"Are Vaccines Making the Pandemic Worse?"

"Are Vaccines Making the Pandemic Worse?"

by Brian Maher

"J.B. - a reader - gives us a good round piece of his mind: "95% of physicians have willingly been vaccinated; do you think you know more than all of them???????????????????? OK, you are smarter than all the scientists who are aware of the side effects; bravo! You made your point. Can you now join the national effort to encourage everyone to be vaccinated for the public good?"

J.B. refers to yesterday’s reckoning. We maintained that vaccination risks - while minimal - are far from negligible. J.B. notes the 95% of vaccinated physicians. He likely cites an American Medical Association study claiming 95% of physicians - 96% in fact - have chosen vaccination. 300 answered the survey.

Yet the American Medical Association may have taken J.B. for a sleigh ride. Consider: An alternate study by The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons reveals: Nearly 60% of polled respondents - 60% of 700 respondents - claimed they are not fully vaccinated.

Which poll more likely gives an accurate counting of heads? When authorities yell that 95% of physicians have been vaccinated... or that recent COVID fatalities run 99:1 against the unvaccinated… We sniff a rodent.

Can we now join the national effort to encourage everyone to be vaccinated for the public good, as J.B. requests? With the highest respect, J.B., we cannot. We do not encourage our readers to do a single thing. Nor do we discourage our readers from doing a single thing. We merely tack our note upon the community bulletin board… as a man might post notice of a yard sale… or an auction. Our readers may choose to stop, look it through, and take it aboard — or they may simply push on, according to their own livers and lights. We pound no one’s drum, blow no one’s bugle, dance no one’s waltz.

J.B. continues: "What would make you see the light? You are spreading lies when you talk about the noble lie. The truth is the vaccine saves thousands times more lives than it takes. If your immune system is not already compromised, your chance to survive the vaccine is better than 99.9999999%. That's all the truth people need to know. And that's your responsibility as a writer to emphasize this truth instead of talking about some extreme exceptions and ignore the enormous benefits of being vaccinated. What are you trying to achieve, I wonder??????????"

We are trying to achieve nothing but to blow a whistle. The authorities are not giving We the American people square answers in our estimate, in our sincere estimate. And we are against anyone who attempts to draw wool across our eyes.

Yet let us attempt to repel J.B’s assaults upon us…If your immune system is not already compromised - or if you are not ancient - your chance to survive the virus nears the identical 99% as the vaccinated. But perhaps the vaccines benefits weigh greater than the potential evils they may present. Do they?

The absolute risk reduction is “the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine.” This we know because we instructed an understrapper to search the literature. Here the medical journal, The Lancet, gives the absolute risk reduction for the common vaccines: "1.3% for the AstraZeneca, 1.2% for the Moderna, 1.2% for the J&J… and 0.84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines." That is, the absolute risk reduction for these vaccines appears… absolutely reduced.

We do not question that the vaccines have spared lives. Yet we have seen data indicating the vaccines have claimed two lives for every three they have preserved. Of course… we do not know the true figure. Too much smoke obscures the target.

Yet can we truly conclude these experimental vaccines are safe for humans? Here Pfizer pleads ignorance... It appears on Pfizer’s own warrant; it concedes freely that: "The Vaccine and materials related to the Vaccine, and their components and constituent materials, [have been] rapidly developed due to the emergency circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic … the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."

But to proceed… We closed yesterday’s reckoning with these questions: Does the Noble Lie contain an even greater lie? Could vaccines actually be worsening and accelerating the viral outbreak? Could the experts be wrong - 180 degrees wrong? These questions we now tackle… in the contrarian and rascally spirit to which we are accustomed… acknowledging forthwith that we are better at asking questions than answering them… and that we assert nothing as fact. But might the vaccines be hosing kerosene upon the viral fire? Read on.

As we noted yesterday, Dr. Robert Malone is a pioneer in the mRNA technology upon which the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are based. As we also noted: Dr. Malone is not an “anti-vaxxer.” He has - in fact - consecrated his long career to vaccine development. Yet, he harbors grave reservations about these particular vaccines. What is his central bogey, his primary hobgoblin? He believes the vaccines may be aiding, abetting and comforting the enemy virus. Vaccinating in the middle of a pandemic is “bad science,” Dr. Malone argues. It is creating an “arms race” with the virus.

