Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[Joe Hillshoist]

.

Cheers, Liminal -- we may be closer aligned on this topic than you realize, at least in certain respects.

One thing, though; when you type:

I just live in a place where I've seen people die in large numbers unambiguously due to COVID (unless hey you're willing to blame poor Black Americans for their propensity to chronic environmental disease or, alternatively lionize them for their unwillingness to vax due to Tuskegee etc).

Have you considered how many of those lives would have been saved if they received proper early treatment (no, not broccoli, but something along these lines: https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/), as an alternative to leaky, flawed "vaccines"?

Unfortunately such treatments are largely suppressed and/or shunned by many doctors/hospitals.

I've spent alot of time listening to people from non western countries during this vaccine. They do have treatment protocols, tho they aren't necessarily always effective.

But they also have them in the US. They use monoclonal antibodies (like the ones Joe Rogan used, along with Ivermectin when he caught covid,) there is also an unpatented steroid that's name starts with Dex... I dunno what its called but it should be easily searchable, and that SSRI whose name I also can't recall. Maybe flourovoxine or something.

They don't use Ivermectin or quinnine like drugs because they have issues with them.

In the US its alot easier to get sued for malpractise (unless you're Pfizer right now.) Maybe this does have something to do with it.

I can attest first-hand to the benefit of these protocols. As mentioned here before, both my wife and I got covid a few weeks ago. We're both in our 40s, unvaxxed. We both had relatively mild flu-like symptoms, and after 2 weeks of treatments (which included Ivermectin) we were practically symptom-less (neither of us are obese, which of course is a factor). We're far from alone, of course. Many others -- MOST -- survive covid, unvaxxed. over 99% survival rate, which is even higher for those under 70.

They may have made no difference to your recovery too. But there is anecdotal evidence that Ivermectin inhibits the spike protein (from vaccine or virus) from even entering cells. It blocks the receptor on the cell or the virus. (Can't remember right now.) It also inhibits cellular processes that enable the virus to to use the cell to build copies of itself.

Obesity is one thing but diabetes is more of an issue (tho they are usually related conditions). If you have diabetes and are over 50 your chances of dying from pre Omicron covid are much higher than other people. Maybe even for people under 50. Not everyone knows they are diabetic either.

I understand the same may not apply for everyone -- we all have our unique health profiles, after all, which also happens to be a key factor in my staunch opposition to forced vaccination: there is no "one size fits all" approach to health, and therefore, no "one size fits all" approach should ever be mandated, ESPECIALLY if the mandated treatment is NOT sterilizing and does NOT prevent spread or contagion AND has statistically significant near-term side effects which includes DEATH.

No medical procedure should be mandated acrioss the board. That lead to the sterilisation of people on the basis or class, race and disability status.

See the bolded. the vaccines do prevent some transmission/spread/contagion. How much is unknown. Its not 100%.

Where are the statistically significant, verified data on death from these vaccines?

At last check there were 12.5 million doses of Astra Zeneca's given in Australia with 9 associated deaths.

That is less than one death per million, not all confirmed to be caused by the vaccine (tho several have been confirmed.)

There are about another 30 million doses of Pfizer's vaccine that have been given. AFAIK there have been no deaths officially linked to that vaccine. There are claims of 450+ vaccine related deaths floating around. These are deaths following vaccination but there is no evidence to link them last time I looked.

Even if all 450 (minus 9 from AZ vax) deaths were directly attributable to the pfizer vaccine that's still 1.5 people per 100, 000.

We have had just over 2000 official deaths from Covid (official deaths are usually undercounted imo too) from 250000 cases. Based on those figures less than four people would die from 250, 000 vaccine doses. And that is assuming the claim of 450 deaths was accurate. Its strongly contested by official sources.

Australia has about 7 or 8% of the population the US has. There are one or two degrees of separation between everybody.

Nobody is naming people who died because of the vaccine. I know plenty of people who talk about friends with heart inflammation as a result of the vaccine. Well about 10 people across all the people known to my network. That is pretty high btw but that study from Canada recently showed that your chances of Myocraditis as a young male taking the pfizer vaccine followed by the moderna one are something like 1 in 1200 or 77 per 100, 000. That is really high actually. To the point where as an otherwise healthy male under 30 you are more likely to need hospitalisation as a result of the vaccine when compared to covid.

That in itself is a very strong argument against mandating vaccines. Especially for young people.

There is evidence emerging that shows the dosage, timing of multiple doses, the order in which different vaccines are taken and the method of delivery (ie aspiration during IM injections to minimise chances of IV injections accidentally occurring,) all have an effect on the chances of adverse results from vaccination.

Until this is understood properly the talk of mandatory vaccines and the pushing of boosters, especially within 6 months of the second dose is obviously fucked up.

I don't think there is anyone on here who disagrees with this.

But there is alot worse going on here.

[Joe Hillshoist]

What's worse is that Pfizer have been using this crisis to undermine the sovereignty of nation states.

https://www.citizen.org/article/pfizers-power/

October 19, 2021
Pfizer’s Power
Share

By Zain Rizvi

Download the full report 941.5 KB

Introduction
1. Pfizer Reserves the Right to Silence Governments.
2. Pfizer Controls Donations.
3. Pfizer Secured an “IP Waiver” for Itself.
4. Private Arbitrators, not Public Courts, Decide Disputes in Secret.
5. Pfizer Can Go After State Assets.
6. Pfizer Calls the Shots on Key Decisions.
A Better Way
References

In February, Pfizer was accused of “bullying” governments in COVID vaccine negotiations in a groundbreaking story by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.[1] A government official at the time noted, “Five years in the future when these confidentiality agreements are over you will learn what really happened in these negotiations.”[2]

Public Citizen has identified several unredacted Pfizer contracts that describe the outcome of these negotiations. The contracts offer a rare glimpse into the power one pharmaceutical corporation has gained to silence governments, throttle supply, shift risk and maximize profits in the worst public health crisis in a century. We describe six examples from around the world below.[3]
Table 1: Select Pfizer Contracts Reviewed[4]
Purchaser Date Type Doses Price Per Dose Total Cost
Albania Draft[5] Draft Definitive Agreement 500,000 $12 $6 million
Brazil 03/15/21[6] Definitive Agreement 100 million $10 $1 billion
Colombia 02/02/21[7] Definitive Agreement 10 million $12 $120 million
Chile 12/01/20[8] Definitive Agreement (Redacted) 10 million Redacted Redacted
Dominican Republic 10/29/20[9] Binding Term Sheet[10] 8 million $12 $96 million
European Commission 11/20/20[11] Custom Advance Purchase Agreement 200 million $18.6[12] $3.7 billion
Peru 09/17/20[13] Binding Term Sheet 10 million $12 $120 million
United States 07/21/20[14] Custom Advance Purchase Agreement (Redacted) 100 million $19.5 $1.95 billion
United Kingdom 10/12/20[15] Custom Advance Purchase Agreement (Redacted) 30 million Redacted Redacted

Pfizer’s demands have generated outrage around the world, slowing purchase agreements and even pushing back the delivery schedule of vaccines.[16] If similar terms are included as a condition to receive doses, they may threaten President Biden’s commitment to donate 1 billion vaccine doses.[17]

High-income countries have enabled Pfizer’s power through a favorable system of international intellectual property protection.[18] High-income countries have an obligation to rein in that monopoly power. The Biden administration, for example, can call on Pfizer to renegotiate existing commitments and pursue a fairer approach in the future. The administration can further rectify the power imbalance by sharing the vaccine recipe, under the Defense Production Act, to allow multiple producers to expand vaccine supplies.[19] It can also work to rapidly secure a broad waiver of intellectual property rules (TRIPS waiver) at the World Trade Organization.[20] A wartime response against the virus demands nothing less.
1. Pfizer Reserves the Right to Silence Governments.

