Covid-19 is "man-made" - The statistical proof

Right from the beginning, there was very little doubt that Covid-19 was created in a laboratory. The only challenge was to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt considering the Chinese efforts to obfuscate and prevent the truth from coming out.

Circumstantial evidences were overwhelming from the beginning but could never be corroborated scientifically since the Chinese immediately put the P4 Wuhan Laboratory under military supervision which first decision was to destroy all incriminating samples.     

One year on, if we ignore the WHO current pantomime in China, the only option left to understand the origin of the virus is therefore statistical as explained in the article bellow. (The full scientific work can be accessed in the first link.)

A new COVID-19 study concludes there is a "99.8% probability SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory."

The 193-page paper published January 29th is titled "A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived."

"The purpose of the analysis was to determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Beginning with a likelihood of 98.2% that it was a zoonotic jump from nature with only a 1.2% probability it was a laboratory escape, twenty-six different, independent facts and evidence were examined systematically. The final conclusion is that it is a 99.8% probability SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory and only a 0.2% likelihood it came from nature," a summary notes.

The author, Dr. Steven Quay, has 360+ published medical studies and has been cited over 10,000 times, placing him in the top one percent of scientists worldwide.

What's more, he holds nearly 90 US patents and has invented seven FDA-approved pharmaceuticals.

"By taking only publicly available, scientific evidence about SARS-CoV-2 and using highly conservative estimates in my analysis, I nonetheless conclude that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a laboratory. The additional evidence of what appears to be adenovirus vaccine genetic sequences in specimens from five patients from December 2019 and sequenced by the Wuhan Institute of Virology requires an explanation. You would see this kind of data in a vaccine challenge trial, for example. Hopefully the WHO team can get answers to these questions," he adds.

 

The end of freedom as we knew it!

Make no mistake, where America is going, the rest of the world will follow. As Pericles reminded us: "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it!" We didn't, we lost it!

Would You Be Considered A Domestic Terrorist Under This New Bill?

by Tyler Durden

Friday, Jan 29, 2021 - 22:40

Authored by Robert Wheeler via The Organic Prepper blog,

After 9/11, the entire country collectively lost its mind in the throes of fear. During that time, all civil and Constitutional rights were shredded and replaced with the pages of The USA PATRIOT Act.

Almost 20 years later, the U.S. has again lost its collective mind, this time in fear of a “virus” and it’s “super mutations” and a “riot” at the capitol. A lot of people called this and to the surprise of very few, much like after 9/11, Americans are watching what remains of their civil liberties be replaced with a new bill.

The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021

The DTPA is essentially the criminalization of speech, expression, and thought. It takes cancel culture a step further and all but outlaws unpopular opinions. This act will empower intelligence, law enforcement, and even military wings of the American ruling class to crack down on individuals adhering to certain belief systems and ideologies.

According to MI Congressman Fred Upton: 

“The attack on the U.S. Capitol earlier this month was the latest example of domestic terrorism, but the threat of domestic terrorism remains very real. We cannot turn a blind eye to it,” Upton said. “The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act will equip our law enforcement leaders with the tools needed to help keep our homes, families, and communities across the country safe.

Congressman Upton’s website gives the following information on DTPA:

The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021 would strengthen the federal government’s efforts to prevent, report on, respond to, and investigate acts of domestic terrorism by authorizing offices dedicated to combating this threat; requiring these offices to regularly assess this threat; and providing training and resources to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement in addressing it.

DTPA would authorize three offices, one each within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to monitor, investigate, and prosecute cases of domestic terrorism. The bill also requires these offices to provide Congress with joint, biannual reports assessing the state of domestic terrorism threats, with a specific focus on white supremacists. Based on the data collected, DTPA requires these offices to focus their resources on the most significant threats.

DTPA also codifies the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, which would coordinate with United States Attorneys and other public safety officials to promote information sharing and ensure an effective, responsive, and organized joint effort to combat domestic terrorism. The legislation requires DOJ, FBI, and DHS to provide training and resources to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in understanding, detecting, deterring, and investigating acts of domestic terrorism and white supremacy. Finally, DTPA directs DHS, DOJ, FBI, and the Department of Defense to establish an interagency task force to combat white supremacist infiltration of the uniformed services and federal law enforcement.

Those who read the bill aren’t so gung ho to shred the Constitution

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has some serious reservations. In a recent interview on Fox News Primetime, Gabbard stated that the bill effectively criminalizes half of the country. (Emphasis ours)

“It’s so dangerous as you guys have been talking about, this is an issue that all Democrats, Republicans, independents, Libertarians should be extremely concerned about, especially because we don’t have to guess about where this goes or how this ends,” Gabbard said.

She continued: “When you have people like former CIA Director John Brennan openly talking about how he’s spoken with or heard from appointees and nominees in the Biden administration who are already starting to look across our country for these types of movements similar to the insurgencies they’ve seen overseas, that in his words, he says make up this unholy alliance of religious extremists, racists, bigots, he lists a few others and at the end, even libertarians.”

Gabbard, stating her concern about how the government will define what qualities they are searching for in potential threats to the country, went on to ask:

“What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential extremist, what are we talking about? Religious extremists, are we talking about Christians, evangelical Christians, what is a religious extremist? Is it somebody who is pro-life? Where do you take this”

Tulsi said the bill would create a dangerous undermining of our civil liberties and freedoms in our Constitution. She also stated the DPTA essentially targets nearly half of the United States. 

“You start looking at obviously, have to be a white person, obviously likely male, libertarians, anyone who loves freedom, liberty, maybe has an American flag outside their house, or people who, you know, attended a Trump rally,” Gabbard said.

Tulsi Gabbard is not the only one to criticize the legislation

Even the ACLU, one of the weakest organizations on civil liberties in the United States, has spoken out. While the ACLU was only concerned with how the bill would affect minorities or “brown people,” the organization stated that the legislation, while set forth under the guise of countering white supremacy, would eventually be used against non-white people.

The ACLU’s statement is true.

As with similar bills submitted under the guise of “protecting” Americans against outside threats, this bill will inevitably expand further. The stated goals of the DPTA are far-reaching and frightening enough. It would amount to an official declaration of the end to Free Speech.

Soon there will be no rights left for Americans

In the last twenty years, Americans have lost their 4th Amendment rights, and now they are losing their 1st. All that remains is the 2nd Amendment, and both the ruling class and increasing numbers of the American people know it.

Dark days are ahead.

 

An absolutely fascinating portrait of America in 2021 with parallels to Rome.

Oligarchy in America

Post by Dominic Green

The fog of the Trump wars is lifting, the road from COVID-19 rising before us, the outlines of the 21st-century American system emerging. Like the bankruptcy in Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises, the change has happened ‘Gradually, then suddenly.’ The age of the democratic republic is over, the age of the American oligarchy beginning.

Oligarchy is the ‘rule of the oligos’, the few: the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a self-sustaining elite. It sounds quaint, classical even, as though it couldn’t happen here because it already happened there. But it has, in fact, already happened here. Augustus Caesar, who made himself Rome’s first emperor in 27 BC, would recognize the symptoms of our American novelties. The cult of the founding fathers and the cult of entertainment. The elites divided by violent factionalism and united by naked venality. The decay of republican virtues. The widening of the wealth gap and the rise of the populares, the members of the ruling class who rebel in the name of values already overthrown. And then, when all seems lost, the rise of the imperial oligarchy that offers to restore law and order, but installs a different law and a new order.

