Toxic Bosses Like United Airlines’ Vaccine-Pushing CEO Must Be Held Accountable

Anything less than total vindication for the plaintiffs suing United would be a serious blow to freedom of conscience and personal sovereignty.

New CDC director expects COVID vaccine will be like flu shots where you'll 'get your annual COVID shot'



Dr. Mandy Cohen – the new Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – said she expects the COVID vaccine to become an annual inoculation like the flu shot.

Spectrum News asked Cohen if the country is at a point where Americans should get one COVID shot each year.

Cohen responded, "We're just on the precipice of that, so I don’t want to get ahead of where our scientists are here and doing that evaluation work, but yes, we anticipate that COVID will become similar to flu shots, where it is going to be you get your annual flu shot and you get your annual COVID shot."

"That's where we're going to," she continued, and added, "We're not quite there yet."

The CDC director said an official guidance from the U.S. health agency regarding an annual COVID shot should arrive in early or mid-September.

Cohen – the previous secretary of health and human services in North Carolina – said she expects a new COVID booster by the fall.

The topic of trust in public health agencies plummeting during the COVID-19 pandemic was broached during the interview. In March, a Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health survey found that approximately a quarter of Americans have little-to-no trust in the CDC for health information.

Cohen – a Democrat – told Spectrum News, "While we saw trust go down in lots of institutions, we actually saw trust increase in North Carolina. We measured trust in the Department of Health and Human Services and saw that increase."

She added, "We still had respectful disagreement, but at least we're having a respectful conversation about how to approach hard, hard topics."

When asked if the CDC could have done things differently during the COVID-19 pandemic, she replied, "There were some early places where the CDC didn’t perform and execute in the way they needed to."

Cohen said she is concerned about distrust regarding vaccines.

"I'm very worried about parents not vaccinating kids," she said.

On the topic of proposed cuts to the CDC budget, Cohen said, "Just like we have a military to protect us here and around the world, we need a CDC that can protect us. We can’t see those cuts and have the national security assets we need here at the CDC."

Cohen became the CDC director earlier this month following the departure of her predecessor – Dr. Rochelle Walensky.

Earlier this month, Cohen told NBC News the CDC needs to have "an everyday, tactical plan" to "bringing the best evidence that we possibly can" to the public.

She admitted that the CDC had lost trust during the pandemic, but promised transparency at the health agency under her watch.

Cohen added, "You're going to hear us with some key messages, making sure that folks hear them over and over."

The outlet said Cohen's team in North Carolina "sometimes turned to faith leaders, NASCAR drivers, even TikTok influencers to get scientific information to the public."

NBC News said of Cohen, "But she works hard to focus instead on re-infusing a spark back into the work done at the CDC. On her first day, she played Alicia Keys and other music in the lobby to greet her new co-workers."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

What Did Joe Biden Know and When Did He Know It? | 1/12/23

What Did Joe Biden Know and When Did He Know It? | 1/12/23

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?

Horowitz: NIH study finds those with shots had fewer N antibodies even after COVID infection



“The best vaccination is to get infected yourself. … It’s the most potent vaccination.” ~Dr. Anthony Fauci, 10/11/2004

It sure appears that the more we inject people with the mRNA gene therapy, the more the virus circulates and the more they get infected. All the data from the U.K., New Zealand, and our own Walgreens seems to indicate that the more you vax, the more you get infected. Just ask our very own vice president, who got infected just a few weeks after receiving her fourth jab, which is the supposed sweet spot of vaccine efficacy and antibody titer levels. Now, a new study by NIH researchers offers a possible glimpse into the mechanics of the leaky and illusory “immunity” of these novel shots.

In a preprint paper posted last week, the NIH researchers studied the N (nucleocapsid) antibody levels of those who participated in the Moderna clinical trial vs. the placebo group upon the unblinding of the participants. Their findings were earth-shattering.

“We analyzed data from 1,789 participants (1,298 placebo recipients and 491 vaccine recipients) with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the blinded phase (through March 2021). Among participants with PCR-confirmed Covid-19 illness, seroconversion to anti-N Abs at a median follow up of 53 days post diagnosis occurred in 21/52 (40%) of the mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients vs. 605/648 (93%) of the placebo recipients (p < 0.001).”

Kudos to Igor Chudov for finding this paper that clearly our government agencies are not excited to advertise. Overall, the study’s authors found, “For any given viral copy number, the odds of anti-N seropositivity were 13.67 times higher for the placebo arm than the vaccine arm.”