In January, the Brazilian government complained that Pfizer was insisting on contractual terms in negotiations that were “unfair and abusive.”[21] The government pointed to five terms that it found problematic, ranging from a sovereign immunity waiver on public assets to a lack of penalties for Pfizer if deliveries were late. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism soon published a scathing story on Pfizer’s vaccine negotiations.[22]

Less than two months later, the Brazilian government accepted a contract with Pfizer that contains most of the same terms that the government once deemed unfair.[23] Brazil waived sovereign immunity; imposed no penalties on Pfizer for late deliveries; agreed to resolve disputes under a secret private arbitration under the laws of New York; and broadly indemnified Pfizer for civil claims.[24]

The contract also contains an additional term not included in other Latin American agreements[25] reviewed by Public Citizen: The Brazilian government is prohibited from making “any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of [the] Agreement” or commenting on its relationship with Pfizer without the prior written consent of the company.[26] Pfizer gained the power to silence Brazil.

Brazil is not alone. A similar nondisclosure provision is contained in the Pfizer contract with the European Commission and the U.S. government.[27] In those cases, however, the obligation applies to both parties.

For example, neither Pfizer nor the U.S. government can make “any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of this Agreement, the transactions contemplated by it, or the relationship between the Pfizer and the Government hereunder, without the prior written consent of the other.”[28] The contract contains some exceptions for disclosures required by law. It is not clear from the public record whether Pfizer has elected to prohibit the U.S. from making any statements thus far. The E.C. cannot include in any announcement or disclosure the price per dose, the Q4 2020 volumes, or information that would be material to Pfizer without the consent of Pfizer.[29]
2. Pfizer Controls Donations.

Pfizer tightly controls supply.[30] The Brazilian government, for example, is restricted from accepting Pfizer vaccine donations from other countries or buying Pfizer vaccines from others without Pfizer’s permission.[31] The Brazilian government also is restricted from donating, distributing, exporting, or otherwise transporting the vaccine outside Brazil without Pfizer’s permission.[32]

The consequences of noncompliance can be severe. If Brazil were to accept donated doses without Pfizer’s permission, it would be considered an “uncurable material breach” of their agreement, allowing Pfizer to immediately terminate the agreement.[33] Upon termination, Brazil would be required to pay the full price for any remaining contracted doses.[34]
3. Pfizer Secured an “IP Waiver” for Itself.

The CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, has emerged as a strident defender of intellectual property in the pandemic. He called a voluntary World Health Organization effort to share intellectual property to bolster vaccine production “nonsense” and “dangerous.”[35] He said President Biden’s decision to back the TRIPS waiver on intellectual property was “so wrong.”[36] “IP, which is the blood of the private sector, is what brought a solution to this pandemic and it is not a barrier right now,” claims Bourla.[37]

But, in several contracts, Pfizer seems to recognize the risk posed by intellectual property to vaccine development, manufacturing, and sale. The contracts shift responsibility for any intellectual property infringement that Pfizer might commit to the government purchasers. As a result, under the contract, Pfizer can use anyone’s intellectual property it pleases—largely without consequence.

At least four countries are required “to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer” from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, damages, costs, and expenses related to vaccine intellectual property.[38] For example, if another vaccine maker sued Pfizer for patent infringement in Colombia, the contract requires the Colombian government to foot the bill. At Pfizer’s request, Colombia is required to defend the company (i.e., take control of legal proceedings.)[39] Pfizer also explicitly says that it does not guarantee that its product does not violate third-party IP, or that it needs additional licenses.

Pfizer takes no responsibility in these contracts for its potential infringement of intellectual property. In a sense, Pfizer has secured an IP waiver for itself. But internationally, Pfizer is fighting similar efforts to waive IP barriers for all manufacturers.[40]
4. Private Arbitrators, not Public Courts, Decide Disputes in Secret.

What happens if the United Kingdom cannot resolve a contractual dispute with Pfizer? A secret panel of three private arbitrators—not a U.K court—is empowered under the contract to make the final decision.[41] The arbitration is conducted under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Both parties are required to keep everything secret:

The Parties agree to keep confidential the existence of the arbitration, the arbitral proceedings, the submissions made by the Parties and the decisions made by the arbitral tribunal, including its awards, except as required by Law and to the extent not already in the public domain.[42]

The Albania draft contract and Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Peru agreements require the governments to go further, with contractual disputes subject to ICC arbitration applying New York law.[43]

While ICC arbitration involving states is not uncommon, disputes involving high-income countries and/or pharmaceuticals appear to be relatively rare.[44] In 2012, 80% of state disputes were from Sub-Saharan Africa, Central and West Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe.[45] The most common state cases were about the construction and operation of facilities.[46] In 2020, 34 states were involved in ICC arbitrations.[47] The nature of state disputes is not clear, but only between 5 to 7% of all new ICC cases, including those solely between private parties, were related to health and pharmaceuticals.[48]

Private arbitration reflects an imbalance of power. It allows pharmaceutical corporations like Pfizer to bypass domestic legal processes. This consolidates corporate power and undermines the rule of law.
5. Pfizer Can Go After State Assets.

The decisions reached by the secret arbitral panels described above can be enforced in national courts.[49] The doctrine of sovereign immunity can sometimes, however, protect states from corporations seeking to enforce and execute arbitration awards.

Pfizer required Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and Peru to waive sovereign immunity.[50] In the case of Brazil, Chile and Colombia, for example, the government “expressly and irrevocably waives any right of immunity which either it or its assets may have or acquire in the future” to enforce any arbitration award (emphasis added).[51] For Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, this includes “immunity against precautionary seizure of any of its assets.”[52]

Arbitral award enforcement presents complex questions of law that depend on the physical location and type of state asset.[53] But the contract allows Pfizer to request that courts use state assets as a guarantee that Pfizer will be paid an arbitral award and/or use the assets to compensate Pfizer if the government does not pay.[54] For example, in U.S. courts, these assets could include foreign bank accounts, foreign investments, and foreign commercial property, including the assets of state-owned enterprises like airlines and oil companies.[55]
6. Pfizer Calls the Shots on Key Decisions.

What happens if there are vaccine supply shortages? In the Albania draft contract and the Brazil and Colombia agreement, Pfizer will decide adjustments to the delivery schedule based on principles the corporation will decide. Albania, Brazil, and Colombia “shall be deemed to agree to any revision.”[56]

Some governments have pushed back on Pfizer’s unilateral authority for other decisions. In South Africa, Pfizer wanted to have the “sole discretion to determine additional terms and guarantees for us to fulfill the indemnity obligations.”[57] South Africa deemed this “too risky” and a “potential risk to [their] assets and fiscus.”[58] After delays, Pfizer reportedly conceded to remove this “problematic term.”[59]

But others have not been as successful. As a condition to entering into the agreement, the Colombian government is required to “demonstrate, in a manner satisfactory to Suppliers, that Suppliers and their affiliates will have adequate protection, as determined in Suppliers’ sole discretion” (emphasis added) from liability claims.[60] Colombia is required to certify to Pfizer the value of the contingent obligations (i.e., potential future liability), and to start appropriating funds to cover the contingent obligations, according to a contribution program.[61]

Pfizer’s ability to control key decisions reflects the power imbalance in vaccine negotiations. Under the vast majority of contracts, Pfizer’s interests come first.
A Better Way

Pfizer’s dominance over sovereign countries poses fundamental challenges to the pandemic response. Governments can push back. The U.S. government, in particular, can exercise the leverage it holds over Pfizer to require a better approach. Empowering multiple manufacturers to produce the vaccine via technology transfer and a TRIPS waiver can rein in Pfizer’s power. Public health should come first.
References

Sarah Teng, intern in the Access to Medicines Program, designed the cover image.

