Contradictions Gone Viral

Contradictions Gone Viral
AP Photo/Ringo H.W. Chiu

The controversy over the efficacy and safety of the COVID vaccines and boosters, and the validity of vaccine passports, seems only to have grown more pronounced and, indeed, more vehement with every passing week. The apologists for the vaccines—political leaders, medical “experts” (usually government-affiliated), the media and the punditocracy—have deposed that everyone must be vaccinated, unleashing an army of “fact-checkers” to torpedo any dissident argument and call the credentials and bona fides of highly accredited objectors into question, that is, when they are not being summarily censored.

The legacy press, as to be expected, is busy advancing the staple narrative of the official echelons. There are very few exceptions. I have just come across a particularly egregious and representative sample of such sanctimonious special pleading by Jonathan Kay in Canada’s National Post, worth attending to as an example of hack opportunism to be met with almost everywhere in the mainstream media. The moving finger writes, but in the case of the majority of journalists, only after it has gauged the direction of the wind.

As for our politicians and public health bureaucracies, they have put all their eggs in the mRNA vaccine basket and are now incapable of responding honestly to the bankruptcy of their policies. Their only strategy is to double down on their failure and persist in terrifying a gullible citizenry. Maintaining authority, the perks of office and reputation are powerful incentives. Notwithstanding, contradictions continue to poke holes in the consensus of what passes for official—and much public—unanimity. 

We are told that booster shots, which are coming thick and fast, are fail-safe supplements to counter the proliferation of variants. That these variants seem to have no trouble escaping the orbit of the recommended antidotes does not trouble the equanimity of our so-called “experts.” A recent report states that “An international group of vaccine experts, including officials from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and World Health Organization (WHO), said that there is no evidence to suggest that the general population needs COVID-19 vaccine booster shots.” Yet they keep coming and the variants keep humming along.

The Mayo Clinic and the CDC expediently changed their definition of vaccination from “produce immunity” to “produce protection,” essentially, from controlling the disease to reducing its symptoms. Apparently, the vaccine train and its caboose of booster shots looked as if it were beginning to run off the rails, requiring the gambit of shunting to another track. In any event, the destination is likely unattainable.

It is now becoming increasingly evident that the CFR (case fatality rate), used to justify the draconian response of our governments and medical consortium to the disease, was nothing more than a fabrication. We know that the effects of comorbidities and all manner of accidental phenomena were bundled into the official audit to dramatically raise the count. Recent studies reveal that COVID death counts and hospitalization rates were inflated by a “factor of two.” In effect, false attributions abounded. Sucharit Bhakdi, formerly director of the microbiology faculty at the University of Mainz, shows how the game was rigged. The “factor of two,” incidentally, may have been a low estimate. I was informed by a senior nurse in a position of responsibility that the ratio was more likely a factor of ten.

Moreover, the immunity conferred by recovering from COVID-19 is far better than the protection afforded by COVID-19 vaccines. An August 25 study from Israel found “that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2”. Similarly, mRNA vaccine inventor Dr. Robert Malone finds that natural immunity of recovering COVID patients is superior to the supposed benefits of the vaccines. “There’s also evidence,” he says, “that there’s a significant—depending on the timeframe—six-to 20-fold improvement in protection from infection and disease associated with the natural immunity acquired from prior infection compared to that conferred by the vaccine.” The public, however, has been induced to think otherwise.

The hospital has become a new battlefield in the war for enforced vaccination. Ellie Reynolds at The Federalist fears that hospital care may be denied to the unvaccinated and sensibly warns that “the panic pornographers are trying to tyrannize you. Resist it now, before journalists’ theoretical thinkpieces become hospital policy.” 

The ethics of coerced injections resulting in vaccine passports has been dismissed from consideration. The “vaxxports” now being introduced by many governments have been called discriminatory, polarizing and totalitarian, deeply destructive of societal coherence, let alone national unity. A majority of those embracing the government edicts seem willing to banish the significant minority of the unvaccinated into outer darkness. Stephen Kruiser at PJ Media refers, with some justificstion, to the self-elected “moral” zealots as “Mask/Vaccine Nazis.” But skepticism appears warranted considering the contradictions that have seriously punctured the official narrative. 

On August 22, an open letter by the COVID19 Assembly signed by 124 medical professionals, was sent to U.K. government authorities contesting official COVID policies based on flawed assumptions, undeniable failures and the shutting down of debate. “The pandemic response policies implemented,” the signatories assert, “have caused massive, permanent and unnecessary harm to our nation, and must never be repeated.” They isolate the enormous and unforgiveable errors inflicted by the ostensible guardians of public health, including the harms of lockdown policies, the institutional nature of the disease (“care home residents comprised around half of all deaths, despite making up less than 1% of the population”), the exaggerated nature of the threat, the suppression of successful early treatment, use of behavioural science to generate fear, an invalid COVID-zero protocol, the omission of critical information and “over-reliance on modeling while ignoring real-world data,” among other administrative practices.

The letter appears to have struck home. As The Epoch Times reports, England is dropping vaccine passports and “is expected to repeal some powers from the Coronavirus Act, so that the government will no longer have the powers to shut down the economy, apply restrictions to events and gatherings, disrupt education, extend time limits for urgent warrants, or detain infectious people.” The government may have belatedly understood that the repressive COVID policies it had imposed upon the public did not merit continuation.

