Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[stickdog99]

[Belligerent Savant]

.

This is a detailed/lengthy deep dive, mostly in layman's terms. I will only share a few excerpts here but worth reading in full at source.

A Classic Bait-And-Switch for a Lifetime of Booster Shots (Immunity as a Service)


...

One of the most common reasons given for mass COVID vaccinations is the idea that if we reach herd immunity through vaccination, we can starve the virus out of existence and get our lives back. It's the COVID-Zero strategy or some variant of it.

By now it is abundantly clear from the epidemiological data that the vaccinated are able to both catch and spread the disease. Clearly vaccination isn't going to make this virus disappear. Only a mind that has lost its grasp on reality can fail to see how ridiculous all this has become.

But a tour through pre-COVID science demonstrates that, from day one, long before you and I had even heard of this virus, it was 100% inevitable and 100% predictable that these vaccines would never be capable of eradicating this coronavirus and would never lead to any kind of lasting herd immunity. Even worse, lockdowns and mass vaccination have created a dangerous set of circumstances that interferes with our immune system's ability to protect us against other respiratory viruses. They also risk driving the evolution of this virus towards mutations that are more dangerous to both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated alike. Lockdowns, mass vaccinations, and mass booster shots were never capable of delivering on any of the promises that were made to the public.

And yet, vaccination has been successfully used to control measles and even to eradicate smallpox. So, why not COVID? Immunity is immunity, and a virus is a virus is a virus, right? Wrong! Reality is far more complicated... and more interesting.

This Deep Dive exposes why, from day one, the promise of COVID-Zero can only ever have been a deliberately dishonest shell game designed to prey on a lack of public understanding of how our immune systems work and on how most respiratory viruses differ from other viruses that we routinely vaccinate against. We have been sold a fantasy designed to rope us into a pharmaceutical dependency as a deceitful trade-off for access to our lives. Variant by variant. For as long as the public is willing to go along for the ride.

Exposing this story does not require incriminating emails or whistleblower testimony. The story tells itself by diving into the long-established science that every single virologist, immunologist, evolutionary biologist, vaccine developer, and public health official had access to long before COVID began. As is so often the case, the devil is hidden in the details. As this story unfolds it will become clear that the one-two punch of lockdowns and the promise of vaccines as an exit strategy began as a cynical marketing ploy to coerce us into a never-ending regimen of annual booster shots intentionally designed to replace the natural "antivirus security updates" against respiratory viruses that come from hugs and handshakes and from children laughing together at school. We are being played for fools.

This is not to say that there aren't plenty of other opportunists taking advantage of this crisis to pursue other agendas and to tip society into a full-blown police state. One thing quickly morphs into another. But this essay demonstrates that never-ending boosters were the initial motive for this global social-engineering shell game ― the subscription-based business model, adapted for the pharmaceutical industry. "Immunity as a service".

So, let's dive into the fascinating world of immune systems, viruses, and vaccines, layer by layer, to dispel the myths and false expectations that have been created by deceitful public health officials, pharmaceutical lobbyists, and media manipulators. What emerges as the lies are peeled apart is both surprising and more than a little alarming.

...

Smallpox made sense for eradication because it was a uniquely human virus ― there was no animal reservoir. By contrast, most respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-2 (a.k.a. COVID) come from animal reservoirs: swine, birds, bats, etc. As long as there are bats in caves, birds in ponds, pigs in mud baths, and deer living in forests, respiratory viruses are only controllable through individual immunity, but it is not possible to eradicate them. There will always be a near-identical cousin brewing in the wings.

Even the current strain of COVID is already cheerfully jumping onwards across species boundaries. According to both National Geographic and Nature magazine, 40% of wild deer tested positive for COVID antibodies in a study conducted in Michigan, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania. It has also been documented in wild mink and has already made the species jump to other captive animals including dogs, cats, otters, leopards, tigers, and gorillas. A lot of viruses are not fussy. They happily adapt to new opportunities. Specialists, like smallpox, eventually go extinct. Generalists, like most respiratory viruses, never run out of hosts to keep the infection cycle going, forever.

As long as we share this planet with other animals, it is extremely deceitful to give anyone the impression that we can pursue any scorched earth policy that can put this genie back in the bottle. With an outbreak on this global scale, it was clear that we were always going to have to live with this virus. There are over 200 other endemic respiratory viruses that cause colds and flus, many of which circulate freely between humans and other animals. Now there are 201. They will be with us forever, whether we like it or not.

SARS: The Exception to the Rule?

This all sounds well and good, but the original SARS virus did disappear, with public health measures like contact tracing and strict quarantine measures taking the credit. However, SARS was the exception to the rule. When it made the species jump to humans, it was so poorly adapted to its new human hosts that it had terrible difficulty spreading. This very poor level of adaptation gave SARS a rather unique combination of properties:

1. SARS was extremely difficult to catch (it was never very contagious)
2. SARS made people extremely sick.
3. SARS did not have pre-symptomatic spread.

These three conditions made the SARS outbreak easy to control through contact tracing and through the quarantine of symptomatic individuals. SARS therefore never reached the point where it circulated widely among asymptomatic community members.