[1] Madlen Davies, Rosa Furneaux , Iván Ruiz, Jill Langlois, ‘Held to Ransom’: Pfizer Demands Governments Gamble with State Assets to Secure Vaccine Deal, Bureau of Investigative Journalism (Feb 23 2021), https://tinyurl.com/t2z39a63.

[2] Id.

[3] While there are similarities across the contracts, each agreement is unique. The specific examples outlined below should not read as reflective of other contracts.

[4] In several cases, governments signed additional deals with Pfizer. We reviewed select contracts that were publicly available.

[5] Albania-Pfizer Contract Draft, (“Albania Draft Contract”), (Jan. 6 2021) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... e-contract. The final provisions of the agreement may have differed from this draft. However, given similarities between this draft and the other reviewed agreements, we believe the modifications, if any, were likely not substantial. The contract was first leaked on Twitter, and then shared widely in the press.

[6] Brazil-Pfizer Contract (“Brazil Contract”), (March 15 2021) https://aurores.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... Pfizer.pdf. The contract was leaked online and later covered by The Guardian in August. See e.g., https://tinyurl.com/yupsz2j4.

[7] Colombia-Pfizer Contract (“Colombia Contract”), (Feb. 2 2021), https://www.nodal.am/wp-content/uploads ... UMENTO.pdf. The contract was leaked in the Colombian Media in August. https://tinyurl.com/4vswvrz4. It is currently referenced in the UNICEF Vaccine Market Dashboard.

[8] Chile-Pfizer Contract (“Chile Contract”) (Dec. 1 2021), https://www.chiletransparente.cl/wp-con ... PFIZER.pdf. A Chilean transparency initiative published a redacted version of the contract.

[9] Dominican Republic-Pfizer Contract (“D.R. Contract”) (Oct. 29 2020), https://www.keionline.org/35485. Knowledge Ecology International obtained the contract through a freedom of information law request.

[10] The text was subject to the approval of the Dominican Republican National Congress, which reportedly approved the text with no objections. Pfizer and AstraZeneca, The Game of Contracts with Small Print, Dominican Today, https://tinyurl.com/yhasn7um.

[11] European Commission-Pfizer Contract (“E.C. Contract”) (Nov. 20 2020), https://tinyurl.com/3bph89wy. The Italian public broadcaster RAI published the EC Contract in April.

[12] 15.5 EUR.

[13] Peru-Pfizer Contract (“Peru Contract”) (Sept. 17 2020), https://tinyurl.com/y2ap74xz. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism published the contract.

[14] United States-Pfizer Contract (“U.S. Contract”) (July 21 2020), https://tinyurl.com/4k5j7d5u. The contract is available on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website.

[15] United Kingdom-Pfizer Contract (“U.K Contract”) (Oct. 10 2020), https://tinyurl.com/ym4pk3tw. This likely is the definitive agreement that follows on from initial agreement announced in July. The contract is available on the U.K government website.

[16] Madlen Davies, Rosa Furneaux, Pfizer backs down over “unreasonable terms” in South Africa vaccine deal (April 19 2021). https://tinyurl.com/tnys9u2c. (“He described how Pfizer’s late demand caused delays in the discussions, which in turn put back the anticipated vaccine delivery dates.”). See also the impasse in Philippines. Philippines receives side letter from Pfizer; WHO sees resolution of ‘impasse’ soon (Feb 23. 2021), https://tinyurl.com/3fs8z3cb (“The delivery of 117,000 Pfizer-BioNTech doses, initially expected in mid-February, was delayed by concerns on indemnification.”).

[17] White House, FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Historic Vaccine Donation: Half a Billion Pfizer Vaccines to the World’s Lowest-Income Nations (June 10 2021), https://tinyurl.com/he8bm9tk

[18] Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? (2007) (tracing the role of Pfizer in advocating for a system of international patent protection).

[19] Zain Rizvi, Jishian Ravinthiran, Amy Kapczynski, Sharing The Knowledge: How President Joe Biden Can Use The Defense Production Act To End The Pandemic Worldwide, Health Affairs Blog (August 6, 2021), https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.137 ... 1816/full/

[20] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

[21] Madlen Davies , Rosa Furneaux , Iván Ruiz , Jill Langlois, ‘Held to Ransom’: Pfizer Demands Governments Gamble with State Assets to Secure Vaccine Deal, Bureau of Investigative Journalism (Feb 23 2021), https://tinyurl.com/t2z39a63.

[22] Id.

[23] One clause that appears to have changed is the number of doses supplied by Pfizer. It is also not clear whether Brazil developed a foreign bank guarantee fund.

[24] Brazil Contract, footnote 6, Article 9.4 (Waiver of Sovereign Immunity), pg. 45, Article 2.6 (Delivery Delays), pg. 34, Article 9.4 (Waiver of Sovereign Immunity) pg. 45, Article 3.1 (Indemnification by Purchaser), pg. 43, respectively.

[25] The other Latin American contracts reviewed contain a more limited nondisclosure obligation. For example, under the Colombia contract, neither Pfizer nor Colombia can “use the name, trade name, service marks, trademarks, trade dress or logos of the other Party in publicity releases, advertising or any other publication, without the other Party’s prior written consent in each instance.” This does not appear to prohibit the government from talking about the contract, as long as it is not a “publicity release, advertising, or any other publication.”

[26] Brazil Contract, Article 12.3 (Publicity), pg. 32 (“Purchaser shall not make, or permit any person to make, any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of this Agreement, the wider transactions contemplated by it, or the relationship between the Parties (except as required by Law, and subject to the protections set forth in Section 10.1), without the prior written consent of Pfizer (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed)”.

[27] E.C. Contract, footnote 11, Article II.10 (Announcements and Publicity), pg. 36.

[28] U.S. Contract, footnote 14, Article 11.11 (Announcements), pg. 25.

[29] E.C. Contract, footnote 11, Article II.10 (Announcements and Publicity), pg. 36.

[30] For example, Colombia is also required to distribute the vaccine only in its territory. Colombia Contract, footnote 7, Article 4.6 (Diversion Issues), pg. 23 (“All Product delivered to Purchaser shall be: (a) stored securely by Purchaser; and (b) distributed by Purchaser only in Colombia in a secure manner appropriate to the transportation route and destination, in each case (a) and (b) to guard against and deter theft, diversion, tampering, substitution (with, for example, counterfeits) resale or export out of Colombia, and to protect and preserve the integrity and efficacy of the Product.”).

[31] Brazil Contract, footnote 6, Article 2.1 (f) (Agreement to Supply), pg. 31 (“Purchaser, including any related Person or any agents of Purchaser, covenants to exclusively obtain all of its supply of any Vaccine of Pfizer, BioNTech or their respective Affiliates intended for the prevention of the human disease COVID-19 (including the Product) either (i) directly from Pfizer or from Pfizer through the COVAX Facility, or (ii) from a Third Party, whether by donation, resale or otherwise, only if Purchaser has obtained Pfizer’s prior written consent. Any breach of this Section 2.1(f) shall be deemed an uncurable material breach of this Agreement, and Pfizer may immediately terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 6.2. For clarity, nothing in this Section 2.1(f) shall prevent Purchaser from purchasing competing vaccine products of any Third Party.”).

