Pablo Picasso Group of dancers. Olga Kokhlova is lying in the foreground 1919
Dr Robert Malone – MRNA Vaccines Explained For Real
It’s a countdown now. At what point will we realize that boosters are the end of mass vaccination? 2 months, ha ha ha.
The NBA has reportedly urged players to get Covid-19 booster shots. Some vaccinated players may face game-day testing by December if they refuse. The NBA told the players the new rules on Sunday, according to AP, and stressed that those who initially received the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine are most in need of a booster shot. Citing its waning efficacy over time, the league called on players, coaches, and referees who received the vaccine more than two months ago to roll up their sleeves for a booster of a different vaccine, namely Pfizer’s or Moderna’s. Those who were vaccinated with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine were told that they will need a booster shot six months after initial vaccination.
Depending on which vaccine a player was originally given and when that vaccination took place, some players may already face repercussions for refusing a booster dose by next month. “In some cases, those who are vaccinated but elect to not receive a booster would be subjected to game-day testing again starting Dec. 1,” AP reported. The announcement angered opponents of Covid-19 restrictions, including figures in the sports industry. “Wake up, sheep. The NBA is already mandating the vaccine booster now. This won’t ever end,” tweeted sports commentator Clay Travis, who founded the sports journalism website OutKick. Travis also questioned whether the industry was “going to make 100% healthy people get covid shots every six months for the rest of their lives.”
Sports journalist Jason Whitlock protested that the news was “just the tip,” while Inner Sports founder Garret Kramer wrote, “On what planet do we continue to mandate drugs for people who are not sick? Say NO.” “This world and league is getting more asinine by the day,” golf champion Steve Flesch said. The NBA recommendation found support among proponents of vaccine mandates, however. “The NBA is doing the right thing here,” Jerome Michael Adams, the former surgeon general who served in the Donald Trump administration, tweeted, arguing that “in hindsight this should’ve been billed as a 3 dose (2 for J&J) series anyway.” The NBA already has strict Covid-19 policies for its players, which include unvaccinated players not being able to eat with vaccinated players. Unvaccinated NBA players are also required to socially distance themselves from vaccinated players and must wear face masks.
A Greek expert says 4 months. He should talk to the NBA.
People who have been vaccinated against the novel coronavirus should get their booster shot four instead of six months after their last dose to stem transmission and the possibility of serious illness, a member of the committee of experts advising the government on the pandemic, said on Tuesday. “When the vaccines first came out, they had this incredible effectiveness that we believed would last for some time. I had also said that we should be covered for six months. But new studies have shown that their effectiveness starts to wane after four months, mainly for mild infections, which do not lead to death but are still a transmission risk,” Theodoros Vassilakopoulos, an Athens University professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine, told Skai television.
The booster “needs come sooner,” he said, warning that “the worst obviously still lies ahead,” after Greece on Monday broke a new record with 7,335 new infections in 24 hours. He added that while being vaccinated protects most people from serious illness, this is not the case for people over the age of 60, who are particularly vulnerable. “The vaccinated need to be protected by having the option of getting their booster shot earlier, at four months at least,” he said. “Science is a process of seeking the truth through experimentation and study. We have to rethink or adjust what we know as new evidence emerges,” said Vassilakopoulos.
Yeah, 3-5 times annual, that is.
From Nov. 8, COVID booster shots will be available for all adult Australians six months after they got their second dose. Around 1.7 million people will be eligible for a booster dose by 2022, a move making Australia the second country in the world after Israel to offer boosters to all ages. Australia has reached the 80 percent full vaccination rate last week, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison praising it as “another magnificent milestone.” At the state level, however, only New South Wales, Victoria, and the Australian Capital Territory have reached this number. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the country’s medicine and therapeutics regulator have approved Pfizer as a booster dose. Pfizer booster shots will be given to people even if they had other vaccines for their first two doses.
For those who have an allergic or adverse reaction to Pfizer, the AstraZeneca vaccine will be given instead. While boosters are not required for international travel, states and territories will decide whether to make it mandatory for residents to be fully vaccinated. Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews suggested last month that booster shots may be needed for those who are fully vaccinated to retain their freedoms. “A month before your six months is up, then you will get a message and your vaccination certificate, the thing that gets you the green tick. You’ll be prompted to go and book a time to go and have your booster shot,” Andrews said. “There may be state clinics in that or it might be all done through GPs and pharmacies, that hasn’t been worked through yet. We’re happy to play our part, though. So it’ll be about the maintenance of your vaccination status.”
