The shift in narrative is simply a renewed push for boosters. "Sadly, your old shots may not protect you as well as these totally awesome new shots that you need now."
Which is a fascinating bit of denial of logic given that only the most recent booster is different from the original drugs. Up to now, it was more of the same stuff.
ETS/College Board just required me to send vax card so I will be eligible to live score AP exams in June 2023. Absolutely ridiculous. I got my shots Feb/March 2021 and was a true believer and a scared little lamb. So much so that I got a booster in Sept. 2021. My adult son got his booster Nov 2021. Then we both got Omicron Jan 2022. I do NOT believe as my doctor does that I was spared hospitalization because I was vaccinated. Total BS. NEVER AGAIN. We both have enjoyed natural immunity for 11 months now and THAT actually works.
The "it would have been worse" claim is a handy argument as it is impossible to prove or disprove as we don't have the "when I wasn't" comparison. Especially in the US where the vast majority are vaccinated, so that even a population statistical study is sketchy.
I've tried the argument using data form places that did not go over the top nuts with lockdowns and vaccine mandates. The problem is those countries have much lower populations. The "well that's not here" is hard to dispute. And thus we don't have a control group - the entire US (except for 4 states) did essentially the same things.
I celebrate the fact that he's gone. I began writing in March 2020 the same things the Great Barrington Declaration proclaimed. In fact, we knew for more than a century what to do and did the opposite. I blame Trump for submitting to bullying by Democrats only interested in making things as bad as possible for Americans so that they could rid themselves of Trump. That's cowardice and non-feasance of office.
"This doomsday model overestimated American deaths by 525%...the CDC was forced to admit that only 6% (!) of covid deaths occurred in entirely healthy individuals..."
So, in fact, the "experts" overestimated the death by COVID (alone) by at least 525%/6%, or 8750%, because the implication with the original estimate given by Ferguson was that the number of deaths was not a function of comorbidity, rather strictly death due to the novel coronavirus.
They're all lying SoB's who deserve the severest retribution - which at this point would be, in the highest sense of justice, injecting them with mRNA spike protein concoctions of various toxicity to see how quickly and painfully they succumb to their man-made pathogens.
Fauci will not appear before a Republican-controlled committee so long as there is a Democratic President. Congress has only the Sergeant at Arms to compel appearance by subpoena. The Department of Justice (Merrick Garland) must deliver and enforce the subpoena. Under Obama, Eric Holder refused ever to deliver a subpoena originating in a Republican-controlled committee, and I suspect Garland will be at least equally reluctant. He presides over a fully politicized Department.
For some reason, I can’t provide the link to this from todays WP article, one among many. This is the rest of hThe story regarding deaths of vaccinated individuals
“At this point in the pandemic, a large majority of Americans have received at least their primary series of coronavirus vaccines, so it makes sense that vaccinated people are making up a greater share of fatalities.
Individuals at greatest risk of dying from a coronavirus infection, such as the elderly, are also more likely to have received the shots.
Vaccines lose potency against the virus over time and variants arise that are better able to resist the vaccines, so continued boosters are needed to continue to prevent illness and death.”
And
“
Let’s take a look at deaths in August, when the highly contagious BA.5 variant reached its peak:
That month, unvaccinated people aged 6 months and older died at about six times the rate of those who had received their primary series of shots.
People with one booster dose were even better protected. Unvaccinated people over the age of 5 had about 8 times the risk of dying from a coronavirus infection than those who received a booster shot.
Among individuals who were eligible to receive additional booster shots, the gap is even more striking. Unvaccinated people 50 and up had 12 times the risk of dying from covid-19 than adults the same age with two or more booster doses.”
Interesting. Makes sense. And yet it still serves as a spectacularly bad endorsement of the "vaccines," which not only fail to prevent transmission, but are so ineffective as to require recurring "boosters."
Vaccinated people shouldn't be dying from covid. That's the point.
