Corona Deception Committee
Study Destroys Justification for Vaccine Mandates
CDC and State Health Department scientists find similar or higher viral load of Covid-19 virus among the vaccinated as compared to the unvaccinated
The CDC and State Health Department scientists just released a study that again reflects the dangers of making civil and individual rights contingent on a medical procedure. This study, titled Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2 Despite Vaccination, reviewed swab specimens from 36 counties in Wisconsin from the end of June to the end of July 2021. They then checked the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in each swab.
What did they find? High viral load in “158 of 232 unvaccinated (68%...) and 156 of 225 fully vaccinated (69%...) symptomatic individuals.” Meaning there was effectively no difference between the symptomatic vaccinated and unvaccinated in terms of who was carrying, and therefore spreading, the virus.
But the study does not end there. It also found high viral loads in “7 of 24 unvaccinated (29%...) and 9 of 11 fully vaccinated asymptomatic individuals (82%...).” Meaning, among asymptomatic individuals, the vaccinated had a higher percentage with a high viral load. As I explained in an interview with Shannon Bream, this reflects that the unvaccinated that catch the virus are more likely to be at home in bed with symptoms, while the vaccinated that catch the virus are more likely to have no symptoms and hence continue their daily routine unknowingly spreading the virus.
In an interview with the Centre for Research on Globalization, Dr. Peter McCullough said one of his patients died from the COVID vaccine. He also said government health and regulatory agencies are not being transparent about the vaccines’ safety.
But the vaccine mandates might.
…everyone knows you can’t spell health without mRNA vaccine. Just don’t get sick, mmmkay?
that apocalyptic virus, the virus that causes mild-to-moderate symptoms, or, quite often, no symptoms whatsoever, in approximately 95% of those infected, and the overall infection fatality rate of which is 0.1% to 0.5%, and the mortality profile of which more or less exactly mirrors the normal mortality profile, and so on, but which nevertheless requires the radical transformation of society into a segregated totalitarian dystopia and the coerced “vaccination” of every last human being on the planet, including, of course, the children (see, e.g., the photo above), not to mention the systematic demonization and persecution of anyone refusing to conform to, or questioning, or contradicting, or, God help us, protesting the above-mentioned “radical transformation of society,” or “The Science” (i.e., whatever the CDC decides to pass off as “science” to please the global-capitalist ruling classes on any given day).
Son of Opioids: Big Pharma's Deadly Covid-19 Playbook
Dr. Pierre Kory gives a clinic on big pharma's capture of mainstream media, big tech, medical journals, and governments. "They don't care if people die.
CDC's So-Called "Green Zones" Would Be Horrific Pits of Despair. We Need Ethical Medicine.
Forcing PCR+ people together with people who actually have SARS-CoV-2 infections will increase the spread and with out physicians present, mortality is assured
When the 2014 Ebola was shut down in 2016, people in the affected countries in West Africa with symptoms that might be Ebola were offered access to “Western medicine” in “Ebola Treatment Units”. First, they were told, people with Ebola symptoms had to “triaged” - so they were herded into any structure or shelter capable of holding them.
People in these make-shift triage units were often not given any care, not even life-saving hydration, and those who did not have Ebola had to share pit latrines with the infected. There, those who had Ebola infected those who did not.
Everyone who went in without Ebola became infected.
Many, never left. In my book, “Ebola: An Evolving Story”, in which I applaud the development of Ebola vaccines, by the way, I called the people who did not have Ebola who were infected and died - 50% of them - the true heroes of the outbreak. I called the triage units "concentration camps”. I considered those who managed to manipulate the symptomatic masses into these pits of despair to die without medical care to be guilty of crimes against humanity.
In July 2020, CDC published an “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings” that describes potential Ebola pits for Americans.
In this document, they describe a “Shielding Approach”, which they say
“aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (‘high-risk’) and the general population (‘low-risk’). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or ‘green zones’ established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting… (People in the Green Zones) would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.”
People with high risk of severe disease are those who, for myriad reasons, lack the ability to mount an adequate and safe immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. With so many with autoimmunity and co-morbid conditions in the US, if we are right about #PathogenicPriming, untold numbers of vaccinated people around the world are now at risk of autoimmunity due to future COVID-19 infections.
People who have higher risk of serious COVID-19 tend to reach higher viremia and would be more likely to spread. Therefore, the introduction of the virus into such a zone, especially a neighborhood zone, would be catastrophic. We saw this in miniature in the States like New York and Michigan that forced the elderly who were well into nursing homes.
