Many about-faces have occurred regarding multiple core tenets of the mainstream COVID narrative in recent months. Natural immunity? Oh. Yeah. That’s real and it’s spectacular. The precious vaccines? They aren’t as effective as they *hoped* and won’t be getting us out of the pandemic. On March 3, 2022 at Washington University School of Medicine, when addressing “where could we have improved?”
Whole interview here. Above excerpt at 28:50. Digression: Catch a line where she says “For people who wanted a vaccine, it was available to them, and even for people who didn’t, we were able to move the needle on many people.” (26:50)
COVID Deaths? Oh, risk is “overwhelmingly” based on co-morbidities. “People who were unwell to begin with.”
COVID hospitalizations? Yeah, we artificially increased the numbers by combining hospitalized with and from COVID.
And actually same for COVID deaths too:
Masks? Yep, no significant effect on reducing spread. Lockdowns? School closings? Not only are they ineffective at stopping the spread, they’re actually harmful. Oops.
My disgust was compounding with each admission they casually let slip through early 2022, as though these were some new discoveries. So imagine my disgust when MIA-of-late Fauci admits that the vaccines are in fact not like the measles vaccine (which was the main point I covered here, here, here, and here)!
I still remember this popular selling point from 2021. This rationale was everywhere, parroted by the prominent news media and tv doctors, an example:
Fauci, Aug. 6, 2021, USA Today interview: “If we can get the overwhelming proportion of the people vaccinated as a nation, Beth, we will do very, very well. JUST THE SAME WAY as we’re all protected from MEASLES…” <emphasis added> (quote at 34 seconds into video clip)
Hmmm…
So, just how does Fauci change his tune, eluded to in the April 15, 2022, article by CNN1? Ohhhh, Fauci co-authored a paper recently accepted for The Journal of Infectious Diseases and an Infectious Disease Society of America 2022 publication.2
“…SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is so different from polio and measles that classical herd immunity may not readily apply to it. Important differences include the phenotypic stability of polio and measles viruses, and their ability to elicit long-term protective immunity, compared to SARS-CoV-2. For these and other reasons, controlling COVID-19 by increasing herd immunity may be an elusive goal.” <emphasis added>
Here’s a recent video clip where he recited these concepts:
“This is not gonna go away completely, Kate. We’re not gonna eradicate this the way we eradicated smallpox. And I doubt if we’re gonna eliminate it for a number of reasons because it isn’t a stable virus the way measles and polio is. We get variants and sub-lineages and things that change, and the durability of protection, be that protection from prior infection or protection from vaccines is not lifelong. It wanes. We know that…There will always be some level of Covid in the community…” (starts at 4:14)
Let’s reference against excerpts from my above-referenced pieces:
“LIE 3: Ignoring the variant-generating potential of SARS-CoV-2…Bottom line: By its nature, SARS-CoV-2 is and always was likely poised to be capable of generating an immense amount of variants, more similar to the common cold or flu. Yet somehow when considering our path forward through the pandemic, this was largely ignored. Again, how can such a discrepancy accidentally occur in the minds of our guiding “experts”?
LIE 4: Ignoring evolutionary stability: comparing smallpox, poliovirus, or measles to SARS-CoV-2…Bottom line: SARS-CoV-2 by its nature, is not (and never was) comparable to smallpox, poliovirus, or measles virus with regard to respective viral properties and the likelihood of developing durable immunity to all future variants, whether vaccine-induced or naturally-acquired.
LIE 6: Ignoring the concept of durable immunity: comparing smallpox, poliovirus, or measles immunity to SARS-CoV-2…Mini Bottom Line: SARS and MERS vaccine candidate research has not shown consistent results with respect to durability, immunogenicity, or safety across a wide variety of different vaccine platforms, target antigens, study designs, study animals, viral challenges, and different adjuvants. While some important pitfalls had been identified, much remained to be understood, most of all how these would perform in humans.
