Making It To Retirement

Some do, some don’t, and what it looks like may differ, depending ...

For example, we learn this from Don Surber:

ITEM 2: Via Breitbart, Dr. Birx the female Fauci said, "I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection. And I think we overplayed the vaccines. And it made people then worry that it’s not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization. It will, but let’s be very clear — 50% of the people who died from the Omicron surge were older, vaccinated."

They are going to put Bannon away for two years for ignoring a subpoena whose authenticity is questionable because Republicans did not agree to it.

Fauci and Birx will walk away with fat pensions and book deals because they overplayed the vaccines. The 100,000 or so people who lost their jobs over the vaccine get nothing.

Little Tony and the Scarf Lady know Uncle Sam will do just fine by them. Others still don’t know, as we learn per Dr. Marty Makary in a remarkable article. Makary, if you’ve watched or read him over the course of the scamdemic, is an impressively credentialed guy, but hardly a bomb thrower. You get the impression that he’s doing his best. But now he enlarges on a topic that many of us have been hearing about all along:

US agencies aren’t ‘following the science’ on COVID — and staff are too scared to complain

The calls and text messages are relentless. On the other end are doctors and scientists at the top levels of the National Institutes for Health, Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They are variously frustrated, exasperated and alarmed about the direction of the agencies to which they have devoted their careers.

“It’s like a horror movie I’m being forced to watch and I can’t close my eyes,” one senior FDA official lamented. “People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.”

I get it. It sounds like being in a nightmare, and you can’t wake up.

That particular FDA doctor was referring to two recent developments inside the agency. First, how, with no solid clinical data, the agency authorized COVID vaccines for infants and toddlers, including those who already had COVID. And second, the fact that just months before the FDA bypassed its external experts to authorize booster shots for young children.

...

At the NIH, doctors and scientists complain to us about low morale and lower staffing: The NIH’s Vaccine Research Center has had many of its senior scientists leave over the last year, including the director, deputy director and chief medical officer. “They have no leadership right now. Suddenly there’s an enormous number of jobs opening up at the highest level positions,” one NIH scientist told us. (The people who spoke to us would only agree to be quoted anonymously, citing fear of professional repercussions.) 

The CDC has experienced a similar exodus. “There’s been a large amount of turnover. Morale is low,” one high level official at the CDC told us. “Things have become so political, so what are we there for?” Another CDC scientist told us: “I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I’m embarrassed.”

Why are they embarrassed? In short, bad science. 

The longer answer: that the heads of their agencies are using weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions. That such decisions are being driven by what’s politically palatable to people in Washington or to the Biden administration. And that they have a myopic focus on one virus instead of overall health.

Nowhere has this problem been clearer — or the stakes higher — than on official public-health policy regarding children and COVID. 

First, they demanded that young children be masked in schools. On this score, the agencies were wrong. ... 

There’s much, much more. But these short snippets will give you the idea of how these unfortunates—caught in a nightmare against their will—feel:

Next came school closures. The agencies were wrong — and catastrophically so.

Then they ignored natural immunity. Wrong again.

One CDC scientist told us about her shame and frustration about what happened to American children during the pandemic:

Three weeks ago, the CDC vigorously recommended mRNA COVID vaccines for 20 million children under five years of age.

… this sweeping recommendation was based on extremely weak, inconclusive data provided by Pfizer and Moderna.

Referring to Pfizer’s vaccine efficacy in healthy young children, one high-level CDC official — whose expertise is in the evaluation of clinical data — joked: “You can inject them with it or squirt it in their face, and you’ll get the same benefit.”

Ha ha! Joke’s on us!

Then there’s the matter of how long a vaccine gives protection. We know from data in adults that it’s generally a matter of months.

This next one really captures the nightmarish quality for serious scientists:

“It seems criminal that we put out the recommendation to give mRNA COVID vaccines to babies without good data. We really don’t know what the risks are yet. So why push it so hard?” a CDC physician added. A high-level FDA official felt the same way: “The public has no idea how bad this data really is. It would not pass muster for any other authorization.”

Yeah, that’s a real head scratcher for reality based people.

That slap in the face of science may explain why only 2% of parents of children under age five have chosen to get the COVID vaccine, and 40% of parents in rural areas say their pediatricians did not recommend the COVID vaccine for their child.

The FDA’s two top vaccine regulators — Dr. Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s vaccine office, and her deputy director, Dr. Philip Krause — quit the agency last year over political pressure to authorize vaccine boosters in young people. After their departure, they wrote scathing commentaries explaining why the data did not support a broad booster authorization, …

As one NIH scientist told us: “There’s a silence, an unwillingness for agency scientists to say anything. Even though they know that some of what’s being said out of the agency is absurd.”

That was a theme we heard over and over again — people felt like they couldn’t speak freely, even internally within their agencies. “You get labeled based on what you say. If you talk about it, you will suffer, I’m convinced,” an FDA staffer told us. Another person at that agency added: “If you speak honestly, you get treated differently.”

And so they remain quiet, speaking to each other in private or in text groups on Signal.

One subject these doctors and scientists feel passionately about but feel they cannot bring up is natural immunity. …

Those are just snippets. I’m not kidding. There’s much, much more at the link. But, in a way, this is the bottom line:

An official at the FDA put it this way: “I can’t tell you how many people at the FDA have told me, ‘I don’t like any of this, but I just need to make it to my retirement.’ ”

Now, you may have picked up on two key issues in the preceding:

How long the injections remain “effective”, and

The issue of natural immunity.