By contrast, by January/February of 2020 it was clear from experiences in China, Italy, and the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship (more on that story later) that the unique combination of conditions that made SARS controllable were not going to be the case with COVID. COVID was quite contagious (its rapid spread showed that COVID was already well adapted to spreading easily among its new human hosts), most people would have mild or no symptoms from COVID (making containment impossible), and that it was spreading by aerosols produced by both symptomatic and pre-symptomatic people (making contact tracing a joke).

In other words, it was clear by January/February 2020 that this pandemic would follow the normal rules of a readily transmissible respiratory epidemic, which cannot be reined in the way SARS was. Thus, by January/February of 2020, giving the public the impression that the SARS experience could be replicated for COVID was a deliberate lie - this genie was never going back inside the bottle.


Fast Mutations: The Fantasy of Control through Herd Immunity


Once a reasonably contagious respiratory virus begins circulating widely in a community, herd immunity can never be maintained for very long. RNA respiratory viruses (such as influenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), rhinoviruses, and coronaviruses) all mutate extremely fast compared to viruses like smallpox, measles, or polio. Understanding the difference between something like measles and a virus like COVID is key to understanding the con that is being perpetrated by our health institutions. Bear with me here, I promise not to get too technical.

All viruses survive by creating copies of themselves. And there are always a lot of "imperfect copies" — mutations — produced by the copying process itself. Among RNA respiratory viruses these mutations stack up so quickly that there is rapid genetic drift, which continually produces new strains. Variants are normal. Variants are expected. Variants make it virtually impossible to build the impenetrable wall of long-lasting herd immunity required to starve these respiratory viruses out of existence. That's one of several reasons why flu vaccines don't provide long-lasting immunity and have to be repeated annually ― our immune system constantly needs to be updated to keep pace with the inevitable evolution of countless unnamed "variants."

This never-ending conveyor belt of mutations means that everyone's immunity to COVID was always only going to be temporary and only offer partial cross-reactive protection against future re-infections. Thus, from day one, COVID vaccination was always doomed to the same fate as the flu vaccine ― a lifelong regimen of annual booster shots to try to keep pace with "variants" for those unwilling to expose themselves to the risk of a natural infection. And the hope that by the time the vaccines (and their booster shots) roll off the production line, they won't already be out of date when confronted by the current generation of virus mutations.

Genetic drift caused by mutations is much slower in viruses like measles, polio, or smallpox, which is why herd immunity can be used to control these other viruses (or even eradicate them as in the case of smallpox or polio). The reason the common respiratory viruses have such rapid genetic drift compared to these other viruses has much less to do with how many errors are produced during the copying process and much more to do with how many of those "imperfect" copies are actually able to survive and produce more copies.

...

Spiked: The Fantasy of Preventing Infection

The current crop of COVID vaccines was never designed to provide sterilizing immunity - that's not how they work. They are merely a tool designed to teach the immune system to attack the S-spike protein, thereby priming the immune system to reduce the severity of infection in preparation for your inevitable future encounter with the real virus. They were never capable of preventing infection, nor of preventing spread. They were merely designed to reduce your chance of being hospitalized or dying if you are infected. As former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who is on Pfizer’s board, said: "the original premise behind these vaccines were [sic] that they would substantially reduce the risk of death and severe disease and hospitalization. And that was the data that came out of the initial clinical trials.” Every first-year medical student knows that you cannot get herd immunity from a vaccine that does not stop infection.

In other words, by their design, these vaccines can neither stop you from catching an infection nor stop you from transmitting the infection to someone else. They were never capable of creating herd immunity. They were designed to protect individuals against severe outcomes if they choose to take them - a tool to provide temporary focused protection for the vulnerable, just like the flu vaccine. Pushing for mass vaccination was a con from day one. And the idea of using vaccine passports to separate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated was also a con from day one. The only impact these vaccine passports have on the pandemic is as a coercive tool to get you to roll up your sleeve. Nothing more.

...

In addition to various non-specific rapid response layers that take out the brigands, like natural killer cells, macrophages, mast cells, and so on, we also have many adaptive (specialized) layers of antibodies (i.e. IgA, IgG, IgM immunoglobulin) and various types of highly specialized white blood cells, like B-cells and T-cells. Some antibodies are released by regular B-cells. Others are released by blood plasma. Then there are memory B-cells, which are capable of remembering previous threats and creating new antibodies long after the original antibodies fade away. And there are various types of T-cells (again with various degrees of immunological memory), like natural killer T-cells, killer T-cells, and helper T-cells, all of which play various roles in detecting and neutralizing invaders. In short, the greater the threat, the more troops are called into the fight.

This is clearly a gross oversimplification of all the different interconnected parts of our immune system, but the point is that a mild infection doesn't trigger as many layers whereas a severe infection enlists the help of deeper layers, which are slower to respond but are much more specialized in their attack capabilities. And if those deeper adaptive layers get involved, they are capable of retaining a memory of the threat in order to be able to mount a quicker attack if a repeat attack is recognized in the future. That's why someone who was infected by the dangerous Spanish Flu in 1918 might still have measurable T-cell immunity a century later but the mild bout of winter flu you had a couple of years ago might not have triggered T-cell immunity, even though both may have been caused by versions of the same H1N1 influenza virus.