Ideally, it wants you to be sick your entire life.
It bears repeating that whatever Covid-19 actually is or where it came from, it’s a disease not a whole lot more deadly in the general population than the flu in a bad season; that in the natural course of things, it would have probably only killed mostly the very old and already sick, and that the rest of the population would have soldiered through it and acquired a sturdy natural immunity superior to anything the vaxxes might confer (even in theory). My own doctor tried to persuade me to get vaxed-up during a routine physical in October. I asked him if he was aware of the thousands of deaths and disabling adverse events reported on the CDC’s VAERS system. He said the numbers were not true and went on to say that he had “one hundred percent confidence in the vaccines.”
He’s always appeared to be a smart and capable person. A year or so ago he was enlisted to act as an executive administrator in the health care org he practices in, and now only sees patients two days a week. Perhaps that leaves him no time to follow the news. Or maybe he has no inclination to follow any news except what comes from sources like cable TV channels, which are almost entirely sponsored by the Pharma industry. The bottom line for me is that he has compromised my faith in his judgment. I wonder how many other people feel that way about their doctors. The medical profession was already in trouble before Covid came on the scene. It had entered into a demonic symbiotic relationship with the insurance industry that amounted to pervasive racketeering. (Just imagine the hospital bills of all those people with adverse vax reactions that the doctors affected to be mystified by, and ran countless, fruitless tests on.)
The good news for now is that a federal court has stayed the “Joe Biden” vax mandates. The government is expected to dispute that decision today (Monday Nov 8). Meanwhile, the rumor of a general strike against vaccine tyranny, set for today through Thursday, is in the air and we’ll have to stand by to see if anything happens. We should also be standing by in the weeks ahead to see how many more people begin to show symptoms of developing serious bodily disorders from the multiple shots they have been suffered to take.
“..the bottom line is this: You take a jab because you believe it will protect you. That’s the beginning and end of it. There is never any other argument available because the risk of adverse events is always yours.”
I came of age in the early 1980s. Anyone who says that there have been all these “mandates” to get shots on a durable basis, and that everyone has had to prove it, is 100% full of crap. It’s a flat-out lie. I went to college on my own — both enrolling in a community college while still in High School to take a couple of classes and in college generally until I quit, making more money than it was costing to go to school. I was never asked for any evidence that I had received a single vaccination of any sort. Never. I’ve never been asked to prove my vaccination status for any disease ever in my life. Not once since I became sentient have I, or anyone in my family, ever been asked to prove I’d been immunized against anything. Want to know why? Because there was a hell of a hangover from the mid to late 1970s mess at the time where once again pharma lied, people died and nobody was going anywhere near that bull****.
Yes, by the year 2000 things had changed. People forgot what had happened and who had gotten away with it. The schools wanted evidence my daughter had the “routine” childhood shots. I objected to exactly none of them so there was no foul. All, in my opinion, were in fact safer than the disease and effective in preventing it. Thus administration was voluntary. So let’s solve the problem. No mandates. Period. Zero. Not for measles, DTaP, HIB, nothing. Recommendations, yes. Strong ones. But folks, the bottom line is this: You take a jab because you believe it will protect you. That’s the beginning and end of it. There is never any other argument available because the risk of adverse events is always yours. If the shot harms or kills you that’s on you, so the case to make is that it is less dangerous for you to take the shot than risk the disease. If you can’t make that case on a conclusive basis then sit down and shut up.
Manufacturers are required to publish true and accurate statistics on so-called “breakthroughs” and all adverse events. Health providers are required by law to report all adverse events as they are now, but failure to do so gets you 10 years in prison and permanent revocation of your medical license throughout the US — no ifs, ands or buts. Manufacturers are held to strict liability at the letter of their claims. If you can’t make the case that it is safer to take the shot while telling the truth then you don’t sell any shots. If you lie you are fully legally accountable, period. All medication has risks so as long as the risk is truthfully disclosed in terms of outcomes and odds, and the person chooses to take it, that’s their decision and it’s fine. The NCVIA and PREP Act are both repealed. This is not a request, by the way. It’s demand we are willing to enforce by destroying every firm along with all of the directors and officers shielded by these acts, physically if necessary, if refused.