CDC imagines entire neighborhoods designated “Green Zones” as follows:
“A designated shelter/group of shelters (max 5-10 households), within a small camp or area where high-risk members are grouped together. Neighbors “swap” households to accommodate high-risk individuals”
The neighborhood zones in particular would become tinderboxes prone to becoming pits of despair. These are described by CDC as having limited care-givers; in fact, the text of the document does not contain the words “doctor”, or “nurse”, or “treatment”; it does not describe in any way how, if the virus begins to spread (as is assured) throughout the containment unit, medical heroes would provide daily intensive care to those who lay sick and dying.
As people became sick, these shelters and areas would descend into festering pits of filth because CDC’s best plan for sanitation is that
“High-risk individuals will be responsible for cleaning and maintaining their own living space and facilities. This may not be feasible for persons with disabilities or decreased mobility. Maintaining hygiene conditions in communal facilities is difficult during non-outbreak settings. consequently it may be necessary to provide additional human resource support.”
What human resource support? People in charge of sanitation in hospitals, relocated? Who will pay for this “human resource support”?
…No sentient being would ever consider creating such a system in the United States because the consequences are obvious. CDC must withdraw this “Consideration”. All of this time, since January 2020, they have cornered the nation’s resources dedicated to a reasonable response and they still have no viable plan for COVID-19. The infection case fatality rate for COVID-19 prior to the vaccine was estimated to be, at most, 0.31% (0.0031).
CDC Opted for “Diffuse Shielding”
CDC’s strategy has been to use RT-PCR tests set to “highest false positive rate possible” (high Ct number) to maximize sensitivity so most people who are, in fact, infected get a positive result. They tied that with “PCR+ = COVID19”, and with “stay at home until you’re sick enough for emergency care” and with “no early treatments are effective”. This is the Great False Narrative that has put the public of needless morbidity and mortality due to SAR-CoV-2 infection.
This is a distributed form of their Shielding approach at the household level. It would be fine if they informed every PCR+ patient on medical options - and that if they are symptomatic they might not have COVID-19 and should seek a second test for influenza, RSV and bacterial pneumonia. And it would helpful for them to promote the treatments that Science has shown will reduce the risk of contracting a SARS-CoV-2 infection and progressing to serious COVID-19.
But they won’t. It’s up to the public - guys like Joe Rogan - and physicians who practice Ethical Medicine - to have figured it out.
The Good News
The good news is that people who have quit allopathic medicine or who have been fired are now free to find each other and create Ethical Medicine. Ethical Medicine does not lie to its patients; it squares with them the realities of what they are facing, given the information available. It follows the “first do not harm” and the precautionary principle. It does not risk peoples’ lives by doing nothing. It admits that natural immunity is protective - and therefore recommends that those with past COVID-19 infections become caregivers for new patients in their family unit.
Ethical medicine uses science, logic, reason and compassion. It does not issue edicts, and it does not pretend to know things that are unknown. It does not condescend, or paternalize. It does not deny vaccine risk. Ethical medicine CARES about the patient first.
Find nurses and doctors in your community who have been fired, and buoy them with investment in their new practices. Many will be naturopathic cooperatives. Society must build a non-centralized, dynamically interacting network of Ethical Medical Facilities where patients can expected physicians to be informed, up-to-date, honest, and to act in the patients’ best interest. Ethical Medical Physicians must be able to count on individuals and families to do their part to take care of themselves, and their loved ones, and, through trust, follow their doctors’ recommendations. The bloated, over-built, expensive allopathic western medicine has proven itself to be unsustainable, unresponsive, expensive, and inhumane.
It’s time for Ethical Medicine to emerge in the US and around the world.
From Jeremy Hammond
Sharyl Attkisson, one of the precious few journalists who challenge mainstream narratives rather than regurgitating propaganda talking points about vaccines, published an article yesterday about how the CDC has been hiding the number of people who've already recovered from infection with SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.
This is an important data point because the vast majority of people who recover come away with robust, broad, and durable immunity -- and vaccination is obviously unnecessary for people who are already immune.
Yet, the CDC has been claiming that natural immunity is insufficient and inferior to the immunity conferred by vaccines, which is a preposterous lie.
To support that lie, the CDC cites a single CDC study that compared rates of "reinfection" between people who got natural immunity and people who got natural immunity but still got vaccinated. This study does not support the claim that vaccines confer superior immunity for the simple reason that no subjects were included in the study whose immune systems were primed by vaccination.
The study found that vaccinating people with pre-existing natural immunity conferred better protection against "reinfection" than natural immunity alone, but that is a separate point. Also, this finding is highly questionable due to the study's methodology.
For example, they defined "reinfection" as a second positive PCR test. This is invalid because it is well established in the literature that viral RNA fragments can persist in many individuals for many months after recovering from infection. When such individuals receive a positive PCR test, it doesn't indicate an active infection. The test is just picking up non-viable ("dead") RNA fragments. To prove reinfection, the CDC would have had to culture live virus, which they didn't do.