Oligarchy happens here because it happens everywhere. It is a recurring reality, the precursor of mob democracy in Plato’s Republic; the alternative to liberal democracy in modern China, Russia and the European Union; the endless present in Arab and African states. The Chinese oligarchy is ‘market-Leninism’ under the ‘princelings’ of the party, from whose ranks Xi Jinping emerged to become a quasi-emperor. The Russian oligarchy is a post-communist, sub-czarist parody of democracy whose winners, the looters of the energy sector and the graduates of the spy services, first returned ‘oligarch’ to modern use in the Nineties. The European states were creating their oligarchy too in that decade, in the unaccountable imperial technocracy that is the European Union. The Nineties were not the decade of the triumph of liberal democracy. They were the decade when oligarchy, illiberal, liberal or semi-liberal, conquered the globe.

The first American oligarchy, the industrial oligarchy of the Gilded Age, was sneered at by the universities and the social elite, rejected by rural populists, and finally regulated by Washington, DC, where big-city progressives preferred corporatism to free markets.

Our oligarchy is also rejected by rural populists. Our big-city progressives are still corporatists: see the fusion of the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries under Barack Obama, and the Biden-Harris administration’s endorsement of one kind of Green New Deal or other. But that is as far as the resemblance goes.

Our oligarchs are the social elite. Our universities sell credentials for membership in a class system that has hardened into a chasm, with the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans on one side, and the desperate majority stranded on the other. The Democrats, heirs to the progressives who unpicked the oligarchy of the Gilded Age, are firmly on the side of Silicon Valley. Our corporate media, with the exception of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, overwhelmingly support the Democrats. Social media, which has functionally replaced the town square and the local paper, is so confident of its progressive principles that it can silence the president of the United States.

Our political parties have fused with corporate and bureaucratic America into a donor-led, greed-driven ‘uniparty’. The manifest density of money and power has elicited mass revolts from the grassroots of both parties, but the DNC has defeated them all. First it defeated Bernie Sanders in 2016. Next it defeated the return of Sanders in 2020. Now it has defeated the revolt of the Republican grassroots by drawing away a small but crucial number of aspirational white suburbanites who voted for Trump in 2016. Were they repelled by four years of presidential tweeting, or intimidated by the demonization of Trump supporters as racists and losers? Aspirational suburbanites are the kind of people who used to be Republicans. They know how fast a fall from affluence can happen. They recognize where the social, financial and political power now lies.

Follow the money: in 2020, residents of ZIP codes with a median household income of at least $100,000 donated $486 million to Joe Biden’s campaign and $167 million to Donald Trump’s. The thousand or so ZIP codes where at least 65 percent of residents have graduated from college gave $478 million to Biden and $104 million to Trump. The ZIP codes in which Trump outraised Biden were those below the national median household income of $68,703, where Trump led by $53.4 million, and those without a preponderance of college graduates, where Trump led by nearly $40 million. Two nations, divided by a common understanding of what the oligarchy is, how it works, and who it works for.

The American oligarchy is still American. The ‘image of a free constitution’, Gibbon wrote of the imperial Rome that Augustus made, was ‘preserved with a decent reverence’, and the Roman Senate still appeared to ‘possess the sovereign authority’. The image of a liberal society survives in 21st-century America too. Private property and market forces are still revered in theory, and individualism, in the form of private license, has never been more sovereign. But democratic equality, the foundation of the American compact and the signature of American manners, has collapsed. The gap between the rich and the rest is more than economic. It is now civilizational, its mutual incomprehension and contempt a modern variation on the premodern gap between the medieval nobility and the peasants.

The American oligarchy is capitalism with American characteristics: always friendly, strategically diverse and gender-neutral, obsessed with race and blind to class, sentimental about Nature and enraptured by technology, and, above all, belligerently optimistic that it is honoring the unique promise of America. Until, that is, you get on the wrong side of it.

An oligarchy is a class, but it is also a political system, a set of economic and legal arrangements. The American oligarchy is a fusion of corporate industry, the financial sector, the permanent bureaucracy, media old and new, the elite universities and the popular representatives. The bureaucratic-political class regulates the economy by rationing opportunities for social mobility, cultivating client relationships with key sectors of industry and the voting public, and modifying the law to suit the rich.

Our society is now composed of three classes: the oligarchy, the middle and the underclass. The oligarchy also divides into three classes. We could call them the Plutocrats, the Aristocrats and the Meritocrats. Together they comprise only 20 percent of American households, but they hold more than 85 percent of the national wealth.

The Plutocrats are the notorious 0.1 Percent, the ones that everyone loathes and envies. The fantabulously wealthy can jet wherever they like. They have flat abs and multiple homes, they experiment with polygyny, and we suspect they know the truth about Jeffrey Epstein.

In a 2016 report, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman found that the 160,000 households of the 0.1 Percent owned 22 percent of America’s wealth. This is nearly the same proportion as they held in 1929. The Plutocrats’ share of the cake shrank after the Crash, the Depression, the mid-century recovery of war production, and the fat decades of middle-class uplift. In the early Sixties, the 0.1 Percent held a paltry 10 percent of America’s wealth. By the nadir of 1978 they held only 7 percent of it. But since then, the 0.1 have worked hard, and its money has worked even harder. COVID-19 has been a disaster for small businesses and the ‘gig economy’, but it’s paid massive dividends to those who own stocks and shares. For the Plutocrats, the Roaring Twenties are here.

The oligarchs have excelled at being American. Last July, Forbes magazine released its annual rich list. Of the 10 wealthiest Americans in the Forbes 2020, only the 10th inherited big money: America’s richest woman, Alice Walton ($62.3 billion), the daughter of Walmart’s founder Sam Walton. Alice’s brothers Jim ($62.1 billion) and Rob ($61.8 billion) came in next: three Waltons makes one Bezos. But four of the top five richest Americans really did start businesses in garages, basements and dorm rooms: Jeff Bezos ($179 billion), Bill Gates ($111 billion), Mark Zuckerberg ($85 billion) and Larry Ellison ($72 billion). Two of the top 10 are immigrants: Elon Musk ($68 billion) and Sergey Brin ($65.7 billion). The only member of the top five to have been born with a social advantage from the pre-digital economy is the silver-spooned senator’s son Warren Buffett ($73.5 billion).

So we should not mistake the Plutocrats for a hereditary aristocracy. Their richest members tend to be the winners of the now-defunct age of middle-class meritocracy. Jeff Bezos is the son of a schoolgirl and a bike-shop owner, and the stepson of a Cuban immigrant. He did not attend private schools, he worked at McDonald’s as a high schooler, and he won a place at Princeton on merit. By the end of 2020, he had become the first American to be worth more than $200 billion. Bravo, Jeff!

There is, however, a hereditary Aristocracy in America. As Michael Stewart described in the Atlantic in June 2018, most of America’s wealth is held by the rest of the top 10 percent. The ‘9.9 percent’ as Stewart calls them, are the ‘new aristocracy’. They are the experts: the programmers, scientists, researchers and lawyers who create and protect innovative ideas, the fund managers and investors of Wall Street, the political consultants who keep Washington DC in line, the politicians who put out their hands, the doctors and dentists who keep the rich looking good, the elite professoriat who credential the little oligarchs of the future, the upper echelons of corporate management, and the upper crust of the state bureaucracy.

