Boosting Madness

From my heart and from my hand
Why don't people understand?
--Oingo Bingo

It is becoming glaringly apparent that the so-called CV19 vaccines provide, at best, limited protection against the virus. 'Breakthrough' cases, or CV19 infections in people who previously received the shot, are on the rise. Countries that were early adopters of the vaccines, such as Israel, are seeing big increases in cases and hospitalizations among the vaccinated.

Governments are now positioning to recommend/mandate a 'booster' shot to replenish antibody levels that appear to decline in the 5-6 month period after the initial shots.

Alex Berenson, who has been on the story of vaccine 'failure' for months, discusses the ongoing anti-science dysfunction associated with these policies.

The CV19 vaccines come in two related flavors. The mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer (PFE) and Moderna (MRNA) use synthetically created RNA fragments encapsulated in fat particles that are transfected into immune cells to stimulate an adaptive immune response. The synthetic mRNA causes cells to produce a foreign protein (i.e., 'spike protein') that resembles the viral antigen. Production of the spike protein triggers immune system response.

Rather than using synthetically created mRNA fragments, the Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) vaccine employs a 'viral vector' composed of RNA fragments from other supposed harmless viruses to motivate spike protein creation. This approach is intuitively appealing to some people because it somewhat resembles the mechanism of traditional vaccines that inject antigens from a weakened or dead version of the virus to stimulate response.

Why weren't traditional vaccines used in the case of CV19? It can take years and cost billion$ to develop traditional antigen-based vaccines that are both safe and effective. Conversely, prospective RNA vaccines can be designed and produced in a matter of months. Because of the proclaimed state of emergency associated with the CV19 pandemic, the RNA vaccine route was chosen primarily as a matter of expedience.

The problem is that RNA vaccines are unproven. Previous tests going back years have flopped. Moreover, there have been safety concerns about gene therapies that stimulate spike protein creation.

Unfortunately, the Phase I, II, and III testing protocols that have defined drug development in the past were discarded in the case of the CV19 RNA vaccines. The PFE, MRNA, and JNJ versions underwent accelerated clinical trials that, while indicating a short term reduction in CV19 infections (not deaths) of between 67% (JNJ) to 95% (MRNA)--with a significant side effect profile, it should be noted--the long term reward/risk profile cannot be determined from this work. Why? Not only were control groups cancelled upon authorization of the mRNA vaccines, but the evaluations themselves largely ceased after the initial panel of results were in.

Incredibly, then, there has been no ongoing large-scale clinical trial work overseen by regulating bodies aimed at assessing long-term benefits and problems associated with these vaccines. Previous institutions governing medicine development have essentially been discarded.

Now public health agencies and governments are pushing for another round of vaccines as boosters--with no conclusive evidence as to the treatment's efficacy, much less the possible risks.

As Alex Berenson observes:

"If the FDA or other regulators had any guts, they would insist on a new, full-size clinical trial (a BETTER trial, one powered to detect reductions in death) before allowing [the boosters]."

CV19 vaccines remain experimental products being administered in the most unethical, and unscientific, ways imaginable.

position in JNJ