A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
In recent days, the pandemic narrative has undergone a remarkable number of U-turns
January 9, 2022, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky sent out a tweet saying “We must protect people with comorbidities from severe COVID-19,” in other words, focused protection, which is what tens of thousands of doctors have been calling for since the creation of The Great Barrington Declaration in early October 2020
January 10, 2022, Walensky admitted that the COVID shots cannot prevent transmission
The CDC is now saying you should not retest once you’ve recovered from COVID, as the PCR can provide false positives for up to 12 weeks after the infection has been resolved. They’re also cutting the isolation requirement from 10 to just five days — probably because the failing economy is hurting Biden’s approval rating so they need people to work
The narrative is also changing on what makes for a COVID case and how deaths are counted. Walensky recently admitted about 40% of “COVID patients” tested positive but do not have symptoms and are hospitalized for something else. She has also promised to deliver data on how many people have actually died “from” COVID and how many died “with” it
As noted by Dr. Ron Paul in January 10, 2022, Liberty Report above, U.S. authorities have suddenly started to change their tune with regard to COVID and the COVID shots.
“The opposition to our position is starting to wake up,” Paul says, as some shreds of truth are actually starting to be acknowledged. The good news, Paul says, is that “Maybe some of the things they’ve been saying are not quite accurate, and maybe what we’ve been saying is closer to the truth, and maybe they’re starting to recognize that.”
CDC Director Now Calls for Focused Protection
Indeed, in recent days, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has made a remarkable number of U-turns, completely reversing course on several narrative points.
For example, on January 10, 2022, CNN interview, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky actually admitted that “what [the COVID shots] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission,”1 whereas before, the narrative was that if you get the jab, you have nothing to worry about anymore. In July 2021, President Biden promised that if you get vaccinated, “you’re not going to get COVID.”2 Well, it wasn’t true. Many knew that but were censored when pointing it out.
A day earlier, January 9, Walensky also sent out a tweet saying “We must protect people with comorbidities from severe COVID-19,” which is what tens of thousands of doctors have been calling for since the creation of The Great Barrington Declaration in early October 2020. It called for focused protection of high-risk individuals, such as the elderly, rather than blanket lockdowns.
It was recently revealed that Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and his former boss, now retired National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins, colluded behind the scenes to quash the declaration.3 For whatever reason, Fauci and Collins were hell-bent on pushing economy-destroying lockdowns instead. In an October 8, 2020, email to Fauci, Collins wrote:4,5,6,7
“The proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention ... There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises ...”
“Don’t worry, I got this,” Fauci replied. Later, Fauci sent Collins links to newly published articles refuting the focused protection solution, including an op-ed in Wired magazine, and an article in The Nation, titled “Focused Protection, Herd Immunity, and Other Deadly Delusions.”
CDC Follows Political Strategy, Not Science
Now, all of a sudden, Walensky is onboard with the “deadly delusion” of focused protection. Her about-face would be confusing were it not for the fact that COVID countermeasures were never about protecting the public from a virus. From the start, the pandemic had political goals, and it still does.
The pressure is now on to prove the Biden administration has made some sort of progress with the pandemic. Biden made a lot of promises, none of which have come to fruition, so now the political establishment is scrounging to come up with some plan that can make them look as though they’re getting somewhere.
The problem is that cases are now exploding when a successful vaccine campaign should have brought the situation under control. So, they now need a way to minimize the number of cases, whereas before, they used every trick in the book to overcount them,8 in order to scare people into complying with COVID restrictions and getting the jab.
New Testing Guidance Aims to Lower Case Rates
One simple way to cut down cases is to limit testing, and that’s another U-turn we’re now seeing. The CDC is now saying you should not retest once you’ve recovered from COVID. If you test positive, just quarantine for five days and don’t retest to confirm that you’re negative, as the PCR can provide false positives for up to 12 weeks after the infection has been resolved.
Well, we’ve known this for nearly two years already. From the start, experts warned that PCR cannot be used to diagnose an active infection, as it can pick up RNA from dead, noninfectious viral debris.
Health authorities are now spinning the tale that these revisions in the guidance are because we have two years’ worth of data, and they’re just following the science. But that’s pure baloney, seeing how the data never supported their COVID restrictions in the first place.
