Updated: December 26, 2021
From the Pentagon to dining in a restaurant, vaccination is being forced on all with the expectation that there is no question. Leftists want to make lives of the unvaccinated miserable, with news hosts, like Don Lemón, airing the sentiment loud and clear; and nothing seems to stop their self-righteous crusade, not even science.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the four-star general who might as well wear a hazmat suit to quell his fears, is requesting approval from President Biden to force COVID vaccination onto U.S. troops. (Full memo).
Biden has already signaled his support.
“I strongly support Secretary Austin’s message to the Force today on the Department of Defense’s plan to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the list of required vaccinations for our service members not later than mid-September. Secretary Austin and I share an unshakable commitment to making sure our troops have every tool they need to do their jobs as safely as possible. These vaccines will save lives. Period. They are safe. They are effective.”
As with any vaccination or medical requirement, the military may allow medical or religious exemptions, although those are not simple processes. But if one could venture a guess on the increasingly woke Pentagon, what is certain is that they won’t accept a scientific exemption. Failure to comply with the order will result in disciplinary action taken against a soldier failing to comply with orders.
As of December 2021, the military has not approved one of the 12,000 religious exemption requests.
For those who are “just objecting because you’re objecting, once it has become mandatory, that’s a lawful order, and our expectation is that you’re going to obey the order,” Austin said. “Nobody is looking for strong punitive disciplinary measures.”
“There are tools available to commanders short of disciplinary action to try to get soldiers to do the right thing,” Austin added.
The Department of Defense will have “counseling provided to any member of the military who doesn’t want to take it for other reasons than religion or medical. And we’ll talk to them. Their command will talk to them. Medical professionals will talk to them, try to inform and educate, answer any questions that they have.”
According to a study by the Cleveland Clinic Health System, “Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.”
The context within which this study took place is worth quoting in full.
“Observational studies have found very low rates of reinfection among individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection [6–8]. This brings up the question about whether it is necessary to vaccinate previously infected individuals. These studies notwithstanding, there remains a theoretical possibility that the vaccine may still provide some benefit in previously infected persons. A prior large observational study concluded that immunity from natural infection cannot be relied on to provide adequate protection and advocated for vaccination of previously infected individuals . The CDC website recommends that persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 still get the vaccine . Despite these recommendations, credible reports of previously infected persons getting COVID-19 are rare. The rationale often provided for getting the COVID-19 vaccine is that it is safer to get vaccinated than to get the disease. This is certainly true, but it is not an explanation for why people who have already had the disease need to be vaccinated. A strong case for vaccinating previously infected persons can be made if it can be shown that previously infected persons who are vaccinated have a lower incidence of COVID-19 than previously infected persons who did not receive the vaccine.” (Emphasis added).
According to an Israeli study, recovered individuals were infected less than those with 1st and 2nd doses during the study period; however, vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with prior infection showed similar protection against the virus.
“This population-based observational study demonstrates the high efficacy of the BNT162b2 vaccine and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against both subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and other COVID-19–related outcomes.”
In the Courier Journal, Senator and Physician Rand Paul wrote,
“To dictate that a person recovered from COVID-19 with natural immunity also submit to a vaccine — without scientific evidence — is nothing more than hubris. If you have no proof that people who acquired natural immunity are getting or transmitting the disease in real numbers, then perhaps you should just be quiet.”
“People are not getting re-infected in large numbers. And that’s not me saying so, that’s the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, quietly admitting that on its website.
One thing they also admitted, while at first trying to hide it, was that there are no studies showing that getting the vaccine if you already have natural immunity is of any benefit at all. They can’t show that, because it has not yet been studied. It took my friend Congressman Thomas Massie to make them admit this, by the way. They originally denied their own studies on this.”
The “fact-check” against his statements was also published in the Courier Journal. The author acknowledged that the vaccine might be of some benefit to previously infected unvaccinated individuals; however, given the studies provided, that benefit is very minimal. The only rebuttal made in certainty against Sen. Paul’s statements is that “his decision flies in the face of recommendations by the CDC, the WHO, and many public health experts, which say people who’ve previously been infected still should get vaccinated against this dangerous virus.”
If the bar is to follow the “experts’ because they say so, I will instead defer to the science.
When Sen. Paul wrote that the CDC quietly admits the low infection rates on their site, is he right? In May, yes. But there is still much that isn’t known about both reinfection and reactivation.