No vaccine is 100% effective against infection and/or death. I distinctly recall CDC repeating this about the Covid vaccines. Being older than 50, I’m 12 times less likely of dying than unvaccinated folks my age. It’s not that surprising to me that vaccine efficacy wanes over time...especially given the nature of this virus and it’s variants. Although not 100%, the first doses were protective against the more deadly delta variant, but less so against the B variants. The flu vaccines also wane over time, in part due to emerging variants. I dont necessarily see anything nefarious in this. I think it’s a risk/benefit issue. For me it seems obvious.
Name another "vaccine" that requires a booster every couple of months.
"I distinctly recall CDC repeating this about the Covid vaccines." You're joking, right? I've written extensively about this. The CDC parroted what the FDA said, and what the FDA promised was 91% efficacy for the Pfizer vaccine, 93% efficacy for the Moderna vaccine.
You don't seem to understand that the entire premise of the vaccine mandate - preventing transmission - was based on a lie, and that hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs because of it. Nor do you seem to understand how grossly unethical it is to promote deeply divisive policies requiring forced acquiescence to the permanency of recurring, compulsory injections by decrees justified with constantly shifting and contradictory criteria. To say nothing of the fact that the vaccines are anything but what they were sold as.
If you're satisfied with the efficacy of the vaccine and feel you've conducted an appropriate cost-benefit analysis and want to get recurring jabs, that's your prerogative. But you don't force others to do the same, and you sure as hell don't perpetrate vaccine apartheid based on overtly fraudulent pretenses.
The flu vaccines. Efficacy was never touted as 100 percent, as you state. Nor does it imply duration. While they hoped the vaccines durability would last longer, they hoped it’d become a yearly jab, I don’t recall them saying the knew for certain it would last that long. I also recall they hoped that with enough people vaccinated, it would not have the chance to mutate. I’m not second guessing your understanding of anything. You have a right to question and form opinions. However, I can believe immunology is a complex field of science and they have yet to understanding the key(s) to durability. I’m just grateful for those researching this field.
Here’s just one of many pieces on this that helps form my opinion.
The flu vaccines do not require a booster every couple of months. I also didn't state the vaccines were touted as 100% effective. If the flu mutates, why wouldn't the coronavirus? Moreover, duration shouldn't be implied at all. There should be transparency. Instead, there were lies. Even now, they continue to lie.
“We can prevent every covid death in America if everyone gets vaccinated and boosted.”
I appreciate the discussion. Have a happy Thanksgiving.
Much of the hate and anger at the unclean arose out of being told that your shots don't work unless everyone around also got their shots. This is stupid on its face, of course, but a lot of people bought into it, especially proggies since this gave them another reason to hate non-proggies. others. Apparently, a lot of people and institutions still believe that unvaccinated people are a danger to vaccinated people. OR unboosted or whatever.
So, I read the Science article cited above. The concluding paragraph contains this tidbit:
"CDC estimates that the virus sickened nearly 40 million people, hospitalized half a million, and killed up to 50,000. Neither Stanley Plotkin nor his wife developed the disease."
Typical "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy (after the fact, therefore because of the fact). I did not contract the disease, either, and I did not take a flu shot. So, this leaves us with the logical conclusion that one cannot determine whether or not one will contract the flu simply by knowing whether or not the individual had a flu shot, boosters, etc. Yet, again, the reader is drawn to accept the claim that the flu shot booster prevented the protagonists in the article from getting sick of the flu.
This is some of the false cause stuff that these skewed statistics I mentioned earlier lead the non-discerning public to accept the author's conclusion. Not biting...especially when it comes to gene therapy. I'll take my chances with my natural immunity - I have strong anecdotal evidence that this works for me and my wife (we're still alive and quite healthy).