The CDC’s decision to revise quarantine guidelines down from 10 days to just five days also appears politically motivated. Polls show the economy is a primary concern of voting Americans right now, so they need to strike a balance between the desired demolition of the economy and keeping people at work — at least until the 2022 elections are over.
In short, I suspect most if not all of the recent changes in COVID guidance are to build a narrative that the Biden administration has successfully brought the pandemic under control and reestablished a working economy. The change in narrative is based on political strategy, not science.
CDC Highlights Role of Comorbidities in Vaxxed COVID Deaths
As noted by Paul in the Liberty Report above, Walensky recently stated that 75% of COVID deaths had four or more comorbidities, “So, really, these are people who were unwell, to begin with.” The admission went viral and was cited as proof that COVID is a lethal risk for none but the sickest among us.
The CDC quickly stepped in, clarifying that she meant “75% of COVID deaths among those who have received the COVID jab,” not COVID deaths overall.9 You can see the unedited segment above, where that context is made clear. Still, we know that COVID poses very little risk for healthy unvaccinated people as well and that comorbidities are a primary risk factor regardless of your COVID jab status.
COVID Death Risk Has Always Been Low — Vaxxed or Not
For example, a 2020 study10 found 88% of hospitalized COVID patients in New York City had two or more comorbidities, 6.3% had one underlying health condition and 6.1% had none.
In late August 2020, the CDC published data showing only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.11 So, yes, COVID is a lethal risk only for the sickest among us, just as Walensky said, but that’s true whether you’re “vaccinated” or not.
As for the study12 Walensky discussed in that “Good Morning America” segment, it found that of the 1.2 million COVID jabbed subjects, only 0.0033% died of COVID between December 2020 and October 2021. (And of those, 77.8% had four or more comorbidities.) This study, Walensky claims as evidence that the COVID shot works wonders to reduce the risk of death.
But does it really? Recall studies13 showing the noninstitutionalized infection fatality rate is on average just 0.26% to begin with, and people under the age of 40 have only a 0.01% risk of dying from COVID.14
When we’re talking about a fraction of a percentage point risk, we’re talking about a risk that is close to statistical zero. So, does lowering your risk of death from 0.01% to 0.003% really translate into something worthwhile? And, more importantly, is that reduction worth the risks involved with taking the jab?
Clearly, it’s not a risk-free decision. OneAmerica, a national mutual life insurance company, recently warned that all-cause deaths among working-age Americans (18 to 64) are up 40% over pre-pandemic norms,15 and they cannot be attributed to COVID.
So, what’s causing these deaths? What potentially deadly thing did tens of millions of Americans do in 2021 that they’ve never done before? I’ll let you ponder whether Walensky’s claim that the COVID jab is saving lives is an accurate one.
CDC Admits Large Portion of ‘COVID Patients’ Aren’t
In another recent media appearance, Walensky stated that:16
“In some hospitals that we've talked to, up to 40% of the patients who are coming in with COVID-19 are coming in not because they’re sick with COVID, but because they’re coming in with something else and have had ... COVID or the Omicron variant detected.”
This, again, is something that we’ve been highlighting since the start of the pandemic. Most so-called “COVID patients” simply weren’t, and still aren’t. They’re hospitalized for something else entirely, and just happen to get a positive test result upon admission — which very possibly is a false positive. Either way, voila, they’re a COVID patient, even though they’re hospitalized for a broken leg or a heart attack.
As noted by Delta News TV, “Comments like these have cast doubt on the severity of the current COVID surge even as the Supreme Court considers legal challenges to Biden’s sweeping private-sector mandates on that very issue.”17
Is the Political Pandemic in Its Final Death Throes?
In a January 10, 2022, blog post,18 Jeff Childers, an attorney, and the president and founder of Childers Law firm, presents a hypothesis for why we might be looking at the end of the pandemic, as the Biden administration has “no reasonable alternative but to wrap this whole thing up in the next 60 days or so.”
“There’s an interesting political dynamic shaping up, a kind of political vice grip that might just be driving federal COVID policy toward authenticity and an end to the pandemic ... a lot of reality has been breaking through lately,” Childers writes.19
He points out how a federal judge recently ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to release all the Pfizer COVID jab data that the agency wanted 75 years to release. The bulk of that data is now due March 1, 2022, the day of Biden’s State of the Union address. Childers suspects the Pfizer documents will contain plenty of counternarrative fodder and politically embarrassing details.
