RIP, mRNA. From Alex Berenson:
Dr. Mandy Cohen, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, accidentally announced mRNA’s passing on Friday on X (aka Twitter). Wearing a blue dress and her trademark vapid smile, Dr. Cohen admitted barely 1 out of 50 Americans have received the new mRNA Omicron booster.
Hours later, Pfizer confirmed the death, saying it will write off nearly $1 billion in mRNA jab inventory because of weak demand. Pfizer expects the market for shots to be one-third smaller than it predicted just weeks ago – though its new estimate still appears too high.
From Paul Craig Roberts:
I contacted a scientist who had been involved in the study of the original SARS for his evaluation and explanation of the Japanese scientists’ report. His explanation is below. It is challenging for non-professionals to follow, but less so than the Japanese study itself. As I understand the findings, it is the absence of synonymous mutations in the variants that reveal that Covid and its variants are lab creations.
I suspect that the Japanese study will be suppressed and that any American or Western scientist who took up this inquiry would find himself cut off from research funds and his career terminated.
Dr Angus Dalgleish calls for immediate banning of all mRNA “vaccines.” First two paragraphs:
Those of us who knew from the beginning that the sequence of SARS-CoV-2 contained inserts which could not have possibly occurred naturally, and were similar to ones that had already been published from the Wuhan laboratory, have had to endure unbelievable scorn, scientific ostracism and the ignominy of being ‘cancelled’ by the mainstream media as well as by professional colleagues for nearly three years now.
In the summer of 2020 a paper I co-authored, describing the findings of an Anglo-Norwegian team of scientists who had demonstrated unique ‘fingerprints’ of laboratory manipulation in the Covid virus, was suppressed in both the U.S. and U.K. This was at the time that the World Health Organisation, leading science journals and others were going to huge lengths to persuade us that Covid was a natural occurrence, and that we should spend a lot more money to fight any such future threats.
Dear reader, a full-on spacesuit equipped with oxygen tanks, or with filters down below the viron level, will protect you from inhaling a respiratory virus. As long as you have it on. And don’t have to change the filter.
And you don’t eat. Or drink. Or use the facilities.
So it can be said “masks work” in blocking the spread of bugs.
But the flimsy plastic cheesy gappy snot-filled breath-soaked “surgical masks” the panicked hand-wringing shaking fear-filled hersterics made it a crime not to wear?
From a Cochrane Library article on physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: “There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks.” What about hand hygiene and medical/surgical masks versus N95 masks?
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.
There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.
Steve Parker, M.D.