The American public continues to be swindled and hoodwinked by the medical establishment. As I have written before, there are only two possible explanations for it at this point: Either people like Anthony Fauci are genuinely bad at their jobs or they are intentionally misleading this country in the hopes of securing greater control over them. I see no plausible third explanation.
PCR TESTING AND AMPLIFICATION CYCLES
On the day coinciding with the inauguration of Joe Biden (Wednesday, January 20th), the World Health Organization belatedly announced its long-known recognition that the process for deriving a positive Covid test was flawed. The science hasn’t changed one iota, but Trump is out of the White House so the need to artificially inflate case numbers no longer exists.
To be sure, the realization that cycle thresholds are way too high to be of use isn’t new information. Back in July, Fauci himself appeared on a podcast stating as much (every time we source Fauci, he is somewhere new – a podcast, a radio show, the White House pressroom, television, this guy is everywhere). Among other things, Fauci said this about PCR testing, amplification cycles, and thresholds:
“If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”
It wasn’t just Fauci; in August last year even the New York Times ran a piece stating that as many as 90% of certain positive cases were nothing more than over-amplified genetic material that posed no threat to the individual being tested or to the greater public in terms of transmission. A peer-reviewed study in September found that 30 cycles was sufficient to produce information. Of course, Covid couldn’t have been used to scare people if, instead of 500,000 new cases the number was only 50,000.
Everyone in the medical community and the media knew that the exaggerated cycle would produce inaccurate results, yet the CDC continued to publish several recommendations stating the cycle threshold should remain at 40 while every television broadcast station displayed banners of knowingly flawed tallies of both case counts and deaths (another issue altogether).
Despite persistent lies from Fauci et al surrounding testing – even in the face of published, printed, and knowable information – the general public and media continued to push the weaponized narrative in the hopes of ousting the 45th president. At this point, the charade is so obvious, and the left is emboldened, that they don’t even care about the optics with the newly released new guidelines about PCR testing. It coincided with Biden’s inauguration? They must laugh at how ignorant and stupid most Americans are.
IT’S A VACCINE
Ask any family member at your next restricted gathering or any colleague on your next Zoom meeting what Big Pharma has produced in record time to combat the spread and effect of Covid. They will invariably answer “the vaccine.” Yes, the public is stoked about a vaccine.
But language is important. Is it a vaccine? Or, is it merely a novel therapeutic? Consider a few clinical definitions.
In order to be considered a vaccine, Merriam-Webster sets the parameters as:
“a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.”
Based on that definition, the Pfizer and Moderna creations are not vaccines per se. Right? There is no actual genetic material from the Covid strain. Instead, these vaccines, according to the available descriptions, were designed to trigger an autoimmune response without using actual bits of the virus. It works by relying on mRNA to generate a response to build specific proteins that can combat the virus when it is detected in a person and mitigate the response (i.e. how sick one gets). It’s interesting technology, and the first ever approved approach for humans with potentially great implications in the fight against other diseases, but it doesn’t seem accurate to call it a vaccine.
Just to drive this point further in, the latter half of Merriam-Webster’s definition establishes that a vaccine increases immunity to a particular disease. This is also in dispute. According to practically every major news outlet, the vaccine is not yet known to prevent the spread. Articles attesting to that can be found here, here, and here. Even the CEO of Pfizer said as much.
A therapeutic, on the other hand, can be described simply as dealing with the treatment of a disease. As the so-called vaccine is most effective at reducing symptoms, this seems a much more appropriate terminology. All of this explains why masks are still required for a supposedly immunized population. Perhaps this is the first-ever virus that survives on asymptomatic spread from protected populations, or have we perhaps been misled into the nature of the inoculation program?
VACCINES ARE SAFE
Sticking with the terminology of “vaccine” for the purpose of linguistic agreement with cited sources, we now call into question the safety of vaccines produced in record time. As the United States planned on introducing the first few million doses of Covid vaccines back in December, Dr. Fauci went on MSNBC saying the following:
“We know it’s safe, because if you look at the process that it’s gone through for the determination of whether it’s safe, as well as if it’s efficacious, was a clinical trial involving 44,000 people.”
As before, I want to rely on definitions, because Fauci’s words convey a certain meaning to the lay public that contrast with the real meaning of the words. The book definition of safe is “free from danger” or “not exposed to a threat.” To the best of my knowledge, there is no specific medical definition for the word safe. Therefore, we have to take this definition broadly and apply it specifically to vaccines. Are the vaccines “free from danger” or not exposing anyone “to a threat”?
If left-wing news outlets are willing to report on vaccine-attributed deaths, then the unequivocal answer must be yes.
There are several news stories indicating that the Covid vaccines being foisted upon a panicked public are not entirely without risk. Shocker, I know.
According to a report from Bloomberg, the entire country of Norway was going to revisit their vaccination policy after upwards of one out of one-thousand vaccinations resulted in death. The article explains that at least 29 people have already succumbed to the direct effects of receiving an injection. They were rethinking administering the vaccine to those over 80 years of age.
There is also concern over the Moderna vaccine as well. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that a higher-than-usual number of severe reactions occurred, which raised the specter of fully one-tenth of the entire state of California’s Moderna batches coming under scrutiny. Without a definitive link yet, baseball legend and non-asterisked home run king Hank Aaron died 18 days after receiving the Moderna vaccine. He will be mentioned only because of his fame; how many others will not?
Most alarming is that health officials in China – yes, China of all places – are arriving at similar conclusions, particularly in vaccinating the elderly. Chinese health officials are stating that countries like Norway that have been hard hit should consider suspending the mRNA vaccine until more information is given. If a country like China, which has stonewalled the entire recovery process of this pandemic for over a year and used to regularly force abortions on women and/or destroy their babies, is acknowledging it might be dangerous to administer vaccines, they might be worth listening to.
Now, this article would be remiss if it glossed over the fact that the overwhelming number of vaccine recipients – as of Biden’s inauguration the figure stands at almost 20 million in the United States (an updated tracker can be found here) – have not endured significant side effects. Of course, in much the same way that there is still a lot we do not know about the efficacy of the vaccine, we likewise do not know everything about long-term side effects. The greatest observation that can be made is that if the Covid survival rate of 99.998% in the young population is worth shutting down the American economy, then observable negative outcomes from the vaccine are fair play.
CHOOSING A VACCINE
In early January, Bustle magazine ran a headline titled “This Is Why You Can’t Choose Which COVID-19 Vaccine You’ll Get.” Citing shortages as the main reason, it resigned its readers to accepting a stab at hospitals with whatever was on hand. Honestly, this makes sense. In an effort to maximize distribution efforts, it would be costly and ineffective to provide vials from both producers. Transportation, distribution, storage, and a variety of other factors preclude the initial option for choice.
That being said, does anyone really believe that Fauci faced equal limitations? A week prior to the Bustle article, Fauci was announcing to the world that he would be receiving the Moderna vaccine. Perhaps he was supporting the company to which he has several ties? Either way, by selecting the Moderna vaccine, he was effectively making a choice the regular American was told they were not. This might not be a flip flop, but it certainly exemplifies elitism.
The reason this strikes a nerve is that in the same Breitbart article it is noted that Mike Pence, Joe Biden, and other officials received the Pfizer vaccine. Does anyone believe for a minute that their injections were randomly assigned?