Also, the CDC study didn't consider symptoms. Presumably, the vast majority of subjects whom they claimed had "reinfection" were also totally asymptomatic, either because there was no reinfection or because, even if reinfected, their immune systems were effectively protecting them from disease by limiting and rapidly clearing the infection.
The CDC also acknowledged a possible selection bias in that people who got vaccinated might be less likely to get tested, which would bias their study in favor of finding a protective effect of vaccination. Additionally, they acknowledged that their finding was of an association that did not necessarily indicate a causal relationship. Yet, the CDC ignores its own caveat and, in its public messaging, claims that vaccination caused the lower rates of "reinfection" among those who also got vaccinated.
The CDC also ignores mountains of studies showing that vaccines confer suboptimal immunity, far inferior to natural immunity.
Other studies being used to claim that vaccination of people with pre-existing natural immunity confers a significant benefit do not. As an example, to come back to Attkisson's article, I was happily surprised while reading it yesterday to see it end with the following (bold emphasis added):
In August, Meredith Wadman falsely wrote in the journal Science that a study showed those who were infected with Covid-19 and gained natural immunity still benefitted from vaccination afterwards. When the untrue information was flagged by a reader, Science deleted it and posted a clarification.
No word on how the fabricated science could have gotten inserted in the article.
I happen to know whom Attkisson is referring to. You see, I am the "reader" she speaks of!
Yup, I'm the one who, two months ago, confronted Wadman about her false claim in Science magazine. You can read the whole exchange on Twitter here (click through my retweeted post for the full thread).
The study Wadman was writing about was an Israeli study showing that people with vaccine-conferred immunity were far more likely to experience "breakthrough infection" (i.e., what has been traditionally known in the literature as "vaccine failure") than naturally immune people were to experience reinfection.
In solidarity with the CDC's misinformative public messaging, though, Wadman tried to spin another finding of that Israeli study to maintain the assertion that people with natural immunity should still get vaccinated. But I busted her. Here is what her article originally stated (bold emphasis added):
"The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and then received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated."
That was a lie. Here is what I tweeted to Wadman to confront her about her lie (click here to also view the accompanying screenshots):
In this Science piece, you write that the study found that people who experienced infection and THEN were vaccinated were better protected against reinfection than naturally immune people who remained unvaccinated.
However, the authors state that they "could not demonstrate significance" in the analysis where vaccination occurred AFTER infection.
She acknowledged the error:
Thanks for the catch. We have corrected the story.
Except they didn't correct the story. So I called her out once again for continuing to deceive her readers (click here to also see the screenshot accompanying this tweet):
No, you did not correct it. You just deleted "then" so that instead of your statement being outright false, it is now just highly misleading. You need to tell the truth: people who had infection THEN got vaccinated were NOT shown to have received a benefit from the shot.
Wadman refused to acknowledge my point and instead vainly tried to go on the offensive, tweeting back:
@JeremyRHammond you read the paper so you're aware that 81% of the "infected and once vaccinated" group were vaccinated after being infected. Even if this were not so, the article is accurate as corrected. You are looking for an agenda where there is none.
I wasn't having any of her obfuscation, though, and retorted:
You read the paper, so you're aware that when the analysis was narrowed to that 81%, the result was statistically insignificant! You are misleading your readers into believing that the study showed a benefit of vaccinating people with natural immunity when it did not.
Wadman had no rebuttal to that. She refused to reply to me any further and refused to acknowledge her continued deception. To this day, Science continues to deceive readers by stating:
"The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated."
They have refused to clarify that this analysis included individuals who were first vaccinated and then got infected! They have refused to disclose that when the study authors narrowed their analysis only to those who first acquired natural immunity and then got vaccinated, they found no significant effect.
In other words, Science magazine is deliberately trying to lead readers to the false conclusion that the study showed that vaccination confers a significant benefit for people with pre-existing immunity when it did not; what the study's findings rather indicate is that subsequent infection confers an additional benefit for people whose immune systems were primed by vaccination.
This kind of dishonesty is, of course, pervasive. This example is not an outlier. Such lies and deception are routine in the mainstream media and the "public health" establishment.
But I've made it my mission to do what I can to try to keep them honest, or, at least, to provide the public with an antidote to their government-approved vaccine misinformation.
There is no greater opportunity right now to awaken the masses to the untrustworthiness of the "public health" and mainstream establishments than the CDC's continued denial of natural immunity and bald-faced lie that the immunity conferred by vaccines is superior.
That's why I'm producing a major series of articles specifically about the superiority of natural immunity, which exposes lie after lie coming out of the "public health" and mainstream media establishments.