LA County admits covid “vaccines” are a hoax, tries to reinstate mask mandate, even for the fully vaccinated

(Natural News) The Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine” push is working so well at “flattening the curve” that Los Angeles County has decided to reinstate its mask mandate to keep Angelenos “safe” against the circulating Chinese Virus “variants.” Beginning on July 17 at 11:59 p.m., residents of LA County are being ordered to cover their breathing…

Will COVID Shots Drive Mutated Variants?

Will COVID shots drive the mutation of SARS-CoV-2, creating ever more variants? Or are the mutations primarily occurring in unvaccinated people? In the video report above, The Last American Vagabond host Ignatius Reilly dives into the scientific research to find out.

As noted by Reilly, unvaccinated Americans are actually in the majority, still, despite what you’re hearing on the news. Those saying “no” to participating in a medical gene modification experiment are not a small fringe group.

We are the majority, at just over half (51%) of the United States population over the age of 18, as of July 12, 2021. (More specifically, 56% have received one dose, and 49% are fully vaccinated, which for Moderna and Pfizer means having received two doses.1)

Based on the scientific evidence, the narrative that unvaccinated people are viral factories for more dangerous variants is simply false. Worse, it’s the complete opposite of the truth and hides the fact that mass vaccination may be putting us all in a far direr situation than necessary.

Vaccines Drive Viruses to Mutate

As explained in “Vaccines Are Pushing Pathogens to Evolve,” published in Quanta Magazine,2 “Just as antibiotics breed resistance in bacteria, vaccines can incite changes that enable diseases to escape their control.”

The article details the history of the anti-Marek’s disease vaccine for chickens, first introduced in 1970. Today, we’re on the third version of this vaccine, as within a decade, it stops working. The reason? The virus has mutated to evade the vaccine. The virus is also becoming increasingly deadly and more difficult to treat.

A 2015 paper3 in PLOS Biology tested the theory that vaccines are driving the mutation of the herpesvirus causing Marek’s disease in chickens. To do that, they vaccinated 100 chickens and kept 100 unvaccinated. All of the birds were then infected with varying strains of the virus. Some strains were more virulent and dangerous than others.

Over the course of the birds’ lives, the unvaccinated ones shed more of the least virulent strains into the environment, while the vaccinated ones shed more of the most virulent strains. As noted in the Quanta Magazine article:4

“The findings suggest that the Marek’s vaccine encourages more dangerous viruses to proliferate. This increased virulence might then give the viruses the means to overcome birds’ vaccine-primed immune responses and sicken vaccinated flocks.”

Vaccinated People Can Serve as Breeding Ground for Mutations

As noted by Reilly, before 2021, it was quite clear that vaccines push viruses to mutate into more dangerous strains. The only question was, to what extent? Now all of a sudden, we’re to believe conventional science has been wrong all along.

Here’s another example: NPR as recently as February 9, 2021, reported that “vaccines can contribute to virus mutations.” NPR science correspondent Richard Harris noted:5

“You may have heard that bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics and, in a worst-case scenario, render the drugs useless. Something similar can also happen with vaccines, though, with less serious consequences.

This worry has arisen mostly in the debate over whether to delay a second vaccine shot so more people can get the first shot quickly. Paul Bieniasz, a Howard Hughes investigator at the Rockefeller University, says that gap would leave people with only partial immunity for longer than necessary.”

According to Bieniasz, partially vaccinated individuals “might serve as sort of a breeding ground for the virus to acquire new mutations.” This is the exact claim now being attributed to unvaccinated people by those who don’t understand natural selection.

It’s important to realize that viruses mutate all the time, and if you have a vaccine that doesn’t block infection completely, then the virus will mutate to evade the immune response within that person. That is one of the distinct features of the COVID shots — they’re not designed to block infection. They allow infection to occur and at best lessen the symptoms of that infection. As noted by Harris:6

“This evolutionary pressure is present for any vaccine that doesn’t completely block infection … Many vaccines, apparently, including the COVID vaccines, do not completely prevent a virus from multiplying inside someone even though these vaccines do prevent serious illness.”

