Well, I don’t usually bother to read WHO documents but this one was sent to me, so I thought I’d let you know about the new panicdemic talking points. I don’t have time to look into anything they mentioned in the document right now, but I thought I’d share three related screenshots for your enjoyment.
Thanks god at least some people were awake and did not get these shots. A third of the american population will probably survive without being jabbed. See where the others end up in a few years. All the young people dying on the ball field does not look good.
Awareness of OAS dates back to the 1960’s. The fact that it was ignored before these vaccines were given to humans is unforgivable. The problem is that the culprits have “super immunity” and they knew they would never be held accountable. Hundreds of millions of humans have unwittingly and permanently sold their immune systems.
There is a great explanation of the legal “super immunity” problem on pages 35-37 of Betten Chevrolet’s petition to SCOTUS for a stay of the OSHA mandate.
Under the PREP Act, immunity from liability for claims of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of vaccines for entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures.
Immunity from liability under the PREP Act is not available for death or serious physical injury caused by willful misconduct. A “serious physical injury” is one that is life-threatening, or results in or requires medical or surgical intervention to preclude permanent impairment of a body function or results in permanent damage to a body structure. Willful misconduct is misconduct that is greater than any form of recklessness or negligence. It is defined in the PREP Act as an act or failure to act that is taken: 1) intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose; 2) knowingly without legal or factual justification; and 3) in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit. All three of these conditions must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. Willful misconduct cannot be found against:
a manufacturer or distributor for actions regulated by HHS under the Public Health Service Act or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, if HHS chooses not to take an enforcement action against the manufacturer or distributor, or if HHS terminates or settles an enforcement action without imposing a criminal, civil, or administrative penalty; or
a program planner or qualified person who acts in accordance with applicable directions, guidelines or recommendations issued by HHS regarding administration and use of a countermeasure as long as HHS or the State or local health authority is notified about the serious injury or death within seven days of its discovery.
I think point (1) is important because many vaccinated have been infected as well. The thing that can cause negative effectiveness is if previous infection in the two groups do not provide an equal level of protection. If in the battle for scarce resources, say, our immune system gets lazy and goes with the immune response offered by the vaccine (perhaps because this is the first immune response a person's naive immune system has been introduced to) instead of the (much more robust) response that would be acquired from natural immunity, then it may cause negative effectiveness. Instead of the virus being eliminated while still at sub-clinical levels, it will be allowed to replicate to the point of infection. At least that is how I understand it would cause negative effectiveness, but I hope one of my reader's can correct me if I am completely out to lunch.
At which point you would need to wait and measure post-breakthrough reinfections and compare to either reinfections or second reinfections. Using reinfections should set the bar "lower," and we can already see that there is a bit of slippage for the "breakthrough" immunity in the Goldberg, Y. et al. graph - but as people are not groups, the majority of "breakthrough" immune are doing just fine at 4-6, only about 3% are evincing inferior immunity.
This is not OAS anyway. OAS would be "breakthrough" immune doing as badly as vaccinated 4-8, because literally nothing was added except a temporary antibody boost that would fade by month 4 - or maybe not. So either most of their circulatory antibodies are jacked up to month 8 or most of them have a more broad-spectrum immune response this time (more mucosal IgA, resident T Cells, etc.), or most have one or the other. I find B more plausible than A or A+B.
There's a lot of weirdness RE AstraZeneca and variants worldwide, but in UK the backdrop is that the vaccinated were already showing "negative efficacy" against Delta in all age groups in the real-time snapshots, for weeks and weeks.
So, naturally Omicron, wading into that ballpark, would hit the same "negative efficacy" home run. And if more younger / recent recipients received Pfizer, that could explain why it is not also negative; though it could also suggest that AstraZeneca was driving the Delta real-time "negative efficacy" values all along, implying ADE. But in both cases, I don't trust the denominator for the unvaccinated and don't trust the "negative efficacy" concluded based on that denominator.
Notably, the author is the same booster-skeptical Phil Krause who resigned from the FDA. But as his solution for the weakness of boosters is somehow "vaccine even harder", that doesn't really speak to much.
Thanks god at least some people were awake and did not get these shots. A third of the american population will probably survive without being jabbed. See where the others end up in a few years. All the young people dying on the ball field does not look good.