Imperial couple: Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez (Justin Sullivan/Getty)

The Aristocrats’ share of the nation’s wealth, between 55 and 60 percent, has remained pretty stable since 1930. They have accumulated assets, not chronic debts. They have mastered the two historic arts of aristocratic endurance: marrying well and then transferring their assets down the generations. The outcome of assortative mating and wealth consolidation is that our Aristocrats, like the Old World aristocrats before them, are noticeably taller, thinner, healthier, whiter and better-educated than the other 90 percent. Unlike the Old World aristocrats, they claim to be middle class, or ‘upper-middle class’ if you pressure them, and they don’t bother with the noblesse oblige that justified the privileges of the old elites. They despise half of their fellow Americans as dim bigots. They are, however, angst-stricken about the fate of the polar bears.

As the Plutocrats cannot function without the Aristocrats, so the Aristocrats require the next 10 percent: the last of the Meritocrats. The Plutocrats and the Aristocrats are the upper class, whatever they say. The Meritocrats are the true American upper-middle class, living and dying by the sword of hard work and the market, and consequently fighting harder and harder against longer and longer odds. For the winners, the luxury of intergenerational wealth transfers; for the losers, a plunge into the pit of the middle-class precariat.

The true reactionaries, Karl Marx reckoned, were the artisans who would do anything to avoid a fall into the proletariat. Today, any decent parent will go to any length to save a child from becoming an Uber driver or a barista. The radicals who took to the streets last summer are the losers among the children of the Meritocrats. Loaded with student debt, a worthless four-year liberal arts degree and a nebulous sense of racial guilt, they are demanding to be heard before they lose the rest of their class privileges. The ever-rising cost of college, the overproduction of demi-educated graduates, the ever-rising cost of staying in the class position into which you were born, and the ever-increasing price of social ascent all mean that we will hear plenty more from them.

The survivors of the Meritocracy collude with the Aristocrats in a never-ending suburban balloon game. As Richard V. Reeves described in Dream Hoarders (2017), the upper-middle class are masters and mistresses of ‘opportunity hoarding’: putting a floor under their children’s futures by putting a ceiling on competition from below. The gatekeepers of the oligarchy guard their privileges through zoning laws, private schooling, extracurricular ‘enrichment’ of a variety that would have impressed the Bourbons, reserved places in elite colleges (the ‘legacy’ system, originally instituted to keep Jews out of the Ivy League) and giving each other’s children unpaid internships. The most effective mechanism of all, though, might be the two-parent family.

A range of status symbols allows us to track whether a family is safe in the Aristocracy, sweating it in the Meritocracy, or losing its footing entirely. Better a Tesla than a Prius, and better either than a Subaru Forester, the danger-signal that confirms the college professor’s downward mobility. The Ivy League for the Aristocracy, cash on the barrel; a second mortgage on a liberal arts college for the Meritocrats; a lucky break from the diversity lottery or a leveraged gradschool degree for the last-chancers. The second language that the oligarchy’s children fail to speak is Mandarin at the top, and French for the rest. Spanish is the language of nannies and gardeners.

The Meritocrats, constantly expected to prove their worth, still wear business suits. The Aristocracy dresses in a stealth-wealth parody of middle-class leisure: the hedge-fund manager exchanges the monogrammed fleece of shame for Lululemon athletic wear at the weekend. Only Plutocrats like Jack Dorsey of Twitter can afford to grow a homeless man’s beard.

Every oligarchy has two ideologies: an internal logic and an external justification. The American oligarchy runs on the logic of technocratic liberalism, but it distributes resources and rewards through the illogic of ‘diversity’. As race, not class, is the American agony, it is right that our nominal rulers should look like their electors. The Biden administration’s first draft raises this bait-and-switch to new heights: a government of Swamp veterans and tech lobbyists, but the first to match the sexual and racial diversity of the general population. As Gibbon would say, the image of democratic equality is preserved with a decent reverence.

The pressure of diversity laws falls heaviest, like all the other pressures of oligarchy, on the Meritocrats. Hard-working, hothousing groups like Jews, Indians and Chinese are statistically over-represented at the top end of the SAT scores. They don’t have the legacy boondoggle to fall back on, either. Their accumulated wealth and social capital, they’re told, are the rotten fruits of ‘white privilege’ — or, for the upstart Asians, the ill-gotten gains of ‘white-adjacency’. They are obliged to take one for the team. This is why the Jewish intake of the Ivy League has collapsed, and why the Asians took Harvard to court. This is also why the Asians lost: the oligarchy isn’t about to annul an effective pacification strategy.

The Aristocrats, as usual, have less trouble. The Pew Research Center finds that African Americans, who constitute about 12 percent of the general population, constitute only 1.9 percent of the richest 10 percent of households. Hispanics, who are 18 percent of the general population, are 2.4 percent of the 10 percent; Pew didn’t say how many of that 2.4 percent were white-adjacent. Other nonwhites, including Asians and the multiracial, comprise 35 percent of the general population, but only 8.8 percent of the top 10 percent. The Aristocracy is 86.9 percent white.

We can truthfully claim to have the most racially diverse government in American history — in the history of any society since the late Roman empire. Yet the ruling class is still dominated and governed by white men, and their economic and political power is greater than at any time in a century. Never before have Americans been so united by racial symbolism; never before have they been so divided by wealth; never before has education been so expensive and social mobility so slow. If you are born on the wrong side of the great divide, you will die there, and you will die considerably earlier, fatter and poorer than the winners.

Something must be done to placate the distress and rage of the losers. Instead of equal opportunity in the marketplace, the oligarchic state offers ‘equity’ — a finite resource, even if it springs from a bottomless and pure well of self-righteousness. Equity is not secured by hard work and private enterprise. It is distributed by the unelected, permanent bureaucracy according to collective, not individual, needs, and according to arbitrary criteria.

Hence the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that the first recipients of the COVID-19 vaccine should not be the individuals most at risk, the elderly, but the non-white collective identities which have higher mortality rates than the white collective. This approach will undoubtedly extend high mortality rates among the elderly, regardless of color, and lead to a higher final toll. That doesn’t matter: the justification is explicitly non-medical.

ACIP attributes the higher mortality rate among African Americans not to higher rates of comorbidities such as diabetes, heart trouble and obesity, but to ‘systemic racism’. Thus health policy becomes an instrument of reparative or ‘racial justice’. Meanwhile no collective trusts the vaccine less than African Americans do: in January, nearly half of those polled said they intended to refuse the vaccine. In New York State, vaccines have to be thrown away, as distributing surplus stock to passing individuals of incorrect color would breach the laws of equity.

The distance between the moral schema of the bureaucracy and the social reality of its targets reflects the gap between the oligarchy and its subjects. They live in different worlds, and they live by different values. A middle-class democracy would have greater continuity between the governed and the governors. But the American middle class has been hammered for decades — and the automation of its upper echelons is imminent.

In Augustus’s lifetime Rome completed its descent from representative republic to imperial oligarchy. The decline had taken nearly a century. The taboo against political murder was breached in 133 BC with the killing of Tiberius Gracchus, the tribune of the plebs who tried to redistribute land to the poor. In 100 BC, followers of the populist Glaucia, the loser in the direct elections for Rome’s magistrates, violently interrupted the endorsement of the count and seized the Capitol. In the 60s BC, Cato the Younger invented the filibuster, and the legislature started to become unworkable.