In short, like bacteria mutate and get stronger to survive the assault of antibacterial agents, viruses can mutate in vaccinated individuals who contract the virus, and in those, it will mutate to evade the immune system. In an unvaccinated person, on the other hand, the virus does not encounter the same evolutionary pressure to mutate into something stronger. So, if SARS-CoV-2 does end up mutating into more lethal strains, then mass vaccination is the most likely driver.

COVID Variants Are More Similar Than You Think

Now, the fearmongering over variants is just that: fearmongering. So far, while some SARS-CoV-2 variants appear to spread more easily, they are also less dangerous. The Delta variant, for example, is associated with more conventional flu-like symptoms like runny nose and sore throat than the hallmark COVID-19 symptoms involving shortness of breath and loss of smell.7

In an interview for the documentary “Planet Lockdown,”8 Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a life science researcher and former vice-president and chief scientist at Pfizer, pointed out the fraud being perpetrated with regard to variants. He actually refers to them as “simians,” because they’re near-identical to the original. And, as such, they pose no greater threat than the original.

“It’s quite normal for RNA viruses like SARS-CoV-2, when it replicates, to make typographical errors,” Yeadon explains. “It’s got a very good error detection, error correction system so it doesn’t make too many typos, but it does make some, and those are called ‘variants.’

It’s really important to know that if you find the variant that’s most different from the sequence identified in Wuhan, that variance … is only 0.3% different from the original sequence.

I’ll say it another way. If you find the most different variance, it’s 99.7% identical to the original one, and I can assure you … that amount of difference is absolutely NOT possibly able to represent itself to you as a different virus.”

Your immune system is a multifaceted system that allows your body to mount defenses against all sorts of threats. Parasites, fungi, bacteria and viruses are the main threat categories. Each of these invades and threatens you in completely different ways, and your immune system has ways of dealing with all of them, using a variety of mechanisms.

Whether you’re going to be susceptible to variants has very little to do with whether or not you have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, because antibodies are not your primary defense against viruses, T cells are. What this means then, is that getting booster shots for different variants is not going to help, because these shots do not strengthen your T cell immunity.

The importance of T cells has been known for a long time, and their role in COVID-19 was confirmed early on in the pandemic. Scientists wanted to find out if patients who recovered from SARS-CoV-1, responsible for the SARS outbreak some 17 years ago, might have immunity against SARS-CoV-2. As it turns out, they did.

They still had memory T cells against SARS-CoV-1, and those cells also recognized SARS-CoV-2, despite being only 80% similar. Now, if a 20% difference was not enough to circumvent the immune system of these patients, why should you be concerned with a variant that is at most 0.3% different from the original SARS-CoV-2?

“When your government scientists tell you that a variant that’s 0.3% different from SARS-CoV-2 could masquerade as a new virus and be a threat to your health, you should know, and I’m telling you, they are lying,” Yeadon says.

“If they’re lying, and they are, why is the pharmaceutical industry making top-up [booster] vaccines? … There’s absolutely no possible justification for their manufacture.”

Mutations Are Good for Vaccine Business

Of course, by pushing fear of variants, vaccine makers ensure a steady supply of people willing to participate as guinea pigs in their for-profit business scheme. Pfizer plans to ask for EUA authorization for a third COVID booster shot in August 2021, Bloomberg reports.9

According to Pfizer’s head of research, Dr. Mikael Dolsten, initial data suggest a third dose of the current Pfizer shot can raise neutralizing antibody levels by anywhere from fivefold to 10-fold.10 The company is also working on variant-specific formulations.

Dolsten points to data from Israel, where Pfizer’s mRNA injection was used exclusively, which shows a recent uptick in breakthrough cases. This suggests protection starts to wane around the six-months mark. For now, the FDA is not recommending boosters,11 but that can change at any moment, and most likely will.