And, since we’re dealing with this mess, I want to add another provision: Any competent adult may purchase any drug, allegedly “prescription”, over the counter against medical advice and a pharmacist may not refuse to fill it, for any other than a DEA-scheduled controlled substance being purchased beyond reasonable personal use limits, save in one instance: They are able to document, by scientific evidence, a direct contraindication as a result of conflict with some other drug the person is consuming. Such an “AMA” purchase shall absolve the pharmacist along with any physician or other medical facility involved in all liability for the outcome of such consumption If I want to take HCQ and/or Ivermectin if I get the Coof, and add Budesonide to that, I can irrespective of whether a pharmacist or physician likes it or not. If I kill myself doing it that’s on me.
My physician (and pharmacist) is thus returned to their rightful role: That of a paid expert who issues recommendations but under no circumstance can they prohibit or mandate any particular course of action, including the use or withholding of a treatment or drug, for a given condition. It is my ass and thus must be my choice.
Big stories about molnupiravir as a 3CLPro Inhibitor. We don’t need it.
Emerging outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is a major threat to public health. The morbidity is increasing due to lack of SARS-CoV-2 specific drugs. Herein, we have identified potential drugs that target the 3-chymotrypsin like protease (3CLpro), the main protease that is pivotal for the replication of SARS-CoV-2. Computational molecular modeling was used to screen 3987 FDA approved drugs, and 47 drugs were selected to study their inhibitory effects on SARS-CoV-2 specific 3CLpro enzyme in vitro.
Our results indicate that boceprevir, ombitasvir, paritaprevir, tipranavir, ivermectin, and micafungin exhibited inhibitory effect towards 3CLpro enzymatic activity. The 100 ns molecular dynamics simulation studies showed that ivermectin may require homodimeric form of 3CLpro enzyme for its inhibitory activity. In summary, these molecules could be useful to develop highly specific therapeutically viable drugs to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 replication either alone or in combination with drugs specific for other SARS-CoV-2 viral targets.
“The potential consequences of vaccines crossing the natural blood-brain barrier in children’s developing brains are of the utmost concern to all future humanity.”
One of the worst medical disasters was diethylstilbestrol (DES) which was commonly prescribed as an anti-miscarriage medication in the 1940s. It was recalled 30 years later after it was connected to a rare tumor that appeared in the next generation of daughters of women who had taken it. We rarely know everything about a new drug when it’s approved, and we must brace ourselves for side effects we may only learn of years later. The history of medicine documents time and time again tragic examples of new drugs causing unsuspected problems discovered after release. The challenge for researchers to identify new COVID-19 viral target proteins and then to adapt existing manufacturing platforms already shown to be safe for vaccines against other pathogens is already a daunting endeavor.
However, using a new, rapid, but previously untested manufacturing technology (mRNA or DNA) introduced a second variable. Herein lies the problem that every science student is taught to avoid: changing two variables simultaneously in a single experiment. This violates the classic scientific method. In this case, the vaccines generated were comprised of active (COVID-19 viral sequences) and inactive components (manufacturing ingredients, including any impurities), neither of which had a prior favorable safety track record in healthy adults or children. But how likely is the risk of an epidemic of long-term medical complications worse than the pandemic itself, say five years from now?
RNA-based vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) could trigger any number of autoimmune diseases, which can take years to manifest. This is because the resulting combination of viral and normal self-proteins expressed by any cell, which takes up mRNA, creates a brand-new target on normal cells, which the immune system potentially recognizes as foreign and attacks. mRNA also activates danger sensors in the primal immune system, which in turn indirectly promotes the release of pro-inflammation factors, specifically interferons, which have been associated with autoimmunity. This issue is underscored by a clinical trial of an mRNA lung cancer vaccine in 2019, in which blood tests revealed elevated indicators for autoimmunity concerns in 20% of patients.
Immune responses directly against RNA molecules themselves cause autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus. In 2014 in the early days of the technology, an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine inventor published on this potential long-term concern of mRNA vaccines. Finally, none of the mRNA vaccines has a built-in “off” switch to control where they travel in the body and how long they persist there. Published animal safety studies showed traces of COVID-19 spike protein in the brain, heart, and other vital organs, and the European Medicines Agency’s assessment report acknowledged that low levels of mRNA itself were detected in most tissues. The potential consequences of vaccines crossing the natural blood-brain barrier in children’s developing brains are of the utmost concern to all future humanity.