One point I'll submit for consideration here in this thread is the notable fact that these statistics being referenced by the poster Ann22, the 6x / 12x death rate, etc., are highly manipulated stats provided by CDC or other govt. entities intended to coerce more individuals to take the experimental gene therapy injections (not vaccines at all). Unless we know what "unvaccinated" and "vaccinated" and other terms actually mean definitively, we cannot draw any logical or reasoned conclusions from them. This is the logical error being committed by Ann22 and by many, many others.
What this entire episode has taught me is that, once again, government "experts" are, for the larger part, captured organizations with their stated objectives being secondary to the primary goal of aggrandizing themselves and their benefactors. This attracts, not the best in the field of activity, but rather the grifters and charlatans among them who don't mind using their skills in ways that would be held to be criminal in the private sector. Fauci, Collins, and Walensky are perfect examples of this - I say, how much better is "public health" under the guardianship of these "public servants?" These crooks even had to change their "official" definition of a "vaccine" to accommodate the ineffectiveness of the gene therapy shots.
Anyway, back to the subject: these statistics being used to support Ann22's perspective cannot be trusted - but there is a statistic that CAN be trusted: excess all-cause mortality, as reported by life insurance companies, has risen appreciably since the introduction of the mRNA gene therapy shots - see, it's hard to hide or cover up dead bodies when that death has a price on its head (i.e., a life insurance policy) which is derived from actuarial data and not by captured organizations. As for the vaccinated/unvaccinated death statistics, I don't believe anything the CDC, FDA, NIAID, or any other government alphabet soup agency publishes - they have been proven time and again to be liars, equivocators, and worse, totally unworthy of any public trust.
There's a difference in "doesn't work for all people" and a non-sterilizing vaccine that fails to produce immunity in the majority of people. We can explain the increase in serious complications and deaths of the vaccinated by vaccine uptake rate, but it still illustrates the so-called vaccine is not immunizing people against COVID.
The shift in narrative is simply a renewed push for boosters. "Sadly, your old shots may not protect you as well as these totally awesome new shots that you need now."
Fauci for prison!
Right behind you……….
Which is a fascinating bit of denial of logic given that only the most recent booster is different from the original drugs. Up to now, it was more of the same stuff.
ETS/College Board just required me to send vax card so I will be eligible to live score AP exams in June 2023. Absolutely ridiculous. I got my shots Feb/March 2021 and was a true believer and a scared little lamb. So much so that I got a booster in Sept. 2021. My adult son got his booster Nov 2021. Then we both got Omicron Jan 2022. I do NOT believe as my doctor does that I was spared hospitalization because I was vaccinated. Total BS. NEVER AGAIN. We both have enjoyed natural immunity for 11 months now and THAT actually works.
The "it would have been worse" claim is a handy argument as it is impossible to prove or disprove as we don't have the "when I wasn't" comparison. Especially in the US where the vast majority are vaccinated, so that even a population statistical study is sketchy.
I've tried the argument using data form places that did not go over the top nuts with lockdowns and vaccine mandates. The problem is those countries have much lower populations. The "well that's not here" is hard to dispute. And thus we don't have a control group - the entire US (except for 4 states) did essentially the same things.
I celebrate the fact that he's gone. I began writing in March 2020 the same things the Great Barrington Declaration proclaimed. In fact, we knew for more than a century what to do and did the opposite. I blame Trump for submitting to bullying by Democrats only interested in making things as bad as possible for Americans so that they could rid themselves of Trump. That's cowardice and non-feasance of office.
"This doomsday model overestimated American deaths by 525%...the CDC was forced to admit that only 6% (!) of covid deaths occurred in entirely healthy individuals..."
So, in fact, the "experts" overestimated the death by COVID (alone) by at least 525%/6%, or 8750%, because the implication with the original estimate given by Ferguson was that the number of deaths was not a function of comorbidity, rather strictly death due to the novel coronavirus.
They're all lying SoB's who deserve the severest retribution - which at this point would be, in the highest sense of justice, injecting them with mRNA spike protein concoctions of various toxicity to see how quickly and painfully they succumb to their man-made pathogens.