Pfizer recently announced it intends to raise the price on its COVID shot once the pandemic wanes,12 and during a recent investor conference, Pfizer’s chief financial officer Frank D’Amelio said there’s “significant opportunity” for profits once the market shifts to annual boosters.13

In an April 2021 article, The Defender reported expected profits from current COVID shots and boosters in coming years:14

  • Pfizer expects a minimum revenue of $15 billion to $30 billion in 2021 alone
  • Moderna expects sales of $18.4 billion in 2021; Barclays analyst Gena Wang forecasts the company’s 2022 revenue to be somewhere around $12.2 billion and $11.4 billion in 2023
  • Johnson & Johnson expects sales of $10 billion in 2021

Vaccine Treadmill Ahead

The way things have been going, it seems inevitable that we’re facing a vaccine treadmill, where new variants will “necessitate” boosters on a regular basis. Boosters will also drive the “need” for vaccine passports to keep track of it all. As reported by The Defender:15

“Annual COVID booster shots are music to the ears of investors. But some independent scientists warn16 that trying to outsmart the virus with booster shots designed to address the next variant could backfire, creating an endless wave of new variants, each more virulent and transmissible than the one before …

According to Rob Verkerk Ph.D., founder, scientific and executive director of Alliance for Natural Health International, variants can become more virulent and transmissible, while also including immune (or vaccine) escape mutations if we continue on the vaccine treadmill — trying to develop new vaccines that outsmart the virus.

Verkerk said ‘if we put all our eggs’ in the basket of vaccines that target the very part of the virus that is most subject to mutation, we place a selection pressure on the virus that favors the development of immune escape variants.”

Vaccinologist Dr. Geert Vanden Bosche,17 whose resume includes work with GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, published an open letter18 to the World Health Organization, March 6, 2021, in which he warned that implementing a global mass vaccination campaign during the height of the pandemic could create an “uncontrollable monster” where evolutionary pressure will force the emergence of new and potentially more dangerous mutations.

“There can be no doubt that continued mass vaccination campaigns will enable new, more infectious viral variants to become increasingly dominant and ultimately result in a dramatic incline in new cases despite enhanced vaccine coverage rates. There can be no doubt either that this situation will soon lead to complete resistance of circulating variants to the current vaccines,” Bossche wrote.19

Will COVID-19 Shots Save Lives? Probably Not

As noted in the BMJ paper20 “Will COVID-19 Vaccines Save Lives? Current Trials Aren’t Designed to Tell Us,” by associate editor Peter Doshi, while the world is betting on gene modification “vaccines” as the solution to the pandemic, the trials are not even designed to answer key questions such as whether the shots will actually save lives.

In an October 23, 2020, response21 to that paper, Dr. Allan Cunningham, a retired pediatrician, provided a summary of papers dating back to 1972, showing vaccines have been notoriously ineffective. In many cases, deaths have actually risen in tandem with increased vaccination rates, suggesting they may actually have a net negative effect on mortality.

Cunningham also lists studies arguing that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has exaggerated flu mortality statistics in an effort to increase uptake of the flu vaccine. They’re clearly doing the same thing with COVID-19 mortality statistics. If people had not been so misled by government authorities about the true lethality of COVID-19, half the country would not have rolled up their sleeves to take an experimental gene modification injection. As noted by Cunningham:22

“2020: A 14-year study finds that influenza vaccines are associated with an 8.9% increase in the risk of all-cause mortality in elderly men … During six A/H3N2-predominant seasons their all-cause mortality increase was 16.6%! …

The unfortunate history of influenza vaccines should warn us against repeating the process with Covid-19 vaccines. Peter Doshi may be understating the case when he suggests that influenza vaccines have not saved lives. The foregoing history and other observations suggest that in whole populations over the long run seasonal flu campaigns have actually cost lives …

This idea is hard to grasp in the face of massive publicity and reports of ‘vaccine effectiveness.’ The vaccines provide modest short-term protection against seasonal flu, but the VE studies completely ignore adverse effects (e.g. high fever, seizures, narcolepsy, oculo-respiratory syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome) … We don’t need another vaccine treadmill that could do more harm than good.”