It’s truly hard to overstate the significance of this finding. These are the actual participants in the Moderna trial, and their levels were checked roughly seven weeks after being diagnosed with COVID, plus this was a study of the original strain of the virus when supposedly the vaccines were more effective. Yet just 40% of those with prior infection among the vaccinated group had anti-nucleocapsid antibodies, while 93% of the placebo group did. To be clear, this means that not only is the vaccine inferior to natural immunity, but it is so inferior that it might inhibit your acquisition of immunity to the nucleocapsid protein of the virus even if you wind up getting the virus, which you assuredly will because the vaccines don’t stop infection.

When you hear the proponents of the shots bragging about antibody titers, they are measuring the anti-spike protein (S) antibodies. The shots code your body to produce the most dangerous part of the virus, but on the other hand you don’t get the benefit of full immunity because your body is trained to recognize only the spike, not the main shell of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The implication of this study would be that the more you vaccinate, the more it erases your natural immunity, so not only do you still get the virus, but you will continue getting it because you can never achieve full immunity, as you might with natural infection without having been jabbed with a gene therapy that primes your body to respond inappropriately. It is an anti-herd immunity shot.

Last October, we were ridiculed for bringing this point to light based on a finding from the Public Health England vaccine surveillance report. The U.K. government researchers asserted (p. 23) that their serology tests were underestimating the number of people with prior infection due to "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." In other words, they seemed to believe that N antibodies are primarily produced with natural infection, but many people with the shots can never acquire those full-spectrum antibodies, even if they wind up catching the virus. This new NIH paper perfectly confirms the suspicion of the U.K. researchers.

Does the inhibition of anti-N antibodies explain why data continues to show the more you vax, the more you get infected?

Just consider the latest Walgreens data for the results of 66,000 tests nationwide for the week of April 17. Even though the unvaccinated were administered the most tests of any cohort (likely because of employer testing mandates), they account for the lowest share of the weekly positive results. It seems to get worse both as you go up in doses and in duration from the dose!

Here are the positivity rates by dose:

And here are the percentages of positive results by cohort juxtaposed to their share of testing:

Note that the triple-vaxxed account for 51.4% of the positive results (while only accounting for 45.1% of the tests), even though they only compose 30.4% of the population. 66.6% of the total population has at least two shots, but account for 79.4% of the total positives at Walgreens, and this data has been consistent for a while.

In other words, the vaccine campaign has been the ultimate exercise in perfidy, in which everything they accuse the unvaccinated of being guilty of actually applies to the vaccinated. Think of how many soldiers, doctors and nurses, and government workers are losing their careers to this day for not getting these shots, including those who already have immunity.

Now consider the fact that Pfizer has just applied for approval of a third dose for young children, even though:

  • It’s for a strain of the virus that no longer exists.
  • It’s for a virus that doesn’t affect them clinically.
  • A paper just published in the Lancet shows that even three doses wane in efficacy, even for serious illness, in adults after just a few months.
  • A recent Danish study shows zero all-cause mortality benefit (actually slightly negative) from Pfizer’s original clinical trial.
  • The CDC just posted data showing 75% of children already have more robust natural immunity.
  • The shot causes a 120-fold increase in heart inflammation over the background rate for some cohorts following the second shot, according to a Nordic study published in JAMA, among many other potential maladies and injuries.

This is on par with transgender science! Then again, these are some of the same doctors and “scientists” who want to treat men with obstetrics.

It’s also noteworthy that this NIH study tracked the Moderna study participants roughly around May 2021 and still found, that early on, that 52 of the 491 trial participants from the trial arm caught COVID. Yet they still marketed it for months later as stopping the spread. To this day, Pfizer (Comirnaty) has a printed FDA label stating fraudulently that its use is “for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.” Indeed, the shots are actually “vaccines” against achieving what Fauci himself called “the most potent vaccination” in the form of natural infection.

Then again, in a society where criminal is victim, illegal alien is citizen, and man is woman, perhaps it’s not a stretch to label an agent that causes spread and prevents permanent immunization as a sterilizing vaccine.

Horowitz: A plan for GOP governors to protect soldiers from unjust jab mandates



One of the most heartbreaking consequences of the immoral, illegal, illogical, and inhuman mandate to get the experimental — and now, ineffective — COVID shots, is the destruction of the careers of our service members. So many people who gave their lives to the military are being dishonorably discharged for not getting a shot that doesn't work, many of them don't even need, and is quite risky — especially for the young males at risk for myocarditis. What if our nation's governors were able to assert their power to at least save the careers of those in the National Guard, augment it with a state militia, and then create a landing place for their respective residents in the other service branches to continue their careers?