As it happens, Karl Denninger, in one of his gratuitously family unfriendly posts, points to two recent studies that reach alarming conclusions. Conclusions that—count on it—won’t be getting the headline attention they deserve. Start with this:

Duration of immune protection of SARS-CoV-2 natural infection against reinfection in Qatar

This article is talking about natural immunity as compared to what we know about the lack of long lasting efficacy of the injections. This is KD’s explanation, in part:

Let me explain it.

If you got Covid and lived you are more than 97% certain, with a very narrow confidence band, protected against a severe or fatal (e.g. in hospital or dead) second infection even though coronaviruses always mutate and there is no evidence that protection ever goes away.

Zero evidence.

If you took the jabs, however, the evidence, which we already know (and thus is the reason for "urging" people to get boosters) is that they become next to worthless within a couple of months and block primary immunity if you get infected, so you forfeited the benefit of long-term protection from serious or fatal outcomes when you get reinfected if you took the jabs.

In short if you took the jab and then get the virus you may well not get that durable immunity.

At all.

Ever.

And since a virus "wins" from an evolutionary standpoint by becoming more-transmissible the result is that you will continually get reinfected to the point you may never completely clear the virus at all.

Each reinfection is another roll of the dice. …

If you refused the jabs and got the virus (as I did) you did get that immunity, and while you may well get it again (gee, you get colds once in a while, don't you?) it is a near-certainty won't get seriously ill or die.  Exactly as would have occurred if there were no jabs, and exactly as did occur more than 100 years ago when OC43 showed up and, we believe, caused a pandemic in the 1890s almost identical in character to Covid.

Personally, I’ve never been into Russian roulette, and that’s one of the reasons I’m still alive and keyboarding. And we all know that the actual odds of surviving Covid are very, very good—especially if you get the kind of effective early treatment that the people at NIH, FDA, and CDC are trying to prevent. Those would be the same people Makary describes—in their own words—as keeping their mouths shut and trying to make it to retirement.

OK, that’s all disturbing enough, but it’s actually much worse, because those injections appear to cause long lasting—possibly permanent—harm to the immune system. Harm that is NOT specific to Covid, but rather affects the immune system generally. The harm caused may differ by the individual—it will be at least five years before we have really good studies—but everyone who got themselves injected will be harmed to some extent because the mechanism of harm was injected. So, we’re not talking just about breakthrough cases. We’re talking about things that Dr. Malone and Dr. Ryan Cole have been talking about—heart attacks and strokes, damage to virtually all bodily organs, nervous system disorders, and cancers. You name it—the key is that the mechanism for all this is introduced into the system by the injections. This is why Dr. Cole, for example, is concerned at the dramatic rise in unusual cancers at rates that fall well outside established epidemiological parameters, and why others keep drawing attention to excess mortality statistics that are equally improbable.

Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines and measures to prevent them

Again, here is KD’s explanation, in edited form:

This was just published in Nature, and thus one cannot argue its "mere opinion" or a "conspiracy theory" since it went through the journal's review process.  It is no longer mere speculation that the jabs could wind up causing serious immune damage -- and that said damage may well be permanent.

“Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. According to European Medicines Agency recommendations, frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible.

....

“These clinical alterations may explain the association reported between COVID-19 vaccination and shingles.”

Dr. Malone has said that at every single one of his many public appearances people approach him and ask him about shingles and the injections. The significance of this is not limited to shingles, because it has to do with the larger issue of viral reactivation in general, caused by the injections.

Please note -- the immune system damage isn't specific to Covid and it is not transient either, as one might expect -- even at eight months immune impairment from these jabs was persistent. That's extraordinarily bad, and exactly why you don't rush out new things without testing over a long period of time.

The impact may be irreversible. Note, too, that the article talks about mitigating rather than reversing the impact. Let me remind you that, beyond the impact when it comes to being impaired in fighting off other diseases, every single person on the planet today has cancerous cells in their body and it is your immune system that keeps those in check and prevents you from developing clinical cancer. If this damage is permanent then your lifetime cancer risk has been permanently and materially increased, perhaps by a LOT.

What's worse is that the younger you are the greater the harm because you have more years in front of you for those abnormal cells to get out of control.

Let me point out another very-nasty aspect of this: This paper does not describe a random chance event; rather, it describes mechanisms of action that are caused by these injections. Indeed, for those diagnosed with myocarditis following the injection, it’s logical to believe that this is simply one measure for how the injection acted on that individual. The reason for that is that myocarditis is inflammation which, in the absence of a pathogen, is evidence of significant immune dysregulation. That is, every person got nailed to some degree because the mechanism of harm was introduced into the body.

What's worse is that the spike was intentionally genetically modified in the jabs to prevent it from folding and breaking down in order to enhance the immune response and thus it has now been found in the circulation months after vaccination.

If you’re inclined to think KD is exaggerating, he’s not. I’ll quote from the study:

Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. … As a safety measure, further booster vaccinations should be discontinued. … In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination is a major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients.

It goes on to cite studies documenting all the increased risks that appear to be associated with the injections.