Does it seem reasonable to assume that SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced immunity would be different from results found doing research on closely related virus vaccines? Or is it perhaps more appropriate to assume that limitations encountered for decades would likely persist until proven otherwise? After all what’s the point of accumulating vast amounts of research only to ignore their findings and not apply them to similar future scenarios on the basis of hoping for the contrary? This is either an unscientific approach or not being transparent.
Bottom line: They knew in advance that the vaccines were not shown to prevent infection or moderate and severe illness (even within 7 weeks of being “fully vaccinated” when protection is strongest), and they knew in advance that they did not determine the prevention of transmission or prevention of death.
They most assuredly knew what they did not know. And what they did know. And how to use both to their advantage.
Bottom line: The COVID-19 vaccines only confer partial immunity, which is in direct opposition to Requirement #3. Herd immunity cannot operate. They knew in advance that this was the overwhelming likelihood and then covered it up when the vaccines weren’t performing as initially promised.”
TO RECAP:
They’re sooooo different. So different that it takes an 80+ year-old infectious disease expert bureaucrat to see it after 2+ years! …#1. phenotypic stability aka not mutating into different variants capable of evading previous immunity; #2. long-term, durable immunity aka not quickly waning and allowing breakthrough; #3. etc. They forgot to mention that interspecies spread is highly important to prevention of herd immunity (LIE 1 from my piece), but who’s counting?
CONCLUSION
If I called their bluff in summer 2021 (as I’m sure many more prominent others did before me) when so much emphasis was put on achieving herd immunity like measles, polio, and smallpox, it’s IMPOSSIBLE that Fauci believed what he said in August 2021. Impossible. It was all known before. The parallels between measles and SARS-CoV-2 were NEVER there with regard to herd immunity. They fleeced the American public intentionally and willfully. To push the vaccines. Don’t believe it?
Here it is, from two of the three same authors (Fauci and Morens) who spouted their new herd immunity revelations in the The Journal of Infectious Diseases article: Epub Dec. 15, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine opinion article, “Universal Coronavirus Vaccines: An Urgent Need”:
“We must therefore greatly accelerate our efforts in coronavirus vaccinology.
The limitations of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines suggest that they will ultimately need to be replaced by second-generation vaccines that induce more broadly protective and more durable immunity. We must now prioritize development of broadly protective vaccines like the universal influenza vaccines we have been working toward in recent years. A universal coronavirus vaccine would ideally protect against SARS-CoV-2 and the many animal-derived coronaviruses that might cause future zoonotic outbreaks and pandemics.”3
The powerful exclamation point punctuating the culmination of Fauci’s life’s work. After all, his “NIAID argues that the risk of delaying the advancement of vaccines is much higher than the risk of causing illness in healthy volunteers…”4
And Dr. Fauci in 2012 reflected as follows on a hypothetical situation:
Imagine “an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed…what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?…as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks…the time it takes to engage in such a dialog <about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place.> could potentially delay or even immobilize the conduct of certain important experiments and the publication of valuable information that could move the field forward for the good of public health.”5
All of this being said, only now can they magically can piece together the following conclusions?!:
“Developing universal coronavirus vaccines will require addressing fundamental questions about the nature of coronavirus protective immunity. In contrast to respiratory viruses that cause systemic infections (e.g., measles, rubella, varicella–zoster virus infection, and smallpox [eradicated in 1980]), nonsystemic respiratory viruses such as the endemic coronaviruses, influenza viruses, RSV, parainfluenza viruses, and SARS-CoV-2 primarily infect epithelial cells on mucosal surfaces and have limited contact with the systemic immune system. They thus elicit incomplete and transient protective immunity and allow reinfections and suboptimal responses to systemically administered vaccines.
Research will have to address several critical questions. What are the systemic and mucosal immune correlates of protection after natural coronavirus infection and after vaccination, especially with respect to mucosal and respiratory memory B and T cells? Which vaccine approaches will elicit immunity to multiple viral protein antigens and induce both long-term humoral and cellular memory? What are the key humoral and cellular immune targets that will allow us to achieve robust, durable, and broadly protective immunity against the diverse and rapidly evolving betacoronaviruses? What relevant animal models of coronavirus infection and immunity can be used to adequately evaluate immune responses and vaccine efficacy?