As a rule of thumb, the broader the immune response, the longer immunological memory will last. Antibodies fade in a matter of months, whereas B-cell and T-cell immunity can last a lifetime.

Another rule of thumb is that a higher viral load puts more strain on your immune defenses, thus overwhelming the rapid response layers and forcing the immune system to enlist the deeper adaptive layers. That's why nursing homes and hospitals are more dangerous places for vulnerable people than backyard barbeques. That's why feedlot cattle are more vulnerable to viral diseases than cattle on pasture. Viral load matters a lot to how easily the generalist layers are overwhelmed and how much effort your immune system has to make to neutralize a threat.

...

The take-home lesson is that vaccines will, at best, only last as long as immunity acquired through natural infection and will often fade much faster because the vaccine is often only able to trigger a partial immune response compared to the actual infection. So, if the disease itself doesn't produce a broad-based immune response leading to long-lasting immunity, neither will the vaccine. And in most cases, immunity acquired through vaccination will begin to fade much sooner than immunity acquired through a natural infection. Every vaccine maker and public health official knows this despite bizarrely claiming that the COVID vaccines (based on re-creating the S-protein spike instead of using a whole virus) would somehow become the exception to the rule. That was a lie, and they knew it from day one. That should set your alarm bells ringing at full throttle.

So, with this little bit of background knowledge under our belts, let's look at what our public health officials and vaccine makers would have known in advance about coronaviruses and coronavirus vaccines when they told us back in the early Spring of 2020 that COVID vaccines were the path back to normality.

From a 2003 study [my emphasis]: "Until SARS appeared, human coronaviruses were known as the cause of 15–30% of colds... Colds are generally mild, self-limited infections, and significant increases in neutralizing antibody titer are found in nasal secretions and serum after infection. Nevertheless, some unlucky individuals can be reinfected with the same coronavirus soon after recovery and get symptoms again."

In other words, the coronaviruses involved in colds (there were four human coronaviruses before SARS, MERS, and COVID) all trigger such a weak immune response that they do not lead to any long-lasting immunity whatsoever. And why would they if, for most of us, the threat is so minimal that the generalists are perfectly capable of neutralizing the attack.

...

Thus, to pretend that there was any chance that herd immunity to COVID would be anything but short-lived was dishonest at best. For most people, immunity was always going to fade quickly. Just like what happens after most other respiratory virus infections. By February 2020, the epidemiological data showed clearly that for most people COVID was a mild coronavirus (nowhere near as severe than SARS or MERS), so it was virtually a certainty that even the immunity from a natural infection would fade within months, not years. It was also a certainty that vaccination was therefore, at best, only ever going to provide partial protection and that this protection would be temporary, lasting on the order of months. This is a case of false and misleading advertising if there ever was one.

If I can allow my farming roots to shine through for a moment, I'd like to explain the implications of what was known about animal coronaviruses vaccines. Baby calves are often vaccinated against bovine coronaviral diarrhea shortly after birth if they are born in the spring mud and slush season, but not if they are born in midsummer on lush pastures where the risk of infection is lower. Likewise, bovine coronavirus vaccines are used to protect cattle before they face stressful conditions during shipping, in a feedlot, or in winter feed pens. Animal coronavirus vaccines are thus used as tools to provide a temporary boost in immunity, in very specific conditions, and only for very specific vulnerable categories of animals. After everything I've laid out so far in this text, the targeted use of bovine coronavirus vaccines should surprise no-one. Pretending that our human coronavirus vaccines would be different was nonsense.

The only rational reason why the WHO and public health officials would withhold all that contextual information from the public as they rolled out lockdowns and held forth vaccines as an exit strategy was to whip the public into irrational fear in order to be able to make a dishonest case for mass vaccination when they should have, at most, been focused on providing focused vaccination of the most vulnerable only. That deception was the Trojan Horse to introduce endless mass booster shots as immunity inevitably fades and as new variants replace old ones.

...

We often speak of evolutionary pressure as though it forces an organism to adapt. In reality, a simple organism like a virus is utterly blind to its environment — all it does is blindly produce genetic copies of itself. "Evolutionary pressure" is actually just a fancy way of saying that environmental conditions will determine which of those millions of copies survives long enough to produce even more copies of itself.

A human adapts to its environment by altering its behaviour (that's one type of adaptation). But the behaviour of a single viral particle never changes. A virus "adapts" over time because some genetic copies with one set of mutations survive and spread faster than other copies with a different set of mutations. Adaptation in viruses has to be seen exclusively through the lens of changes from one generation of virus to the next based on which mutations have a competitive edge over others. And that competitive edge will vary depending on the kinds of environmental conditions a virus encounters.

So, fear mongering about the Delta variant being even more contagious leaves out the fact that this is exactly what you would expect as a respiratory virus adapts to its new host species. We would expect new variants to be more contagious but less deadly as the virus fades to become just like the other 200+ respiratory viruses that cause common colds and flus.

That's also why the decision to lock down the healthy population is so sinister. Lockdowns, border closures, and social distancing rules reduced spread among the healthy, thus creating a situation where mutations produced among the healthy would become sufficiently rare that they might be outnumbered by mutations circulating among the sick. Mutations circulating among the healthy are, by definition, less dangerous since they did not make their hosts sick enough to confine them to bedrest. That's precisely the variant you want to spread. Mutations circulating among the bedridden are much more likely to be dangerous, which is why their host is stuck in bed with a fever and not out dining with friends.