Why We’re Seeing a U-Turn in the Narrative Now
Biden needs some good news by his State of the Union address, as it’ll be his last chance to “help move the needle back toward blue,” and the way he can do that is by declaring the pandemic over. He can then claim to be the great liberator who ended the pandemic measures for good.
“If they handle this right, they can give their voting base and sycophantic media agents all the necessary talking points to boost Dem prospects for the midterm elections,” Childers writes.20
But to pull off that U-turn with any semblance of credibility, they have to start cutting the case rate now, and that’s precisely what we’re seeing. For example, the CDC recently changed its guidelines so you don’t need to retest after you’ve recovered from COVID, so no more false positives from recovered people.
Florida’s official policy is now to only test high-risk individuals and those who are symptomatic. Childers points out that the left-leaning Sun Sentinel even ran an article highlighting the fact that despite surging case rates, Florida has the lowest COVID death rate in the nation, second only to the sparsely populated Alaska. “What incredibly powerful force could make the Sun Sentinel downplay the pandemic like this?” he asks.
Will We Finally Get a More Accurate Death Count?
The CDC also appears poised to change the definition of COVID death to what it should have been all along. Childers notes:
“Fox News ... Bret Baier ... asked [Walensky] ‘how many of the 836,000 deaths in the U.S. linked to COVID are FROM COVID or how many are WITH COVID?’
Director Walensky said ... ‘those data will be forthcoming.’ Until about 10 minutes ago, the CDC said it didn’t HAVE any way to track that kind of information ... But now, apparently, CDC plans to release information about deaths from and with. What do you want to bet they’ll be REDUCING total COVID deaths shortly? By a lot.”
They’re also starting to accurately count only those who are actually sick with COVID rather than including people hospitalized for other reasons who just happen to test positive.
“Yesterday, New York Governor Hochul announced that almost HALF of patients are hospitalized for ‘non-COVID reasons,’ scattering the rotting corpse of the Narrative.
You might recall that just last week she ordered hospitals to start breaking down the reported figures and showing how many folks ACTUALLY are sick with COVID versus just testing positive in the hospital. We’ve been yelling about overcounting hospitalizations for two years now and they just noticed?”21
Same Narrative Switch Seen in Europe
The same sudden switch in narrative can be seen in Europe. Childers continues:22
“Yesterday, the Guardian UK ran a story headlined, ‘End mass jabs and live with COVID, says ex-head of vaccine taskforce.’ It says Dr. Clive Dix — former chairman of the UK’s vaccine taskforce — has called for a ‘major rethink’ of the UK’s COVID strategy, in effect reversing the approach of the past two years and returning to a ‘new normality.’
Shocking the cores the oft-maligned authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Dr. Dix — without getting cancelled — said this:
‘We need to analyze whether we use the current booster campaign to ensure the vulnerable are protected, if this is seen to be necessary ... Mass population-based vaccination in the UK should now end.’ Ending mass vaccinations? Suddenly that idea is okay to discuss in the corporate media? Wow.”
In a January 3, 2022, interview with the Daily Telegraph, professor Andrew Pollard, head of the U.K.’s Committee on Vaccination and Immunization who helped create the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot, also made a previously verboten statement: “We can’t vaccinate the planet every four or six months,” he said. “It’s not sustainable or affordable.”23 And, like Dix, Pollard was not canceled, censored, or de-platformed.
January 11, 2022, Bloomberg also reported that “European Union regulators warned that frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune response and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency.”24
Marco Cavaleri, the EMA’s head of vaccines strategy, said during a January 11, 2022, press briefing:25
“While use of additional boosters can be part of contingency plans, repeated vaccinations within short intervals would not represent a sustainable long-term strategy. [Boosters] can be done once, or maybe twice, but it’s not something that we can think should be repeated constantly. We need to think about how we can transition from the current pandemic setting to a more endemic setting.”
That same day, the World Health Organization’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-CO-VAC) also issued a statement26 saying that “a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.”