[32] Brazil Contract, footnote 6, Article 4.6 (Diversion Issues), pg. 38 (“Purchaser shall not directly or indirectly resell, donate, distribute, export or otherwise transport the Product outside the Territory without Pfizer’s prior written consent.”).

[33] Brazil Contract, footnote 6, Article 2.1 (f) (Agreement to Supply), pg. 31.

[34] Brazil Contract, footnote 6, Article 6.2 (Termination for Cause), pg. 27 (“In the event that this Agreement is terminated by Pfizer under this Section 6.2, Purchaser shall pay within thirty (30) days of the date of notice of termination of this Agreement the full Price for all Contracted Doses less amounts already paid to Pfizer as of such date.”)

[35] Ed Silverman, Pharma leaders shoot down WHO voluntary pool for patent rights on Covid-19 products, STAT (May 28 2020), https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2020 ... ts-pfizer/

[36] U.S. Backs Waiver of Intellectual Property Protection for Covid-19 Vaccines, Wall Street Journal (May 6 2021), https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-backs- ... 1620243518

[37] WTO delays decision on waiver on COVID-19 drug, vaccine rights (Dec. 10 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN28K2WL

[38] This extends to all civil claims, including adverse effects. That has been detailed elsewhere: Madlen Davies, Rosa Furneaux , Iván Ruiz , Jill Langlois, ‘Held to Ransom’: Pfizer Demands Governments Gamble with State Assets to Secure Vaccine Deal, Bureau of Investigative Journalism (Feb 23 2021), https://tinyurl.com/t2z39a63.

[39] Colombia Contract, footnote 7, Article 8.2 (Assumption of Defense), pg. 31.

[40] Pfizer signed the letter opposing the TRIPS waiver sent to President Biden in March, for example. PhRMA Letter Opposing TRIPS Waiver to President Biden (March 5 2021), https://patentdocs.typepad.com/files/20 ... letter.pdf

[41] U.K. Contract, footnote 15, Article 23 (Dispute Resolution) pg. 36. (“The arbitration award shall be final and binding on the Parties, and the parties undertake to carry out any award without delay. Judgment upon the award may be entered by any court having jurisdiction of the award or having jurisdiction over the relevant party or its assets.”)

[42] Id.

[43] Article on Governing Law. Albania Draft Contract pg. 34, Brazil Contract pg. 45, Chile Contract pg. 29, Colombia Contract pg. 43, DR Contract pg. 17, Peru Contract pg. 9.

[44] Our analysis is limited by a lack of transparency.

[45] Arbitration Involving States and State Entities under the ICC Rules of Arbitration – Report of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR (2012), https://iccwbo.org/publication/arbitrat ... ation-adr/, pg. 4.

[46] Arbitration Involving States and State Entities under the ICC Rules of Arbitration – Report of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR (2012), https://iccwbo.org/publication/arbitrat ... ation-adr/, pg. 4.

[47] 194 state-owned entities were also involved. ICC Dispute Resolution 2020 Statistics, https://iccwbo.org/publication/icc-disp ... tics-2020/ pg. 11. See also, an analogous mechanism known as investor-state dispute resolution, which is based on international law as opposed to contract: Global Trade Watch, Table of Foreign Investor-State Cases and Claims Under NAFTA and Other U.S. “Trade Deals” (Jan. 15 2021), https://www.citizen.org/article/table-o ... ade-deals/

[48] ICC Dispute Resolution 2020 Statistics, https://iccwbo.org/publication/icc-disp ... tics-2020/ pg. 17.

[49] United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 10 June 1958) (“Each Contracting State shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon, under the conditions laid down in the following articles.”)

[50] Article on Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. The language differs in some of the contracts. Brazil Contract, pg. 45, Chile Contract pg. 24, Colombia Contract pg. 36, DR Contract pg. 17, Peru Contract pg. 9.

[51] Id.

[52] Id.

[53] In the U.S., the governing statute is the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). 28 U.S.C § 1602. Sovereign property used for commercial activity can be used to execute a judgment based on an arbitral award if the state has waived immunity. Property belonging to an instrumentality of a foreign state engaged in commercial activity can also be used. 28 U.S.C § 1610. However, certain kinds of foreign sovereign property are absolutely immune from award attachment and execution. This includes property belonging to the foreign central bank or monetary authority and property used for military purposes. 28 U.S.C §1611.

[54] Under FSIA, this is known as “attachment prior to the entry of judgment” and can be done if the state waives this kind of immunity and “the purpose of the attachment is to secure satisfaction of a judgment that has been or may ultimately be entered against the foreign state.” 28 U.S.C § 1610

[55] Other jurisdictions may handle these questions differently, potentially exposing other types of sovereign assets. These assets may also be vulnerable in settlement negotiations.

[56] Albania Draft Contract, pg. 14. Brazil Contract, pg. 22. Colombia Contract, pg. 15.

[57] Pfizer Backs Down Over Unreasonable Terms in South Africa Vaccine Deal (April 19 2021), https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/s ... ccine-deal.

[58] Id.

[59] Id.

[60] Colombia Contract, footnote 7, Article 8.5 (Privileges and Immunities), pg. 32. This includes but is not limited to funding state contractual contingency funds.

[61] Id.

[stickdog99]

Zuby making sense for 5 minutes

Why is it all or nothing. Are you saying vaccines don't protect anyone against infection or stop anyone from transmitting the virus.

If vaccines work to stop people getting infected 50% of the time that still has an effect that protects others (as well as the vaccinated person.)

Are you saying covid vaccines give no protection at all against covid infection?

As I have said many times, these mRNA "vaccines" confer limited, temporary protection against hospitalization and death from COVID-19, especially for the very elderly and those with serious co-morbidities.

My point is that that this is all these vaccines do. These vaccines do not stop transmission of COVID-19, hospitals are not being overrun with unvaccinated people, and we have no data that show that the overall health outcomes of vaccinated populations are better than those of comparable unvaccinated populations. Thus, there is no public or private health rationale whatsoever for coercing anyone who is not elderly or suffering from any serious co-morbidities to get these vaccines.

[stickdog99]

https://archive.md/rG3Qh

Abstract

mRNA-based vaccines provide effective protection against most common SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, identifying likely breakthrough variants is critical for future vaccine development. Here, we found that the Delta variant completely escaped from anti-N-terminal domain (NTD) neutralizing antibodies, while increasing responsiveness to anti-NTD infectivity-enhancing antibodies. Although Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2-immune sera neutralized the Delta variant, when four common mutations were introduced into the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the Delta variant (Delta 4+), some BNT162b2-immune sera lost neutralizing activity and enhanced the infectivity. Unique mutations in the Delta NTD were involved in the enhanced infectivity by the BNT162b2-immune sera. Sera of mice immunized by Delta spike, but not wild-type spike, consistently neutralized the Delta 4+ variant without enhancing infectivity. .

In other words, there are already COVID-19 variants in the wild that are more infectious to the vaccinated than to the unvaccinated.

Who could have possibly suspected this "ironic plot twist" other than any trained virologist?

How do you get that take away from that particular paper?

How do you not?

Unique mutations in the Delta NTD were involved in the enhanced infectivity by the BNT162b2-immune sera. ... Given the fact that a Delta variant with three similar RBD mutations has already emerged according to the GISAID database, it is necessary to develop vaccines that protect against such complete breakthrough variants.

[stickdog99]

It's a really interesting project to go back and look at all 313 pages of this thread. It's really interesting to see which players were the first to push directions and where certain detours were taken that got solidified.

It's ironic because Wombat did some of his best writing earlier on this thread. But his messaging, always equally so nuanced and straightforward as well as willing to be blunt without being an asshole kind of got lost to whatever this thread is even about now.