As long as the majority of infections are among the healthy, the more dangerous variants circulating among the bedridden will be outnumbered and will become evolutionary dead ends. But when public health officials intentionally restricted spread among the young, strong, and healthy members of society by imposing lockdowns, they created a set of evolutionary conditions that risked giving a competitive advantage to more dangerous variants. By locking us all up, they risked making the virus more dangerous over time. Evolution doesn't sit around to wait for you while you develop a vaccine.


...
...

Let me give you a historical example to demonstrate that this rapid evolution of a virus towards either more or less dangerous variants isn't mere theory. Small changes to the environment can lead to very rapid changes in the virus' evolution. The first wave of the 1918 Spanish Flu was not particularly deadly, with mortality rates similar to regular seasonal flu. However, the second wave was not only much deadlier but, rather unusually, was particularly deadly to young people rather than just the old and the weak. Why would the second wave be the deadly one? And what would cause the virus to evolve so quickly to become both more deadly and better adapted to preying on young people? At first glance it would seem to defy all evolutionary logic.

The answer demonstrates just how sensitive a virus is to small changes in evolutionary pressure. The Spanish Flu spread in the midst of the lockdown-mimicking conditions of World War One. During the first wave, the virus found a huge population of soldiers trapped in the cold damp conditions of the trenches and a near endless supply of captive bedridden hosts in overflowing field hospitals. By the Spring of 1918, up to three-quarters of the entire French military and half of British troops had been infected. These conditions created two unique evolutionary pressures. On the one hand, it allowed variants that were well adapted to young people to emerge. But on the other hand, unlike normal times, the cramped conditions of trench warfare and field hospitals allowed dangerous variants that immobilize their hosts to spread freely with little competition from less dangerous variants that spread through lively hosts. The trenches and field hospitals became the virus incubators driving the evolution of variants.

Normally young people are predominantly exposed to less dangerous mutations because the healthiest do all the mingling while the bedridden stay home. But the lockdown conditions of war created conditions that erased the competitive advantage of less dangerous mutations that don't immobilize their hosts, leading to the rise of more dangerous mutations.

Thanks to the end of the war, the lockdown-mimicking conditions also ended, thereby shifting the competitive advantage back to less dangerous mutations that could spread freely among the mobile healthy members of the population. The deadliness of the second wave of the 1918 Spanish Flu is inextricably linked to the First World War, and the end of the war is linked to the virus fading into the background of regular cold and flu season.

It is therefore highly likely that the 1918 Spanish Flu would never have been more than a really bad flu season had it not been for the amplifying effect of lockdown conditions created by a world at war.

It also raises the question, for which I don't have an answer, whether the lockdown strategy during COVID was intentionally used to reduce spread among the healthy in order to keep the virus from fading into harmless irrelevancy. I use the word "intentionally" ― and it's a strong word ― because the deadly second wave of the 1918 Spanish Flu and its causes are hardly secrets in the medical community. You'd have to be a completely reckless and utterly incompetent idiot, or a cynical bastard with an agenda, to impose any strategy that mimics those virus-amplifying conditions. Yet that's what our health authorities did. And what they continue to do, while shamelessly hyperventilating about the risk of "variants" to force us to submit to medical tyranny based on mandatory vaccines, never-ending booster shots, and vaccine passports that can turn off access to our normal lives. This is cynicism at its finest.


Leaky Vaccines, Antibody-Dependent Enhancement, and the Marek Effect

The experience of the 2nd wave of the 1918 Spanish Flu also raises another question: What kind of evolutionary pressures are being created by using a leaky vaccine?

...

A portion of the conclusion:

When you know there's a threat, but you don't know exactly what it is, every movement in the grass might be a tiger or a snake or a scorpion. It's paralysing and exhausting to defend yourself against an invisible unknown and they have used that fear masterfully against us to keep us frozen. But once you spot the tiger in the grass, you know where to direct your focus, your feet become unglued, your voice becomes bold, and you regain the clarity of thought to defend yourself.

The con is clear. So, we can let go of all the worries about depopulation and bioweapons and all the gaslighting about variants and focus all our might on stopping this runaway train before it takes us over the cliff into a police state of no return. Rent-seeking snake-oil salesmen don't set out to kill their customers in a subscription-based economy. It's just that they are not that bothered if you're maimed or killed as collateral damage to their wild reckless con. They are the threat. They are the danger that deserves our undivided attention. Stand up. Speak out. Refuse to play along. Stopping this requires millions of voices with the courage to say NO — at work, at home, at school, at church, and out on the street.

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis & foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored." — Martin Luther King Jr.

Compliance is the glue that holds tyranny together. Non-compliance breaks it apart. One person alone cannot stop this. But if millions find the courage to raise their voices and the courage to refuse to participate in the system on these tyrannical medical terms, it will throw the system into such a crisis and create such a tension that the community will be forced to confront the issue. Without enough truckers, no-one eats. Without enough medical staff, hospitals close. Without enough workers, supply chains break. Without enough policemen, laws cannot be enforced. Without enough garbage collectors, cities grind to a halt. Without enough cashiers, box stores cannot stay open. Without enough administrators, institutions cease to function. Without enough staff, corporations lose profits. Without enough servers, restaurants cannot serve their customers. And without enough customers, businesses are brought to their knees.