They also stated that COVID vaccines that actually prevent infection and transmission need to be developed. The timing of all these statements is nothing if not remarkable. It shows just how coordinated this plandemic narrative is, all around the world.
Justice Sotomayor Called Out
Perhaps the best example that the narrative is undergoing a radical overhaul, Childers says, is Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor being fact-checked and called out as a liar by The Washington Post:
“You’ll recall that Sotomayor confidently told the lawyers during oral argument Friday that ‘100,000’ children were in critical care and on ventilators with Omicron. The lawyers didn’t challenge her even though there aren’t that many total ICU beds in the whole country.
But on Saturday — the next day! — the Washington Post ran an article headlined, ‘Sotomayor’s false claim that ‘over 100,000’ children are in ‘serious condition’ with COVID.’ FALSE CLAIM?? What?? Here’s how the fact-checking article ended:
‘It’s important for Supreme Court justices to make rulings based on correct data … But Sotomayor during an oral argument offered a figure — 100,000 children in ‘serious condition … many on ventilators’ — that is absurdly high. She earns Four Pinocchios.’ It might be unprecedented for a major liberal newspaper to call out a liberal Justice. What could be going on? ...
There seems to be a LOT of sudden momentum surging in the direction of ending the pandemic. If I’m right, we’re going to see even more of this, and pretty quickly, since Biden has to wrap it up in time to declare victory on March 1. Which would explain why they pushed the SOTU back a month. They need the time to get the pandemic wrapped up.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The ‘ESSER III Fund’ gives $15,079,696,097 to California schools that commit to “universal and correct wearing of masks,” “diagnostic and screening testing,” and “efforts to provide vaccinations to school communities.”
The website explains that local education agencies receive ARP funding primarily through the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER).
“The main funding source for local educational agencies (LEAs) in the ARP Act is the ESSER III Fund,” the site says. “The ESSER III Fund accounts for nearly $122 billion of funding for all states and California’s allocation is $15,079,696,097.”
But local education bodies may only receive this funding if they follow specific guidelines and “describe” their “plan” to “maintain the health and safety of students, educators, and other staff and the extent to which it has adopted policies, and a description of any such policies, on each of the following safety recommendations established by the Center for Disease Control (CDC),” the site explains.
Moreover, the ARP Act requires LEAs that receive ESSER III funds to “complete a Safe Return to In-person Instruction and Continuity of Services plan.”
Requirements set by the plan include “universal and correct wearing of masks,” “contact tracing in combination with isolation and quarantine,” “diagnostic and screening testing,” and “efforts to provide vaccinations to school communities.”
In order to receive this funding, school bodies must be in compliance with the requirements listed above and more (see the full list of requirements below).
FULL LIST OF REQUIREMENTS:
Universal and correct wearing of masks.
Modifying facilities to allow for physical distancing (e.g., use of cohorts/ podding).
Handwashing and respiratory etiquette.
Cleaning and maintaining healthy facilities, including improving ventilation.
Contact tracing in combination with isolation and quarantine, in collaboration with the State, local, territorial, or tribal health departments.
Diagnostic and screening testing.
Efforts to provide vaccinations to school communities.
Appropriate accommodations for children with disabilities with respect to health and safety policies.
Coordination with State and local health officials.
WHAT LAWYERS ARE SAYING:
Nicole Pearson, a lawyer based in Newport, California, and founder of Facts Law Truth Justice LLP, told American Faith on Tuesday that giving schools billions of dollars in return for those schools enforcing Covid-19 mandates upon children is “even more than a conflict of interest.”
“We have a serious, serious problem,” Pearson said. “These schools were thinking ‘Free money! Free money!’ but what they didn’t realize is that when they signed this paperwork, there were terms and conditions attached that must be satisfied unless they want to lose their schools. That money is nowhere close to free.”
She went on to argue that when these school officials, board members, principals, and teachers act in a “reckless” way by accepting this money, they can be held “personally liable.”
“We’re going to be able to come after you as an individual,” Pearson said, adding that her Firm would “never settle with you. Because our goal is not to make any many. Our goal is to expose each of you for the fraud you’ve committed. And we will show that none of this is backed by science. You’ve put a price tag on our children’s heads. These poor schools have no idea what they signed themselves up for,” she said.