Natural Selection Will Win

As we move forward, it’s really important that we not cast aside hard-won science lessons in favor of politically-driven propaganda. The propaganda is not science. Do not confuse the two.

If there’s a silver lining to this whole mess, it’s that more and more people are starting to get educated about health, biology, virology and vaccinology. These are heady topics, but to begin to tease out truth from fiction, many are now taking the time to listen to doctors and scientists who are explaining the science behind it all.

The obvious and blatant lies and propaganda and over-the-top censorship is starting to wake up tens of millions of people in the U.S. about the vaccine frauds; not only the COVID jabs but the whole lot of them. It’s getting easier by the day to tell the quacks from the real McCoy, because the truth tellers will actually explain how things work, whereas the propagandists juggle catchphrases and attack those who ask questions.

In closing, here are two more excerpts from articles detailing the inevitability of vaccines driving the mutation of viruses through natural selection. Quanta Magazine writes:23

“Recent research suggests … that some pathogen populations are adapting in ways that help them survive in a vaccinated world … Just as the mammal population exploded after dinosaurs went extinct because a big niche opened up for them, some microbes have swept in to take the place of competitors eliminated by vaccines.

Immunization is also making once-rare or nonexistent genetic variants of pathogens more prevalent, presumably because vaccine-primed antibodies can’t as easily recognize and attack shape-shifters that look different from vaccine strains.

And vaccines being developed against some of the world’s wilier pathogens — malaria, HIV, anthrax — are based on strategies that could, according to evolutionary models and lab experiments, encourage pathogens to become even more dangerous.24 Evolutionary biologists aren’t surprised that this is happening.

A vaccine is a novel selection pressure placed on a pathogen, and if the vaccine does not eradicate its target completely, then the remaining pathogens with the greatest fitness — those able to survive, somehow, in an immunized world — will become more common.

‘If you don’t have these pathogens evolving in response to vaccines,’ said Paul Ewald, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Louisville, ‘then we really don’t understand natural selection.'”

Similarly, Alliance for Natural Health International points out:25

“‘Mutants of concern’ are clearly on most of our radars. An important question is: are they growing or declining in frequency? In some countries, including ones where vaccinations have occurred at a high rate … they are increasing and have already become dominant … That should be a very large, flappy, red flag to anyone who has a reasonable grasp of evolutionary selection pressure on viruses with pathogenic capacity.

More infection — including more silent infection among asymptomatic people (even if reduced by vaccination) — provides more opportunities for mutation. If we continue to drag out the time it takes for the virus to just become another endemic component of our virosphere, there will be more opportunities and more mutations. Not dissimilar to a game of Russian roulette — so why don’t we start counting our chances?

If variants become both more transmissible and more virulent, while also including immune (or vaccine) escape mutations — all trends we are witnessing in some parts of the world — we could be in deep trouble down the road.

At the very least, we stay on the vaccine (or monoclonal antibody) treadmill, trying to develop new vaccines (or monoclonal antibody therapies) that outsmart the virus when we should know better; that the virus will continue to outsmart us if we maintain such intense selection pressure on it …

Let me throw in one more concept that is ecological in nature: herd immunity. The base equation used by government scientists that estimates around 70% of the population need to be vaccinated or exposed to the virus to achieve herd immunity is flawed.

It is predicated on a number of assumptions that don’t apply: equal mixing of populations and successful sterilization of the virus in vaccinated people and those exposed to wild virus being just two. This just isn’t the case. In the real world, the situation is much more complex than in an idealized model.

Randolph and Barreiro remind us in their review26 in the journal Immunity that ‘[e]pidemiological and immunological factors, such as population structure, variation in transmission dynamics between populations, and waning immunity, will lead to variation in the extent of indirect protection conferred by herd immunity.’

For vaccinated people, antigen-specific antibodies bind firmly to virus particles and competitively oust natural antibodies, giving vaccinated people potentially less cross-immunity to mutant variants that are more infectious and the wave of infectivity continues.”