Tyranny is not sustainable if the system grinds to a halt. Make it grind by being a thorn in everyone's side until they give us back our freedoms and end this ridiculous charade. They are trying to impose vaccine passports and mandatory vaccinations. But we hold the cards... but only if we are bold enough to stand up even at the risk of finding ourselves standing alone. Courage begets courage. It was Martin Luther King's secret power. It must be ours.

Now that you see the con, you also know the simple recipe to make this virus go away before their reckless policies turn it a monster virus for real. Remember 1918. End the war on the virus. Let the young folks come out of the trenches. Let people go back to their lives. Provide focused protection for the vulnerable. That is how this virus fades into the history books.

It's time to be bold. It's time to call out the fraudsters. And it's time to reclaim the habits, values, and principles that are required to fix our democratic and scientific institutions to prevent this from ever happening again.

Feudalism was one giant stinking cesspool of self-serving corruption. Individual rights, free markets, the democratic process, and limited government were the antidotes that freed humanity from that hierarchical servitude. It seems we have come full circle. The COVID con is a symptom, not the cause, of a broken system.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Much more at link.

https://www.juliusruechel.com/2021/09/t ... -zero.html

[liminalOyster]

It seems to me that there's a huge gap between the very challenging task this board was created to undertake as I understand it - basically to go where no smart (wo)man has gone before and try to understand "how it all works" as Wombat once described it in a blog post - and many of the driving arguments behind much of what this thread proposes. IMO, and with real fondness for the folks here I disagree with most, it feels a bit like COVID is being taken as a premature final answer that aforementioned question once and for all. IMO, we ain't seen nothing yet.

COVID has left us all with an incomprehensibly massive surplus of suspicious lies, propaganda, corruption and harm to reorganize according to our own biases. I suspect anyone committed to their political view could use it similar to a lego set, at this point, to make the case-to-end-all-cases for why their view is right. Ruechel is no exception. His politics are spelled out and its very clear how they inform his own hot take. And to complicate matters, since the question of our own and others' mortality is involved, the discursive tenor is like a rocket gathering energy to launch.

There's probably a way to incorporate various wisdoms from many different and conflicting positions but noone seems to be doing that anymore (not just at RI but in the wild too). Nor do I claim I'm able to.

I do still like Jeff's tweets alot because they seem more focused on how this moment is the longitudinal *outcome* of decades of movement which is now becoming apparent. I fully agree we're fucked beyond repair and I agree with most but not quite all of his reasoning as it relates to COVID.

But I always come back to the felt sense that there's a curious lack of reverence for the natural world in theories which see a greater degree of human manipulation here than I do. And the fact that pandemics were direly predicted by public health specialists and peripheral disciplinary experts many years ago as a result of the same globalization, corporate consolidation/expansion, privatization and extractivism driving climate catastrophe. Arguably that's my own bias come into view.

So, you know - fuck it. Like I don't care enough to argue here with people I like. That liking is more important than this maelstrom.

I don't have a grand point or conclusion other than an anecdote. I got an email from my bank yesterday. The subject line was "We value your insights." And I had a flash of the dystopian insanity I'm used to - we've invented machines to tell us lies. When you really think about it, how weird is that? It's like we've automated and externalized even psychological denial at this point. Can you imagine where we'll be in like 10 years? Or maybe we already are. If I had an insight at all, I just fed it into the machine right here, didn't I? Oh well.

Peace out.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/N ... tured_home

Resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Highly Vaccinated Health System Workforce

September 1, 2021

[stickdog99]

[stickdog99]

https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/02/how ... ted-means/

How (and why) Israel changed what “fully vaccinated” means

Newspeak definition opens the door for more authoritarian control, huge Big Pharma profits…and potentially the worst deception of the entire “pandemic”

Kit Knightly

Israel has been at the forefront of the vaccination push ever since November 2020, when they signed agreements with Pfizer to run what were essentially medical experiments on their civilian population.

They were the first country to roll out the Pfizer vaccine. They were the first country to try out the (since abandoned) “Green passes” system of medical segregation. And now they’re the first country to change the terms of the “get vaccinated and get your freedom back” contract.

That’s right. Just as “three weeks to flatten the curve” turned into around 18-months (and counting), “double jabbed” is now evolving into “triple jabbed”.

To quote Dr Salman Zarka, Israel’s “coronavirus czar”:

We are updating what it means to be vaccinated,”

So, there you have it. In Israel, officially, those who have been injected with two doses of Pfizer’s so-called vaccine are no longer counted as vaccinated.

What does this mean?

Well, first of all, it means all those “vaccinated” people can kiss their recently acquired freedoms goodbye, unless they’re willing to get at least one more booster.

According to the Wall Street Journal [paywalled article]:

Holders of Israel’s vaccine passports must get a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine within six months of their second dose, or lose the so-called green pass that allows them more freedom.”

It should also be noted that the third booster is not considered the last. The Israeli Ministry of Health “has not ruled out further boosters in the future” and the third shot will only extend the “vaccinated” status for six months, not permanently.