Pearson concluded by saying these school officials can still “be on the right side of history if they admit they are wrong and refuse to go along with this social experiment that is costing our children’s health, their education, their lives, and their futures.”
The U.S. Department of Education published an Interim Final Requirements (IFR) on April 22, 2021, that outlines several requirements for all LEAs that receive ESSER III funds.
The document explains how the American Rescue Plan provided nearly $122 billion through the ESSER fund to be sent to State educational agencies that submit to the requirements listed above: “This template has been created to assist LEAs in the creation of these plans and to ensure all required elements are met,” the document reads.
Every state has access to ESSER III funds if they submit to the requirements.
For more information on the CARES Act, the California Department of Education (CDE) recommends visiting the CARES Act Funding web page.
Facts Law Truth Justice provides online resources available to the public including videos, toolkits, templates, draft letters, and references. You can subscribe here to receive updates on new tools and resources from the Firm. And you can follow them on Instagram.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
There now are at least 19 federal departments or agencies that have – or are trying to get – procedures so they can keep lists of people who seek or are granted “religious” exemptions to various COVID-19 mandates.
Its policy, that first report said, “will likely serve as a model for a whole-of-government push to assemble lists of Americans who object on religious grounds to a COVID-19 vaccine.”
Now a new report explains, “A little digging at the Federal Register revealed that there are at least 19 total federal agencies—including five cabinet-level agencies—that have created or proposed to create these tracking lists for religious-exemption requests from their employees.”
Included are the Departments of Transportation, Justice, Health, and Treasury.
“As the nation’s largest employer, with over four million civilian and military employees, the federal government has received tens of thousands of religious exemption requests. It now appears that an increasing number of federal agencies are keeping and preserving those individuals’ names, religious information, personally-identifying information, and other data stored in lists across multiple government agencies,” they reported.
The authors explained, “The earliest set of proposals appears to have been rolled out in October of last year, during the start of the holiday season in a possible effort to ensure very little attention was paid to a coordinated data collection move. Many of the announcements have clocked only a few page views. Almost none attracted any public comments. Most permitted only a 30-day window for submitting objections. All announcements were issued within a few weeks of one another.”
The column said the “disturbing trend” is that “the Biden administration is creating lists that can all communicate with one another on which individuals have sought religious exemptions from the federal employee vaccine mandate or other religious accommodations within the scope of their employment by the government.”
Among the details being assembled, they report, are “religious affiliation, the reasons and support given for religious accommodation requests, names, contact information, date of birth, aliases, home address, contact information, and other identifying information.”
It was Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt who raised objections, telling Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, “On November 18, at the direction of the Biden administration, four federal agencies simultaneously announced that those who exercise their legal right to seek a health or religious waiver from a vaccine mandate would be tracked in federal databases. Rather than give the public ample time to weigh in on the advisability or legality of collecting such personal information, the Department of Transportation’s database, in particular, became effective on the day it was published…”
He explained what’s alarming is the chilling effect on Americans’ exercise of their religion.
When the authors reported on the D.C. operation, officials there claimed listing those people would help it “in the collecting, storing, dissemination, and disposal of employee religious exemption request information collected and maintained by the agency.”
A new Rasmussen poll has found that most Democrat voters are in favor of extreme punishments for people who refuse to get “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).
By party breakdown, a whopping 55 percent of Democrats say they support imposing fines on people who refuse to comply with jab mandates. Amazingly (if these polls are to be believed) 19 percent of Republicans said they, too, support fines.
Twenty-five percent of Independents, meanwhile, responded that they support tyrannizing the unvaccinated.
The Heartland Institute survey also asked how voters perceive Tony Fauci, with just 21 percent of Republicans saying they approve of him. An incredible 75 percent of Democrats, comparatively, just love Fauci.
When it comes to the prospect of kidnapping children from their unvaccinated parents, 29 percent of Democrats say they would be all for a policy like this.
Another question asked how voters feel about Joe Biden’s jab mandate for all employees of companies with 100 or more workers. Just 22 percent of Republicans agree with this, while 78 percent of Democrats say they want Biden to inject workers by force.
Some Democrats are waking up and standing in opposition to covid tyranny
Should the unvaccinated be forced to stay at home using force if necessary? Nearly half of all Democrats said yes to a question along these lines, as well as to one about attaching Mark of the Beast-like tracking devices on the unvaccinated.