From his recent Washington Times article, which we here quote, at a length very nearly obscene: "The Biden administration’s strategy to universally vaccinate in the middle of the pandemic is bad science and badly needs a reboot. This strategy will likely prolong the most dangerous phase of the worst pandemic since 1918 and almost assuredly cause more harm than good – even as it undermines faith in the entire public health system.

Four flawed assumptions drive the Biden strategy. The first is that universal vaccination can eradicate the virus and secure economic recovery by achieving herd immunity throughout the country (and the world). However, the virus is now so deeply embedded in the world population that, unlike polio and smallpox, eradication is unachievable. SARS-CoV-2 and its myriad mutations will likely continually circulate, much like the common cold and influenza.

The second assumption is that the vaccines are (near) perfectly effective. However, our currently available vaccines are quite “leaky.” While good at preventing severe disease and death, they only reduce, not eliminate, the risk of infection, replication, and transmission. As a slide deck from the Centers for Disease Control has revealed, even 100% acceptance of the current leaky vaccines combined with strict mask compliance will not stop the highly contagious Delta variant from spreading.

The third assumption is that the vaccines are safe. Yet scientists, physicians, and public health officials now recognize risks that are rare but by no means trivial. Known side effects include serious cardiac and thrombotic conditions, menstrual cycle disruptions, Bell’s Palsy, Guillain Barre syndrome, and anaphylaxis.

Unknown side effects which virologists fear may emerge include existential reproductive risks, additional autoimmune conditions, and various forms of disease enhancement, i.e., the vaccines can make people more vulnerable to reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 or reactivation of latent viral infections and associated diseases such as shingles.

With good reason, the FDA has yet to approve the vaccines now administered under Emergency Use Authorization.

The failure of the fourth “durability” assumption is the most alarming and perplexing. It now appears our current vaccines are likely to offer a mere 180-day window of protection – a decided lack of durability underscored by scientific evidence from Israel and confirmed by Pfizer, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other countries.

A mere six months of immunity? Will the authorities order us to take vaccination on a rotating six-month merry-go-round? But would not the risk of death or disability rise with each poke?"

"Here, we are already being warned of the need for universal “booster” shots at six-month intervals for the foreseeable future. The obvious broader point that militates for individual vaccine choice is that repeated vaccinations, each with a small risk, can add up to a big risk."

It’s an arms race with the virus. The most important reason why a universal vaccination strategy is imprudent tracks to the collective risk associated with how the virus responds when replicating in vaccinated individuals.

"Here, basic virology and evolutionary genetics tell us the goal of any virus is to infect and replicate in as many people as possible. A virus can’t efficiently spread if, like with Ebola, it quickly kills its hosts. The clear historical tendency for viruses crossing over from one species to another is to evolve in a way that makes them both more infectious and less pathogenic over time. However, a universal vaccination policy deployed in the middle of a pandemic can turn this normal Darwinian taming process into a dangerous vaccine arms race."

Is Dr. Malone correct? Are the vaccines forcing a spiraling arms race with the virus? But how? "The essence of this arms race is this: The more people you vaccinate, the greater the number of vaccine-resistant mutations you are likely to get, the less durable the vaccines will become, ever more powerful vaccines will have to be developed, and individuals will be exposed to more and more risk.

Science tells us here that today’s vaccines, which use novel gene therapy technologies, generate powerful antigens that direct the immune system to attack specific components of the virus. Thus, when the virus infects a person with a “leaky” vaccination, the viral progeny will be selected to escape or resist the effects of the vaccine.

If the entire population has been trained via a universal vaccination strategy to have the same basic immune response, then once a viral escape mutant is selected, it will rapidly spread through the entire population – whether vaccinated or not."

What then is to be done? Are you yelling for a full vaccination halt? What does the good doctor prescribe? "A far more optimal strategy is to vaccinate only the most vulnerable. This will limit the amount of vaccine-resistant mutations and thereby slow, if not halt, the current vaccine arms race...