Inflated Reporting of COVID Deaths Is a Real Conspiracy

In the early months of 2020, many mainstream news media laughingly called concerns that there were more deaths reported from COVID than could be attributed to the disease a “death toll conspiracy”1 they said was led by conservative Republicans and “anti-vaxxers.”2 Yet, a few short months later, data confirm what many already knew: The number of people who died “from” COVID-19 were not the same as those who died “with” COVID-19.

In late 2020, I reported on several deaths3 that were originally counted as COVID-19, but were later retracted, for example, two deaths from gunshot wounds in Grand County, Colorado, and a motorcycle accident in Orlando, Florida. At the same time, the Freedom Foundation4 accused Washington State’s Department of Health of inflating the number of COVID deaths by up to 13%.

Although the governor denied the allegation, internal emails revealed in May 2020 that the Department of Health was counting deaths in their official COVID numbers that were not directly due to the virus.5 The high death count with COVID-19 was supported by the shameless way in which experts manipulated the PCR test they used to confirm the presence of the virus.

As I reported in 2020 and 2021, the high false positive rate with PCR test was due in considerable part to the recommended exorbitant cycle threshold. The cycle threshold refers to the maximum number of times doubling is allowed during the test. The higher the threshold, the greater the risk that a false positive will label healthy people as a “COVID-19 case.”

In reality, PCR testing is not a proper diagnostic tool even though it has been promoted as such. A rising number of COVID-19 cases from inaccurate PCR testing helped to support the death toll recorded from the virus. Recently, two counties in California have revised their numbers based on a reevaluation of the data.

Two California Counties Recount COVID Deaths

After an analysis of the data, Santa Clara and Alameda counties in California discovered there was a significant discrepancy in the number of people who died from COVID-19. The data didn’t change. The number of actual deaths didn’t change. But what authorities found was that 22% of the deaths recorded from COVID could not be attributed to the virus.6

Santa Clara County reported July 2, 2021, that the new numbers were generated by counting only those whose cause of death was from the virus and not counting people who had tested positive at the time of death. The county officials used this approach to determine the true impact COVID-19 had on their community.

The month before, in June 2021, Alameda County had also recounted deaths attributed to COVID-19 and registered a death toll drop by about 25%. University of California San Francisco professor of medicine and infectious disease expert Dr. Monica Gandhi believes that the CDC may soon ask all counties to recount their deaths from COVID-19 and the entire nation could see a drop in the death toll.7

Initially, California recorded anyone who died and who had tested positive for COVID-19 as having died from COVID-19. The newest count lists only those who have the virus as cause of death on the death certificate, as determined by the medical examiner.

Yet, despite this recount, based on the financial incentives to alter the death certificates and PCR testing that inaccurately labeled people as infected with the virus, the numbers may still not be an accurate representation of the number of people who died from the virus.

Financial Incentives Likely Inflated COVID Death Numbers

In April 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci brushed off questions that COVID-19 death counts were padded, claiming it was another “conspiracy theory” and should be ignored. A host of mainstream media also reported that suspicions that hospitals were over reporting in order to charge more money were pure conspiracy theories lacking a basis in reality.

Yet, firsthand testimony, including that of nurse Erin Olszewski, showed financial incentives were at the heart of overdiagnosis and mistreatment at a public Hospital in Queens, New York. I reported her shocking story in “Nurse on the Frontlines of COVID-19 Shares Her Experience.”

According to Olszewski, patients who tested negative were routinely listed as positive and quickly placed on ventilators, a largely inappropriate treatment that ended up killing virtually all of them. By August 2020,8 CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield admitted financial policies may have artificially inflated hospitalization rates and death toll statistics.

As reported in the Washington Examiner,9 hospitals have had a financial incentive to inflate coronavirus death, just as they do with deaths in other diseases. In response to a question before a House panel committee asked by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., about potential “perverse incentives” that hospitals might have to alter death certificates, Redfield said:10

“I think you’re correct in that we’ve seen this in other disease processes, too. Really, in the HIV epidemic, somebody may have a heart attack but also have HIV — the hospital would prefer the [classification] for HIV because there’s greater reimbursement.”

