Forced vaccination and contagion

Join our free email list here.

BONUS NOTE ON THE ELECTION: I wanted to give the latest election the attention it deserves, but I didn’t want to waste a whole post on it. So, in lieu of any actual wisdom or insight, I’m posting a classic music spoof that’s possibly quasi-relevant and educational. It contains the line, “Oh yeah…can you see dems?” and shows a red/blue map of the US in 2007.

TRIGGER WARNING: Not suitable for Pearl Jam fans who don’t have a sense of humor.

***

Shocking revelation: COVID vaccines don’t prevent spread of COVID

Recently, I wrote about how Pfizer and pro-vax experts have admitted the COVID19 vaccines don’t prevent the transmission of disease to others, and were never even tested for their ability to do so prior to their release. In other words, there has never been a legitimate basis for any COVID19 vaccine mandates.

Pfizers’ Janine Small says the COVID19 vaccines were never tested for their ability to prevent transmission of disease because they had to move at the speed of science.

Health authorities were aware of this fatal flaw in the vaccine agenda from the beginning. In an October 10, 2022, hearing in the European Parliament, Pfizer exec Janine Small admitted that the vaccines were never tested for their ability to stop disease transmission prior to their release. Robert Roos of the Netherlands asked Small (who was standing in for Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, who pulled out of testifying):

“Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?”

Small replied:

“Regarding the question around, um, did we know about stopping the immunization [sic] before, um, it entered the market? No! (ha) Uh, these, um, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science, to really understand what is taking place in the market.”

— Janine Small, Pfizer president of international developed markets (?), in an October 10, 2022 hearing in European Parliament (Video excerpt here)

Pro-vaxer Dr. Jay Bhattacharya says COVID19 vaccines do not stop you from getting COVID or transmitting COVID to others, but they are still awesome.

A few days later, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, “Professor of Medicine and Professor (by Courtesy) of Economics at Stanford University, and one of the world's leading experts on public health policy,” gave an interview in which he dropped an awkward bombshell about the fundamental issue of disease transmission, amidst a waterfall of praise for the vaccine’s alleged ability to prevent severe illness:

“But, what we learned in the inter…uh, in the process after the tria…the, the vaccines were released, is that, in fact, the vaccines are not very effective at stopping you from getting COVID; it’s not very effective at stopping the transmission of COVID. […] A very large fraction of people who’ve been vaccinated have had COVID all, in, in, in, you know, subsequent to the vaccination, because the vaccine does not stop you from getting or, COVID, or transmitting COVID.”

—Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, in an October 14, 2022, interview by John Anderson (Video here, see minute 2:00-3:00.

Damage control ensues

The revelation that the COVID19 vaccines don’t prevent the spread of disease was followed by a flood of propaganda to minimize the impact—although I haven’t seen any yet that claims it isn’t true. It will be interesting to see whether any pro-vax experts make this claim in the future, and what evidence they can produce to prove it.

Look over here! by AFP Fact Check

AFP Fact Check diverted attention to a story about Janine Small’s testimony by a South African news channel, which falsely claimed Small said no testing at all was done on the COVID19 vaccines before they were released. AFP stepped in to defend Pfizer and Small, and distract us from the stunning revelation that no one had any idea whether these vaccines would stop the spread of the disease when they were released on the global population.

“Prior to the vaccine’s launch, widely publicised clinical trials had proven its ability to prevent severe infection. However, what was not yet known was whether the jab also blocked transmission of the virus—and Pfizer clearly stated so at the time of the studies being carried out.” […] Small's testimonial was neither an ‘admission’ nor a revelation -- the information she shared has been public since 2020.”

It’s not the first time I’ve heard this ‘everyone knew’ defense. Pro-vax influencer Dorit Reiss used it in a blog comment shortly after Small’s testimony, blasting "antivaccine foot soldiers” for “pretending” the revelation was new, when it was actually disclosed by a media outlet back in December 2020, the month the vaccines were introduced.

Reiss said that since then, “there is other evidence about transmission”—coyly omitting any mention of whether it’s positive or negative. The next day in an interview, pro-vax expert Dr. Bhattacharya claimed the evidence was negative—that the COVID shots do NOT prevent the transmission of disease—although he still loved them.

In any case, it’s an odd defense—basically that everyone knew from the beginning the vaccines didn’t protect anyone from the spread of COVID19, because Pfizer told us. That’s good for Pfizer—it shows they were clueless, but at least they didn’t try to hide it.