“President Biden’s strongest supporters are most likely to endorse the harshest punishments against those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine,” reported the pollster.
“Among voters who have a Very Favorable impression of Biden, 51% are in favor of government putting the unvaccinated in ‘designated facilities,’ and 54% favor imposing fines or prison sentences on vaccine critics.”
Rasmussen emphasized that the near half-and-half division on many of the issues addressed in the poll are the result of “deep partisan divisions” between the “left” and the “right.”
Early on in the plandemic, the push for heavy restrictions mostly came from Democrats and RINOs (Republicans in name only) who supported the status quo being pushed by the likes of Fauci.
President Donald Trump, meanwhile, bucked the trend by recommending a more freedom-based approach to lockdowns, face masks, and the vaccines he helped create through Operation Warp Speed.
Things are beginning to change, though, as even some Democrats are starting to question the constantly shifting narrative coming from government officials.
“After two excruciatingly long years, likely voters are beginning to question the federal government’s handling of the pandemic,” says Chris Talgo, senior editor and research fellow at The Heartland Institute.
“First and foremost, likely voters are beginning to sour on Dr. Anthony Fauci, who seems to have lost credibility after countless flip-flops.”
Talgo went on to explain that nearly half of all Democrats are against Biden’s jab mandates, believing them to be more about expanding the power of the federal government as opposed to stopping the spread of the virus.
The general consensus, Talgo says, is that the federal government should do less – a lot less – not more.
“I won’t pay their fines,” tweeted someone in response to the poll results. “I won’t take their vaxx. I’ll live 100% outlaw if need be. #blackmarketjobspay.”
“New York restaurants now have stricter requirements than what our southern border does,” wrote another. “Reflect on that one for a moment.”
“So Georgia can’t host the MLB All-Star Game, but the CCP can host the Olympics?” added Laura Ingraham, pointing out the hypocrisy of it all.
More of the latest news about Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) tyranny can be found at Fascism.news.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
(Natural News)An investigation by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance (CCCA) has found that Pfizer’s Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine only has an efficacy rate of 0.84 percent. They added that Pfizer’s vaccine has done“more harm than good.”
The CCCA recently published a video and an accompanying 50-page PDF presentation that provides a thorough explanation of their investigation of the recent data released by Pfizer regarding the development and testing of the Big Pharma company’s COVID-19 vaccine.
The video and presentation explain that the CCCA is merely quantifying and contextualizing Pfizer’s claim that taking its COVID-19 vaccine is an act of risk reduction. When the Big Pharma company first unveiled its vaccine to the public, it claimed that it showed 95 percent efficacy seven days after the second dose.
According to the absolute risk reduction value, Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine only has an efficacy rate of 0.84 percent.
In Pfizer’s trials for its COVID-19 vaccine, only eight out of 18,198 vaccinated participants were reported to have developed COVID-19. In the unvaccinated placebo group, 162 out of 18,325 developed COVID-19.
For the untrained eye, this data shows that getting Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine makes a person less likely to contract the virus. But the trial data shows that, even without the vaccine, the risk of contracting coronavirus was “extremely low,” at 0.88 percent for the unvaccinated and 0.04 percent for the vaccinated.
This is where Pfizer got its 95 percent number from. The company took the relative difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.
But when taking all of the trial data into consideration, the actual net benefit, or absolute risk, of taking Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is just 0.84 percent.
“How many people would have chosen to take the COVID-19 vaccines had they understood that they offered less than one percent overall benefit?” asked the CCCA. “It’s clear that Pfizer – and the agencies overseeing their trials – failed to follow established, high-quality safety and efficacy protocols right from the beginning.”
Pfizer vaccine increases the risk of illness
Pfizer’s trial data also proves that getting vaccinated increases a person’s risk of illness.
According to the organization, Pfizer’s six-month trial data showed “level one evidence of harm.” It found that around 91.3 percent of people in the vaccinated group experienced adverse reactions to the experimental vaccine. “There’s no benefit to a reduction in cases if it comes at a cost of increased illness and death,” said the CCCA.
There was a 300 percent increase in the number of adverse events determined to have been caused by the dangerous vaccine in the vaccinated group. Severe adverse events, or side effects that can strongly interfere with a person’s ability to function normally, increased by 75 percent in the vaccinated group.