In 49 BC, Julius Caesar led his troops across the Rubicon. As the civil wars worsened and the economy tanked, the Romans accepted Augustus’ authoritarian bargain. They went on to prove Benjamin Franklin wrong. Trading ‘essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety’, and acquiring an emperor, they secured a kind of security that lasted for centuries, whether they deserved it or not. Managed decline, as the British later called it.

True, Augustus’s policies created an economic crisis for his heir Tiberius. In 33 AD, Rome suffered a credit crisis and the collapse of the property market. The causes included overspending on public works; low interest rates and the endemic violation of legal limits on credit; subsidizing property purchases by low-income groups such as retired soldiers; and a trade deficit caused by the Roman taste for cheap imports. Tiberius, the living backstop, refloated the banks with low-interest loans, the quantitative easing of his day. According to Tacitus, he had no choice: the credibility of the Senate and the ruling families was on the line. Like the American Senate in 2008, the Roman Senate ordered the indebted small fry to repay their loans. Meanwhile the imperial oligarchy strengthened its power and wealth.

The catastrophe of the COVID-19 pandemic has further widened and hardened the new class gap. Nearly 400,000 Americans have died. More than 160,000 small businesses have closed, and millions have lost their jobs in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Government, from federal to local levels has failed us at every stage of the pandemic. Yet the oligarchy is doing great. The Dow Jones has broken 30,000 for the first time. The Nasdaq has risen even faster. By December, America’s billionaires, who are estimated to number 614, had grown their net worth by a collective $931 billion.

By August 2019, the five largest publicly traded companies (Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and Facebook) constituted 20 percent of the stock market’s total value: a degree of concentration not seen in 70 years. Apple’s stock-market value had doubled to $2 trillion in less than six months. Jan Eeckhout, a Spanish economist, told the New York Times that ‘in 1929, Sears and A&P accounted for 3 percent of retail sales, a situation that stirred up concern in Congress and helped give rise to additional antitrust laws in 1936’. By August 2020, Walmart and Amazon jointly accounted for 15 percent of retail sales. If we didn’t cross the Rubicon in the bank bailouts of 2008 or the Affordable Care Act of 2010, we are crossing it now.

The electoral defeat of Donald Trump forestalls the passing of serious antitrust regulation until 2024 at the earliest. Trump’s refusal to accept Joe Biden’s victory and his incitement of a riot at the Capitol reduce and possibly even nullify the chances of the Republican party developing as Trumpism without Trump: an anti-oligarchic party of the besieged middle-class, law and order, and small businesses.

In October, Trump’s Justice Department issued an antitrust suit against Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Trump had promised further antitrust moves, and the removal of Section 230 protections from Big Tech. The Democrats accepted even more money from Silicon Valley for the 2020 campaign than they did for the 2016 campaign: $199 million, up from $163 million in 2016. Joe Biden suggests that Big Tech should regulate itself.

There is little chance that the Biden-Harris administration will launch a second Sherman Antitrust Act at the tech companies. There is a good chance that the administration will collude with Big Tech to censor and demonize the opposition. There is an even greater chance that the BidenHarris administration will use the crisis of the Covid recovery as an opportunity to hasten the advent of green corporatism. The outcome would be what Tocqueville called a ‘static state’, slowly growing and slowly declining.

Under the static state, the winners will get richer and the middle class will shrink faster. The losers will be more numerous and estranged, and their backlash against diversity policies will intensify. The oligarchy will harden its defenses and increase its demonization of dissent. The Democrats already have a domestic terrorism law on their to-do list, and it looks like we’ll need it. Political instability and mob violence will lead to further trades of liberty for security.

A republic, Plato noted, decays from within, not from invasion. Build the American Athens and, sooner or later, you will find yourself living in the American Rome. That was the consummation that the Founders wished devoutly to defer. They succeeded, until they didn’t. The Roman republic stood for about three centuries too, but the last of them was no picnic. America’s decline and fall could be considerably shorter — and sharper.

This article was originally published in The Spectator’s February 2021 US edition.

 

The Inanity of RNA Vaccines For COVID-19

Pierre Lescaudron
Sott.net
Wed, 06 Jan 2021

© Unknown
Quote from Denis Rancourt, IUHM

 

The present article is a follow-up of Compelling Evidence That SARS-CoV-2 Was Man-Made published in June 2020, you are encouraged to read it first. The concluding words were as follows:

It's probable that by the end of 2020, like every year, a flu epidemic will emerge. This virus will, conveniently, be deemed a close relative to SARS-CoV-2, maybe with 'extra terrifying features'.

But there will be no need to despair because, by this time, the authorities will have prepared a vaccine. That's one of the reasons why hydroxycholoroquine was lambasted and banned. If a safe and effective treatment already exists, who is going to accept a rushed and unknown vaccine? A vaccine that will allegedly protect people against COVID-20, but will in reality be designed to 'cancel' the beneficial changes induced by the mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2. [...]

It's probable that the vaccination won't be mandatory. Remember that the authorities are now "kinder and gentler". Instead of brute force, the authorities are more likely to use moral blackmail - "Get vaccinated to protect others!" - combined with social blackmail - "No vaccine = no job, no shopping, no travel, no socializing!" Basically, you're free to choose between the vaccine passport or a life sentence in an isolated cell.

Here were are 7 months later. As suspected new variants have appeared, manufactured COVID-19 deaths are piling up, the vaccine passport has already been adopted by several countries and vaccinations have started all around the world.

In theory, medicines, vaccines included, are approved and used because their benefits far exceed their risks. In this sense, the ideal medicine would display zero risks and total effectiveness against an uncured and deadly disease. We'll see in the present article that the COVID-19 vaccines, particularly the Pfizer vaccine, is pretty much the opposite of the ideal drug. It is dangerous, ineffective and targets a benign disease that already has known effective and safe treatments.

Where's The Pandemic?

Case Fatality Rate

According to the WHO, in October 2020 an estimated 750 million people, that is about 10% of the world population, had been infected by SARS-CoV-2 and one million people had died of COVID-19. Those figures lead to a case fatality rate (CFR) of 0,13%, which is the typical CFR exhibited by the seasonal flu. When treated properly, like in Marseilles where hydroxychloroquine protocol and early clinical diagnosis is used, the CFR drops as low as 0.05%.

In Singapore, where the use of hydroxichloroquine is widespread and no national lockdown was ever imposed, the CFR of COVID-19 is the same as Marseilles, a mere 0.05% (29 deaths out of 59,000 cases)

What kind of pandemic exhibits a case fatality rate equal to, or lower than, seasonal flu?

Real COVID deaths

The numbers above are based on the official data published by the WHO. Those numbers, particularly the total COVID deaths, are grossly inflated thanks to various deceptions:

1/ comorbidity:
94% of the people who died of COVID-19 had comorbidity factors. A majority of them had not one but several comorbidity factors, in particular hypertension, obesity, chronic lung disease, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. For example a UK patient who had advanced cancer, kidney failure and diabetes, and had tested positive within 60 days prior to his death will have his demise automatically attributed to COVID-19. In the UK, at the very least 30% of deaths attributed to COVID-19 are actually due to the comorbidity.