So, essentially, the precedent has been set that your freedoms are the state’s to take away on a whim. And, if you comply, they will simply use your compliance as an excuse to take even greater liberties (pun very much intended).

Israel has been the Petri dish for this since the beginning. If it works there, expect the “booster shot requirement” to be instituted in other countries all over the world fairly quickly.

To all the people who have taken the vaccine, and are now realising they may have done something foolish. Sorry, but we did try to warn you this would happen.

Financially speaking, this is yet another boon in a golden year for Pfizer, who can now ship even more doses of their experimental and unnecessary gene therapy to people who are literally legally obliged to use it. If you don’t want to take the jab, just take some of Pfizer’s new magic anti-Covid pills instead.

So don’t worry about the death of freedom and democracy in the name of an almost-completely-harmless disease. At least the Pfizer shareholders can afford that second private island and golden costumes for their human chess sets.

However, the predictable seizure of freedoms, and obvious financial motives behind it, aren’t even the worst part.

The potentially far more cynical part comes later. In three months or so, when the flu season hits, and the elderly and infirm start dying, as they do every winter.

It won’t be called “flu season”, of course. It will be all be classified as “Covid”. Combined with this new definition of “vaccinated”, the “fourth wave” or the “sigma variant” (or whatever they call it) could now be used to produce a whole new manipulated statistic.

Think about it: Every Israeli citizen who gets sick and/or dies, after being double jabbed but not triple jabbed, will be officially labelled “not fully vaccinated”.

They could therefore claim that Covid is primarily affecting “unvaccinated people”, even if the majority of people getting sick have had two doses of Pfizers mRNA cocktail.

Just as they used linguistic tricks to turn “deaths from any cause” into “Covid deaths”, and “asymptomatic positive tests” into “Covid cases”, they have now created a loophole to turn “vaccinated people” who get sick into “unvaccinated people”.

Worse still, it’s possible that, over the coming winter, people who have been “vaccinated” may die at an even greater rate than normal.

If the theory that the mRNA vaccines may cause antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) proves correct, a lot of people could be killed by viruses this winter as a direct result of being “vaccinated”…and then be used as evidence to prop up the idea of “vaccine effectiveness”.

In twenty months of obvious scientific malpractice, data manipulation, statistical dishonesty, and full-on linguistic reversal…we may be about to see the worst lie of all.

This is all supposition at this point, of course. But for anyone out there thinking “they would never do that”, I remind you that man was counted as Covid death after shooting himself in the head. There is literally no bar so low that the powers-that-be couldn’t limbo under it.

Even if time proves my theory wrong, the solid, admitted reality of the booster-shot system is bad enough. Freedom forever under a dangling sword of Damocles, and yet another assault on language as part of a years-long campaign to rob our very words of meaning.

And while all this may seem incredibly cynical, if you haven’t become incredibly cynical in the last two years, then you weren’t paying attention.

[stickdog99]

[Belligerent Savant]

.

[This section edited by mods with agreement of original poster.]

Though as already mentioned, right now, in NYC and elsewhere, the unvaccinated are indeed restricted from certain travel, employment, dining, and extracirricular/leisure activities.

‐----‐-------------‐----------------------------

Also: a page or so ago, I typed the following, in part:

Why haven't we heard from the fucking ACLU on their position Re: vaccine passports/proof of vaccination?

Well, while the cowards/frauds at the current iteration of the ACLU remain largely silent, they had prophetic words to share back in 2008:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1415 ... 57890.html

The ACLU's 2008 report on how not to respond to a pandemic:


https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/file ... report.pdf

Excerpts:

"There will always be a new disease, always the threat of a new pandemic. If that fear justifies the suspension of liberties and the institution of an emergency state, then freedom and the rule of law will be permanently suspended."
"Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have encouraged abuses of state power. Atrocities, large and small, have been committed in the name of protecting the public’s health."

"The Act used fear to justify methods better suited to quelling public riots than protecting public health. The premise of the Act was that every outbreak of disease could be the beginning of some horrific epidemic, requiring the suspension of civil liberties."
"The threat of a new pandemic will never subside. But the notion that we need to 'trade liberty for security' is misguided and dangerous. Public health concerns cannot be addressed with law enforcement or national security tools. If we allow the fear associated with a...potential outbreak to justify the suspension of liberties in the name of public health, we risk not only undermining our fundamental rights, but alienating the very communities and individuals that are in need of help and thereby fomenting the spread of disease."

And here we are, while the cowards remain silent.

[conniption]

^^^ If only they were silent cowards...

RT
(embedded tweets - not shown)

ACLU slammed for claiming mandatory Covid vaccination ‘FURTHERS civil liberties’ & saying right to bodily autonomy not ‘absolute’

RT
2 Sep, 2021

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was publicly condemned on Thursday after arguing that mandatory Covid-19 vaccination actually advances civil liberties instead of compromising them.

In an article for the New York Times – which the ACLU posted on its official Twitter account – ACLU National Legal Director David Cole and colleague Daniel Mach defended vaccine mandates by claiming that the right to bodily autonomy is overruled when others are put at risk.

“Do vaccine mandates violate civil liberties? Some who have refused vaccination claim as much. We disagree,” the pair declared, revealing that the ACLU sees “no civil liberties problem with requiring Covid-19 vaccines in most circumstances.”