I can't even follow the various bendings over backward here.

The sum total of all this writing now appears to be a logically inconsistent and super hostile critique of anyone who fails to agree with a hypothesis that is flatly nonsensical. Lots of righteous important observations are stitched into that hypothesis. But IME its the first time this board ever even had a unified hypothesis without an at least equally sized number of dissenters.

People write stuff here like "MRNA worshippers" and it just makes me fucking sad.

I disagree with like half of what's written here and yet I have no trouble seeing that a bunch of arrogant Epstein-level fuck techno-utopianists chose to throw all their cash on this being MRNA's big moment in the sun, that it would succeed wildly, become open to all sorts of uses and make the rich richer.

Nor do I have trouble seeing that it failed and the MSM is a fetid carton of the milk discovered at the back of the fridge untouched after two years.

I'm still more or less on your side.

I just live in a place where I've seen people die in large numbers unambiguously due to COVID (unless hey you're willing to blame poor Black Americans for their propensity to chronic environmental disease or, alternatively lionize them for their unwillingness to vax due to Tuskegee etc).

I'm currently worried af about a dear obese Black friend conspiracy theorist who is convinced COVID isn't real. He's got hypertension, is surrounded by cases and has had strokes and will likely die if he gets infected. Should we blame it on him? Further proof of the conspiracy of "counting" deaths as COVID that are *really* caused by those other factors?

And stay in line with the assholes at Off-Guardian who are, also, using this as their moment in the sun to grow their following?

Out in the world off RI there's thousands or 10s or 100s of thousands who agree with nigh all that is said here about disaster capitalism and power consolidation etc but would laugh at the abject, insular and flatly bizarre mistrust in, say, virology or the little coterie of effusive and aggressive posters (people I have no problem admitting I still adore and appreciate and refuse to rewrite my affection for based on this whole stupid episode) who are flat out positive there's a giant lie at play in the basic science of the virus.

Duh, yes - fuck the response if anyone's allowing the creation of different classes based on vax compliance.

But FFS, I can tell you that I live in a place in the US where

1) I've never once been asked for my vax card (non MRNA)
2) every vax mandate has the widest berth of exemption imaginable
3) noone is forced to wear a mask even under mandates and
4) at this time pretty much all of my city acts like the pandemic is over.

Tyranny? Huh? Where? Not here. Other places sure. But not here.

Fuck Fauci -- because he's a prick who supported GOF research, not because of COVID in particular.
Fuck Biden - because he's a racist pig and political opportunist.
Fuck Trump - he's fucking Donald Trump FFS.
Fuck Pfizer - look at their labor history in Latin America. Look at they bullied non-MRNA vax out of the marketplace.

Fuck every asshole who's dealing with their mental fatigue and depression by acting out a Manichean power passion play by performing the role of "the good" simply because they got a vaccine and so castigate those who don't. They’re the worst.

But fuck every fool who thinks Mercola and a spot of broccoli and sunshine is going to cure them too.

Fuck anyone who has dealt with their fear and fatigue by growing every more and more convinced they are in a small minority who's right and part of some counter-conspiracy intelligentsia. That shit’s never ture.

Whatever happened to that great piety for the unknown which once lived here?

Whatever happened to the pleasure of dabbling in it together mostly in a way that was still relatively nice or at least funny.

And you know, fuck none of these people (excluding Fauci, Trump and Biden) because every last one of us is dealing with a mentally exhausting bullshit fuck this scenario, no matter how you slice it.

And somedays it just feels like everyone finds their take, attaches to it like a life raft, and hold on at all cost. It's really just not that different whatever the position.

In the end, that's what I, for one, mean when I say MAGA - we all know we're fucked (mostly due to climate and mostly unconsciously aware only) - tweaking the terms of reality and trying to find solidarity with others in those tweaks so we feel just a little safer.

So Elvis quoted me in that question about RI/MAGA and I left because it wasn’t remotely what I meant. To clarify - I did not *remotely* meant that RI is a directly TRUMP friendly board. But that MAGA is a nice shorthand for – *fascism is everywhere now and at risk of attaching to any of us and affecting how we treat others and stifling discussion and entertaining some seriously bullshit ideas because we've stopped trusting anything.*

Ah well, Mac and BS and S99 - I can think of posts by each of you that I've LOVED and really been affected by for the better over the years. And for that matter I really like each of you which is pretty much why I just stay away to avoid fighting with you.

I'm glad you exist in this world.

I'll probably cut out again after this and go back to working on mutual aid projects. Anarchists are a royal PITA sometimes, maybe even most, but at least there's a naive and sometimes successful attempt to care directly for one's neighbors without bias.

True love to all and after the collapse, you're more than welcome to share my food and drop by for a shower or whatever else I can offer to help.

PS. A horribly sad and shocking RIP to the wonderful Cordelia with whom I exchanged many sweet messages over the years. She was such a good soul.

You are a good soul. But you don't live in a place like Germany or NYC or SF in which the Branch Covidians have demanded and secured Borg-like assimilation. Question the narrative one iota, and you are basically a persona non grata in SF.

Nobody here that I can tell is saying that old people and/or people with significant co-morbidities have nothing to fear from COVID-19. And nobody is saying that anybody who takes any precautions against COIVD-19 is being foolish.

But work vaccine mandates and kid vaccine mandates and indoor building vaccine mandates are very real and 100% enforced where I live. Can you see why that might upset me knowing what I know about this?

[Iamwhomiam]

I received my third booster this afternoon. No Problems yet! Slight discomfort in my arm, but now barely noticeable. The second booster was far more painful, locally, to where I received the shot, than this is.

Hearing the nurse's accent, I asked if she was Austrian, but she said no and told me she was French! I apologized and said to her I hope I didn't offend her. Why I mention her at all is because I asked her to first aspirate the needle and explained the reason why, something completely foreign to her, but she agreed and aspirated the needle before injecting me. As she noted there was no blood drawn into the needle when she aspirated, I said that was good and showed she hadn't hit an artery or vein, and then I asked her to inject the vaccine. I explained for her that some of the poorer outcomes of vaccine recipients have resulted from vaccines being introduced directly into the bloodstream, rather than intra-muscularly. She saw the value in practicing aspiration prior to inoculation.

The day after my daughter received her third booster, Friday, she developed all the symptoms of having covid-19 - high fever, runny nose, and overall, she felt very ill. She was well the next day, Saturday, and had no lingering ill effects.

[Joe Hillshoist]

https://archive.md/rG3Qh

Abstract

mRNA-based vaccines provide effective protection against most common SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, identifying likely breakthrough variants is critical for future vaccine development. Here, we found that the Delta variant completely escaped from anti-N-terminal domain (NTD) neutralizing antibodies, while increasing responsiveness to anti-NTD infectivity-enhancing antibodies. Although Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2-immune sera neutralized the Delta variant, when four common mutations were introduced into the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the Delta variant (Delta 4+), some BNT162b2-immune sera lost neutralizing activity and enhanced the infectivity. Unique mutations in the Delta NTD were involved in the enhanced infectivity by the BNT162b2-immune sera. Sera of mice immunized by Delta spike, but not wild-type spike, consistently neutralized the Delta 4+ variant without enhancing infectivity. .

In other words, there are already COVID-19 variants in the wild that are more infectious to the vaccinated than to the unvaccinated.

Who could have possibly suspected this "ironic plot twist" other than any trained virologist?

How do you get that take away from that particular paper?

How do you not?

Unique mutations in the Delta NTD were involved in the enhanced infectivity by the BNT162b2-immune sera. ... Given the fact that a Delta variant with three similar RBD mutations has already emerged according to the GISAID database, it is necessary to develop vaccines that protect against such complete breakthrough variants.