You make a pretty strong case for celebrating Fauci's retirement ;-).
(not Fauci, but his departure)
Fauci will not appear before a Republican-controlled committee so long as there is a Democratic President. Congress has only the Sergeant at Arms to compel appearance by subpoena. The Department of Justice (Merrick Garland) must deliver and enforce the subpoena. Under Obama, Eric Holder refused ever to deliver a subpoena originating in a Republican-controlled committee, and I suspect Garland will be at least equally reluctant. He presides over a fully politicized Department.
Even when Garland is gone, don't expect DoJ to change. It was as corrupt during all of Trump's term. Just an observation.
For some reason, I can’t provide the link to this from todays WP article, one among many. This is the rest of hThe story regarding deaths of vaccinated individuals
“At this point in the pandemic, a large majority of Americans have received at least their primary series of coronavirus vaccines, so it makes sense that vaccinated people are making up a greater share of fatalities.
Individuals at greatest risk of dying from a coronavirus infection, such as the elderly, are also more likely to have received the shots.
Vaccines lose potency against the virus over time and variants arise that are better able to resist the vaccines, so continued boosters are needed to continue to prevent illness and death.”
And
“
Let’s take a look at deaths in August, when the highly contagious BA.5 variant reached its peak:
That month, unvaccinated people aged 6 months and older died at about six times the rate of those who had received their primary series of shots.
People with one booster dose were even better protected. Unvaccinated people over the age of 5 had about 8 times the risk of dying from a coronavirus infection than those who received a booster shot.
Among individuals who were eligible to receive additional booster shots, the gap is even more striking. Unvaccinated people 50 and up had 12 times the risk of dying from covid-19 than adults the same age with two or more booster doses.”
Interesting. Makes sense. And yet it still serves as a spectacularly bad endorsement of the "vaccines," which not only fail to prevent transmission, but are so ineffective as to require recurring "boosters."
Vaccinated people shouldn't be dying from covid. That's the point.
No vaccine is 100% effective against infection and/or death. I distinctly recall CDC repeating this about the Covid vaccines. Being older than 50, I’m 12 times less likely of dying than unvaccinated folks my age. It’s not that surprising to me that vaccine efficacy wanes over time...especially given the nature of this virus and it’s variants. Although not 100%, the first doses were protective against the more deadly delta variant, but less so against the B variants. The flu vaccines also wane over time, in part due to emerging variants. I dont necessarily see anything nefarious in this. I think it’s a risk/benefit issue. For me it seems obvious.
Name another "vaccine" that requires a booster every couple of months.
"I distinctly recall CDC repeating this about the Covid vaccines." You're joking, right? I've written extensively about this. The CDC parroted what the FDA said, and what the FDA promised was 91% efficacy for the Pfizer vaccine, 93% efficacy for the Moderna vaccine.
You don't seem to understand that the entire premise of the vaccine mandate - preventing transmission - was based on a lie, and that hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs because of it. Nor do you seem to understand how grossly unethical it is to promote deeply divisive policies requiring forced acquiescence to the permanency of recurring, compulsory injections by decrees justified with constantly shifting and contradictory criteria. To say nothing of the fact that the vaccines are anything but what they were sold as.
If you're satisfied with the efficacy of the vaccine and feel you've conducted an appropriate cost-benefit analysis and want to get recurring jabs, that's your prerogative. But you don't force others to do the same, and you sure as hell don't perpetrate vaccine apartheid based on overtly fraudulent pretenses.
The flu vaccines. Efficacy was never touted as 100 percent, as you state. Nor does it imply duration. While they hoped the vaccines durability would last longer, they hoped it’d become a yearly jab, I don’t recall them saying the knew for certain it would last that long. I also recall they hoped that with enough people vaccinated, it would not have the chance to mutate. I’m not second guessing your understanding of anything. You have a right to question and form opinions. However, I can believe immunology is a complex field of science and they have yet to understanding the key(s) to durability. I’m just grateful for those researching this field.