“In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties,” they continued, arguing that mandatory vaccination protects “the most vulnerable among us,” including those with disabilities, children, and “communities of color.”

The article justified the mandatory jabs, arguing that the right to bodily autonomy is not “absolute” and saying in some cases intrusions are warranted.

Vaccines are a justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity. That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others.

Cole and Mach even went so far as to claim that the “real threat to civil liberties” is states which ban vaccine mandates and defend the right to bodily autonomy.

“Avoiding a deadly threat to the public health typically outweighs personal autonomy and individual freedom,” Cole and Mach declared, concluding, “We care deeply about civil liberties and civil rights for all – which is precisely why we support vaccine mandates.”

The ACLU received heavy backlash on social media, with critics accusing the organization of having “lost the plot.”

You’ve lost the plot
— Based_In_The_Bay (@Midnight7089) September 2, 2021

“Never donating again. You’re supposed to support individual liberty,” responded one fully vaccinated user, while RedState Deputy Managing Editor Brandon Morse questioned, “Who are they trying to convince with this tweet? Us or themselves?”

“Having the state force citizens to inject their bodies with a medicine they don't want is a victory for civil liberties actually, says the @ACLU,” quipped journalist Glenn Greenwald, who added that although he’s happy that he and his family got vaccinated, it’s “because it was my choice and theirs, after informing ourselves,” and not the government’s decision.