Although clinical studies of vaccine efficacy will ultimately be needed, we must also begin now to investigate correlates of human immunity after both natural SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, including by evaluating the durability of responses and their localization (mucosal and systemic). Human challenge studies4 with the human “cold virus” coronaviruses (e.g., OC43) will probably be important. Together with studies in animals, such clinical studies could greatly improve the efficacy of universal coronavirus vaccines by helping to define immunogen design and the optimal routes and manner of vaccination. (3) <emphasis added>
No. If you read even a fraction of the lexicon for SARS & MERS vaccine research (which these “experts” would have done, right?), you’d see this was all known beforehand (partially touched on in my previous pieces). But now they coincidentally have volumes of data to address their “critical questions.” Even with the incessant fear-mongering, they never would have gotten nearly the level of public participation without withholding these vast unknowns. This is where I take issue. Lying is still lying even if they argue it’s for the greater good because it robs the person of true consent. Maybe all of this research will be of tremendous benefit to future generations (surely that’s their rationalization among other$), but you can never convince me that coercion and deceit should be employed to achieve those gains.
They manipulated the masses to get what they wanted. If some were harmed, well it’s worth the monumental leaps forward. If some benefited, even better. More return customers. Er, participants. Er, patients? Better to ask forgiveness than permission, right?
The cat’s outta the bag— both the now-highly contagious, mutating virus one and the experimental, genetic therapy “vaccine” one. In their eyes, it undoubtedly moved the field forward. Such clinical data generation and analysis, likely unmatched in history, will proceed for years. That is if moving the field doesn’t end the game altogether. We’re living their experiment without end in sight.
“If vaccine- or infection-induced immunity to SARS-CoV-2 indeed proves to be short-lived, or if escape mutants continue to emerge, viral spread may continue indefinitely, albeit hopefully at a low endemic level.”(2) <emphasis added>
“…SARS-CoV-2 is unlikely to be eliminated, let alone eradicated; it will probably continue to circulate indefinitely in periodic outbreaks and endemics.” (3) <emphasis added>
When hope enters the equation (which by the way for “scientists” they sure do a lot lately), you should know by now that we’re in for a ride.
After all, the infamous 1918 pandemic influenza virus descendants “still are causing seasonal outbreaks and occasional pandemics 104 years later (pandemic H2N2 in 1957, H3N2 in 1968, and H1N1 in 2009).” (2) Given that immunity from previous flu infections has been found to confer advantage against subsequent severe influenza for some and disadvantage for others, what would’ve happened had we mucked around with premature, hasty, narrowly-focused interventions then? Based on all the pitfalls that weren’t addressed before giving these to billions, I don’t predict it will be better. It could be worse. Especially with people at the wheel who seem to accept suffering as necessary sacrifice for their ends. In any case, we’re gonna find out.
Goodman, Brenda. Is herd immunity for Covid-19 still possible? CNN. Apr. 15, 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/15/health/covid-19-herd-immunity/index.html
David M Morens, Gregory K Folkers, Anthony S Fauci, The Concept of Classical Herd Immunity May Not Apply to COVID-19, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2022;, jiac109, https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiac109
Morens DM, Taubenberger JK, Fauci AS. Universal Coronavirus Vaccines - An Urgent Need. N Engl J Med. 2022 Jan 27;386(4):297-299. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2118468. Epub 2021 Dec 15. PMID: 34910863. https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMp2118468?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
Jiang S. Don’t rush to deploy COVID-19 vaccines and drugs without sufficient safety guarantees. Nature 579, 321 (2020) .doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00751-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00751-9
Fauci AS. Research on highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus: the way forward. mBio. 2012;3(5):e00359-12. Published 2012 Nov 1. doi:10.1128/mBio.00359-12 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/