2/ false positives:
A lot of deaths were attributed to COVID-19 merely because of a positive PCR test. In the words of its inventor Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1993:

[the PCR tests] cannot detect free infectious viruses at all [...] The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves

Therefore, the obvious questions are: how many other viruses, display viral sequences similar to SARS-CoV-2 and then get detected and are wrongly labeled SARS-CoV-2? How many non-pathogenic, non-transmissible viral sequences of SARS-CoV-2 lead to a "positive" PCR test.

To add insult to injury, there is a serious problem with the number of PCR amplification cycles. According to the CDC, it is virtually impossible to detect any live virus above a threshold of 33 cycles. However, many states conduct 40, 45 even 50 amplification cycles. For illustration, a positive test at 40 cycles has about 43% chance of no longer being positive with a cutoff of 35 and 85% chance with a cutoff of 30.

The antigen test is even worse than the PCR test leading to 63% more false positives! These tests are so unreliable that even the WHO discourage their use.

3/ ban of effective treatments:
In Marseilles, France, where early diagnosis and proper treatment including hydroxychloroquine combined with azythromycin are administered the crude mortality rate is 0.01%. 400 miles from there, in Paris, where there's late diagnosis and the ban on those two drugs is enforced, the overall mortality rate jumps up to 0.075%. That's a 7.5 fold increase.

Similar to Marseilles, Belarus and Iceland administered proper care and/or conducted early diagnosis and they are among the countries with the lowest number of COVID-19 deaths with 1,560 (0.016% crude mortality rate) and 29 (0.008% crude mortality rate) respectively as of mid-January 2021. In the same vein, In Vietnam, that uses hydroxichloroquine, early diagnosis and implemented no national lockdown, crude mortality due to COVID-19 is 0.000036% (35 death for 96 million inhabitants)

4/ transfer of flu casualty:
The Southern Hemisphere appears to have simply skipped the winter 2020 flu season, where flu deaths showed a 90% drop compared to previous years. According to mainstream media, this drop in flu deaths is due to the lockdown. If this is the case however, how do we explain that France recorded a surprisingly low number of flu deaths during the flu season 2019-2020 that ended before the lockdown was imposed on March 17th. Indeed, only 3,680 flu deaths were recorded during winter 2019-2020. That's a 70% drop in flu deaths compared to the last 10-year average mortality.

Another mainstream narrative explains this sharp and unexpected drop in flu casualties as due to the coronavirus preventing the activity of other viruses. But viruses have no difficulties in cohabiting. For example, in Europe alone during the 2019/2020 flu season, there were at least six active flu strains: type A A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2)) A(Unknown), B/Victoria, B/Yamagata et B/Unknown, and we know that SARS-CoV-2 was on the continent at least since December 2nd 2019.

In the Northern hemisphere, France was not the only country to experience the disappearance of the seasonal flu. The USA and the UK respectively reported a staggering 98% and 90% decrease in deaths attributed to the seasonal flu.

Starting with the hyper-inflated WHO number of COVID deaths which is 1,7 million as of January 2021, we can deduce the following numbers:

- false positive deaths, patients who didn't even have COVID, represent at the very least 33% of the total number of deaths attributed to COVID-19. That's 700,000 out of 1.7 million

- deaths due to comorbidities represent 30% of the total number of deaths attributed to COVID, that's 500,000 out of 1.7 million

- About 90% of the typical flu death toll was transferred to the COVID tally, that's 300,000 deaths out of 1.7 million.

Depending on the overlaps between those three kinds of non-COVID deaths, the real number of COVID-19 deaths can be estimated at between 300,000 and 1.1 million.

That range doesn't even take into account the 7-fold reduction in mortality related to proper early diagnosis and adequate treatment. Factoring this parameter in, the total mortality due to COVID-19 with early diagnosis and proper care would drop somewhere between 40,000 and 140,000 casualties worldwide. Notice that the estimates above are very conservative, we are therefore left to wonder whether SARS-CoV-2 actually directly caused a significant number of deaths.

What kind of pandemic induces much less total deaths than the seasonal flu?

Excess mortality

The excess mortality includes deaths attributed to COVID-19 along with the numerous deaths due to the lock-downs. As we will see, it is likely that lock-downs induced many more deaths than COVID-19.

1/ delayed treatments and diagnosis
Only a third of the excess deaths seen in the care homes and private residences in England and Wales can be explained by covid-19, the remaining two thirds are due elderly citizens who were denied primary care and "who may well have lived longer if they had managed to get to hospital". This problem is particularly accurate for cancer patients for whom the denial of diagnosis and medical treatment may lead, to 18,000 more UK cancer patient deaths.

2/ psychatric conditions
A meta analysis of the mental heath of the general population was published in December 2020. As expected, the "pandemic" significantly exacerbated this situation:

Relatively high rates of symptoms of anxiety (6.33% to 50.9%), depression (14.6% to 48.3%), post-traumatic stress disorder (7% to 53.8%), psychological distress (34.43% to 38%), and stress (8.1% to 81.9%) are reported in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic in China, Spain, Italy, Iran, the US, Turkey, Nepal, and Denmark [...] The COVID-19 pandemic is associated with highly significant levels of psychological distress that, in many cases, would meet the threshold for clinical relevance.
Source

It should be noted that the life expectancy of individuals suffering from mental illness is about 8 years shorter than the general population.

3/ suicide
the definitive numbers about deaths in 2020 have not been compiled yet. However, the trend is already clear. According to some studies, suicide increased by 145%. Logically, suicidal tendencies surged along actual suicides with, for example, India experiencing a 67,7% increase in reports of suicidal behavior during lock down. Similarly, in China the appearance of very frequent suicidal thoughts has been noted while in Canada, a 500% increase in suicide is projected.

4/ alcoholism and drug addictions
Alcohol abuse sharply increased during the "pandemic". In the UK, there was a 500% rise in calls to the British Liver Trust helpline since lockdown began in March. Similarly, Alcohol Change recorded a 242% rise in visits to their advice and support pages on their website during lockdown. Surveys on alcohol consumption tell a similar tale, with 21% of individuals stating they were drinking more often during lockdown. The heavy drinkers were the most affected, 38% of those who typically drank heavily during pre-lockdown said they drank even more during lockdown. In the US, a 54% increase in national sales of alcohol was recorded for the week ending March 21, 2020, compared with 1 year before.

Similarly, drug overdoses rose strongly in 2020. For example, in the US, overdoses killed a staggering 81,000 people, a 38% increase in fatal overdoses compared to 2019.

5/ poverty
According to the Worldbank, the "pandemic" could throw about 100 million additional people into extreme poverty. The life expectancy difference between an individual in extreme poverty and a wealthy individual is at least 20 years. Notice that most of the deaths induced by the surge in extreme poverty will not happen immediately but in the years, if not decades, following this manufactured global economic crisis.

Despite the number of deaths due to lockdowns and their consequences rather than COVID-19, many countries didn't even record an excess mortality during the so-called pandemic. That is the case in Germany where hydroxychloroquine was used and a lot of early diagnosis was done. Better than that, Iceland - which implemented one of the most effective early diagnosis approaches in the world - shows a mortality rate in 2020 that is lower than its average yearly mortality. But the cherry on the cake is China, where about 55 tons of hydroxychloroquine were consumed in 2020 and where no global lockdown was implemented: as a result, China experienced virtually zero COVID deaths since April 2020.