https://www.rt.com/usa/533779-aclu-mand ... d-vaccine/

~~~

RT
ACLU goes to war with South Carolina to demand mask MANDATE in schools
25 Aug, 2021

In a seemingly strange twist for a group dedicated to upholding Americans’ civil liberties, the ACLU is demanding that the state of South Carolina allow its schools to mandate that their students wear face masks.
continues... https://www.rt.com/usa/532974-south-car ... uri-covid/

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Wow. Revolting. Should have looked into it first before assuming they simply kept silent.
I've been largely skeptical of the ACLU's intent for some time now, but the above is despicable, regardless.


Slavery is Freedom.

[liminalOyster]

Even as a very staunch defender of bodily autonomy and a very staunch antagonist of all forms of forced vaccination, I'd still feel pretty disingenuous to refuse to consider the terms of their argument. Which is mostly to say, without taking a stance on this statement itself, there's a worthy *discussion* here which stems from revisiting what body autonomy really is. From the standpoint of the virus being overblown, not real, easy treatments being suppressed by corporations at a widespread scale, however, there is not. So tabling all that which seems popular here, in an alternative hypothetical scenario where, for instance, groups of individuals were unaffected carriers of a pathogen which could easily kill another 10% of the population, the same arguments about body autonomy would seem more tantamount to half-baked social Darwinism. ala "sorry bro, you've got a weak immune system and I don't."

Not drawing a parallel to the statement at hand but trying to make the case that there is a discussion to be had about whether bodily autonomy is or is not without limits. And pointedly not taking a position, only trying to imagine scenarios in which we might be more amenable to question heretofore conventionally accepted wisdom.

With 50% mortality and a working vaccine that prevented spread but did not protect part of the population, would we really defend the bodily autonomy of carriers unwilling to receive vax?

Would we respond the same way to forcing them to socially distance, for instance, rather than receive vax?

I haven't digested the ACLU position which obviously feels utterly specious on the surface. So my point is about the possibility of alternative-to-COVID hypotheticals where the position would feel less specious.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Good God, man. We are NOWHERE in the same universe of 50% mortality, for chrissakes. Hell, if a quarter (25%) of the population can die from a virus and a vaccine -- with less lethality than 25% -- was available, then yes, an argument can rightly be made to mandate shots. An argument wouldn't be necessary: I'd imagine a majority of those currently hesitant wouldn't be hesitating under such circumstances.
This is all nonsense anyway as govts/corporations are mandating them NOW for a virus with over a 99.5% survival rate. For those under 70, the median IFR is 0.05%.


Despite you pushing it aside, there ARE viable alternative treatments, actively suppressed by many of the same entities pushing forced vaccination, to say nothing of outright censorship efforts against doctors/scientists advising against dominant narratives. There are NO debates in public or formal discussions presented to the public to present/consider other treatment options (other than those raised online, where available). Informed Consent is virtually non-existent, unless brought up by an individual proactively, but it's a moot point anyway when medical procedures are FORCED.

The vaccines are showing themselves -- if we observe israel and other early vaccine* adopters -- as potentially exacerbating and prolonging infection prevalence as more time elapses, due in large part (in probability) to coerced mass vaccinations, rather than voluntary or recommended vaccination among those most at risk (the old, the co-morbid). See Sweden as Exhibit A of the latter. See Australia, Israel, New Zealand as examples of the former -- disastrous. Let's see what happens in the States this Fall/Winter.
(And none of the above factors in vaccine adverse effects, both near and/or long-term. They're real and not insiginificant).

Most recent IFR:

Infection fatality rate

0-19: 0.0027%
20-29: 0.014%
30-39: 0.031%
40-49: 0.082%
50-59: 0.27%
60-69: 0.59%
70+: 5.5%
70+: 2.4% among non-institutional

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21260210v1

We're dealing with, right now, real human rights violations. Criminal Acts perpetrated by some of the more egregious players, and you're offering up fantasy scenarios that do not in any way relate to current circumstances.

At this point, after over 18 months of incremental escalations, if one remains an apologist for State actions they may never see it any other way. To the detriment of the majority.

*(it remains debatable, at best, to call these shots vaccines given their inability to showcase consistent immunity beyond 3 - 6 months, and also, an inability to curb spread, per the CDC and other sources. Naturally acquired immunity is showing to be far more resilient and yet the WHO, CDC and many govts never even mention it at all as an option. WHY IS THAT? And then if course there's the flaws of the PCR tests, manipulated stats, etc.)

[drstrangelove]

Even as a very staunch defender of bodily autonomy and a very staunch antagonist of all forms of forced vaccination, I'd still feel pretty disingenuous to refuse to consider the terms of their argument. Which is mostly to say, without taking a stance on this statement itself, there's a worthy *discussion* here which stems from revisiting what body autonomy really is. From the standpoint of the virus being overblown, not real, easy treatments being suppressed by corporations at a widespread scale, however, there is not. So tabling all that which seems popular here, in an alternative hypothetical scenario where, for instance, groups of individuals were unaffected carriers of a pathogen which could easily kill another 10% of the population, the same arguments about body autonomy would seem more tantamount to half-baked social Darwinism. ala "sorry bro, you've got a weak immune system and I don't."

Not drawing a parallel to the statement at hand but trying to make the case that there is a discussion to be had about whether bodily autonomy is or is not without limits. And pointedly not taking a position, only trying to imagine scenarios in which we might be more amenable to question heretofore conventionally accepted wisdom.

With 50% mortality and a working vaccine that prevented spread but did not protect part of the population, would we really defend the bodily autonomy of carriers unwilling to receive vax?

Would we respond the same way to forcing them to socially distance, for instance, rather than receive vax?

I haven't digested the ACLU position which obviously feels utterly specious on the surface. So my point is about the possibility of alternative-to-COVID hypotheticals where the position would feel less specious.

Good questions. Luckily this is covered by the true definition of liberty.

We don't have rights. We do have liberties. Liberty is doing whatever you want, and if someone wants to stop you, they must justify themselves.

This simple principal is the foundation of western law. The legal system is nothing other than a process for justifying the removal of someones liberties. If this is justified, then it is called justice. But we have a very rigorous system for navigating this slippery slope, however corrupted it may have become. Customarily we could never do without it, until now of course .

The restrictions on liberties due to covid have not been justified. The people supporting them do not even try to, in the sense they do not genuinely attempt to reach a mutual understanding of shared reality.

So can we justify restricting liberties based on virus transmission? Sure, if we can define the precise risk posed, justify that risk is unacceptable, and prove that an individual poses that risk.

No one can define a precise risk profile for covid, and it is impossible to prove individual risk.

So lockdown laws are unjustifiable. Hence.why we never did this for the flu. Now if the virus was significantly more deadly, we wouldn't have the current issue, as common sense would ensure people restricted their own liberties using internal controls for the sake of survival. But the risk clearly isn't great enough to meet the risk threshold required for common sense action, that is, the risk is not readily observable outside of the mediasphere. If you turn off the TV or computer, and walk through your local city, everything looks normal.

So what's happening now, is an attack on the semantics of the western tradition. Some people are attempting to change what liberty means, or what totalitarian means, since they can't justify themselves on legal precedents.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Thank you, drstrangelove, for the more sober response.

Perhaps a signal for me to disconnect from the rabble for a bit.

[thrulookingglass]

"So lockdown laws are unjustifiable" merely opinion. Liberties are assumed not granted. I don't know what country you live in but here in America a minor inconvenience by ending public seating at restaurants, bars, less gatherings and sporting events were the incredible infringement on our feigned "liberties". Not warrantless wire taps, not an end to habeas corpus for "terror suspects", not no knock warrants, and not the use of torture as a means of reprisal that suspended our "liberties" but masks, vaccines and a shamefully perfidious president who fiddled while the world burnt. There are responsibilities here and they get more and more significant when we IGNORE them! WE SPREAD THIS FIRE OF EVIL UPON ONE ANOTHER! Slough off obligations to one another has left this world putrefied! And while you look to poke holes in other person's scientific investigations the world smolders just the same. The rise of the (brutal) nation-states as a force to spoil the souls of men with dreams of outlandish trinkets and perverse worship of violent rule is the grave we dig deeper every day. THEY'RE SPORTS TEAMS YOU FOOLS! Don the jersey of your favorite country. The virus of hatred and damnation towards our fellow human beings has NOT been addressed but prospers more and more each day!

There ARE masks that work but capitalist commerce is unwilling to produce them without PROFIT! The obscenity of money worship meanders on. And the masses can't have their imagined "inalienable rights" that slave owners spilled on parchment that exist only in their minds infringed upon. Take to the streets with rifles while the government reads every correspondence you send!

Only love heals. Compassion. Forbearance. Humility.

How long shall we steer this ship into a merciless storm and blame the raging waves we arrogantly plowed into for destroying our riggings?

"When life gets hard you have to change" - Shannon Hoon