“What should we anticipate? Children of different ages being barred from mingling. Children being bullied, ridiculed and mocked, with taunts using terms like “covidiot.”
Increasingly, vaccination is no longer a matter of choice. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of workplaces and schools are instituting COVID-19 vaccine mandates, with more expected following formal FDA licensure of the vaccines. But mandating people and their children who have consciously chosen not to get vaccinated — a group that tends to be younger, less educated, Republican, non-white and uninsured — is a recipe for creating new and deeper fractures within our society, the kind of fractures we may profoundly regret in hindsight. Let’s not sugarcoat it: This is a new form of institutionalized segregation. Yes, some unvaccinated adults may swallow this bitter pill and comply as a way of doing their part in making America safer.
But many will see it — along with requirements that the unvaccinated wear masks or undergo regular COVID testing — as a thinly veiled attempt at public shaming. After all, if the goal is to maximize the interruption of spread, then surely all people should be masked irrespective of vaccination status. Forced compliance will come with future consequences. The ensuing anger, resentment and loss of trust forms a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Are we ready to add this mandate to the list of issues helping erode the fabric of our society? These practices diverge substantially from the historical norm of equal opportunity. For all other required vaccines, religious and philosophical exemptions allow unvaccinated children to enjoy the same educational experience as the vaccinated.
This is because exemptions reflect a social value that in the United States, there are valid reasons for refusing treatments or vaccines, and these reasons will be respected. Once exempt, there are no sanctions experienced in everyday life. But with COVID vaccine mandates, even those with exemptions are being sanctioned, sending another clear message: We really don’t care about your reasons. And in schools, where a child’s experience will be shaped by their parents’ decisions and those of policymakers, the situation could become tragic. If schools invite vaccinated children to lose their masks, what was once an act of social responsibility could morph into a mark of disease. What should we anticipate? Children of different ages being barred from mingling. Children being bullied, ridiculed and mocked, with taunts using terms like “covidiot.”
Differential treatment toward unvaccinated children by some teachers (who are, just like everyone else, individuals with their own views about COVID vaccines). And families deciding to withdraw from formal education, choosing instead to home-school. Vaccinate-or-mask policies will drive a wedge between children and parents, cause daily psychological harm, carrying long lasting consequences for future generations. Some might see mandate resistance as a symptom of vaccine misinformation. But considering most of these individuals have complied with mandates for routine vaccines such as mumps and measles, diseases of far less societal consequence than COVID, is it not worth listening to their objections against COVID vaccine mandates?
“When you are imposing a measure which restricts liberty and undermines human rights, the measure should be necessary and proportionate. Vaccine passports are not.”
One of the UK’s most respected public health experts has called on the Scottish Government to scrap its “ridiculous and discriminatory” vaccine passport scheme. Professor Allyson Pollock spoke out after a study by The Lancet medical bible found double-jabbed people can be just as likely to pass on Covid-19. The research appears to blow a hole in the argument for controversial new laws in Scotland requiring proof of vaccination to enter football grounds and nightclubs. The Scottish Government forged ahead with the scheme, along with a mobile phone app, despite Westminster ditching its plans. Pollock, a clinical professor of public health at Newcastle University, said: “Vaccine passports don’t make public health sense. Your vaccination status tells us nothing about whether you’re infectious or transmitting at that moment in time.
“Even if you’re vaccinated, you may well become infected or re-infected and you may also transmit the virus. “So passports make no sense. They are a ridiculous, discriminatory and disproportionate measure because they tell you nothing about the individual’s risk or what the background prevalence of infection is. “It is very surprising that Scotland has chosen to introduce them given the First Minister claims to be a strong believer in human rights. When you are imposing a measure which restricts liberty and undermines human rights, the measure should be necessary and proportionate. Vaccine passports are not.” Pollock – an ex-member of Covid advisory panel Independent SAGE – spoke out in the wake of the Lancet study last week. Researchers discovered that while vaccines do an excellent job of preventing serious Covid illness and deaths, they are less good at stopping infections.