Have you seen The Princess Bride?

I'll reread it and get back to you. I certainly don't get the idea that vaccinated people are more likely to get infected from wild covid variants that are floating around right now. Its around 40 deg C here atm and I can't be bothered reading it now.

[stickdog99]

I received my third booster this afternoon. No Problems yet! Slight discomfort in my arm, but now barely noticeable. The second booster was far more painful, locally, to where I received the shot, than this is.

Hearing the nurse's accent, I asked if she was Austrian, but she said no and told me she was French! I apologized and said to her I hope I didn't offend her. Why I mention her at all is because I asked her to first aspirate the needle and explained the reason why, something completely foreign to her, but she agreed and aspirated the needle before injecting me. As she noted there was no blood drawn into the needle when she aspirated, I said that was good and showed she hadn't hit an artery or vein, and then I asked her to inject the vaccine. I explained for her that some of the poorer outcomes of vaccine recipients have resulted from vaccines being introduced directly into the bloodstream, rather than intra-muscularly. She saw the value in practicing aspiration prior to inoculation.

The day after my daughter received her third booster, Friday, she developed all the symptoms of having covid-19 - high fever, runny nose, and overall, she felt very ill. She was well the next day, Saturday, and had no lingering ill effects.

Smart choice to aspirate. What do you think about getting the shot in your thigh instead of your arm?

And are you up for getting one of these every 4 months for the rest of your life? How about your daughter? Just curious as to your thoughts about this.

[Iamwhomiam]

Hi stickdog. I was about to shut down my laptop when I noticed your comment. Hopefully, the Nurse who administered my booster will utilize aspiration in the future. Honestly, I never thought about receiving the shot in my thigh.
My thinking was to skip the third booster, but this new strain convinced me I should get boosted, if only for the supposed additional four months "protection" Pfizer claims it will. "For the rest of my life..." Well, I've already passed my expiration date, so for me that might mean another one or two will be in my future, if I have one. But who knows? My meds are sucking away my pitiful life savings which right now has dipped below 12 grand. My medical expenses exceed my income.

If you remember, I advised my Granddaughter to not have the kids vaccinated, but to treat them with Ivermectin and another drug Joe mentioned that I cannot now remember to name, if they got sick. That was prior to the bad news about their study on Ivermectin. However, schools have a mandate children must be vaccinated and so, much to my chagrin, my granddaughter had her girls vaccinated.

My daughter, a nurse, was reluctant to become vaccinated, just as many ignorant people were. She and they believed some of the rumors. I did locate one paper probably responsible for some of the wilder rumors, like magnets and micromachines and I'll share it tomorrow, after chores.

I'm not sure about another booster. The state of my health will help me decide when the time comes. Sadly, logic and my daughter are rarely in the same room together. - There's no figuring her out.

[stickdog99]

Got it. Best wishes to you and her.

https://www.thespikelist.com/

[Belligerent Savant]

B.Savant:
I can attest first-hand to the benefit of these protocols. As mentioned here before, both my wife and I got covid a few weeks ago. We're both in our 40s, unvaxxed. We both had relatively mild flu-like symptoms, and after 2 weeks of treatments (which included Ivermectin) we were practically symptom-less (neither of us are obese, which of course is a factor). We're far from alone, of course. Many others -- MOST -- survive covid, unvaxxed. over 99% survival rate, which is even higher for those under 70.

They may have made no difference to your recovery too. But there is anecdotal evidence that Ivermectin inhibits the spike protein (from vaccine or virus) from even entering cells. It blocks the receptor on the cell or the virus. (Can't remember right now.) It also inhibits cellular processes that enable the virus to to use the cell to build copies of itself.

Re: "They may have made no difference to your recovery too" -- certainly, there's really no way to prove it helped lessen my symptoms. But there are numerous factors involved here, of course, including my overall health, and the proactive/preventative measures I generally take (ensure sufficient intake of Vitamin D, which studies have shown help lessen severity of covid and other illnesses; direct exposure to sun; walks; outside air; exercise; avoiding processed foods as much as possible, etc.; these are all habits/measures that are rarely, if ever, mentioned as recommendations by govt/official health authorities over the last ~2 years).

The key point here, though, is this: a fair amount of people have essentially been brainwashed into believing that a middle-aged unvaccinated person would very likely be hospitalized, and/or probably die, if exposed to covid. This is obviously not true, as exemplified by actual figures and anecdotal accounts like mine. If everyone complied with mandates and got these shots, there'd be no control group, no way to know that most people actually can deal with this virus without the need for mRNA shots (though as mentioned, overall health and early treatment are important factors in one's individual outcome).

One reason current policies continue without more overt opposition by the populace (though opposition is growing) is precisely due to the egregious amount of dis/misinfo out there about the lethality of covid, especially for those unvaccinated. People are being conditioned to believe leaky, flawed 'vaccines' are their ONLY option, and further, that such (experimental) products need to be injected into their bodies multiple times per year to avoid probable death. They are also being misled to believe that an unvaccinated healthy person has more potential to spread the virus than a vaccinated person. This is not true.

(These dominant narratives include proclamations that mRNA shots are perfectly safe -- which they are not for a statistically significant portion of recipients -- not only near-term, but perhaps more importantly, long-term as well. Once more, there is currently no data on long-term side effects related to these shots. We will eventually have clarity on this in the coming year+, and hopefully for those with multiple mRNA shots in their system, it turns out to be relatively ok. For those of advanced age, this may not matter much; getting an mRNA shot may be a risk worth taking for the near-term feeling of "protection", real or perceived. But for younger age groups/healthier persons it's a riskier proposition, indeed.)


Also: just as you type that my treatment "may have made no difference to [my] recovery", the same can be said of the mRNA shots: there is no guarantee they necessarily lessen symptoms, even less so after the first few months post-injection. Anecdotally, I know of several people that had relatively severe symptoms even after being 'fully vaccinated'. Surely if they didn't get the shot they'd likely be dead, right?

To be clear, I'm not ruling out the probability these shots may lessen severity of symptoms for a limited period of time; studies suggest this, however biased or objective they may be. But this data point --- even if verifiable and proven to be true over time -- does not justify mandates of any sort (and I know that, at this point at least, most of the readers/members here will claim to agree with this).


While I'm here, an important update by an attorney fighting employer vaccine mandates:

@AaronSiriSG
·
Proud to file today in the U.S. Supreme Court to ask it to reinstate the stay on the federal government V mandate for employers with more than 100 employees. Mandated medicine is authoritarian. Antithetical to freedom. https://sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... 593a2b.pdf

https://twitter.com/AaronSiriSG/status/ ... 67265?s=20

A few notable excerpts, starting on page 31:

D. A STAY IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

1. COVID-19 VACCINES DO NOT PREVENT INFECTION
OR TRANSMISSION

OSHA stated in the ETS that it was issuing the new standard “to protect
unvaccinated employees of large employers (100 or more employees) from the risk of
contracting COVID-19 by strongly encouraging vaccination.” 86 Fed. Reg. 61,402
(Summary). However, the science has shown that the vaccines do not prevent
individuals from contracting COVID-19. Even if every employee in a workplace was
vaccinated, the virus would still be able to infect employees and spread to others.

This is because the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection and transmission of
the SARS-CoV-2 virus. They only reduce symptoms after infection.
The clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccines were only designed to measure
effectiveness against the symptoms of the infection – not against contracting the virus
or transmitting the infection to others.14 However, after millions of people were
vaccinated, the CDC’s Director, Dr. Walensky, acknowledged that the COVID-19
vaccines do not “prevent transmission.”15 This is why the CDC recommends that
vaccinated individuals wear masks indoors.