There has been much controversy over ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Yet, with the emergence of a growing body of scientific evidence, we can be assured these two medicines are safe and effective in prophylaxis and early treatment when administered under a physician’s supervision. Numerous other useful treatments range from famotidine/celecoxib, fluvoxamine, and apixaban to various anti-inflammatory steroids, Vitamin D, and zinc.

The broader goal when administering these agents is to moderate symptoms and take death off the table, particularly for the unvaccinated. Unlike vaccines, these agents are generally not dependent on specific viral properties or mutations but instead mitigate or treat the inflammatory symptoms of the disease itself…

The American people deserve better than a universal vaccination strategy under the flag of bad science and enforced through authoritarian measures."

Even CNN has conceded that: “Vaccination alone won't stop the rise of variants and in fact could push the evolution of strains that evade their protection, researchers warned.” Dr. Douglas Corrigan is a Doctor of Philosophy in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Here he explains - from what we can discern - how vaccination can play the devil with the immune system: "Will a vaccine to SARS-CoV-2 actually make the problem worse? Although not a certainty, all of the current data says that this prospect is a real possibility that needs to be paid careful attention to…

In certain viruses, the binding of a non-neutralizing antibody to the virus can direct the virus to enter and infect your immune cells. This occurs through a receptor called FcγRII. FcγRII is expressed on the outside of many tissues of our body, and in particular, in monocyte derived macrophages, which are a type of white blood cell.

In other words, the presence of the non-neutralizing antibody now directs the virus to infect cells of your immune system, and these viruses are then able to replicate in these cells and wreak havoc on your immune response. One end of the antibody grabs onto the virus, and the other end of the antibody grabs onto an immune cell. Essentially, the non-neutralizing antibody enables the virus to hitch a ride to infect immune cells.

This can cause a hyperinflammatory response, a cytokine storm, and a generally dysregulation of the immune system that allows the virus to cause more damage to our lungs and other organs of our body. In addition, new cell types throughout our body are now susceptible to viral infection due to the additional viral entry pathway facilitated by the FcγRII receptor, which is expressed on many different cell types.

What this means is that you can be given a vaccine, which causes your immune system to produce an antibody to the vaccine, and then when your body is actually challenged with the real pathogen, the infection is much worse than if you had not been vaccinated."

Might this explain the surge in cases? We do not know, of course. But it seems a plausible hypothesis. To return to Dr. Malone: "The leadership of Pfizer says, we're going to need a booster in six months because the durability of our vaccines is waning. By the way, that's exactly the window when Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) becomes the greatest risk, is during the waning phase of a vaccine."

What about Dr. Fauci? Was he aware of the potential vaccination hazards? If yes, should he have hoisted a red flag of warning? Dr. Fauci does boss the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases - a desk within the National Institutes of Health. The same National Institutes of Health has expressed this very concern: "The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent."

We are certainly no physician. Yet if we may depart with a warning for mothers-to-be… We are informed that the miscarriage rate among women receiving the vaccine within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is an atrocious 82%. The normal rate -we understand - is 10%.

Here researcher Steven Kirsch takes to his rooftop... and shouts: "It is baffling that the CDC says the vaccine is safe for pregnant women when it is so clear that this is not the case. For example, one of our family friends is a victim of this. She miscarried at 25 weeks … She had her first shot 7 weeks ago, and her second shot 4 weeks ago.

The baby had severe bleeding of the brain and other disfigurements. Her gynecologist had never seen anything like that before in her life. They called in a specialist who said it was probably a genetic defect (because everyone buys into the narrative that the vaccine is safe it is always ruled out as a possible cause).

No VAERS report. No CDC report. Yet the doctors I’ve talked to say that it is over 99% certain it was the vaccine. The family doesn’t want an autopsy for fear that their daughter will find out it was the vaccine. This is a perfect example of how these horrible side effects just never get reported anywhere."

How many similar tales already exist - and will exist yet? You may choose to vaccinate or not to vaccinate. Yet, do you not have a right to know the hazards… so that you may make an educated decision?

Answer please, Dr. Fauci."

- dailyreckoning.com