Awareness of OAS dates back to the 1960’s. The fact that it was ignored before these vaccines were given to humans is unforgivable. The problem is that the culprits have “super immunity” and they knew they would never be held accountable. Hundreds of millions of humans have unwittingly and permanently sold their immune systems.
Could you clarify "super immunity"? Thanks
I think he is referring to zero liability/indemnity
There is a great explanation of the legal “super immunity” problem on pages 35-37 of Betten Chevrolet’s petition to SCOTUS for a stay of the OSHA mandate.
https://www.sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Betten-1-3-4-links-a0d762e18ae14fec221975e36ccdede6.pdf
Under the PREP Act, immunity from liability for claims of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of vaccines for entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures.
Immunity from liability under the PREP Act is not available for death or serious physical injury caused by willful misconduct. A “serious physical injury” is one that is life-threatening, or results in or requires medical or surgical intervention to preclude permanent impairment of a body function or results in permanent damage to a body structure. Willful misconduct is misconduct that is greater than any form of recklessness or negligence. It is defined in the PREP Act as an act or failure to act that is taken: 1) intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose; 2) knowingly without legal or factual justification; and 3) in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit. All three of these conditions must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. Willful misconduct cannot be found against:
a manufacturer or distributor for actions regulated by HHS under the Public Health Service Act or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, if HHS chooses not to take an enforcement action against the manufacturer or distributor, or if HHS terminates or settles an enforcement action without imposing a criminal, civil, or administrative penalty; or
a program planner or qualified person who acts in accordance with applicable directions, guidelines or recommendations issued by HHS regarding administration and use of a countermeasure as long as HHS or the State or local health authority is notified about the serious injury or death within seven days of its discovery.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/covid-19-and-prep-act-immunity
https://www.scivisionpub.com/pdfs/us-covid19-vaccines-proven-to-cause-more-harm-than-good-based-on-pivotal-clinical-trial-data-analyzed-using-the-proper-scientific--1811.pdf
I thought that there are two contributors to negative effectiveness:
1) Many unvaccinated are actually naturally immune
2) ADE
I was not aware that OAS can create negative effectiveness, it can create a zero effectiveness situation but not negative. Am I mistaken?
I think point (1) is important because many vaccinated have been infected as well. The thing that can cause negative effectiveness is if previous infection in the two groups do not provide an equal level of protection. If in the battle for scarce resources, say, our immune system gets lazy and goes with the immune response offered by the vaccine (perhaps because this is the first immune response a person's naive immune system has been introduced to) instead of the (much more robust) response that would be acquired from natural immunity, then it may cause negative effectiveness. Instead of the virus being eliminated while still at sub-clinical levels, it will be allowed to replicate to the point of infection. At least that is how I understand it would cause negative effectiveness, but I hope one of my reader's can correct me if I am completely out to lunch.
At which point you would need to wait and measure post-breakthrough reinfections and compare to either reinfections or second reinfections. Using reinfections should set the bar "lower," and we can already see that there is a bit of slippage for the "breakthrough" immunity in the Goldberg, Y. et al. graph - but as people are not groups, the majority of "breakthrough" immune are doing just fine at 4-6, only about 3% are evincing inferior immunity.
This is not OAS anyway. OAS would be "breakthrough" immune doing as badly as vaccinated 4-8, because literally nothing was added except a temporary antibody boost that would fade by month 4 - or maybe not. So either most of their circulatory antibodies are jacked up to month 8 or most of them have a more broad-spectrum immune response this time (more mucosal IgA, resident T Cells, etc.), or most have one or the other. I find B more plausible than A or A+B.
There's a lot of weirdness RE AstraZeneca and variants worldwide, but in UK the backdrop is that the vaccinated were already showing "negative efficacy" against Delta in all age groups in the real-time snapshots, for weeks and weeks.
So, naturally Omicron, wading into that ballpark, would hit the same "negative efficacy" home run. And if more younger / recent recipients received Pfizer, that could explain why it is not also negative; though it could also suggest that AstraZeneca was driving the Delta real-time "negative efficacy" values all along, implying ADE. But in both cases, I don't trust the denominator for the unvaccinated and don't trust the "negative efficacy" concluded based on that denominator.
Agreed 100% on all points. The only thing that surprised me is WHO admitting it.
Notably, the author is the same booster-skeptical Phil Krause who resigned from the FDA. But as his solution for the weakness of boosters is somehow "vaccine even harder", that doesn't really speak to much.