© ourworldindata.org
Daily COVID-19 deaths in China

Even France which banned hydroxychloroquine and azythromycin and implemented extended lockdowns and curfews, experienced a mortality rate during Spring 2020 that was lower than during the 2017 flu season and since May 1st, 2020, no increase in mortality has been noticed.

What kind of pandemic doesn't cause a marked excess in mortality?

Life Expectancy

In France, even before they tested positive for the virus, 80% of alleged COVID-19 victims had a life expectancy lower than one year, due to comorbities and advanced age. Overall, COVID-19 victims had a life expectancy of a mere 3 years and 82% of the victims were more than 70 years old. The average age for a COVID-19 death is 82, that is a few months shorter than the overall life expectancy.

In several countries, the average age of deaths attributed to COVID-19 is even higher than life expectancy. For example, in the UK, the average age for COVID-19 death is 82,6 years old while the average life expectancy is 81.2 years. In Sweden, the average age of those who have allegedly died of COVID-19 is 84 years old, two years more than the average age of death which is 82.

As a result of the very advanced age of the people who allegedly died of COVID-19, many countries didn't experience any drop in life expectancy. This is the case in China that recorded 4,600 deaths attributed to COVID-19 out of a population of 1.4 billion, or Iceland and its 19 COVID victims out of 400,000 Icelandic citizens.

Even in France, where a lot of elderly citizens were left to die in nursing homes, where drastic lock-downs were implemented, where diagnosis and care was delayed for serious conditions and effective medicines against COVID-19 were banned and toxic drugs like Rivotril or Remdesivir were administered instead, life expectancy only decreased by 5 months.

What kind of pandemic doesn't notably decrease life expectancy?

In summary, the typical victim of COVID-19 is an individual in his 80's who lives in a nursing home and has several comorbidities. Typically, such a person died because of the despair of social isolation and the delayed diagnosis and treatment of his serious comorbidities. In many cases, the patient didn't even have COVID-19. However COVID-19 killed him, not directly, but through the isolation and denial of care induced by a well-orchestrated pandemic hysteria.

To recap, we are experiencing a rather peculiar "pandemic", that exhibits a case fatality ratio lower than the seasonal flu, kills less than the usual infectious diseases, didn't trigger marked excess mortality and didn't really increase life expectancy.

Existing Treatment

Not only is COVID-19 a benign disease, it can be cured by numerous treatments that are safe, effective and cheap: artemisia, high dose vitamin C, vitamin D, copper, Zinc, doxycyclin, fluvoxamine, bromhexine, colchicine, Imervectine, azythromocine and, of course, hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the combination of some of those drugs revealed beneficial synergies, in particular a cocktail of hydroxychloroquine + azythromycin + zinc. Notice also that the efficacy of the aforementioned drugs has been published in peer-reviewed journals months ago.

A case in point is hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) whose efficacy against COVID-19 has been tested in no less than 195 published papers. The conclusion of the statistical meta analysis of those papers could not be clearer:

HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 195 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 1 quadrillion (p = 0.0000000000000009).
Source

Another way to ascertain the efficacy of HCQ is simply to check if the research papers received funding from Gilead - the American-Israeli company, laden with conflicts of interests - that produces the now infamous Redemsivir.

When there are conflicts of interest with Gilead, 73% of the papers claim that HCQ doesn't work, if there is no conflict of interest, 83% of the papers conclude that HCQ works. It's that simple.

© IHUM
Chloroquine efficacy against COVID-19 (the papers with conflicts of interest are in red)

Despite its repeatedly tested effectiveness, HCQ has been banned in a number of Western countries. In contrast, it took only one bogus paper, (debunked soon after), for states to buy and administer billions of dollars worth of the toxic and ineffective Redemsivir.

The reason for the suppression of known treatments is at least two-fold:

- social: denial of treatment to deliberately increase deaths and therefore fear in the population, leading to the reluctant acceptance of vaccines.

- legal: the accelerated FDA approval of a new drug is only possible when the targeted disease "has no cure". The suppression of known cures enabled the Pfizer vaccine to be approved after two months of limited testing and a meagre trial report, while a proper FDA approval requires about 12 years of extensive trials and a 100,000+ page new drug application.

To recap, COVID-19 is a benign disease with numerous safe and effective treatments. In this context, the logical approach would be to increase the early clinical diagnosis and to spread and improve the existing therapeutic strategies. That's not what the elites decided, especially in the Western world. Instead they banned effective treatments and among all kind of dubious vaccines, enforced the worst one, the Pfizer RNA 'vaccine' on which we will focus our attention now.


mRNA Vaccine or Gene Therapy?

Despite its name, the Pfizer 'vaccine' is more akin to gene therapy, the definition of which is: "the utilization of the therapeutic delivery of nucleic acids into a patient's cells". The Pfizer "vaccine" is exactly that, an artificial RNA sequence delivered via nano lipids into the patient's cells, to hijack them and direct them to produce the spike protein found on SARS-CoV-2, or at least on one of its old variants. From there, the host should react to this protein by producing antibodies. Too many antibodies and an immune storm happens, no enough antibodies and the triggered immunity is useless.

Notice that gene therapy was never used on a large scale. It was only used in experimental phase 1 anti-tumoral protocols. The drugs were so toxic that phase 2 trials were never conducted. RNA "vaccines" against MERS and SARS followed the same failure path.

In 1999, geneticist Alain Fischer, conducted the first clinical trial with some rare positive results in the world of gene therapies. The same Alain Fischer was nominated as a vaccine expert by the French authorities. When asked about the Pfizer "vaccine", Fischer answered cautiously, emphasizing that the effects of infectiousness and the duration of immunity were unknown, side effects were unavoidable and the fear of the vaccine was understandable. Obviously Fischer's analysis didn't fit the pro vaccine narrative, since then he no longer enjoys any media exposure.

Vaccine Useless at Best, Detrimental at Worst?

The history of vaccines is replete with major scandals. Here are a few examples:

1/ the Salk polio vaccine which caused the worst polio outbreak in history, infecting 200,000 people with live polio, of whom 70,000 became sick

2/ the current prevalence of poliomyelitis caused by vaccines compared to naturally-occurring poliomyelitis

3/ the Dengue vaccine triggering the production of antibodies that are not detrimental but beneficial to the Dengue virus, leading to more severe forms of Dengue fever.

4/ And let's not forget Bergamo, Italy where the population experienced a high prevalence of severe forms of COVID-19 among vaccinated people. There's no mystery there, because for years, the flu vaccine has been known to favor and worsen coronavirus infections.

Likewise, vaccines against close relatives of SARS-COV-2 like SARS or MERS, that target the spike protein like the Pfizer "vaccine", have also been tested but quickly canceled, one major adverse effect was the creation of antibodies that didn't prevent but favored viral infections.

The vaccines against Dengue fever, influenza, SARS and MERS share the same fundamental flaw, which is well known by scientists as antibody-dependent enhancement, where the vaccine, instead of providing immunity, increase vulnerability and the severity of the disease it targets. In this context, it would not be surprising that the RNA vaccines trigger more severe forms of COVID-19.