But it’s disastrous for everyone else involved in implementing COVID19 vaccine mandates, or promoting the vaccines based on the false premise they helped protect others: It means they knew, or should have known, they were deceiving people.

That is, unless there’s some reason other than preventing the spread of disease that would justify forced vaccination. The LA Times gave it a shot (pun intended), while teetering on very shaky ground.

There’s another reason for forced vaccination! by the LA Times

A November 3rd article by Melissa Healy titled “Are the unvaccinated still a danger to the rest of us?” quickly slimed its way across the web. The article doesn’t say whether the unvaccinated are still beating their spouses, too.

Healy claimed that, in addition to trying to prevent the transmission of disease, policy-makers were also trying to prevent the healthcare system from being “overwhelmed,” thereby “degrading care for all.” She doesn’t say where this information about the motivations of lawmakers came from, but I’m sure it was from a very reliable source, like Pfizer, or Intelligence, or her psychic powers.

Cartoon by Ginny Stoner

“State and local leaders sought not only to suppress spread of the virus, but also to prevent their healthcare systems from being overwhelmed, degrading care for all. The unvaccinated made those goals harder to achieve since they were more likely to become infected and, when they did, to require hospitalization.”

Vaccine mandates to prevent “overwhelming the healthcare system”—is it legit?

All vaccines carry an undisputed risk of serious injury or death. There’s plenty of dispute about how much risk, but there’s no disagreement, among pro-vaxers or anti-vaxers, that every vaccination carries some degree of risk—it is never risk-free. There are both known and unknown risks.

The individual risk of death or serious injury from vaccination is why the only (at least arguably) legitimate justification for forced vaccination is that it will prevent the death or serious injury of other people.

How many people must be saved to justify the sacrifice of a life? If 10 people are saved by throwing 1 into a volcano, is the sacrifice for the Greater Good? How about 100, or 100,000 saved to 1 killed? Does the sacrifice of 50 young virgins please the gods more than the sacrifice of 5,000 seniors—or does it make them angry? Does the covert sterilization of a teenager count as half a sacrifice? A quarter sacrifice? There are so many unknowns when it comes to COVID19 vaccines and volcanoes.

Let’s suppose, solely for the sake of discussion, that preventing the healthcare system from being “overwhelmed” is a legitimate justification for forced vaccination. In a sane and civilized world, we would never simply assume a new vaccine was capable of preventing it. We would never assume the healthcare system was destined to be overwhelmed in the first place—even if a complex computer model told us so.

But we live in a creepy cartoon world, where public policy is guided by manufactured mass hysteria, and vaccines are routinely assumed, with no discernment whatsoever (especially in the healthcare industry), to be virtually risk-free medical miracles. That’s still true, apparently, even when the vaccines were developed within mere months instead of the usual years, never went through the usual approval process, and are a new type never widely used on humans before.

Note how the Healy piece never mentioned any risks of vaccination; and, of course, didn’t mention the unprecedented and unexplained increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from the COVID19 vaccines. It’s not about evidence—it’s about the selfishness of the unvaccinated. Saying it makes it so in a cartoon reality.

And obviously, we can’t know what the long-term risks of the COVID19 vaccines are, because they’ve only been around a few years. But it doesn’t really matter, because 5 or 10 years on, no one in the mainstream healthcare industry will ever acknowledge the possibility that any injury or death is connected to the COVID19 vaccines. They almost never acknowledge it now, even when it happens within hours or days of vaccination.

Is flu contagious?

The shocking admission that a widely mandated vaccine does not prevent the transmission of disease got me wondering what research has been done in the past on contagion. I don’t mean contagion in a theoretical sense, by measuring antibodies or something along those lines, but contagion in real-life situations. I found there is surprisingly little of it, considering how central the issue is in the medical industry and virology.

The idea that flu is contagious has a long history, and seems intuitively obvious—but history is filled with examples of how contagion has been wrongfully blamed for diseases that are now known to have been caused by something else. For example, scurvy, which is now known to be caused by a vitamin C deficiency, was once believed to be contagious, because it often struck multiple people living in close proximity, such as sailors on extended sea voyages.

People who live or work together have much more in common than a possible microorganism that jumps from person-to-person: they breath the same air, with the same toxins in it; they are exposed to the same electromagnetic fields; they may drink the same water, and eat the same foods; they may have similar stressors at home or at work. Automatically blaming a disease-causing microorganism for illness doesn’t really make much sense.