One November study concluded that:
“The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is difficult to quantify due to the lack of large-scale studies and the lack of antibody and genomic testing from earlier in the pandemic to confirm a true reinfection. Additionally, immunocompromised patients must be assessed for the likelihood of reactivation as opposed to reinfection.
Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 involves antibody responses, but the variable length of protection permits the possibility of reinfection. Given the limitations of current testing modalities and high false-negative rates, additional tests such as genomic comparisons of viral strains involved in both episodes and testing seroconversion prior to the second episode can be useful testing tools in characterizing reinfection. In the current scenario, vaccinations will play a major role as we are exploring more about the reinfection mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Thus, the medical community and the general population should stay aware about reinfection at this time in the pandemic.”
Here’s a more comprehensive list of studies on natural immunity: “15 studies that indicate natural immunity from prior infection is more robust than the COVID vaccines.”
A recent CDC study showed that 74% of individuals infected with COVID in a Massachusetts outbreak were fully vaccinated. 90% of the infected had the “Delta” variant. The study also found that vaccinated people can carry just as much of SARS-CoV-2 in their noses as those who are unvaccinated, therefore spreading it to others.
In their recent reports, Public Health England data show that from June 22nd to August 2nd, there were 2,464 Delta cases in the unvaccinated over-50s and 17,926 in the fully vaccinated over-50s.
According to one rough estimation, “we can estimate the vaccine effectiveness against infection in the over-50s during the Delta surge as 17% (1-[(17,926/88%)/(2,464/10%)]).”
In a first-ever postmortem study of an 86 year old man with a single dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, viral RNA was found in almost all body organs.
“We report on an 86-year-old male resident of a retirement home who received vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Past medical history included systemic arterial hypertension, chronic venous insufficiency, dementia and prostate carcinoma. On January 9, 2021, the man received lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine BNT162b2 in a 30 μg dose. On that day and in the following 2 weeks, he presented with no clinical symptoms (Table 1). On day 18, he was admitted to hospital for worsening diarrhea. Since he did not present with any clinical signs of COVID-19, isolation in a specific setting did not occur. Laboratory testing revealed hypochromic anemia and increased creatinine serum levels. Antigen test and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 were negative.”
The report details the timeline of events: Fifteen days after his first dose, he collapsed; three days later was admitted to the hospital with mild gastritis (inflammation in the lining of the stomach); six days later, because he showed no symptoms of COVID-19, he was not isolated; however, a patient in the same hospital room tested positive for COVID-19; the virus was then transmitted to the elderly man, and he died two days later.”
The report concludes that while the vaccine elicited immunogenicity, sterile immunity was not established. “Immunogenicity is defined as the ability of cells/tissues to provoke an immune response and is generally considered to be an undesirable physiological response.” At the same time, sterile immunity can stop a pathogen, including viruses, from replicating in the body.
It’s inferred that, because viral RNA was found in almost every organ of the body when the man was infected with SARS-CoV-2, it more rapidly spread throughout his body, resulting in his death from “Acute renal and respiratory failure.”
Images of his tissue upon contracting the virus are below:
(The full report can be read here).
One infectious disease specialist from New Jersey is quoted in his response to the autopsy findings:
“People think that only a MINORITY of people get adverse effects from the vaccine.
Based on this new research, it means that everyone – EVENTUALLY -will have adverse effects, because those spike proteins will be binding to ACE2 receptors everywhere in the body.
That mRNA was supposed to stay in the injection site and it’s not. That means the spike proteins created by the mRNA will be in every organ as well, and we now know it is the spike proteins that do the damage.
Worse, the viral RNA being found in every organ despite a vaccine, indicates either:
1) The vaccine doesn’t work at all, OR;
2) The virus is enjoying Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), meaning it actually spreads FASTER in vaccinated people.
This is a GLOBAL TIMEBOMB.”
Dr. Byram Bridle, an Associate Professor on Viral Immunology at the University of Guelph, also expresses caution about the spike protein. He describes why heart inflammation, blood clots, and other dangerous side effects occur, suggesting the potential that the spike protein found in the SARS-CoV-2 virus and thereby used in the vaccines, when studied on its own, “is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system.”
But first, what is the spike protein?