This is understood to be particularly true since the emergence of the more infectious Delta variant, which is dominant in the UK. Pollock added: “The question that has to be asked is why has the Scottish Government implemented vaccine passports. “Is it to stop transmission and infection or is it a coercive measure to make people have a vaccine. “You really need to be very clear about why are you doing this and that is what parliaments in Edinburgh and Westminster should be debating. “My advice to Nicola Sturgeon would be simple – stop using passports. “If you think that having lots of mass gatherings – nightclubs and things like that – are going to be to too dangerous, then you need to take a decision not to have them. “Clearly there has been pressure to open up the economy and perhaps it is thought vaccine passports offer a reassurance but it is a false reassurance, not a public health measure.
There are no data on myocarditis from Covid.
Which causes more myocarditis: COVID19 or COVID19 vaccination? This question should be answered easily, yet here you are, reading this. First, let us agree to the terms: We want to know the rate of myocarditis after COVID19 or vaccination for individuals. Since we know age and gender, it would be useful to know these rates by age and gender. For instance, what is the rate of myocarditis in a boy between the ages of 12-15 if they get COVID19 vs. if they get the vaccination, or alternatively, what are those rates in a 40-45 year old woman? Lumping everyone together— from 12 year old boys to 80 year old women—would be silly. Let us be honest. This is not asking for the moon. It is a simple question. The answer should be very clear. In fact, one could present it as a table.
Second, let’s be very clear about the fraction we are after. When it comes to myocarditis after COVID19 we want the following: Number of cases of myocarditis within 14 or 21 days after vaccination (excess) / Number of vaccinations given For rates of myocarditis after COVID19 we want the following: Number of cases of myocarditis within 14 or 21 days after COVID19 (excess) / Number of infections of COVID19. When it comes to the former, the FDA has given us a clear number for boys aged 12 to 15 and 16 to 18 (orange bars). This is FDA’s slide; the data come from OPTUM health This translates into a risk of myocarditis of 179 per million in boys aged 12 to 15, and 196 per million in boys aged 16 to 18. That is a rate of 1 in 5,600 and 1 in 5,100 respectively. (Note: I am not citing a preprint here, I am citing the FDA’s own slides)
Now what about the rate of myocarditis after COVID19? To perform this calculation you need the numerator of excess myocarditis cases after infection and divide that by the number of people who have been infected. While many publications have reported the numerator, the denominator requires serologic testing. You need to know people who were infected who may not have even showed symptoms. You cannot use cases presenting to health care systems as the denominator, as that is is not the totality of infections. A reader can correct me if I am wrong but, I have not seen ANY analysis that uses the denominator of infections. Many papers model this denominator, but the correct method would be to perform seroprevalence of a large cohort. Can anyone provide a link to such a paper— one that uses a denominator of seroprevalence?
“We have to be ready to go every day, all the time,” Berger explained. “We are the ready force. We have to be ready to go.”
That’s exactly the problem, isn’t it?
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger cited “disinformation” as the reason there are thousands under his leadership who have not yet been vaccinated for the coronavirus. Berger said Thursday during the Aspen Security Forum that the force is being “challenged by disinformation … that still swirls around about where the genesis, how did this vaccine get approved, is it safe, is it ethical — all that swirls around on the internet, and they see all that, they read all that.” As of last Monday, 93% of Marines were partially or fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, according to Pentagon spokesman John Kirby. Each Marine must be vaccinated by Nov. 28, but troops are not considered fully vaccinated until two weeks after the final dose of a two-shot vaccine or that same time period after a one-shot dose.
This means the final shot will actually have to be given by this Sunday. “We have to be ready to go every day, all the time,” Berger explained. “We are the ready force. We have to be ready to go.” He also noted that there are more than a dozen non-COVID-19 vaccinations that troops are required to receive, though some are specific to troops in certain locations. “Just to get through boot camp, you got to get 12 vaccinations,” he said. If the vaccination rate of the Marines remains the same until the deadline, it would leave more than 12,500 Marines unvaccinated, according to Military.com. The Nov. 28 deadline for the Marines is the same for the Navy, which has reported that active-duty sailors have a 99% vaccination rate. The Air Force is the only military branch whose vaccination deadline has passed, being last Tuesday. Slightly less than 96% was vaccinated in time, while roughly 8,500 remain unvaccinated.
Support the Automatic Earth in virustime; donate with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.