Ultimately, enforced vaccination against COVID may have been the greatest mistake of this generation, an instance of what is called “imperfect vaccine hypothesis.” Molecular biologist James Bull of the University of Texas is unsure of the efficacy of the COVID vaccines, wondering if they merely reduce symptoms, protect patients from infection, or result in transmitting the virus. The issue is crucial. For the COVID injections are not “perfect vaccines.” They have been shown to be “leaky,” creating a breeding ground for escaped variants and enabling the disease to replicate and “shed” to other individuals. Breakthrough cases” and associated viral transmission are a reality and have been well-documented. Most alarmingly, the New Zealand tracking system reports more deaths from the vaccines than from COVID since 2020. As J.D. Rucker writes, “Covid-19 deaths are invariably inflated in most countries while vaccine death numbers are always underreported…it’s certain the vaccine death numbers are much, much higher.”

Nonetheless, the authorities in many jurisdictions insist on legislating an illusion. To take just one example from a myriad, the premier of the province of British Columbia where I reside, John Horgan, claims that “94% of recent COVID-19 cases were among those not fully vaccinated.” Interestingly, the phrase “not fully vaccinated” is an admission that the original injections, supposedly proof against COVID, were insufficient, suggesting that the following jabs may be equally inadequate. More to the point, in the light of dispositive data the claim is mere hogwash, a fiction intended to sustain a disingenuous “chronicle of the plague year.” An open letter from an association of health professionals to the premier and his ministers exposes the flagrant incompetence and possible breach of trust of the provincial government.

Horgan and his congeners would do better to listen to someone who knows something. Andrew Pollard, one of the developers of the AstraZeneca vaccine, warned that the virus will generate “a variant which is perhaps even better at transmitting in vaccinated populations [and which is] even more of a reason not to be making a vaccine program around herd immunity” (italics mine). A study in PLOS Biology states that “imperfect vaccines can enhance the transmission of highly virulent pathogens.” Studies of Marek’s disease in chickens show how some vaccines can become “virus-boosting” agents. The phenomenon is not confined to the avian population. Malaria vaccines are also leaky.

Of course, one must know which organizations to trust in forming one’s opinions. The Marxist ACLU is not one of them. We can see the deceptions and false logic at work in an ACLU editorial regarding the vaccines. It claims that the right of bodily integrity does not permit one to cause harm to others, yet the majority vaccinated are supposed to be, well, vaccinated. Why would the vaccinated need to be protected from the unvaccinated—unless we have a tacit admission that the vaccines are ineffective? Indeed, cases keep rising among the presumably immune in heavily vaccinated countries like Israel, Gibraltar, Iceland, and others, as well as in states like Vermont. Further, if “do no harm to others” is the watchword, then one should not demand of the unvaccinated to accept a demonstrably leaky, inadequately tested, and potentially harmful vaccine into their bodies.

The question of “harm” is pivotal in another sense as well. The harm the vaccinated may cause is also “potential.” There is no way of determining and calculating “potential harm,” and punishing people for committing an ostensible anti-social act, in the absence of observable data, which is not the case with vaccines whose adverse effects are known.

The document argues that the disease is “often lethal”; the statistics, as the COVID19 Assembly of concerned physicians and others know, show otherwise; the survival rate for all age cohorts is in the high 90 percent range. It argues that no other treatments are available—patently false. It claims that the vaccines pose no threat, but we know that adverse reactions and deaths are grossly under-tracked in passive, voluntary sites like VAERS and Yellow Card. The New Zealand data (above) is a genuine cause for concern.

The author asserts that vaccines safeguard teachers, doctors and nurses, yet teachers have nothing to fear from children, and healthcare workers in many places are objecting to forced injections and resigning from their jobs. The editorial equates gene therapy vaccines (“imperfect”) with normative vaccines (“perfect”), thus irresponsibly clouding the issue to the detriment of the public. And the citations it references in a bordereau of sham declaratives are contestable in the extreme and have been discredited by the best professionals in the field. The document must be read not to be believed.

All of which leads one to speculate. If the vaccines are leaky and transmit the virus to unimmunized people, should the unvaccinated undergo the jab a.s.a.p. in order to defend themselves against the already vaccinated? Is it the vaccinated we really need to fear, not the unvaccinated?

Or if the vaccines do not immunize but only “protect” or reduce the strength of symptoms, then the vaccinated still remain prone to the onset of viral mutations via, for example, a condition known as ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement), as viruses adapt to the vaccines and find ever new ways to circumvent them, thus the alphabetical blizzard of variants.

If either or both of these contingencies are possible, the only escape from the specter of COVID morbidity is to refrain from the use of leaky vaccines entirely. Far more benign, “standard of care” therapies are available, such as exercise, good hygiene, weight reduction for the obese, vitamin D3, vitamin C, quercetin, zinc, aspirin, and ivermectin and HCQ where available. 

The COVID narrative is beginning to fall apart and we would do well to resist its sanctioned prevalence and the outright and insidious lies it has fostered and continues to affirm. The discrepancies have become too blatant to safely ignore, as have the bad faith and ignorance of their purveyors. Caveat emptor.