The Washington Examiner11 also reported that in August 2020 more than 3,000 people were removed from the death count in Texas after it was revealed they did not test positive but were only considered a probable case.

Are Experts Counting Actual Deaths Due to COVID?

The media also participated in a misrepresentation of reality, by equating a positive test result with being infected with the disease. The fact that a person tests positive does not equate to having COVID-19. The clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 is for someone who exhibits severe respiratory illness that is characterized by fever, coughing and shortness of breath.

If you are asymptomatic, you do not have COVID-19. The worst that can be said is that you’re infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. If you’re not actually ill, you don’t have the disease. This is one factor that differentiates a person who died from the illness compared to someone who died with a positive test result, meaning the cause of death was completely different, such as heart disease, automobile accident or a gunshot wound.

Past studies have also demonstrated a similar event in people who test positive for influenza but do not present with symptoms. One study published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine12 in 2014 evaluated five successive cohort years in England using strain-specific serology. The researchers found the influenza virus infected 18% of persons who were not vaccinated each winter.

They concluded the 2009 pandemic strain of influenza and seasonal influenza had a similarly high rate of asymptomatic infection. The author of an accompanying editorial wrote:13

“The findings reaffirm earlier reports that there are high rates of serological evidence of influenza infection without corresponding disease.

Hayward and colleagues report that roughly 20% of the community shows serological evidence of influenza infection each season, but that most infections (about 75%) are asymptomatic or at least so mild that they are not identified through weekly active surveillance for respiratory illness.”

Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., is a past vice president and chief scientific adviser of Pfizer. In an interview he talked about the number of deaths falsely attributed to COVID-19 in the U.K., saying “I’m calling out the statistics, and even the claim that there is an ongoing pandemic, as false,” noting that the definition of a “coronavirus death” in the U.K. is anyone who dies, from any cause, within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test.

Were Total Deaths in 2020 Excessive?

In the U.S., it’s a similar story. December 30, 2020, I reported that as of December 22, 2020, the provisional total death count from all causes, according to the CDC, was 2,835,533. For comparison, the total number of deaths from all causes in 2018 was 2,839,20514 while in 2019 it was 2,854,838.15

By mid-2021, the total number of deaths recorded in 2020 was 3,389,991.16 While the number of deaths in 2020 was 535,133 more than the year before, they likely cannot all be attributed to COVID. For example, drug overdose deaths rose dramatically during 2020, and if those were erroneously counted as COVID like the motorcycle accidents and gunshot wounds, then they would inflate the COVID numbers dramatically.

While the rates have not yet been tabulated, the estimated percent of increase in drug deaths in the first eight months of 2020 as compared to the same period in 2019 ranged from less than 10% to greater than 60% depending on the state.17 Additionally, according to Yeadon and an article in The Guardian,18 some of the increased number of deaths in the U.K. in people aged 45 to 65 were mainly from heart disease, stroke and cancer.

These types of deaths suggest there was the higher number could be due to inaccessibility to routine medical care when people were either afraid of or discouraged from going to the hospital.

Conversely, COVID Vaccine Adverse Events Likely Underreported

As I wrote in “COVID Vaccine Deaths and Injuries Are Secretly Buried,” the reports of death and serious injuries from the COVID-19 shot have been mounting with breakneck rapidity. Those familiar with the historical vaccine injury rate agree we’ve never seen anything like it, anywhere in the world.

In the linked article, I reported that as of June 11, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), had posted 358,379 adverse events. That number jumped to 438,440 events through July 7, 2021.19 This includes 9,048 deaths, 985 miscarriages, 3,324 heart attacks and 7,463 people disabled.

In the European Union’s database of adverse drug reactions from COVID shots, called EudraVigilance, there were 1,509,266 reported injuries, including 15,472 deaths as of June 19, 2021.20 EudraVigilance only accepts reports from EU members, so it covers only 27 of the 50 European countries.

