Deepening your understanding of why COVID vaccines were a huge lie
An article worth your time
Sometimes a great scientific analysis is published and deserves wide readership.
No matter how much you think you know about the reasons for not having confidence in the COVID vaccines, this article is worth your time. The title is: “The Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters against Severe Illness and Deaths: Scientific Fact
or Wishful Myth?”
ABSTRACT
The medical narrative justifying the global vaccination
campaign has changed throughout the coronavirus disease
2019 (COVID-19) crisis. While the primary narrative focused on
the proclaimed excellent ability of the novel mRNA vaccines
to prevent infections and (therefore) to attenuate the spread of
the pandemic, policymakers today (March 2023) acknowledge
the poor vaccine efficacy (VE) of contemporary booster doses
against infections but insist that the boosters are still capable
of providing long-term protection against severe illness and
deaths (as if the two types of protection do not depend on each
other).
We examine the evidence behind this modified narrative
through an in-depth evaluation of representative and high-
profile data from: (1) the formal, phase 3 clinical trials by Pfizer
and Moderna, which preceded the FDA’s emergency use
authorization (EUA); (2) the observational studies from Israel
(“the world’s lab,” as termed by Pfizer officials), which examined
the efficacy of the fourth dose at about the time the FDA
authorized this second booster; and (3) the publicly available,
real-life dashboards of pandemic statistics.
This investigation encountered multiple methodological and
representational constraints, including short, and sometimes
arbitrary or uneven follow-up periods; uneven exclusion criteria
and COVID-19 testing levels; selection biases; and selective
report of results. But most importantly, the documented,
conditional probability of death and severe illness (i.e., the
percentage of severe illness and death cases among those
infected with the virus) did not differ between the treatment
and the control groups of the various clinical and observational
efficacy studies.
Altogether, the representative data examined in this article
do not lend convincing support to the notion that the current
booster doses offer protection against severe illness and deaths
that extends significantly beyond their temporary and fragile
protection against infections.
Considering the already known poor efficacy against
infections and transmission and the ever-growing concerns
over serious, vaccine-associated adverse outcomes, the findings
of this meticulous scientific investigation challenge the current
(modified) narrative and serve as an urgent call for the medical
community to reconsider the balance between the benefits
and the risks of the newly developed COVID-19 vaccines.
Conclusion
The widely accepted medical narrative today, as if the
booster doses of the mRNA vaccines prevent severe illness and
deaths despite their failure to protect against infections, lacks
scientific support. It is more likely that this proclaimed efficacy
against severe illness and deaths is merely a wishful myth,
which has no empirically grounded evidence. We therefore
openly call for an immediate, even if temporary cessation
of the vaccination campaign until real evidence is available,
especially considering the critical safety signals, which seem
to be downplayed unjustifiably in the medical and scientific
discourse.
The main reason behind the synthetic mRNA vaccines which you have to volunteer to have and provide the vaccine makers with blanket immunity from prosecution, was nothing more than a murder program and this was evidenced by the recording contract (for VAERS) issued 6 months BEFORE the vaccines were released in early 2020 - that contract was for 13 million dollars, or thereabouts, with an expected 1,000 American's dying daily from their vaccines - however - the vaccines were much more effective than anticipated and the contract was increased to 53 million dollars (or thereabouts) by May 2020 to cover the increased numbers.
VAERS only records roughly 1% of all injuries or deaths and it has been calculated that the VAERS published numbers must be multiplied by x41 to arrive at current numbers - check my back posts on my substack around early/mid 2020 for the contract which was available on Google.
If these things still interest you, Google: Pfizer-DominicanRepublic-Vaccine-Term-Sheet-19Jan2021. A Dual language copy of Trump's Operation Warp Speed, secret contract, for vaccines for an explanation of the contract contents, which applies to your country - after all, if you have not read what Trump signed you up for and for how long, then anything else you have to say is based on rhetoric and nothing else - right?
I must agree with Ophir et al (and including our esteemed Dr. Peter McCullough) that the two types of protection 1) against symptomatic infection and 2) against severe disease and death would 'indeed' relate to each other. The story with Vitamin D levels over 50 ng/ml (involving INNATE immunity) is exemplary in this regard. It could be considered that the confusion created by those espousing the primary narrative dictum may be because the narrative it entails is simply false. As best as I can tell there is no incontrovertible evidence that indicates IgG antibodies to spike protein saved anyone or for that matter would qualify as a correlate of protection. Similarly, there is NO evidence from RCTs or observational studies that any of the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective as all failed to show benefit over risk as revealed by the GOLD STANDARD, all-cause mortality (many cases because the RCTs were NOT designed to address this, representing very poor planning at best, and at worse, hubris or a more sinister objective). On this point the data are compelling [see data in Grana C et al., 2022; Hirsch C et al., 2022; Lee HJ et al., 2022]. On the other hand as reviewed elsewhere (see PPT PDF attachment to article at https://hervk102.substack.com/p/the-important-differences-between), there is plenty of evidence of the harm of these spike specific IgGs because through antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection into foamy macrophages, they annihilate the critical protection by trained innate immunity involving the HERV-K102 protection system.