Here’s just one of many pieces on this that helps form my opinion.
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-long-do-vaccines-last-surprising-answers-may-help-protect-people-longer
That’s all I have to add to the argument. I do sincerely wish you a happy Thanksgiving day!
The flu vaccines do not require a booster every couple of months. I also didn't state the vaccines were touted as 100% effective. If the flu mutates, why wouldn't the coronavirus? Moreover, duration shouldn't be implied at all. There should be transparency. Instead, there were lies. Even now, they continue to lie.
“We can prevent every covid death in America if everyone gets vaccinated and boosted.”
I appreciate the discussion. Have a happy Thanksgiving.
Much of the hate and anger at the unclean arose out of being told that your shots don't work unless everyone around also got their shots. This is stupid on its face, of course, but a lot of people bought into it, especially proggies since this gave them another reason to hate non-proggies. others. Apparently, a lot of people and institutions still believe that unvaccinated people are a danger to vaccinated people. OR unboosted or whatever.
So, I read the Science article cited above. The concluding paragraph contains this tidbit:
"CDC estimates that the virus sickened nearly 40 million people, hospitalized half a million, and killed up to 50,000. Neither Stanley Plotkin nor his wife developed the disease."
Typical "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy (after the fact, therefore because of the fact). I did not contract the disease, either, and I did not take a flu shot. So, this leaves us with the logical conclusion that one cannot determine whether or not one will contract the flu simply by knowing whether or not the individual had a flu shot, boosters, etc. Yet, again, the reader is drawn to accept the claim that the flu shot booster prevented the protagonists in the article from getting sick of the flu.
This is some of the false cause stuff that these skewed statistics I mentioned earlier lead the non-discerning public to accept the author's conclusion. Not biting...especially when it comes to gene therapy. I'll take my chances with my natural immunity - I have strong anecdotal evidence that this works for me and my wife (we're still alive and quite healthy).
One point I'll submit for consideration here in this thread is the notable fact that these statistics being referenced by the poster Ann22, the 6x / 12x death rate, etc., are highly manipulated stats provided by CDC or other govt. entities intended to coerce more individuals to take the experimental gene therapy injections (not vaccines at all). Unless we know what "unvaccinated" and "vaccinated" and other terms actually mean definitively, we cannot draw any logical or reasoned conclusions from them. This is the logical error being committed by Ann22 and by many, many others.
What this entire episode has taught me is that, once again, government "experts" are, for the larger part, captured organizations with their stated objectives being secondary to the primary goal of aggrandizing themselves and their benefactors. This attracts, not the best in the field of activity, but rather the grifters and charlatans among them who don't mind using their skills in ways that would be held to be criminal in the private sector. Fauci, Collins, and Walensky are perfect examples of this - I say, how much better is "public health" under the guardianship of these "public servants?" These crooks even had to change their "official" definition of a "vaccine" to accommodate the ineffectiveness of the gene therapy shots.
Anyway, back to the subject: these statistics being used to support Ann22's perspective cannot be trusted - but there is a statistic that CAN be trusted: excess all-cause mortality, as reported by life insurance companies, has risen appreciably since the introduction of the mRNA gene therapy shots - see, it's hard to hide or cover up dead bodies when that death has a price on its head (i.e., a life insurance policy) which is derived from actuarial data and not by captured organizations. As for the vaccinated/unvaccinated death statistics, I don't believe anything the CDC, FDA, NIAID, or any other government alphabet soup agency publishes - they have been proven time and again to be liars, equivocators, and worse, totally unworthy of any public trust.
There's a difference in "doesn't work for all people" and a non-sterilizing vaccine that fails to produce immunity in the majority of people. We can explain the increase in serious complications and deaths of the vaccinated by vaccine uptake rate, but it still illustrates the so-called vaccine is not immunizing people against COVID.