STORY-AT-A-GLANCE
- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is now advertising the new COVID-19 booster as an “antibody update” to “recharge your immunity” – as if your immune system were a battery that needs recharging, or your immunity a software system that requires gene therapy “updates.” This is transhumanist lingo that has no bearing on real-world biology or physiology and proves the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is on board with the transhumanist ideas of technocracy pushed by the globalist cabal.
- According to a risk-benefit analysis looking at the impact of booster mandates for university students, between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected adults (aged 18 to 29) must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalization.
- For each hospitalization prevented, the jab will cause 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to three booster-associated myocarditis cases in males.
- A small observational study led by neurology researchers at the National Institutes of Health found “a variety of neuropathic symptoms” occurring within three to four weeks of COVID-19 injection.
- Naturopath Henry Ealy and two Oregon state senators, Kim Thatcher and Dennis Linthicum, are trying to compel the state court in Oregon to order the impaneling of a special grand jury to investigate criminal data fraud by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(Mercola) — Just when you thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) couldn’t possibly get any worse, they prove you wrong. Here are two recent COVID-19 booster campaign messages tweeted out by the FDA:
It’s time to install that update! #UpdateYourAntibodies with a new #COVID19 booster.
Don’t be shocked! You can now #RechargeYourImmunity with an updated #COVID19 booster.
FDA now pushes transhumanist pipe-dream
That’s right. The FDA now wants you to believe that your immune system is something that needs to be “recharged,” as if it were a battery or “updated” with mRNA injections like a piece of software.
This is transhumanist lingo that has no bearing on real-world biology or physiology and proves beyond doubt that the FDA is fully on board with the transhumanist ideas of technocracy pushed by the globalist cabal. The human body is basically viewed as nothing more than a biological platform equipped with genetic software that can be altered and updated at will.
The problem, of course, is that your body doesn’t work that way. You cannot turn your body into a “bioreactor” or an internal “vaccine-production facility” and expect it to work as intended.
The massive increase in disability and sudden death among COVID-19 jab recipients is a testament to the fact that allowing Big Pharma to play God is a bad idea.
Transhumanism as a whole is a pipe-dream, as it fails to take into account just about everything that actually makes us human, including the nonlocality of consciousness, which they irrationally believe can be uploaded to a cloud-based system and merged with AI, or downloaded into an artificial body construct, such as a synthetic body.
False advertising
The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for addressing fraudulent advertising. According to law, an advert must be “truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.”
The FDA itself also requires drug adverts to be “truthful, balanced and accurately communicated.”
“Balanced” refers to promotional materials that include efficacy and benefit claims, which must include a balance between benefit information and information about risks.
In my view, the FDA’s most recent COVID-19 booster adverts are clear examples of false advertising because:
- They’re not truthful and accurate, as there’s no basis for the claim that your antibodies need to be updated with a drug, or the claim that immunity must be recharged at regular intervals.
- They’re not backed by scientific evidence, as the FDA is a) ignoring massive evidence of harm from the original shots and b) the bivalent boosters are being released based on data from a few mice alone. The FDA is advertising the boosters for the prevention of disease, even though it has zero data to prove it prevents anything.
- They’re not balanced, as the FDA fails to warn people about any of the many side effects reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System(VAERS).
Was no-test drug approval the plan all along?
While I cannot prove it, I suspect Operation Warp Speed – devised in the spring of 2020 by a dozen top officials from then-President Donald Trump’s health and defense departments to expedite the development of a COVID-19 vaccine – may have been intended to normalize the approval of drugs without proper testing.
Even if the normalization of expedited drug approval wasn’t originally intended, it certainly has been used and abused to that aim since.
In June, the FDA quietly implemented a “Future Framework” scheme to speed up the delivery of COVID-19 boosters. This is what allows for the authorization of reformulated COVID-19 shots without human trials.
The FDA basically rewrote the rules on the fly, deciding that mRNA gene therapies are equivalent to conventional influenza vaccines and can be updated and released without testing.
The idea here is that the safety of the mRNA COVID-19 shots has already been proven by the original shots, which they claim have harmed or killed no one.
Hence, safety is a given, and the effectiveness of reformulated boosters can be assessed simply by checking the antibody levels in a few mice, which is what Pfizer and Moderna did.
In reality, however, millions of people around the world have been harmed and killed by the original shots, the human trials for those shots were riddled with fraud, antibody levels tell us nothing about the jab’s ability to protect against infection, and the two technologies (conventional flu vaccines and mRNA gene therapy) have no common ground.
I have no doubt this “Future Framework” will also, over time, be widened to include other vaccines and drugs that drug makers may want to tinker with. It may even lower standards for drug trials in general, which historically have required at least 10 years of multiphase testing.
The dangers of this trend really cannot be overstated.
Analysis of US booster policy
In a September 12 article, Kaiser Health News raised several questions about the FDA’s authorization of the new bivalent COVID-19 boosters:
[In] the real world, are the omicron-specific vaccines significantly more protective – and in what ways – than the original COVID vaccines so many have already taken? If so, who would benefit most from the new shots? Since the federal government is purchasing these new vaccines… is the $3.2 billion price tag worth the unclear benefit?…
The FDA could have requested more clinical vaccine effectiveness data from Pfizer and Moderna before authorizing their updated omicron BA.5 boosters. Yet the FDA cannot weigh in on important follow-up questions: How much more effective are the updated boosters than vaccines already on the market? In which populations?
And what increase in effectiveness is enough to merit an increase in price (a so-called cost-benefit analysis)? Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, perform such an analysis before allowing new medicines onto the market, to negotiate a fair national price…
As population immunity builds up through vaccination and infection, it’s unclear whether additional vaccine boosters, updated or not, would benefit all ages equally… The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices considered limiting the updated boosters to people 50 and up, but eventually decided that doing so would be too complicated.
Shocking jab study decimates safety claims
In related news, a shocking risk-benefit analysis looking at the impact of booster mandates for university students concluded that:
- Between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected adults (aged 18 to 29) must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalization.
- For each hospitalization prevented, the jab will cause 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3 “booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities.”
That means mandating a third COVID-19 shot for university students will result in “a net expected harm.” The authors also stress that “[g]iven the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favorable.”
The authors go on to state that “university booster mandates are unethical because”:
1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group;
2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
4) U.S. mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and
5) mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialization and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support.
Reprinted with permission from Mercola.