission to totalitarianism.
How come none of these business and health organizations cried bloody murder about "rights of the private sector" when governors placed the ultimate regulation on them – a crippling shutdown or cumbersome capacity mandates? In this case, they are not regulating affirmative expensive compliance measures – just simply a dictate to apply existing discrimination and health privacy law to where it's needed most in order to counter Nuremberg violations by the federal government. Private business owners don't need to lift a finger and spend any time or money on this. Just don't harass your workers. "Well, we're scared of COVID," they are saying. In that case, you have the shot, so what do you care about someone else not getting it?
The private sector or free market did not conjure up the riskiest and leakiest shot in history or mask-wearing; it was all induced by the federal government through fear, intimidation, misinformation, threats, and censorship. In the case of big business and health care, there has been downright collaboration with the federal government at every stage – a violation of the ultimate antitrust principles.
Horowitz: NH executive council rejects $27 million in vaccine bribe fund to promote federal mandates
This week, Glenn Beck and I kicked off a national discussion on the prospect of a national divorce. I noted that the only reason why it hasn't happened yet is because even in the states where Republicans enjoy supermajorities, they don't push back against federal tyranny as much as the blue states embrace and enforce it. One of the major reasons why this is true is because, just like in any abusive relationship, red states have made themselves reliant on the federal government for money and will do anything to remain in the abusive relationship so long as the money flows. A group of New Hampshire elected officials have provided a blueprint for other states to end this vicious cycle of federal bribes, dependency, tyranny, and red-state acquiescence.
Earlier this week, New Hampshire's executive council voted 4-1 to reject two federal grant programs totaling $27 million to promote the experimental shots that certainly don't need more promotion. But it wasn't just the overkill that bothered these elected executives, who share some executive oversight powers with the New Hampshire governor. They were concerned about the strings that are attached to these funds.
On page 17 of the grant proposal, the feds spelled out in plain English what they expected of New Hampshire in return for the funding:
A recipient of a grant or cooperative agreement awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with funds made available under… the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, agrees, as applicable to the award, to: 1) comply with existing and/or future directives and guidance from the Secretary regarding control of the spreadof COVID-19; 2) in consultation and coordination with HHS, provide, commensurate with the condition of the individual, COVID-19 patient care regardless of the individual's home jurisdiction and/or appropriate public health measures (e.g., social distancing, home isolation); and 3) assist the United States Government in the implementation and enforcement of federal orders related to quarantine and isolation.
In other words, every illogical, illegal, immoral, and inhumane order the government plans to foist upon the states – including executive edicts that never passed Congress – must be adhered to if they want to keep the funds.
There was also a concern that this funding would further strengthen the Immunization Registry System, which is used to monitor the vaccination status of every American citizen. New Hampshire was the last state to adopt such a registry.
"We look forward to the next fight in the Legislature as we reform the Immunization Registry System to bring it into constitutional compliance by protecting citizens' rights to medical privacy and requiring the state to obtain citizen consent before including private medical data in their registry," said state Rep. Melissa Blasek (R-Merrimack), executive director of RebuildNH. "We will also continue to monitor the federal government's attempts to control our state and its people and ensure we protect the people's right to medical freedom and privacy. We should also consider whether the registry has a future in this state at all."
Kudos to these officials for actually standing for liberty and state sovereignty. New Hampshire is lucky to have this extra check on the governor's power by requiring any action not related to signing or vetoing bills to be approved by the five-member elected executive body. Despite the governor arguing passionately for the funding, the members held the line.
It's time for other states to end their dependency on the federal government. They should no longer be using funds for a vaccine that failed and has caused numerous problems, especially when the monoclonal antibodies have proven to be so much more effective in keeping people out of the hospital. States need to fill the regulatory vacuum the feds have long abandoned. The federal government continues to push a shot – and even a booster – that some European countries are now limiting.
It's time for states to repurpose COVID funding to what works.
It's time for them to hold hearings and fund investigations into the scope of vaccine injuries and deaths.
It's time for them to push early treatment.
It's time for them to actually propose an alternative agenda to the bipartisan big pharma/big tech/big media/big government cartel.
But in order to do that, they must remain independent.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com