The CDC’s conclusion that the COVID-19 vaccine does not prevent
transmission resulted from, among other things, a study it conducted after an
outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts. In that study, the CDC found that
74% of those infected in the outbreak were fully vaccinated for COVID-19, and that
vaccinated individuals had on average more virus in their nose than the unvaccinated
individuals that were infected.16

Dr. Anthony Fauci has recognized this as failure of the vaccines as well:
“Vaccination has also been unable to prevent ‘breakthrough’ infections, allowing
subsequent transmission to other people even when the vaccine prevents severe and
fatal disease.”17

Similarly, COVID-19 vaccines could not fully block viral infection and
replication in the nose of monkeys upon viral exposure,18 which was confirmed by
nasal, throat, and anal swabs.19 This finding was again confirmed by an outbreak
among 42 patients in a hospital setting where “39 were fully vaccinated,” the “index
case was a fully vaccinated,” and “all transmission between patients and staff
occurred between masked and vaccinated individuals, as experienced in an outbreak
from Finland.” The study concluded that this “outbreak exemplifies the high
transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among twice vaccinated and
masked individuals.”
20

Another study of infections across 36 counties in Wisconsin by the CDC and
Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services observed high viral load in 68% of the
fully vaccinated individuals and in 63% of the unvaccinated individuals. 21

This reflects that the vaccinated individuals will shed virus and will do so at the same rate
as the unvaccinated individuals. This finding was unsurprising as the CDC had long
admitted the vaccine does not prevent transmission. But the standout observation
was that among those who were asymptomatic (meaning no symptoms but yet
infectious), 29% of the unvaccinated subjects had high viral load, while 82% of the
fully vaccinated subjects had high viral load.

...

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Some interesting bits of info, here:

Biden Plans To Distribute 500 Million Tests As Omicron Variant Overwhelms Most Vaccinated States

..in the US, at least, one of the most surprising aspects of this new wave is the fact that the states with the highest vaccination rates are seeing the biggest surge in new cases. This includes - but isn't limited to - New York, New Jersey and the six New England states, CT, MA, NH, VT, MA and RI. A few days ago, the RI chapter of the American College of Emergency Medicine warned in a letter to the governor and the top public health official that the hospital system in the state is "currently collapsing". In Maine, and a handful of other more populous states, the National Guard has been called in to help with hospital staffing shortages.

And just last night, the NHL became the first US pro sports league to delay all play across all its teams due to the rising COVID numbers, although game cancellations have afflicted the NFL and NBA.

President Biden is set to address the public Tuesday and lay out his plans to respond to the latest COVID "emergency" not with lockdowns and new restrictions, but with plans to get more COVID tests into the hands of the public.

Instead, he will announce a sweeping plan to deploy 1,000 military medical professionals to help at overburdened hospitals, setting up new federal testing sites, deploying hundreds of federal vaccinators and buying 500MM rapid tests to distribute free to the public.

...

In addition to the tests, here's a breakdown of the other measures being ordered by Biden (text courtesy of the NYT):

Biden intends to direct his defense secretary, Lloyd J. Austin III, to “ready an additional 1,000 service members — military doctors, nurses, paramedics and other medical personnel — to deploy to hospitals during January and February, as needed,” according to a fact sheet prepared by the White House.

At the same time, Biden will announce that six federal emergency response teams, with more than 100 health professionals and paramedics, will deploy immediately to six states: Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Arizona, New Hampshire and Vermont. Already, 300 federal medical workers have been deployed since Omicron was discovered in late November.

Biden will also direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency to work with hospitals across the country to make plans to expand capacity. FEMA will also stand up new pop-up vaccination clinics, the officials said, to handle hundreds of additional vaccinations per week.

The government is also sending ventilators to the states - last week, officials said, it sent 330 - and will have hundreds of ambulances and emergency medical teams, overseen by FEMA, at the ready "so that if one hospital fills up, they can transport patients to open beds in other facilities," according to the fact sheet. It was not clear who would staff those teams, but the fact sheet said that even now, "30 paramedics are heading to New Hampshire, 30 to Vermont and 20 to Arizona, and 30 ambulances are headed to New York and eight to Maine."

Per the NYT, the new Biden plan "has a more urgent tone than the winter pandemic strategy that Mr. Biden announced three weeks ago at the National Institutes of Health, just days after the new variant was discovered in South Africa." At the time, Biden promised that the 150MM Americans with private health insurance would be able to get reimbursed for at-home COVID tests starting in mid-January, and that his administration would improve access to booster shots and impose new testing requirements for international travelers.

Unfortunately for the president, even the NYT is criticizing Biden's last plan for relying too heavily on vaccination as its "central strategy."

But that plan — and Mr. Biden’s broader response to the Omicron variant — has drawn criticism from public health experts, who say the president has focused too heavily on vaccination as his central strategy. Many have called on him to be more aggressive about testing as a means of slowing the variant’s spread — including possibly sending rapid tests to the homes of every American, free of charge.

Yesterday, the White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki insisted that lockdowns are no longer being considered as part of the federal response to the pandemic, and the Administration has stopped short of asking Americans to cancel holiday travel plans, which has elicited another round of warnings from the 'experts'. Some have warned that Biden is facing a "viral blizzard" that could be a major test for his presidency in the coming weeks.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bid ... vaccinated

[stickdog99]

According to Rhode Island's official vaccination tracker, 98.4% of all residents over 18 are now at least partially vaccinated. What a huge difference these vaccines make!



Source for chart: https://www.wpri.com/covid-19-tracking-timeline-maps/

Source for Rhode Island vaccination rate: https://ri-department-of-health-covid-1 ... rcgis.com/

Note that 30.2% of Rhode Island residents over 18 have also gotten a booster. Obviously, there can be no other possible response to this other than more and more vaccines and boosters for everybody!

[Joe Hillshoist]

Zuby making sense for 5 minutes

Why is it all or nothing. Are you saying vaccines don't protect anyone against infection or stop anyone from transmitting the virus.

If vaccines work to stop people getting infected 50% of the time that still has an effect that protects others (as well as the vaccinated person.)

Are you saying covid vaccines give no protection at all against covid infection?

As I have said many times, these mRNA "vaccines" confer limited, temporary protection against hospitalization and death from COVID-19, especially for the very elderly and those with serious co-morbidities.

My point is that that this is all these vaccines do. These vaccines do not stop transmission of COVID-19, hospitals are not being overrun with unvaccinated people, and we have no data that show that the overall health outcomes of vaccinated populations are better than those of comparable unvaccinated populations. Thus, there is no public or private health rationale whatsoever for coercing anyone who is not elderly or suffering from any serious co-morbidities to get these vaccines.

Hospitals in Australia were "overrun" with unvaccinated people.

That doesn't mean bodies in the street. It means the hospital no longer functions the way it should. It can't deal with other people because so many resources are used on covid.

Never before had Australian hospitals been in a position where ambulances were lined up waiting to access emergency and unable to respond to call outs as a result. And we didn't even have it bad here. But that is still the hospital system failing under the stress of the situation. If an ambulance can't be responded to a call out cos so many are in a line waiting to unload patients in A&E then that means the system has been over run.

Its like the cargo ships off your coastline.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Re: "They may have made no difference to your recovery too" -- certainly, there's really no way to prove it helped lessen my symptoms. But there are numerous factors involved here, of course, including my overall health, and the proactive/preventative measures I generally take (ensure sufficient intake of Vitamin D, which studies have shown help lessen severity of covid and other illnesses; direct exposure to sun; walks; outside air; exercise; avoiding processed foods as much as possible, etc.; these are all habits/measures that are rarely, if ever, mentioned as recommendations by govt/official health authorities over the last ~2 years).