Reports have poured in from around the world of people who died shortly after receiving the COVID-19 shot. In January 2021, Norway had already recorded 29 senior citizen deaths in the wake of their vaccine program21 and in Australia, two people died from blood clots after taking AstraZeneca’s COVID shot while only one has died from the disease this year.22

As I discussed in “CDC Caught Cooking the Books on COVID Vaccines,” the rising number of vaccine adverse events aren’t the only things being manipulated. To boost the appearance that the vaccine is effective, the CDC is using several strategies.

First, the cycle threshold has been significantly lowered from 4023 to 28,24,25 which will hide any breakthrough cases in those who have had the COVID shot. Next, the CDC no longer records a mild or asymptomatic infection in any person who has been vaccinated as a COVID case.

Now, the only cases that count in people who have had the shot are those that result in hospitalization or death.26 However, if you’re not vaccinated and have a mild case or test positive at a higher cycle threshold, you still count as a COVID case.27 As an example of how changing the analysis affects the statistics, as of April 30, 2021, the CDC had received a total of 10,262 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections.28

At the time they called this a “substantial undercount” since they were using a passive surveillance system that relies on voluntary reporting. However, 67 days later on July 6, 2021, the number of breakthrough cases was slashed to 5,186.29 This was done under the new guidelines that take only hospitalizations and deaths into account for vaccine breakthrough.

Do Your Own Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Deciding

In my most recent interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, we discuss the acute, subacute and long-term risks for those who have accepted the COVID shot. Additionally, he outlines a strategic plan you can use to help protect your health if you or someone you know got the COVID shot and now have serious regrets.

You can see the interview and the strategies to help protect your health in “Might COVID Injections Reduce Lifespan?” For those who are still deciding, it’s important to do your own risk-benefit analysis based on your individual situation before making up your mind.

You can track the rate at which the total number of vaccine adverse events are being reported to the VAERS system on their website.30 They also publish the number of deaths, hospitalizations, Bell’s Palsy, heart attacks and life-threatening side effects being reported in the system in an easy-to-read graphic.

Additionally, it’s important to remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low. Data analysis has shown that for community-based people younger than 60, it is lower than the lethality of flu for those over 65.31

And, if you’re under the age of 40 your risk of dying is 0.01%. This means you have a 99.99 percent chance of surviving the infection. Since the mRNA vaccines are not designed to prevent infection and only reduce the severity of the symptoms, it begs the question — what is being protected?

I won’t tell anyone what to do, but I do urge you to take the time to review the science and weigh the potential risks and benefits before making a decision that may have permanent repercussions for the rest of your life.

VAX NAZIS: Instead of yellow badges the Nazis made the Jews wear, the Jewish State of Israel is brandishing its own citizens with vaccine “Happy Badges”

(Natural News) Nearly six million Jews died in the Holocaust, and over a million in the chemical gas chambers, so you’d think the Jewish State of Israel would know better than to force-vaccinate all of their citizens with toxic, lab-concocted vaccines made by tyrannical pharma goons who love genocide delivered under the guise of inoculation….

Biden walks back claim that Facebook is “killing people” with vaccine disinformation, but still claims 12 “disinfo” sources are killing people (which is a lie)

(Natural News) The dementia-ridden pedophile currently occupying the White House is changing his tune about how Facebook is allegedly “killing people” by allowing “anti-vax” content to spread on the platform. About a week after accusing the social media giant of committing murder, Beijing Biden backtracked his statements upon being questioned by someone from the media….

‘Every officer is up to speed on diversity training. Not so much ship handling’: Scathing official report finds US Navy is too woke for war because of risk averse, politically correct, control-freak top brass

Members of Congress commissioned the report on issues in the surface Navy Came in response to fire on ship in San Diego and two ship collisions in Pacific  Retired Marine general and Navy admiral spoke […]

The post ‘Every officer is up to speed on diversity training. Not so much ship handling’: Scathing official report finds US Navy is too woke for war because of risk averse, politically correct, control-freak top brass first appeared on Winter Watch.