Oklahoma state Rep. Jay W. Steagall USAFR Major (Retired) spent 19 years in the Oklahoma National Guard and now chairs the House committee on Veterans & Military Affairs. In an interview with TheBlaze, Rep. Steagall was irate about news of some of his fellow brothers in the Oklahoma Guard who are now being sent home because of this immoral order. Some have been sent home the minute they filed for a religious exemption.

"How does this happen in a state like Oklahoma when we have a Republican governor who is commander-in-chief of the Guard?" asked the conservative state legislator who also owns a gun store.

Steagall has a plan to deal with this problem. The Constitution and our early history are quite clear that the state militias aka the National Guard are by default under the orders of the governor of that state. Obviously, the Constitution did provide for the president to assume command and federalize the guard units in case of insurrection or other similar emergencies. Federal law prescribes the federal service conditions under 10 U.S.C. §246 (known as "Title 10" deployment). So long as the president has not explicitly declared a Title 10 emergency, the chain of command in a state's guard units are controlled exclusively by the governor through "Title 32."

As such, according to Steagall, there is no reason why a single red state should be subjected to the vaccine mandate in the National Guard.

"Every governor can issue an order to the Adjutant General of the State indicating that the governor is simply retaining all disciplinary authority within the Governor's office in regard to the fed's 'mandatory' administration of an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine," advised the Oklahoma representative, who also chairs the states' rights committee. "Withholding disciplinary authority from subordinates by their superiors is an action that military commanders are familiar with, and is oftentimes a necessary action to take by superiors to maintain order and discipline amongst their subordinates."

In other words, absent a Title 10 declaration, there is no reason why red state guardsmen should be dismissed pursuant to Department of Defense orders. They should not be taking orders from the president, but from the governors. Every governor should send out an order to the state's two-star adjunct general who commands the National Guard and prohibit any disciplinary actions taken on behalf of Pfizer and Moderna, who evidently now control our national military.

Obviously, some will wonder if the president will then respond by federalizing the entire National Guard under Title 10. He might choose to do that, but that is a fight worth having, especially when half the governors are opposing it. The president would have to defend declaring an emergency and owning all of the troops in states that are already very unfavorable to him for a shot that has already waned. This would bring much needed dialogue to issues of natural immunity, better therapeutics than the vaccine, the side effects, waning efficacy, and the Nuremberg Code. It would finally force that inflection point that we've been avoiding for 18 months of this nightmare.

Moreover, let's not forget that states have the right to form their own state guards in addition to the National Guard. For example, Texas has the Texas State Guard, along with the Texas Army National Guard and Texas Air National Guard. It's about time other states follow suit anyway and create a parallel state guard that is not subject to federal control. This can be a perfect landing place for the persecuted soldiers within the states who are forced to leave the other federal military branches that are completely under the president's control. Why let that talent go to waste? States absolutely have the right to a militia. Heck, the liberals are the ones who suggest the Second Amendment is primarily about arming a state military. So, isn't it time to call their bluff and call one into service to deal with all of the mayhem from the border crisis that Biden has foisted upon this nation anyway?

Governors should also be advised that the DOD order itself, which was promulgated a day after the FDA issued a license to the Comirnaty shot, is flawed in its construction. The Aug. 24 memorandum of the Secretary of Defense states, "Mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 will only use COVID-19 vaccines that receive full licensure from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in accordance with FDA-approved labeling and guidance." The problem is that the only shot that has officially received full licensure (License No. 2229) is the Comirnaty shot, the conceptual vaccine from Pfizer's German partner, BioNTech. This vaccine won't even be available for a few years.

Pfizer's version of the shot, on the other hand – the only one commercially available – received an extension of the emergency use authorization, not a licensing number. As the FDA states in footnote 9 of the letter to Pfizer, "In the August 23, 2021 revision, FDA clarified that, subsequent to the FDA approval of COMIRNATY (COVID19 Vaccine, mRNA) for the prevention of COVID-19 for individuals 16 years of age and older, this EUA would remain in place for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the previously-authorized indication and uses."

Thus, service members are having their careers destroyed over shots that have not even been fully approved, as prescribed by the original DOD memo.

This issue with the National Guard speaks to the broader impotence of the GOP governors in fighting back across the board. With so many talented and patriotic people losing their jobs within all branches of the federal government, these state governors should be finding ways to invite these people into other positions. Take the fired health care workers and use the profligate sums of COVID funding to pay for them to work in outpatient COVID clinics that actually save, rather than take, the lives of those infected with the virus. Have fired federal law enforcement work in state law enforcement. Have fired federal military work in state military units.

If the federal government is sending us the message that they want a divorce from red America, perhaps it might be a blessing in disguise in the long term if we actually seize the moment and utilize the trashed treasures of patriots losing their jobs to rebuild red America upon our original founding values.