Furthermore, more people in the vaccinated group died than in the placebo group – 20 to 14.
“Any government that approved this medical intervention for its citizens should have ensured that the trial had used the appropriate clinical endpoints and high-quality safety science,” said the CCCA. “Any government official who possesses this evidence and continues to allow its citizens to be inoculated with a toxic agent is, at the very least, negligent.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
A migrant caravan with roughly 600 migrants headed toward the United States from Honduras was stopped at the Guatemalan border shortly after.
When an estimated 300 of the migrants seeking to illegally immigrate arrived at the Izabal province of Guatemala, law enforcement with “anti-riot” gear was prepared to halt the massive group in their tracks, ABC News reported.
Thirty-six of those migrants were already deported back to Honduras, whereas 10 of them got the green light to continue their trek, the outlet added.
The migrants are now being told to go back to their home countries or stay in the country if they have proper documentation.
The group was mostly comprised of people from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Honduras, according to Border Report.
Migrants will occasionally travel in caravans through Central America in hopes of illegally immigrating to the United States in a way that they perceive to be safer and less expensive than traveling alone or working with smugglers.
Although many of these people may be headed to the U.S. for good reasons, the Guatemalan government was right to prevent the caravan from going any further.
These caravans, primarily because of their sheer size, pose significant health and public safety threats.
First off, there’s a reason why Guatemala is requiring proof of vaccination and a negative COVID-19 test. The principle of mandatory vaccination is obviously flawed, but there is still enough reasonable concern about the spread of the illness to solicit a negative test prior to entry.
There’s no clear vetting process for the people in these caravans, so it’s impossible to know everybody’s background. This leaves the door open for drug trafficking, violence, and numerous other crimes to occur. Guatemala is simply doing its duty to protect its citizens, which in turn will benefit the U.S.
The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol has been overwhelmed with droves of illegal immigrants making their way across the border, which has been met with little action from the Biden administration.
In the 2021 fiscal year, there were over 1.7 million border encounters, according to government data. For the 2022 fiscal year, which includes October and November 2021, there have already been 338,000 encounters, and that does not even factor in the soon-to-be-released December figures.
As the winter months bring cooler yet more bearable weather to Mexico and the American Southwest, it would not be surprising if more caravans form. Hopefully, other governments will take action to process these caravans, discourage them from arriving at the U.S. border, and take the strain off of American forces.
Dr. Meryl Nass has had her license to practice medicine in Maine revoked and will undergo mandatory psychiatric evaluation “for spreading misinformation,” according to the Daily Mail.
Insanity Wrap is pro-vax, not anti-vax, like Dr. Nass. Although to be fair, it’s undeniable that the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines has been oversold, now that they’re talking about second, third, and possibly fourth booster shots.
But it’s also clear that Dr. Nass engaged in some questionable medical practices, including “diagnosing” over the phone and lying on medical records (she admits this), and her patients ended up in the hospital.
Sometimes, gentle reader, the headline doesn’t tell the whole story — the details in the Daily Mail writeup are damning if true, and we humbly suggest you read the whole thing.
The State mandating a psychological evaluation for “spreading misinformation” sounds just too much like something from the last years of the Soviet Union.
When it became politically passé to send dissidents to the GULAG, Soviet authorities under then-Party Chairman Leonid Breshnev tried something new: sending dissidents to insane asylums.
The Party has the best interests of the People in mind, you see, so you’d have to be literally crazy to oppose the Party.
Lock’em up and drug’em up in the dirtiest, foulest asylums imaginable.
Welcome to your kinder, gentler totalitarianism.
Fortunately, we aren’t there — not yet.
It’s true that a neurological evaluation is the only way to tell if Nass is truly suffering from dementia, and whether she’s mentally fit to practice.
Insanity Wrap has no problem with that.
What we do have a problem with is the chilling message sent when the stated reason for Nass’s psych eval is her dissent from the Party line.
It looks to us like just one more banana peel on the slippery slope.
“It gives the jab under the skin or it gets back to rehab again,” fictional serial killer Jame Gumb would have said, had he been on Maine’s medical licensing board.
Nass might be suffering from dementia, but who’s the crazy one here?