In addition, like most retroviruses, SARS-CoV-2 is very prone to mutations. The analysis of 10,000 of its genomes revealed a high number of genetic modifications:

2969 missense mutations, 1965 synonymous mutations, 484 mutations in the non-coding regions, 142 non-coding deletions, 100 in-frame deletions, 66 non-coding insertions, 36 stop-gained variants, 11 frameshift deletions and two in-frame insertions.
Source

This substantial number of genomic variation has let to the emergence of, at least 14 distinct variants, including the 'English variant' which displays 23 detectable mutations, 70% of them being located on its spike protein, which is the very target of the Pfizer "vaccine".

© Nextstrain
Some of the SARS-COV-2 variants

Coincidentally, or not, the above mentioned Remdevisir has been tested on British patients in at least 15 different health centers and widely administered after its bogus approval. Redemsivir is now known to trigger mutations in SARS-COV-2, particularly in its spike protein. Given its mutagenic property and its use in the UK, the obvious question is "Did remdesivir play a role in the apparition of the English variant?"

In any case, just in Marseilles no less than 33 patients fell sick twice, from the variant called Marseille 1, then from the variant Marseille 4. Worse than that, still in Marseilles, one patient got infected three times with SARS-CoV-2 variants in just nine months.

Reinfection with SARS-COV-2 is widespread enough that scientists do not wonder any more if it happens, but how it happens:

the possibility of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is not well understood.[...] previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 does not necessarily translate to guaranteed total immunity. The implications of reinfections could be relevant for vaccine development[...] Genomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 showed genetically significant differences between each variant associated with each instance of infection.
Source

Those reinfections suggest that natural immunity against COVID-19 could last just a few months, one reason for this short immunity probably being the numerous mutations of SARS-CoV-2. If natural immunity doesn't prevent a quick re-infection, the Pfizer vaccine, which unlike natural immunity only targets a small part of the virus - namely its spike protein, which has substantially changed since the design of the vaccine - should exhibit even poorer results. In conclusion, the Pfizer vaccine is unlikely to confer lasting immunity, if any, especially against current and future variants.

The above is not just theory as a growing number of people is getting infected with SARS-COV-2 after being inoculated with the Pfizer "vaccine".

Pfizer Vaccine Methodology

1/ Irrelevant investigation objectives

A stunning bias in the Pfizer trial was its primary objective: evaluate the frequency of mild to severe forms of COVID-19, 28 days after the first inoculation. Casualty rate, infectiousness, duration of immunity (if any), or even occurrence of mild to severe forms in the long term were not investigated. But, wait a minute, the whole pandemic and vaccine hysteria were built on these very fears of death and contamination, we heard ad nauseam the media injunctions: "people are dying in droves", "get vaccinated to avoid contaminating others", "get vaccinated to be immune to COVID-19", "get vaccinated to avoid dying of COVID-19" etc.

2/ Tested group bias

Another striking bias is the trial selection, particularly the age combined with health status. We've shown above that frail elderly are by far the most likely to suffer from COVID-19. But only 2% of the Pfizer trial includes patients over 75 years old and with pre-existing medical conditions. In addition subjects of any age with comorbities are grossly under-represented:

In total, only one out of five of the people appear to have an underlying condition, and for the various individual underlying conditions, the percentage of people suffering from them is often less than 1%.
Source

Also the limited size of the vaccine group (about 20,000 participants) does not exhibit all the age/race/sex/disease/treatment/genetic profile combinations that the general population does. There is no safety data whatsoever about children, immune-compromised individuals or pregnant women because they were excluded from the trial.

Basically Pfizer selected young and healthy subjects for testing a vaccine that is now administered as a priority to old and sick individuals. What is the point of studying healthy young individuals, who, vaccinated or not, are barely affected by COVID-19 anyways? Does this bias minimize side effects and maintain the illusion of a safe "vaccine"?

3/ Placebo instead known effective drugs

A new drug is tested against a placebo when the targeted disease has no known cure. In the case of COVID-19, there are several known cures to which Pfizer should have compared its vaccine.

That's was the design of the Discovery clinical trial that compared Remdesivir, HCQ and other drugs. When the preliminary results started to show that HCQ was the most effective, it was quickly removed from the trials. Pfizer didn't make the same mistake of testing its new drug against an effective one. Instead, they tested their "vaccine" against a placebo.

4/ Unilateral design and treatment of data

No third party was involved in the design of the trial, its monitoring, and the treatment of the results.The whole study was designed, conducted, analyzed, published and paid for by Pfizer itself.

As Dutch neurologist Jan B. Hommel neurologist said:

"The fact that an independent data and safety committee was able to see the data doesn't change this, simply because they had no say in the design of the research, selection of the participants, the statistics used or the publication. ... I don't need to explain here how such a construction can lead to biased results of scientific research, because it has been extensively researched and published about over the past twenty years."

Benefits

The main marketing argument for the Pfizer "vaccine" is its alleged 95% efficacy. This figure is the sole claim of Pfizer and it should be taken with a grain of salt because of numerous factors:

1/ Pfizer precedent

First we have to understand the background of the company we are dealing with here. Pfizer is the world's largest pharmaceutical company and it is also the company that has been hit with the biggest criminal fine in US history for lying about one of their drugs and bribing doctors. This record fine is only one example. Pfizer has been sentenced numerous times for covering up major side effects of Protonix, hiding the cancer-inducing properties of Prempro, lying about the suicidal behavior induced by Chantix, promoting Depo-Testosterone as effective and safe while it was ineffective and induces major side effects, conducting illegal clinical trials for Trovan in Nigeria killing 11 children. The list of crimes committed by Pfizer goes on and on.

Let's also keep in mind that Pfizer will cash in $14 billion a year, more than the GDP of Nicaragua, from the worldwide sale of its RNA "vaccine".

2/ Relative efficacy VS absolute efficacy

During the Pfizer clinical trial 8 COVID-19 cases were found in the vaccine group of 20,000 and 86 cases in the placebo group of 20,000. This means the attack rate for COVID-19 is 0.0004 in the vaccine group and 0.0043 in the placebo group. Therefore, the absolute risk reduction for an individual is only about 0.4% (0.0043-0.0004X100).

The Number Needed To Vaccinate (NNTV) = 256 (1/0.0039), which means that to prevent just 1 Covid-19 case, 256 individuals must get the vaccine; the other 255 individuals derive no benefit, but are subject to the numerous adverse effects of the "vaccine" .

3/ Exclusion of suspicious cases

The claimed 95% (relative) efficacy was attained by excluding 3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases (probably due to false negatives). When those 3410 suspected cases are reintegrated the relative efficacy drops to 19% (which is well below the 50% effectiveness threshold set by regulators) and the absolute risk reduction drops to a ridiculous 0.08%.

4/ Non-replicated results

The cornerstone of any scientific work is its replicability. The results of the clinical trial have been published in a journal at the end of 2020, but the clinical trials have not been replicated and there are unlikely to be ever replicated because no pharmaceutical company will conduct pricey clinical trials for a molecule patented by a competitor. So all we have are muti-offender Pfizer's words.

In summary, according to Pfizer, the benefit of its vaccine is a reduction of flu like symptoms in the young healthy population. They don't know, or rather, they don't want us to know, about what really matters: symptoms in the frail elederly, mortality, infectiousness or duration of immunity. We start to know

The irony is that the "vaccine" didn't even reach its primary (and irrelevant) objective that was the reduction of the severe form of COVID-19. In the editorial of the NEJM issue where the results of the Pfizer clinical trial were published, one can read:

The number of severe cases of COVID-19 (one in the vaccine group and nine in the placebo group) is too small to draw any conclusions about whether the rare cases that occur in vaccinated persons are actually more severe.