The key point here, though, is this: a fair amount of people have essentially been brainwashed into believing that a middle-aged unvaccinated person would very likely be hospitalized, and/or probably die, if exposed to covid. This is obviously not true, as exemplified by actual figures and anecdotal accounts like mine. If everyone complied with mandates and got these shots, there'd be no control group, no way to know that most people actually can deal with this virus without the need for mRNA shots (though as mentioned, overall health and early treatment are important factors in one's individual outcome).

One reason current policies continue without more overt opposition by the populace (though opposition is growing) is precisely due to the egregious amount of dis/misinfo out there about the lethality of covid, especially for those unvaccinated. People are being conditioned to believe leaky, flawed 'vaccines' are their ONLY option, and further, that such (experimental) products need to be injected into their bodies multiple times per year to avoid probable death.

I agree with most of this. But ... covid is also a systemic disease that can leave very nasty long term effects, many of which will come to light, I don't need the media to tell me this cos i can work it out for myself. I studied biomedicine in a science degree, years ago, I dropped out, in third year when I'd nearly finished, because I was working nights and too tired to go straight to 8 hour prac/lab classes, sometimes involving live serious viruses like Hep C safely. I never went back cos the only real career options that i was looking at were basically rep jobs for pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs to Doctors. Frankly I'd rather grow weed in the bush, its more honest and probably more ethical.

Anyway point being covid is alot nastier than your avaerage flu and even we still don't know alot about its long term effects on some of its victims.

And personally, so you know where I stand, I made a risk benefit assessment based on my own life history and the lung damage fighting fires and smoking (weed and tobacco for decades, nearly four in terms of weed) has caused and I chose to have the vaccine made by Astra Zenaca and Oxford uni. Its not an mRNA vaccine. I honestly don't know if I'd have taken an mRNA vaccine ... tho by now i know alot of people who have and none have had side effects.

On the other hand i do have friends, including some mRNA vaxxed, who know of multiple cases of young men getting heart inflammation in the immediate aftermath of their vaccination.

(These dominant narratives include proclamations that mRNA shots are perfectly safe -- which they are not for a statistically significant portion of recipients -- not only near-term, but perhaps more importantly, long-term as well. Once more, there is currently no data on long-term side effects related to these shots. We will eventually have clarity on this in the coming year+, and hopefully for those with multiple mRNA shots in their system, it turns out to be relatively ok. For those of advanced age, this may not matter much; getting an mRNA shot may be a risk worth taking for the near-term feeling of "protection", real or perceived. But for younger age groups/healthier persons it's a riskier proposition, indeed.)

Despite what you probably think i've been advocating this very thing for most of the year on the other discussion board i visit. Its much bigger and much more mainstream. That's all of my social media activity btw. mRNA vaccines have issues that even mainstream commentators are starting to recognise the risk. But its nuanced, not simple and black and white.

ASpiration seems to make a big difference in preventing side effects and there seem to be effects based on the dosage separation (how many weeks between doses), dosage size, the different types of mRNA vaccine and the order in which they are taken if multiple vaccines are given.

All of this stuff would have been picked up if mRNA treatments were given the same time for proper evaluation that other medicines got.

But you can't deny this situation was an emergency. Despite what youse say hospital systems were overwhelmed, its alot easier to overwhelm a hospital system (see what I said upthread to stickdog about ambulances in sydney and melbourne foir an example,) and it reaches that stage long before it looks like what people expect. also .... Massive numbers of people died, all of them earlier than they otherwise would have and the official death toll is imo under reported across the planet. On top of that it was a novel (ie new) virus and the last two of those viruses to jump (or be released) into humanity had cfrs of 10% and over 33%.

If you don't understand why this would cause widespread panic among people in authority I don't think you're trying hard enough.

Also: just as you type that my treatment "may have made no difference to [my] recovery", the same can be said of the mRNA shots: there is no guarantee they necessarily lessen symptoms, even less so after the first few months post-injection. Anecdotally, I know of several people that had relatively severe symptoms even after being 'fully vaccinated'. Surely if they didn't get the shot they'd likely be dead, right?

The same can't be said of those shots. Except in the sense that people who have had may have been okay anyway. And that's what I meant when I said your treatment may have made no difference. Personally I think Ivermectin has a prophylactic quality similar to neutralising antibodies. Maybe not to the same extent but to some extent. So it probably did help you and your missus, especially considering it would have helped prevent systemic disease. But it may not have had any effect in that you may have been okay without it, especially considering you seem to look after your immune system

Anyway....

I know two people who were vaccinated and shared vehicles for hours with a covid positive person who infected other people before and after they shared the car. Neither were infected. Odds are that an unvaccinated person in their position would have been. There is a chance they wouldn't but its very small in comparison. I know quite a few vaccinated people who were primary contacts of infected people and who were not infected while other primary contacts (mostly or all unvaccinated) in the same location at the same time were.

There is a study in Vietnam of vaccinated people in a hospital transmitting the virus to each other, back and forth over a short time. they had higher viral loads ... but they had far less severe disease compared to other people who were infected in the same hospital but weren't vaccinated. Other infected unvaccinated people from the same hospital had much higher viral loads than them as well.

Therefore the link between higher viral loads in the vaccinated and more severe disease may not exist.

However that does suggest vaccinated people are more likely to infect other people. However there are confounding factors in that study that may undermine this conclusion. I could add half a page about it but will only do that if you want me to.

To be clear, I'm not ruling out the probability these shots may lessen severity of symptoms for a limited period of time; studies suggest this, however biased or objective they may be. But this data point --- even if verifiable and proven to be true over time -- does not justify mandates of any sort (and I know that, at this point at least, most of the readers/members here will claim to agree with this).

No one here thinks mandates are a good idea afaik.

I've seen tens of studies on serum levels of neutralising antibodies in vaccinated and naturally immune people, including a few really good ones. Those really good ones suggest natural immunity and mRNA vaccines give comparable results for similar time periods and this majkes perfect sense given how your uimmune system works when it responds to vaccines or natural infection. I don't believe any of the studies or arguments that suggest otherwise and nothing I've seen here or elsewhere would convince me.

There is some real crap floating around, such as vaccines wrecking peoples immune system because they don't have particular antibodies that infected people have.

Natural infection presents your immune system with the binding spike proteins and a bunch of other proteins on the spike and other parts of the virus surface. Most vaccinations (multi sub unit vaccines being an exception, as are attenuated or dead whole-virus based vaccines) against covid only cause the presentation of the binding proteins on the spike, partly cos its efficient and can ensure neutralising antibodies are produced and partly cos the virus is good at hiding some of those other proteins behind stuff that belongs in your body.

So theoretically natural immunity should be more effective against the virus because of the wider range of virus proteins (or antigen) its developed antibodies against. But a minor covid infection might not even generate a response against the binding spike proteins so the vaccine targets then and ensure effective neutralising antibodies will be generated as a result. odds are they would have anyway but there are case studies where the numbers slightly favour vaccinated immunity.

Most come out in favour of natural immunity tho. But the difference is trivial. Probably nothing in practise and in terms of preventing serious illness.

While I'm here, an important update by an attorney fighting employer vaccine mandates:

I've been following his thing partly cos of this thread. As i mentioned upthread the vaccinated v unvaccinated viral loads aren't as cut and dried as they seem. Butr mandates aren't a good thing (with some limits, I get why some industries mandate flu vaccines for example.)