“The SARS-CoV-2 has a spike protein on its surface,” Dr. Bridle explains. “That spike protein is what allows it [the virus] to infect our bodies. That is why we’ve been using the spike protein in our vaccines. The vaccines we’re using get our cells in our body to manufacture that protein; if we can mount an immune response to that protein, in theory, we can prevent the virus from infecting the body. That’s the theory,” he adds.
The issue, however, is that “when studying the disease, severe COVID-19, everything that you just described—heart problems, lots of problems with the cardiovascular system, bleeding and clotting—is all associated with severe COVID-19. And doing that research, what has been discovered by the scientific community is that the spike protein on its own is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system.”
There is a website dedicated to rebutting Dr. Bridle’s claims, and it’s encouraged to look the opposing side over; however, at the top of the list is the claim that spike proteins do not exist in the mRNA vaccines. This is a lie. The CDC itself admits the spike protein is in the vaccines.
Skepticism & Big Pharma
When discussing “misinformation,” we must investigate where the “fact-checkers” themselves are receiving their information.
When Reuters pens a “fact-check” against PHE data that we cited earlier, with one-two point “corrections” in their numbers, it would be convenient to note how the journalistic integrity of the publication is at stake; and therefore, its devotion to truth is not without compromise.
Jim Smith, Former President and CEO of Reuters and now Chairman of the Thomas Reuters Foundation is also a board member at Pfizer. He is also a member of the “International Business Council of the World Economic Forum.”
The “Trusted News Initiative” was launched in the Summer of 2019 as a project designed to combat disinformation around presidential elections worldwide. Recently, it seeks to combat disinformation surrounding COVID vaccines. In other words, this is a project devised to control narratives.
Trusted News Initiative Director Jessica Cecil wrote in a blog,
“A year ago the BBC convened partners across the world in an urgent challenge: at times of highest jeopardy, when elections or lives are at stake, we asked, is there a way that the world’s biggest tech platforms – from Google, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram to Twitter and Microsoft and major news organisations and others – from the European Broadcasting Union, the Wall Street Journal and The Hindu to Reuters, AFP, The Financial Times, CBC/Radio-Canada, First Draft, The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism – can alert each other to the most dangerous false stories, and stop them spreading fast across the internet, preventing them from doing real world harm?
“We have been sharing alerts over Covid-19, and before that, over falsities which posed a threat to democratic integrity during the UK and Taiwan Elections. And now we are sharing alerts over the most serious disinformation in two very different elections – in the US and in Myanmar. And because different news organisations are most relevant in different regions, we are working with a wide and expanding group of publishers. In the US we are also working with the Washington Post, AP and the LA Times.”
According to a report, organizations and outlets considered “partners” of the TNI include:
AFP; BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft, Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Wall Street Journal.
According to BBC Media Center, in December 2020, Jamie Angus, Director of BBC World Service Group, spoke at the World Press Freedom Conference. “Jamie Angus confirmed that the BBC World Service Group will fund new research, led by led by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism working with First Draft. It will examine the effectiveness of different interventions which seek to educate audiences and prevent the spread of health disinformation.”
Angus said: “The vital role of providing trusted and independent news about public health has helped to save lives during the pandemic. The BBC’s disinformation and health teams are already leading the way in countering dangerous disinformation which puts public health at risk – and this will remain paramount as vaccinations are rolled out globally.
“The research project we launch today, supported by the Trusted News Initiative partners, takes place against this background and will provide a deeper understanding of the interventions that fight misinformation.”
There is irony when using “independent” to describe an initiative designed to suppress oppositional scientific data by construing it as ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation.’ For all of the talk about how “science is uncertain” and “constantly changing”—phrases invoked to justify the so-called experts’ constant flip-flopping on issues—it does not seem scientifically integral to combat the information that doesn’t agree with or shows countervailing evidence to one established narrative.
When it comes to FDA approval, it’s convenient that former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb resigned in March to join Pfizer’s board of directors and appointed to the boards regulatory and compliance and science and technology committees. This obviously prompted some criticism.
These organizations work very hard, not to discover or investigate the concerns of many, but to push governments, tech companies, politicians, medical institutions, and even small businesses, to tow the line on opposing self-perceived threats. All in the name of ‘saving lives.’ If only they strived to save lives with the reciprocal degree of fervor that they invade them.
Only Patrons can comment on articles.