Risks of the Pfizer Vaccine

Not much is known about the benefits of the Pfizer vaccine and the little that is claimed is quite irrelevant. But information about the risks is slowly coming in, and it's not a pretty picture.

1/ Adverse effects of the vaccine

According the FDA, the Pfizer "vaccine" can cause many serious "adverse effects", and these are only the known adverse effects induced by "traditional" vaccines and their usual adjuvants:

© FDA
Adverse effect of the Pfizer vaccine

The long term effects of vaccines are known to be the most devastating ones. So, in addition to the list above, it's highly probable that numerous additional serious adverse effects induced by RNA "vaccines" will be progressively identified, like Lou Gehrig disease, Alzheimer, cancer and multiple sclerosis as suggested by Judy Mikovitz.

Infertility will probably be another "unexpected" long term side effect since the targeted spike protein is very similar to sincytin, a protein involved in placental development. When Pfizer tested their "vaccines" on rats, they reported a 50% drop in reproductive behavior compared to the unvaccinated rats. That's probably to hide this side effect that Pfizer excluded pregnant women from its trial.

Conveniently, the adverse vaccine reactions listed above are increasingly considered by authorities as a consequence of COVID-19. This is true of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) which, since December 2020 and soon after the beginning of the vaccination campaign, is said to be caused by COVID-19. Until then, no causality between the two was claimed, only a worsening of COVID-19 symptoms in patients with GBS. The same was done for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children, which is now considered as being caused by SARS-COV-2, and for the Kawasaki syndrome, a known vaccine reaction now blamed on COVID-19.

To minimize further the potentially devastating effects of the Pfizer "vaccine", a CDC report labels anaphylaxis as the cause for a growing number of adverse reactions.

It would all be fine and dandy, except when you calculate the incidence percentage for these events you get the following numbers:
Dec.14: 3/679 = 0.4%
Dec.15: 50/6,090 = 0.8%
Dec.16: 373/27,823 = 1.3%
Dec.17: 1,476/67,963 = 2.2%
Dec.18: 3,150/112,807 = 2.8%

As you can see the incidence ratio of "anaphylaxis" keeps increasing. It increased seven-fold from 0.4 to 2.8% over a mere 5 days, which suggests that the vaccine has delayed adverse effects that can take days to manifest. The problem is that anaphylaxis is known to manifest almost immediately after exposure to the allergenic agent:

Symptoms can start within seconds or minutes of exposure to the food or substance you are allergic to and usually will progress rapidly. On rare occasions there may be a delay in the onset of a few hours.
Source

It means that there are probably other (delayed) adverse reactions going on besides (immediate) anaphylaxis.

2/ Negative reactions to the vaccine

On top of the adverse effects we must add the negative reactions. The table below recapitulates reactions to the Pfizer vaccine (according to Pfizer solely) at the second inoculation:

© Vox
Reported reactions to the Pfizer vaccine

There's a caveat though. This table focuses solely on the 18-55 year old sub-group, basically the young and healthy individuals, who seldom develop a severe form of COVID-19 let alone die from it.

The frequency of the side effects is high: 59% experience fatigue, 52% experience headache, 37% muscle pain. Virtually every patient experienced side effects. The severity of the symptoms is quite appaling too. For example, 38% of those young and healthy subjects experienced moderate to severe fatigue and 26% experienced moderate to severe headache. "Moderate" meaning interfering with activity and "severe" meaning preventing daily activity.

In contrast, the general population has a more than 60% probability of having no symptoms after contracting SARS-COV-2. The relatively young and healthy subpopulation selected by Pfizer has about an 80% probability of being asymptomatic. So, on one side we have the Pfizer "vaccine" with its 100% guaranteed side effets , on the other side we have the 80% symptom-free SARS-COV-2.

Is this vaccine causing more symptoms than the disease it is supposed to cure?

Notice in the table above that, just like the table for adverse vaccine reactions, only negative reactions soon after inoculation are recorded. The occurrence of negative reactions more than two months after the first inoculation were simply not investigated.

It means that we have no idea whatsoever about the medium and long term risks of the "vaccine".

3/ Vaccine deaths

Death was listed in the FDA's list of adverse reactions, and the FDA was right. Several deaths occurred soon after vaccination. At first, it seemed like sporadic cases. One death, then a second death occurred in Israel soon after inoculation. Around the same time a similar death occurred in Switzerland. And then a Florida doctor died soon after receiving the Pfizer vaccine.

The case of Norway is more interesting with 2 vaccine deaths in the beginning of January followed by 23 deaths in one elderly home. That's a total of 25 vaccine deaths while about 20,000 doses have been administered in Norway in the weeks preceding the "incidents". So,the vaccine fatality rate is about 0,125% which is comparable to the CFR of COVID-19 mentioned above. And those vaccine-induced deaths are only the early ones after just one inoculation.

Even more shocking is the case of Nice nursing homes, with 50 excess deaths on January 15th, only 4 days after the start of vaccinations. During those four days, about 16,000 doses of the Pfizer "vaccine" were administered in the homes. That gives a preliminary vaccine fatality rate higher than 0.3%, which is more than double the CFR of COVID-19 and, again, this death toll is limited to a few days after the very first inoculation.

Norway and Nice are not isolated case. After the first inoculation of Pfizer "vaccine" on 5,847 patients in Gibraltar, 53 of them died within days. That's a vaccine fatality rate of 0.9%. A New York nursing home which had experienced zero COVID-19 death before vaccination, reported 24 deaths right after the vaccination of 193 residents. That's a vaccine fatality rate of 12%. The list of vaccine casualties goes on and on, and it's just after the first dose.

Is the medecine deadlier than the disease it is supposed to cure?

Of course, the authorities deny any link between vaccinations and these deaths. They blame comorbidities. When a vaccinated individual with comorbities dies, it's because of the comorbities. When an alleged SARS-COV-2 positive individual with comorbities dies, it's because of the SARS-COV-2. Does that make sense?

Conclusion

COVID-19 is a benign disease for which safe and effective treatments exist. But those treatments are banned or suppressed while a dangerous and ineffective RNA vaccine is imposed on us through blackmail: no vaccine = no freedom. Tens of millions have already been vaccinated, so, if you must take the vaccine, here is an article describing therapeutic and nutritional approaches to mitigate its side effects.

The elites don't want to protect us, they want to control us. Those self-proclaimed reality creators, manufactured an 'obedience' vaccine which, in a royal backfire, transformed into a 'disobedience' mutant. So, they created out of thin air a fake pandemic in order to impose a vaccine that I believe is designed to cancel the beneficial effects of the 'disobedience' mutant. In addition, this vacceine is deadlier and more harmful than the minor disease it is supposed to cure.

But as we will see in the next instalment, instead of putting on a show of preventing a fake pandemic, the RNA vaccine might very well recombine with dormant endoretroviruses and start a very real pandemic in a second epic backfire. If this comes to pass, it would show again that history has a superb sense of irony.

Notes: Some of the links in this article direct towards videos in French of IHU Lab researchers like Didier Raoult, Louis Fouché, Michel Drancourt or Philippe Parola. Outside China, the IHU Laboratory has published the most papers about SARS-COV-2 to date. These researchers therefore have a unique knowledge of the "pandemic", unfortunately their video presentations are mostly in French.