An early study on the transmission of flu shows it’s not contagious

In 1919, the year of Spanish flu, a major study was conducted to investigate how influenza spread. The research team, headed by Dr. Milton Rosenau, had top-notch facilities and resources at their disposal:

“The experiments here described were performed on an island in Boston Harbor, on volunteers obtained from the Navy. The work was conducted by a group of officers detailed for that purpose, from the U. S. Navy and the U. S. Public Health Service […] The work itself was conducted at Gallops Island, which is the quarantine station of the Port of Boston, and peculiarly well fitted for operations of this kind, serving adequately for the purposes of isolation, observations, and maintenance of the large group of volunteers.”

At the time of Rosenau’s research, the medical industry had believed for decades that influenza was caused by a bacteria called Pfeiffer’s Bacillus. The industry changed the alleged culprit to viruses in the 1930s.

The Rosenau team collected body fluids from hospitalized flu patients, and used them to try to spread the flu to the healthy subjects. At first, they carefully filtered the Pfeiffer’s Bacillus and other bacteria from the fluids, and sprayed them into the throats and noses of the subjects. When no one got sick, they tried using unfiltered body fluids, but still, nothing. They tried everything they could think of to make the research subjects ill, including having the sick patients cough directly in their faces, while they spent an extended period of time together in the hospital room. Nothing worked—they couldn’t make the healthy subjects sick. Rosenau wrote:

“As a matter of fact, we entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”

The modern-day certainty of contagion

There were over a million excess deaths in the US in 2020 and 2021.

Since it’s as widely believed today as it was 100 years ago that flu is contagious, I expected to see dozens, if not hundreds, of subsequent studies refuting the Rosenau study. Instead, I found only 19 papers that cited the Rosenau study at all—most of which neither confirmed nor refuted Rosenau’s findings, and only briefly mentioned them. I’m not going to review them all, just mention a few highlights, but you can see all of them at this link.

There were a couple of studies conducted in the 1930s, both still behind a pay wall after all these years, that claimed to have shown flu was spread through body fluids, such as this 1938 paper by Dochez, et. al. The researchers found that a virus that causes respiratory illness, “…can readily be demonstrated in the secretions of the upper respiratory tract.”

Somehow, I wasn’t surprised to see that a 2013 paper by B. Killingley, written 94 years after the Rosenau study, said we still had a “limited understanding” of disease transmission:

“Limited understanding of influenza transmission has been a frequent obstacle during the development of pandemic influenza infection prevention and mitigation strategies. The science is hotly debated, especially the relative importance of transmission via large droplets or aerosols.”

Think about that: almost a century after a major research study showed flu was not contagious, the medical industry still has a “limited understanding” of how flu is transmitted—but still claims it’s contagious. Wow.

One source that cited the Rosenau study was a 2012 paper by N.J. Snell called Pandemic Influenza — Prevention and Treatment, which seemed to accept modern virology and contagion theory at face value. How did Snell explain the Rosenau study? He didn’t—he simply dismissed it as a “delightful contemporary account” of attempts to spread the flu, while medical science labored under the misconception that bacteria caused it.

I don’t know if Snell was being deliberately obtuse, or it happened organically, but he ignored the entire point of the Rosenau study: If sick patients coughed directly into the faces of the healthy subjects without making them sick, it means the flu was not contagious—whether the cause of flu was bacteria, virus, weaponized nano-widget, natural detoxification, or something else.

A 2020 book that cited the Rosenau study is The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, by A. Firstenberg. I haven’t read this book, but understand it contains evidence that electricity is closely tied to illness—and we have a new form rolling out called 5G.

Conclusion

The vaccine industry is desperately clinging to the claim that the COVID19 vaccines prevent severe illness—they have to. If the vaccines don’t stop you from getting COVID or spreading COVID to others, then the only possible benefit left is the prevention of severe illness. If that claim also failed (which I’m sure it would under any kind of objective scrutiny) then the COVID19 vaccine industry would be forced to close its doors!

Just kidding, of course. All the industry would have to do is come up with another SARS-COV-2 variant, and a new vaccine for it. Better put your orders in now, because it could take up to 3 weeks to ‘isolate’ the dangerous new variant, compile its genome, develop a vaccine to protect us from it, and prove the vaccine is safe and effective. For long-term risks, it could take up to 4 weeks to prove there are none.

I challenge anyone to prove, with reasonable certainty, that people who have gotten COVID19 vaccines are healthier than people who haven’t. I’m quite sure no one can do it.

***